Sunday School | A Charlie Kirk Conversation

Introduction

This morning, I'm just so grateful. It's a gift to have you be here. It's really good to have an opportunity as a body to gather together, to talk about things. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to share a couple of thoughts. I do need to give you a couple of disclaimers as we start. I cannot possibly say everything that could be said, probably can't even say everything that should be said. We do have a hard stop because we've got another worship service that's gonna be in this exact space and not very many minutes. So I'm gonna try to say some of the things that I think are most important. I'm gonna try to move quickly because I really want to leave some time at the end. I wanna share with you some of the things that I think are most important, but I hope that there will be opportunity for at least some of you to share the things or to ask me to talk about the things that are most important to you. So Lord willing, we'll get there.

Second, of the limited number of things that I can say, I can't say them all first. Just the nature of communication is that it is sequential. So please bear with me as I walk through a sequence of ideas that I think are important that I hope that we might be able to kind of wrestle through together. And then as I said at the end, I'd love to open the floor up and hear what you guys think or give you the opportunity to ask me some questions.

Third, I know as we begin that we will not all agree with each other about everything. And I, for whatever reason, a quirk of my nature is that I am perfectly comfortable with that. I like being with people who disagree with me. And I will be very grateful to hear what you have to say and engage with you. Imagine this conversation is not gonna stop when this brief hour stops. And so I would love if you would listen and attend with humility. And then you would go from this room into other conversations, listen to each other and share ideas where you might disagree, and we would just proceed with love and honor toward one another.

The Context of Charlie Kirk

Okay, enough disclaimer. Like many, but not all of you, I believe that Charlie Kirk was an important figure who provided an incredibly important service to our country. I admire him. I grieve his death, his murder, his martyrdom. And I choose that word intentionally. I use the word martyr in recognition of the fact that the motivating factor behind his murder had something to do with the fact that his life and his process in public policy and personal decisions was driven by his faith in Christ.

It does not follow that he was flawless. But I do think that opposition to his faith and ideas that flowed out of his faith led inexorably to his murder. Okay, and I think I know that that language could be troubling to some of you 'cause I think you might have associations with the word martyr. But I think it would be dishonest of me not to recognize how central his faith in Christ was to the work that he did on our college campuses and the understanding that it was his faith and the ideas that flew from it that drew so much ire that led to his murder.

I also understand, of course, that he was controversial and that some of you have disagreements with him. You are allowed to have disagreements with him. You are allowed to have disagreements with me. I have disagreements with C.S. Lewis, for crying out loud, and everybody here knows that I'm in love with him, okay? I have had disagreements with everyone that I have ever loved or admired. But I do think that the difficult work that Charlie Kirk did with excellence should incline us, and does incline me, not to judge him harshly.

I'm pretty certain if you or I spent hundreds of hours debating with hostile crowds on every imaginable topic known to man, there might be a few lines in the recordings of those that might make you wince. Of course there would be, right? So while it's beyond the scope, we don't have the time to watch 10,000 clips and dissect them all, I believe that in the aggregate, the collection of the things that he said and the work that he did on campus was overwhelmingly positive. I think that Charlie was incredibly knowledgeable and reasonable and patient and articulate and courageous and respectful. I think he was extraordinarily talented.

And the valuable service that he offered to us was this. He was a champion of addressing disagreements through dialogue. I think that is the core of what he did and that is really what set him apart. He believes fiercely in the power of free speech, his own and others. I've seen, I've watched in the last couple of weeks, I was aware of Charlie Kirk before he was shot and I've watched a lot of Charlie Kirk in the last couple of weeks to really try to understand and to draw my own opinions, my own to understand more deeply.

I've seen over and over him protect the rights of others and including and in particular his detractors, that the things that they wanted to say could be heard and understood. He took people seriously and he engaged with them substantively on an endless variety of deeply meaningful topics. I think what he did was incredibly difficult and that he did it with an enormous amount of grace.

He also, by the way, did it live, surrounded by unhappy crowds, not as many others do through a keyboard. People are very comfortable getting very chippy from the safety and isolation of their own laptop. But Charlie would stand in a crowd where it was like, and anyone could come on, and he didn't just talk about people, he talked to people and that is significantly more important.

The Power of Dialogue

Okay, now let me pause here for one second. We're gonna step out of the Charlie Kirk thing for just a second. In life, far too often, a legend truth comes to us in like 20 second snippets, right? These little sound bites. And sifting through the sound bites and the characterizations and the mischaracterizations is exhausting. It's so exhausting, you might decide just not to do it, right? Especially if you're getting your information filtered through whatever algorithm, whatever friend group, whatever little silo you're in that just supports the narrative you happen to prefer.

I have heard the criticisms of Charlie Kirk. You probably have too. But when I chase them down to hear his own words in a bit of a larger context, they almost always dissolve into nothing. I don't like being mischaracterized. And Jesus says that we should treat other people the way that we ourselves want to be treated. So I would just encourage you, if you are in the camp, like, I don't like this guy, like, okay, that's fine. You might not. But make sure that you're not disliking him for a false caricature that someone else has built of him. Listen to what he said, and I would suggest that the longer and the less edited the clip is, the better.

And by the way, as an aside, this flaw in human nature that we see manifest there, where we accept and repeat, in particular, inaccurate and unfair framings of things that people have said, is not limited to public figures. This happens in our own interpersonal relationships. It happens locally. I'm sure that you've experienced this. Discovering the truth is arduous.

I was just talking last night to my son, Max, and things that he has seen online. And he just said repeatedly, and I just admired this so much. He's like, I don't know which one of these things is true. And it's so hard to filter out the truth from the lies. And I thought, yes, Max, exactly right, but do the work. It's worth it to do the work to discover what's actually true. Do that online. Be suspicious of your own confirmation bias. Slow down your own rush to judgment and understand the truth of what's going on.

Now, Charlie talked to people. This is really important. I want you to—maybe this is obvious, but Charlie talked to people because he believed that dialogue is better than violence. And he knew that when reason fails and when reason is abandoned, all that's left is power. And power clashes have a tendency very quickly to turn violent. He believed that the best ideas should prevail on their merits, not because they are held by the guy who is most willing to harm others to get his way.

Here's a clip. I want to show you, we could watch 1,000 clips. I've picked one of Charlie, and then one of somebody else will get two in a minute. Here's a clip that I think represents the way that he engaged. And I think that what he does—we could dissect this one. What he does here is so valuable. So here's a sample of how Charlie would communicate with people.

Everybody, do me a favor. Please be respectful, OK? Hello. So I have a few leading questions before I was my main one because I have to be honest. I don't really know that much about you. OK? So would you say that you're very religious? I am religious. However, every one of my political positions is defensible from a non-religious perspective. OK, great. So I was under the impression that your beliefs on abortion were stemming from your religious beliefs. Well, at the core, that is correct. But I can get that it is defensible from using reason and prudence as I have done the last couple of weeks. So you're not trying to illegalize abortion based on the Bible. Well, no, not based on the Bible. My personal conviction comes from the Bible. I want to make abortion illegal because it is the only applicable extension of laws we already and standards we already have in the West, correct? I'm sorry, can you maybe rephrase that? Eliminating abortion is the only logical step while we apply the standard we already have in this country to unborn life. So we have murder laws. Therefore, murder laws should apply to unborn life as it does to born life. OK. So again, we are not trying to instate laws based on Christian beliefs because that would be unconstitutional, right? Well, not again, sort of. But no, I am not using scripture to defend my beliefs. However, my personal convictions start with scripture. But the political views that we're talking about here are all defensible using reason and Western tradition. OK. So great. That's all I needed to know, that you weren't trying to instate laws based on Christian beliefs because I would not be able to support anything that was so blatantly unconstitutional. But thank you for clarifying that for me. I had a whole thing ready. But I guess it wasn't necessary. Thank you so much.

Well, first of all, just tell me more about how you view politics or is that OK? Or if not, feel free to walk away. I'm not here. I'm not in this crowd. That's OK. What's your name? My name is Archer. Archer, thank you for coming up. And I hope you have a great day. Thank you for clarifying. And let me just say one last thing. I could tell you probably have a negative impression of Christianity maybe. I hope one day we can earn back your support to making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior. I'm sorry if the church has failed you in that way. Because I do have strong religious convictions and beliefs. And there is a god who made you and loves you. And he sent his son to die for you. Her name is Mom. OK, well, thank you. I do appreciate the candor and the courage to come up here. But we will pray for you. Thank you.

The Role of Government and Personal Conduct

Can I take it out? Thank you, Archer.

That is how we should have conversations with people. And by the way, not just Charlie. I think Archer did a good job. I think Charlie is a customer of people that are much more chippy with him than that. But that is the manner of engagement that we actually need.

There's so many things that Charlie did well in there. And I'm so encouraged, you guys, to sense his murder. Viewership of these clips has just skyrocketed. I mean, if you're anywhere on social media, his stuff is just all over the place. Not only that, but my understanding is that his organization is called Turning Point USA. And it's basically an on-campus group that trains people to dialogue, use discussion and dialogue about having disagreements. And it would be an incredibly good thing. If people are being trained to have dialogues about our differences, where honesty and respect are the norm, and where the best ideas win, because they are true and reasonable. If that happens, praise God that he uses something evil for good.

Now, speaking of that evil, assuming that the news reports and FBI briefings are all accurate, and I recognize that that might be a big assumption. But if that's true, and the whole framing of this is as being dripped out as accurate, then the killer was about 200 yards away when he shot Charlie in the neck. I do not know if he was able to hear from that distance what Charlie was saying when he killed him. If he was able to hear it, I don't know if he bothered to. I would assume that he had other things on his mind in that minute, OK? And if he didn't, if you couldn't hear what was happening at that moment, I would love to know. If he has yet discovered what Charlie was talking about the moment that he shot him.

Do you know what Charlie was talking about at the moment that he shot him? I mean, literally at the very second that a bullet entered his neck, Charlie was engaging with somebody who was disputing that there's been a rise in violence among transgender activists. Tyler Robinson, who was in a romantic relationship with a male trying to live as if he were a woman, shot Charlie and killed him in the very act of a discussion about the alarming rise of violence among transgender activists. I mean, you just can't script that. What a horrible, horrible way that Charlie inadvertently made his point.

Now, it is in light of that kind of evil that you might be tempted to say, yeah, Charlie used words. And look how well that worked out for him. It's time for us to try a new approach. And that would be a grave error. And I want you to understand why from the Scriptures, OK? So God has ordained at least two different institutions. There is the state, and there is the church. We are different entities. We have different purposes. We are both emissaries of God. God orders his world through intermediaries. And the state and the church each have a job to fill.

Romans 13 is a fantastic place. If you want to see the juxtaposition of those two roles, OK? We'll start with Romans 13. This is addressed to the state. It says, for rulers, hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do it as right, and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid. For he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. That is what God has to say to the state, to the government. They bear the sword. They are agents of wrath. Their job is to terrorize the evildoers. Tyler Robinson should be given a fair and speedy trial with a competent defense, and the allegations against him should be weighed. If he is guilty of aggravated murder, he should be found guilty, and he should be executed. That is what it means that the state bears the sword. That is the state's job.

It is not, however, our job. We are not the agents of wrath. We are agents of mercy. And that is spelled out one chapter earlier in Romans 12. So immediately before Romans 13 is Romans 12, and the tenor, the change of tone between Romans 12 and Romans 13 is vast. Having just heard that, now listen to what Paul says to us.

Romans 12:14-21: Bless those who persecute you. Bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn, live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends. Believe room for God's wrath. For it is written, It is mine to avenge, I will repay, says the Lord.

On the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he’s thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will keep burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Why are Romans 12 and Romans 13 so different? Because in Romans 12, he is talking to the church. And in Romans 13, he is talking about the state. And we are not the agents of his wrath. We are the agents of his mercy. Wrath is somewhere else’s job. This does not mean that we are embarrassed by justice. God is just, and the state has a crucial role to play. But we are to bless those who persecute us. We are not to repay evil with good. We are to overcome evil. I mean, we're not to repay evil with evil. Y'all got that wrong. We are to overcome evil with good, OK?

My hope, it would be incredible if Charlie's death were to spark the development of an army of people to carry out the work of dialoguing about disagreements. That would be unbelievably good. You've heard me say this a thousand times in the last 10 years. We must say true things. And we must say them graciously, and when we are hated for it, we must say them again.

I want to show you—to show you from two different sources—the power of dialogue, why dialogue, conversation, listening to one another, listening to understand, why this is so absolute. If we are going to get—I mean, we are in a mess. Amen? It's a mess. If we are going to get through this mess, we've got to become extraordinarily skilled at the art of conversation, of listening well, of speaking well.

I want to show you two things. Number one, a clip from Van Jones at CNN. This just kind of broke yesterday. And it was compelling when I saw this. And then second, another passage from the Scriptures that I think is going to make the same point, OK? So first, Van Jones, CNN, revealing something yesterday that was obviously compelling to him, and you might find compelling too.

The story begins when a Ukrainian woman was fatally stabbed last month in North Carolina. The suspect is that black men and Charlie Kirk and Van got into a public sparring match online. Kirk claimed the murder happened because she was white. Van denounced that as completely unfounded. Kirk then sent out what Van calls a fire hose of tweets challenging his argument, which Van says sparked death threats against him. In the midst of all of this, Kirk reached out to Van in a direct message on X. Hey, Van, I mean it. I'd love to have you on my show to have a respectful conversation about crime and race. I would be a gentleman, as I know you would be as well. We can disagree about the issues agreeably. And that message was sent on September 9th. Van says he did not see it until the very next day after Kirk was murdered.

Van Jones just wrote a piece about this for cnad.com and is here tonight. I mean, this is extraordinary. So this was received the day before he was killed. Yeah. Look, I mean, we were beefing. We were going at it online, on air. And then after he died, after he was murdered, my team called and said, Van, he was trying to reach you, man. What? And what was he doing? Dialogue. Let's be gentlemen together. He says, let's disagree agreeably. So I'm sitting on this, and I'm watching. The whole country talk about civil war, censorship, justifying murder about this guy? This guy is reaching out to his mortal enemy, saying, we need to be gentlemen and sit down together and disagree agreeably. And the next day he's killed. And I’ve sat on it long enough, and I just say, you know what? We're going to memorial weekend for this man. We disagree. Everybody knows, we were not friends, OK, at all. But you praised the good when it sounded more like somebody. And what he did—and I didn't even know it—was good. He was not for censorship. He was not for civil war. He was for dialogue, open debate and dialogue, even with me, even with me. That is what the world needs.

Now, a minute ago, I said that we need an army of dialoguers, and I meant it. That was not a mistake, and it's not veiled violence. I want you to listen to what Paul says. This is going to be in 2 Corinthians chapter 10. This paragraph is just riddled with militaristic language, OK? But I want you to understand the context in which Paul uses that. Notice how he applies it.

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to demolish strongholds. We destroy arguments, and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

Did you catch what our weapons are? The arena in which we fight, we deal in arguments, opinions, knowledge, and thoughts. We destroy arguments, and every lofty opinion that sets us up against the knowledge of God. We take every thought captive to obey Christ. Guys, we use words. We talk about ideas. In Acts 17, Paul reasoned from the Scriptures, explaining and proving. You want to know what the Greek word for reason is? Do you know? It’s Dilegomai. Do you hear a word in that? Dilegom. It’s dialogue.
"James said, wisdom from above is open to reason and full of mercy." Paul said, "Since we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men." This is what we do.

Do you remember at the start of Joshua? Joshua is being afraid. He's struggling to step into his new leadership role. And you might recall, many people know, that God says to him, do you remember what's the line to Joshua? Be strong and courageous, right? And that's great, be strong and courageous. You will lead these people. But the first thing that God says to Joshua, the words with which the book opens, are these:

"Moses, my servant is dead."

What he's saying is, Joshua, the baton has been passed to you. Friends, Charlie Kirk is dead. He has no more true things to say. And while he is clearly no Moses, he nevertheless was very talented and very committed to saying true things. And he can't say them any longer. If you will say true things, if you will say them graciously, if you will take the hit when you are hated and scorned and then say them again, then you won't be alone.

Because you know what else Paul points out in that passage in 2 Corinthians 10? He says this, "That our weapons," did you notice this? "Our weapons," which again, our words, have what he calls divine power, divine power to demolish strongholds. Persuading hearts is a spiritual battle. And God is engaged in it. He goes with you if you will engage in it, if you will practice the art of dialogue, of persuasion, of talking, of listening, of treating people seriously and talking through things with them.

Final Encouragement

Final thought, and then we will have maybe 15 minutes to take some questions. Here's my final thing. This week I got about 9 million emails from all of you. And I'm grateful for that. I always love to know kind of what you're thinking about. And I got an email this week from a very sweet woman, a friend of mine in our church. And I want to hold her up as the prime example of what I hope we will be in the aftermath of this—that we would strive to be like her.

So here's what she wrote me. Yesterday, I went to the library with a friend to renew a DVD. The young girl at the desk I've seen before, she always has a bright smile, a tag with the pronouns they, them, and tattoos up and down each arm. The library was empty, so I had time to engage in conversation. I commented on her tattoos, and I asked if there was a story behind them. Quietly, I was asking God to show me how he sees her. She was delighted to tell me about all the figures etched on her arms. We were interrupted by someone else checking out a book, so I left inwardly saying a quiet prayer for her. But I could not stop thinking about her. My friend and I sat at some tables outside and chatted, and I told her I just had to go back and say something to the young lady. Sadly, she was out to lunch when I came back, so I wrote a note to her sharing what God showed me, how he saw her, and I told the two ladies behind the desk that she's always had such a beautiful, friendly smile, and I wanted to let her know. They assured me that they would give my note to her.

So why does a woman my age persist in connecting with a young girl with pronouns tagged to her shirt and tattoos all over her arms, not anything I grew up around? Why? Because God is relational, he loves us all. I truly want to know more about this lady. God has given her a gift, and he loves her, and I told her that in my note. Only God knows what will become of this. What I've learned so far from Charlie Kirk is that when we disagree, we are not enemies. We are in trouble if we dehumanize others who see things differently.

There is merit in seeking truth and speaking truth. Charlie wanted to be known for his faith. He didn't say his debating skills or his political views. This is an opportunity for us to share our hope in Christ, his kingdom, and the truth. With the enemy meant for harm, God can use for good.

God bless this dear woman, may God give us the grace to be like her. Amen?

Questions and Closing

All right, so we get a few minutes for questions. My preference, if you don't mind, would be to prioritize actual questions, not statements, not disguised as questions. If there's things you'd like me to comment on, I'm game on. All comers can go. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'll do my best. It may be that I don't know, it may be that we'll disagree after I tell you what I think I might be so, but I would love to have just a chance for you guys to air the things that are most important to you.

Sir? No. My residency program, I give a lecture on transgenderism and how there's a strong lack of evidence to support form of therapy for gender transition and cross-sex hormones. How it doesn't lead to resolution of gender dysphoria, doesn't lead to a realization of anxiety, doesn't lead to resolution of depression, doesn't lead to resolution of suicidal ideation. I give this lecture, and it's perceived by my attendings, however, they still use things such as birthing person.

What, they still use things such as what? Birthing person. Oh, okay. Yes, yes. I want to know, as you were talking about, being gracious with them, how do I address vocal blindness?

With your residency. So you're talking, not so much that you're talking, so your conversations that you're describing—hang on a second, do I need to repeat that? Did you guys hear that? Do I repeat it? Okay. Tell me, forgive me. Tell me your name again. O’Connell? O’Connell? Okay. So you are training medical students, training medical residents.

I'm a resident. You are a resident. Okay, so you're a resident. So these are your peers? Yes. Okay. I also give it to my attendings. Okay, so you give this lecture, so you're having a conversation, just having in the medical training process, having a conversation, talking about issues of transgenderism, and even if you are pointing out that the science behind the claims that hormone replacement therapy, the entire transition process, doesn't actually produce positive outcomes. It doesn't change the significant difficulty, and it is a meaningful, significant difficulty with which we should have compassion for people that are struggling from gender dysphoria. The proffered solutions don't really work, but even when you point that out, what he's saying is that many of his peers or many of his students that are there with him, they're still kind of going along with the lie that is the current narrative on transgenderism. Was that a fair summary? Okay. All right. And so the question is, what do you do about willful blindness? What do you do if other folks are just like, they're just not willing to see it? Well, I mean, it probably wouldn't shock you. The answer is, I think you have conversations, right? But we have those conversations knowing that you don't get to prescribe my thoughts, and I don't get to prescribe yours, right? So at the end of the day, if people get to believe what they want to believe, even if they are mistaken, right? And so I wouldn't, I mean, I might inwardly be frustrated. A lot of things frustrate me, they probably shouldn't, but do, right? And so I think you address it, you point, I think you can point things out. But at the end of the day, you know, you can't compel anybody to think one thing or to believe another thing. What you can do is say things that are true, you can say them graciously, you can live consistently with that. You might be able to allow people the time and the space. Everyone in this room, I mean, tell me this is not true, everyone in this room has come to discover something that's different from what you used to believe, yes? And it's not the case that you believe this thing, I tell you that you're wrong, and you say, "Oh, great, awesome." It rarely does work that way, right? But it might be that eventually enough information comes together that you're like, "Huh, who knew?" Add it to the list of things that I was wrong about, right? All of life is like this. Now, some people might lean into that process more eagerly. I think I lean into that process very eagerly because there have been so very many times that I was wrong. And I came to figure out, "Oh my gosh, I was wrong, I like being right." This is really important. I'm not being right more than I like thinking I'm right. So if I'm wrong, I would like to know that so that I can stop being wrong. I find that process not very threatening at all. Tell me something I don't know, tell me something contradict with me, and if you're right, I'm going to bend the knee. Let's go. I want to know what's true. Not everybody's in that same place, we're all in different kind of process. So you say it truthfully, you say it graciously, you say it patiently, and then you give people time to figure out if they're willing to follow the evidence. And at the same time, you're always having the back of your mind, "P.S., maybe I'm the one that's wrong," right? Because maybe I am about any number of things. Okay. Yeah. Marybeth? Nowadays, that I've been around the younger generation, they think if you disagree with them, you hate them or you don't agree with them, and it's like, I mean, I don't know where it changed and what is really precipitating that because it's like, it'd be quiet and sometimes. And then I don't know what sometimes what to do and it was a choice. Yeah. So Marybeth is making the observation that it seems that in our culture, to disagree with you is definitively perceived as hating you. And like, how did we get to that point and what do we do about that? And I think the obvious thing, what you can do, what you should do, is to go out of your way when you are disagreeing with someone to seek what's good for them, right? I can, like, I, I, to stay on the transgender thing because we're here, there's a million things we can pick on, but to stay there, like, there will never be a day that I will ever affirm that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man. I will never use someone's prescribed pronouns. They will never happen because I have a, the core commitment of my life is to say true things beyond maybe, and maybe you had to say, well, I think you ranked that a little bit too high. Well, that's fine, but it is and that's the deal, okay? But it doesn't follow that I can't be gracious. I will not go along with the delusion, but I can change a tire in the rain for you. I can speak kindly to you. I can suffer for you. And it might be really that what I need to do in those situations is go out of my way to defy the idea that I hate you, because if my, if you ascribe hatred to my words that are kindly stated, you might be able to lie to yourself about that, but I want to make it so it's really hard for you to apply hatred to my behavior towards you. And if I can do that, then hopefully I will leave you with a conundrum to be like, huh, maybe I have linked disagreement in hatred in a way that has to be broken. And if that gets accomplished, can you imagine the benefit of that? That would be good news.

Integrity and Source of Truth

Okay. Nicholas? When it comes to saying true things in a world where it's very hard to source sources of truth, what are your recommendations on how you find true things?

Next question. That was actually pretty loud. But how do you, if you're committed to saying true things, how do you source your true things? How do you know that what you're saying is true? Is that what you're saying? Okay. First I would say it might be useful to have a working definition of truth, and I don't think many people do. So here's what truth is. It's really very simple. Truth is merely an accurate statement about reality. That's all. Reality exists. It's just sitting there being real, right? There's just a tree right there. There it is. Okay. Now I can describe that tree, and I can describe it in language that's accurate or inaccurate, right? And so if I describe that tree accurately, I'm saying something true. If I describe that tree inaccurately, I'm saying something false. It's not necessarily a lie. I might be mistaken or stupid. I might think it's an oak tree, but it's a maple tree. And as we stand here, I don't have any idea what it is, right? So not every false statement is a lie. Sometimes it is errors, right? But my source, therefore, all that to say, Nick, the source for my truth claims must always be reality. What did somebody really say and it's been excerpted too tight? What is the nature of the universe that actually exists? So I'm always interested. I have a friend who, a good friend, went to college together, and we have very different political perspectives. And she often writes to me about something that has been distressing to her that's happening in the political world. And I'm like, well, did you go to the raw document? Did you actually go, did you bother to look up this law that just got passed? And so like raw sources, reality, at every time I can. I want to drill down, because people say wrong stuff all the time, and I don't want to pass on somebody's quote. I'd rather like, if somebody tells me, well, Nick, I mean, you did this to me just the other day. Nick heard something, and he wasn't sure if it was true, and I was implicated in it. And so you know what he did? He just radical. Do you know what he did? He called me and said, "Hey, Tim. I heard this. Is it accurate?" And we were able to have a conversation. That, Nick. So reality. Go to this. Go. What is the source? Truth is merely an accurate statement about reality. Our source for truth is reality itself. Okay.

Concluding Remarks

All right. Yeah, Nate. I've been following this whole Charlie Kirk thing quite closely, and the question I have is how much of a role do you think religious persecution had in Charlie Kirk some time ago? Oh, so Nate's question is, do I think religious persecution was—how much of a factor was it in Charlie's death? I think it was a significant factor. You would say there's really two factors, right? It's religious and it's political. It was Tyler Robinson, a mutual hatred for Charlie Kirk and Charlie Kirk's being relentlessly persecuted. Yes. And so, but I would say if there's really two factors, there's the faith-based and the politically-based, and they're both real. But even the political, as you heard Charlie say, his political views are sourced in his understanding of Scripture, his understanding of ultimate reality. So I think some people would like to like strip that out because it's an inconvenient storyline, but I'm on record. I think that absolutely his faith was instrumental in the views that were hated, that motivated his killing. Right? Yeah.

Ultimately, my question is, how do I remember Charlie Kirk as an agent, as a Christian—he was a Christian—as opposed to my instinct, probably a lot instinct, to view him as the idol of conservatives that died? And I guess in extra context, with the recent turning of events this week has made me feel like, oh good, these are great things to have a—censorship. But they never remembered five to ten years ago during cancel culture, where I was that very same idea when I was on the back foot, I hated it. And now I feel like I'm on the front foot, and I enjoy it. And I feel like it could be tied to like, oh now my team is wicking. Okay. To separate that and just remember Charlie Kirk as a Christian, how can you help me with that?

Okay, so I'm not sure that I understand exactly, is it what you're saying, maybe, that there are maybe a couple of different camps who really might like Charlie Kirk. Some that are believers, and they like that he's a Christian—or they even accept that he's a Christian. Maybe some Christians might not even accept that, or might be skeptical of his claims of faith. Others, that maybe they're not even Christians at all, they just like Charlie Kirk because he confirms their own biases, is this what you're saying? In a sense, I'm catching myself in my own bias of what's happening now at the FCC and all that. Like this is a good thing. And the very same idea about ten years ago of cancel culture, I was like, no, this is horrible. Okay. So we're talking about Jimmy Kimmel at this point. Is that kind of what you're going after? Yeah, it's all related to Charlie Kirk, and I want to refocus in on the fact that he was an agent of Christ, and for that not getting on, okay? Just general nonsense that could change 100 years from now. Yes.

Okay, so that's a lot to untwine there, Zach, but I would say I don't know that it's all that important that you parse out. If I understand you correctly, I'm not sure that it's important to parse out the different aspects of who Charlie was. I think whether you like his politics, whether you like his faith, whether you like his brand of Christianity, if you will, like there's, obviously in this room, unanimity that murdering people is wrong regardless, right? We should be equally grieved at the individual level of the death of Charlie Kirk and the death of the Minnesota State Representatives and the death of the children. There was a school shooting that day, right, that nobody even talks about because it kind of got overshadowed. Things happened like that. C.S. Lewis died the day JFK got shot, and nobody knew about it because nobody knew anything, right? Because it's one thing. Charlie Kirk's death has overshadowed numerous other important things that happened in the world, right? But nevertheless, I think that you don't need to parse it out, that you can look at Charlie as a whole person, and you might agree with not just his faith but not his politics, but you might agree with certain expressions of his faith and not certain expressions of his politics or vice versa. We're all a package deal.

Every one of us, y'all, I'm a package deal, right? I mean, it's just true. Your husband is a package deal. Have you noticed that? Like, there's just a reality. We are what we are, and we take the good with the bad. There is no all good. There is no all bad. We are all a mix. And so, I think for you, or what I would say, I believe when I watched Charlie express his faith, I find him to be sincere. I find him to be courageous, and I think that the church has lost a ferocious advocate. Now, it is also obviously true that the Republican party has lost a ferocious advocate. Both of those things are true, and there are plenty of people who walk with Christ and love him that don't vote Republican, right? But Charlie did, and that's one particular expression of it, and I think we can just accept all that he is.

I would say, if anything, Zach, maybe just watch some of his clips, and you can, I mean, Lord knows they abound, and you can engage with it and see what it is that you find that you agree with or disagree with, what's helpful to you, and I hope there will be much that is. Okay. Now, Taylor, we have to be stopping right now. I will let you ask a question, but I have to answer very tightly. So do you want to try? Sure. Do it. Okay. Okay. The people that I have seen, rightly mocking the death of Charlie Kirk are the same people that are in flames that the church doesn't hear about the genocide in Gaza. It's one thing to be involved in mocking of someone's death. It's another thing that you claim to hate, so how do you graciously hold up a mirror to that situation? Yeah. So quick. You're the thing. Yeah. Well, so Taylor's question is how do you, when people are hypocritical, how do you graciously hold up a mirror to that? Well, and of course, the problem with going after somebody's hypocrisy is that you're also a hypocrite, right? There's just no limit to, there's no limit to our ability to do this. But I think you do it like we do everything else. We say, you know, it's interesting that you would say that. I wonder if you can notice the parallel here. I wonder if you might see that the very thing that you're describing is actually being done. Romans 2 is Paul doing that. Romans 2, he's like, whenever you judge the other, you're condemning yourself because you who pass judgment do the same things, right? It is like the classic description of how that works. And we're allowed to say that to people. And it's helpful, right? To say like, hey Tim, I'd like to introduce you to Tim, do you see what you're doing right now? That is a valuable service that we can perform in each other's lives. Now, some people might appreciate it, some might not, right? But we can say true things. We can say them graciously. What's that? I use your eye statement and keep it on you. Yeah. Yeah, like I noticed that you are a hypocrite, right? And that just, it works beautifully. All right, you guys, we're long. We got to stop. So I would, what I hope there will be is a conversation that you'll be talking to each other. You'll be talking to people specifically who disagree with you. Say true things. Say them graciously. Take the hit. Say them again. Amen.

Conclusion

Lord, would you give us mercy to represent you well in the world that desperately needs more dialogue about the things that we disagree about? And I pray the truth would prevail, that your name would be honored. You are the one that we love and adore and we want to worship—forgiveness when we get it wrong and all the ways we get it wrong that we might look more like you. Amen.