
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0
I remember where I was when I heard that Charlie Kirk had been shot. I was on my way to a chiropractic appointment. I normally listen to podcasts when I am driving, but that day I decided to see what the talk shows were discussing on the AM channels. I turned on the radio to hear Sean Hannity saying that Charlie Kirk had been shot and was at the hospital in serious condition. When I arrived at the chiropractor’s office, I was surprised when my chiropractor asked me if I heard about the shooting. I was surprised that he heard about it. I was driving home when I heard that Charlie had died.
I did not know Charlie Kirk personally. I never met him. However, the news of what happened disturbed me deeply for several reasons. My first ministry job was as an intern for the Baptist Student Ministries. I remember manning tables and talking to whoever would stop by. The local atheist club invited me to go to their meeting to give them an apologetics talk. I was in their club with three friends, and about fifteen atheist students, discussing apologetic arguments. I never thought that I was in danger. If I was not in any danger on that day, why was Charlie Kirk in danger holding his public event on a university campus freely exchanging ideas with the students?
As I stated, I did not know Charlie Kirk, but I did know about his ministry. I saw some videos of him debating students at his “Prove Me Wrong” events. I saw that Charlie Kirk could handle himself well in those discussions, and that he was respectful to the other person. He allowed the other people time to make their points and lay out their arguments, and he challenged and refuted their argument. Charlie Kirk boldly proclaimed the Gospel, argued religious and political issues such as the resurrection and abortion, and refuted opposing arguments in a public forum. This is what got Charlie killed.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination should disturb you for three reasons (other than the fact that he was a person who should not have been murdered). First, his death shows that there is a threat to the First Amendment. Second, his death shows that universities may not be safe spaces for the free exchange of ideas. Third, the left and the right might be taking us towards a second civil war. None of these things are certainties, but the threat is strong enough that we should be aware of it.
The part of the first amendment that is threatened by Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the free speech clause, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” One of the reasons that people came to the United States early in our country’s history is because we allowed people to express their political and religious opinions. Liberals and conservatives should care about this. If society restricts public discussion or declares that certain topics are off limits, the common public is excluded from discussions concerning public policy and many other topics. One of the foundational principles that our country was founded on was free speech. The founding fathers did not want the government restricting public speech because they knew the impact from laws restricting speech critical of political leaders and royalty in England and other European nations. The people were oppressed because they had no say on certain issues that impacted their lives. Free speech at least allows for the ideas and policies of the government to be challenged publicly.
The University of Bologna is the first university in the historical record. The purpose of the university was to train future civil and religious leaders. Later training in certain subjects was required for certain professions. For scholars to discuss these issues they had to have the freedom to discuss controversial issues, and they had to be safe from harm while discussing issues. The university became a place where controversial ideas could be discussed openly. This is the activity that Charlie Kirk was engaging in when he was shot and killed. This means that Charlie Kirk’s murder was intentionally, or unintentionally, an attack on the university as a place where controversial issues can be debated. This shooting puts the university system in jeopardy. Are scholars and students allowed to debate issues or not? If the answer is no, then freedom of thought and speech is undermined. If the answer is no, certain ideas are not allowed to be discussed, and speech can be policed.
Since I started paying attention to politics, the nature of political debates has become more contentious. There will be a certain amount of contention and conflict in politics because that is the nature of politics. Political discussions have become more contentious since the 2016 elections. This contention has led to an increase in political violence over the issues of race, marriage, LGBTQ issues, and abortion. There have been riots in Portland, Washington D.C., and many other cities that lead to buildings being burnt. No matter your view of the January 6th riot over the ratification of the 2020 election, the event is a sign that tolerance of opposing views is decreasing. One of the reasons people were coming to the United States was because they were not allowed to speak out against their leaders in the country that they were leaving. Unless we can find a way to discuss our differences without killing, physically attacking, rioting, or damaging public and private poverty, it becomes more and more probable that this will lead to a civil war.
Political violence has increased over the last 25 years. Liberals and conservatives are becoming more likely to use violence against fellow countrymen because they will not tolerate disagreement over certain issues. As Christians, how should we respond? We should not stop speaking the truth and challenging evil. Paul wrote, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). By speaking out against the “unfruitful works of darkness” we are being faithful to God. Christianity has a long history of speaking out against immoral and evil things. We cannot stop because the darkness threatens us with violence.
If we do not speak out against what is evil and stand for what is good, we will be held accountable for God. The law of Leviticus states, “If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1). God does not want his people to remain silent and allow what is evil to go unchallenged. We must respond to evil and injustice by speaking out against it.
Christians are not called to respond to violence with violence. I am not claiming that Christians should not defend themselves against assault or protect others. The issue here is that Christianity will not spread by using violence. Jesus said, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11). Satan is not defeated by violence. If Christians become violent Satan wins. Instead, we should expect to be persecuted, slandered, and attacked when we speak out against evil and proclaim the Gospel. Christian brothers and sisters, the kingdom of God does not advance the way earthly nations advance. The kingdom of God spreads by the proclamation of the gospel, helping those that are in need, and remaining faithful during times of danger and persecution. At this uncertain time, we must remain faithful to God and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus.
©2025 Probe Ministries






