The following is a guest post by Mr. Rob Marco. Rob is a friend and some time contributor to this blog. You can find his articles on One Peter Five, Crisis, and in his book, Wisdom and Folly: Essays on Faith, Life, and Eveyrthing in Between.
A few
years ago I wrote an article for One Peter Five about the Christian political
martyr Lin Zhao, who was executed by the Mao regime in Communist China in 1968.
It’s a piece I’ve been going back to the past few days in the wake of the
assassination of Charlie Kirk and the tidal wave of media and online commentary
concerning his life and death. In that piece, I wrote:
Lin Zhao, the poet, former-Communist, and dissident, died as a Christian. But did she die in hatred of the faith, or as a political dissident? For the Communists, she was a Rightist counter-revolutionary, one of millions killed during Mao’s reign, and a kind of lone, futile voice against an absolute juggernaut of brutality, antithetical to the dignity of man.
There are some similarities and marked differences between Mr. Kirk and Ms. Zhao—one lived in a national “safe space” of freedom of expression protected by the Constitution while the other under a violent and brutally censored regime. Charlie Kirk was in many ways a politically-motivated “influencer” championing the ideals of his country visibly, both online and in person, while Lin Zhao was an obscure figure who turned against her country—a “gnat in the porridge of the CCP”—who nevertheless longed for a more democratic China. “So beautiful is the flight of a free soul,” Zhao wrote, in one of her many ‘blood letters’ written by pricking her finger with a bamboo shard, “the rare one who stood upright in an era when the entire country prostrated themselves.” Both were executed as a way of silencing their voice.
The online world is a kind of Matrix-like program most of us have plugged into voluntarily, a democratic space where everyone can have a voice to say what is on their mind or heart. One of the unfortunate side effects of this virtual oasis is that it can lead to group-think and party rallying without time for reflection on what we are posting in the moment. "Tribalism, it's always worth remembering, is not one aspect of human experience. It's the default human experience. [And] one of the greatest attractions of tribalism is that you don't actually have to think very much. All you need to know on any given subject is which side you're on,” wrote Andrew Sullivan, ("America Wasn't Built For Humans," New York Magazine)
No one is canonizing Charlie Kirk nor questioning his integrity, given that he died doing what he did best and what he had devoted his life to and believed in. Nor is anyone doubting his life as a practicing, believing Christian. I have seen some (imprudently, in my opinion) calling him a kind of proto-martyr. But a martyr for what, exactly? The integrity of the title of martyr—because it is paid for with the price of blood—should be guarded carefully, and the Church herself has strict guidelines for those who die in defense of the faith and are publicly recognized as such. As I wrote in my piece,
Did [Lin Zhao] die for political reform? Would she have survived with such fortitude in prison for so long if she did not have her faith? These questions linger in the mind, especially for an American reader like myself who regards freedom with such reflexive assurance. We can’t put our heads in the sand with “other-worldly pietism” when freedom is threatened; at the same time the division between the things of faith and politics is not always neat and tidy.
I hold no criticism of Mr. Kirk, and because he was such a public figure part of me also understands the very public firehose of online commentary on the back of his death, since the internet made his Turning Point videos accessible to millions who could safely watch them from the comfort of their armchair. What makes an assessment of why he was killed is difficult because of the unique blending of religion and politics in our country—the assassin was responding to what he perceived was Mr. Kirk's "hate." What about Kirk's message was he (and those who celebrated his assassination) so enflamed against? Was it detestation for his conservatism? His whiteness? His sexual ethics? His defense of tradition, family, and property that are at the heart of an orthodox Christian heritage?
The bullet that pierced Charlie Kirk’s neck is being seen by some as the sparking of a powder-keg, an Archduke Ferdinand moment of an unwatched pot now boiling over with frustration among conservatives. I’m less optimistic, and think it is predictable human nature in the internet age to get swept up in the media frenzy, only to forget about the event a week later as just another news story. I hope not, but the Matrix of online-living is a pacifier of unreality where we can all be heroes, martyrs, Monday Morning Quarterbacks and John the Baptists using only our fingers and from our X account.
Mr. Kirk’s platform leveraged the online space dominated by leftists and progressives for conservative means. He should not be faulted (and may even be commended) for that, for “two can play at this game.” It seemed that Turning Point USA was gaining traction in recent years, and Kirk’s death may in fact be a literal turning point for our country (for better or worse is yet to be seen). Exploding interest in other chapters at universities across the country in recent days may prove that the conservative moment is upon us, and that those on the Right are done being silenced.
The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. (1 Kings 19:11-13).”
It's hard to hear a whisper in the midst of a storm. Our Lord, however, did not feel it imprudent to sleep in the midst of one while his disciples were filled with fear and trepidation (Mt 8:23-27). Peter, quick to unsheathe his sword, was commanded to put it away by this very Lord (Lk 22:36), for His kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36). And Simon the Zealot was only 1/12th of Jesus’ entourage for a reason.
It is human nature to fight fire with fire. And this may work in the political realm. But it is clear from Scripture that there is a higher, more effective way, of heaping coals upon our enemy’s heads.
“Mr. Lu Xun once said, a road is what people make by treading,” Zhao wrote in 1957. “If there is not a first person, there will not be others, and there will still be no road. The first one who sets his eyes on the light of the distant fire and walks on where there is no road until he falls–he who marks the road with his own blood for those coming after him–will always, always earn our respect.”
Mr. Kirk has earned the respect of conservatives everywhere in this country. Let his blood not be wasted.
No comments:
Post a Comment