Radicals Show Civil Dialogue Has its Limits

As a committed follower of Jesus Christ since the fifth grade, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was familiar with the Scriptures and did his best to model the admonitions found within the Old and New Testaments’ pages.

As he crisscrossed the country and engaged young people, Charlie took the Apostle Paul’s words to heart. “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,” we read in his letter to Timothy (2 Tim. 2:24). Charlie also trusted in King Solomon’s guidance that, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). 

It’s a real problem, though, when soft answers nevertheless stir up an unstable person’s emotions.

Some of Charlie’s exchanges with individuals who disagreed with him are surfacing once again in social media in the wake of his tragic murder on Wednesday. They highlight some of his many wonderful qualities and gifts, but especially illustrate his unwavering commitment to civil dialogue.

In one, he greets an individual named “Mercury.” The person wants to know why Charlie is even there. The insinuation from Mercury is clear: I’m not used to meeting or talking with someone who sees the world differently than me.

“I’ve been asked that question a lot,” Charlie responds. “First of all, that question should not even have to be asked. When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.”

He continues, “What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have a reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”

“You think that’s not emotional violence?” asks Mercury. 

“What is emotional violence, by the way?” asks a perplexed Kirk. “I don’t know what that is.”

“It is harm intentionally perpetrated on another person, another human being, that is intentionally targeted at their emotional well being,” replies Mercury. 

Labeling ideas you disagree with as “emotional violence” is absolute nonsense. It also exposes and explains the impasse we reach with radicals when trying to have productive and honest dialogue.

Christians are rightly burdened to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with a lost and confused world. In good faith, we extend a hand of fellowship and a willing ear to listen. This is what Charlie did on his Salem radio show, on his campus tours, and in various media appearances. But if a different opinion is viewed as “emotional violence,” what are we to do?

On Wednesday in Orem, Utah, a radical actor (either alone or in coordination with others) decided they couldn’t win the argument, so they decided to eliminate the arguer. They couldn’t prove him wrong, so they chose to wrong him in the worst possible way by murdering him.

Charlie was killed because the truth he spoke made somebody angry. They couldn’t win a debate with him, so they instead wanted him dead.

Those of us who admired and appreciated Charlie Kirk’s commitment and devotion to sharing His love of the Lord and the uniqueness and miracle of America can resonate with the apostle Paul’s second letter to believers in Corinth

“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you (2 Cor. 4:8-12).”

The assassination of Charlie Kirk doesn’t demonstrate that civil dialogue is a lost cause, but it does remind us that it has its limits, especially when dealing with a mentally and emotionally unstable ideology and individual.

Image from Getty.