If you’ve come here hoping to find someone eulogising Charlie Kirk, you’ve come to the wrong place. But equally, if you’ve come hoping to find him demonised instead, you’ll be disappointed. I never met to or spoke with Kirk, but I imagine if we had we would have found much on which to disagree. Our politics, our understanding of faith, and our life trajectories have been very different. Despite our many disagreements, I will not rush to call him either “good” nor “evil.” That task I leave to God alone.

But a few thoughts have been brewing inside my head since I heard of his death and have watched the reaction online. 

First, the algorithmic nature of online news, and in many cases opinion disguised as news, means that rarely are any of us reading or watching the same content. My wife and I agree on a lot of issues, and yet even the news we see on our phones and iPads is very different. Just imagine the disparate viewpoints we are all receiving upon hearing of the death of a divisive figure like Kirk. Conversations about his death, his influence, his legacy, and much more, will be heavily influenced by the content we have been exposed to, and often that content will hijack any profitable discussion. Algorithms, or the effects of them, are not neutral.

Second, many online have rushed to offer their thoughts on Kirk’s death, and such is the torrid state of online engagement, the overwhelming majority feel the need to tell us whether or not they thought Kirk was good or evil. I have read countless posts in the last couple of days along the lines of, “I think Kirk was a heinous human being, but so was his murder.” I understand the sentiment there, and perhaps I am partially protected from because I don’t live in the USA anymore, but let’s just stop and take a moment to consider it. A human being, made in the image of God, a husband and father, has just been shot, and ultimately killed, in front of a large crowd. His family, relatives, and friends will have to actively avoid the news and much of the internet, perhaps for weeks, if they don’t want to see the exact moment he was shot. This is not the time to tell us you think he was heinous. Surely, you can manage to keep that thought to yourself for at least a couple of days? Your pithy diagnosis of Kirk’s life adds nothing to the conversation. If Kirk did not see empathy as a Christian trait, that was his choice, but I am not permitted to let go of it myself. Mourn with those who mourn, or keep quiet.

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, I believe as a Priest I am called to hope that Kirk is now at rest, safe in the hands of a God who is slow to anger and abounding in love. If you disagreed with Kirk and saw him as your enemy in some way, and if you are a Christian, then you are still called to love him and hope for his good. That’s both a simple statement in theory, and immensely difficult in practice. But love of enemy is not about agreement, it’s not about political affiliation, it’s not about our feelings. It’s a choice. And I understand that love takes many forms. Calling out hypocrisy, standing against dehumanising policies, disagreement itself, can all be forms of love. But so are patience, and kindness, both in short supply, particularly online.

So, in the next few days, may God help you find ways to be patient and kind, may God help you mourn with those who mourn, and may God help you expand your world and find ways to bridge the divides that keep us as enemies.