Charlie Kirk and Competing Ethical Systems

The recent martyrdom of Charlie Kirk has sparked in many much reflection on politics, how we ought to advocate our political views/ethical system, and how we ought to treat those with whom we disagree politically and ethically. Following consideration of others’ thoughts and reactions, I’ve developed my own thoughts relating to the broader question of how competing ethical systems compete with each other in a culture or society. 

It seems quite underappreciated that how you ought to advance your ethical system in your society is part of that same system, meaning that it is determined or at least prescribed by that very system. Christian ethics and non-Christian ethics are not members of a greater overarching meta-system that sets the rules of the game, whilst playing no favorites to either team. When Christians disagree with someone on an ethical issue, they should not look to some overarching system that dictates rules for engagement because there is none. There is only the Christian system of ethics, and there is the non-Christian system of ethics (whatever form it may come in). There is no greater system neutral to either. 

If you try to appeal to an overarching system neutral to both sides, you’ve ceded the Christian system and failed to take “all thoughts captive in obedience to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). You’ve betrayed Christ and granted supremacy to the non-Christian system you ought to be competing with.

Moral Equivalencies

We cannot then draw moral equivalencies between advocates of competing ethical systems because the systems themselves necessarily evaluate their friends and foes in terms of themselves. Its opponents must be condemned as evil (at least to some extent). A communist, Nazi, jihadist, or some other cult leader could not be the same as someone like Charlie Kirk: each ought to condemn the other according to their respective systems. Mao Zedong was not the same as Ronald Reagan: each ought to condemn the other’s governance according to their respective systems. A pro-abortion activist and an anti-abortion activist are not the same: each must see the other as engaging in wickedness according to their respective systems. Even supposing that drawing moral equivalencies is valid, one would have to apply that to a rapist who adheres to a pro-rape ethical system, which means the rapist and a civil rights activist would be viewed the same and thus treated the same. 

Not only that, but burning down neighborhoods, businesses, and cities of people you know nothing about is not the same as ensuring just repercussions to individuals guilty of celebrating the murder of a moral and upstanding American (i.e., the response to George Floyd vs. the response to Charlie Kirk). Yet, because there is no meaningful non-Christian ethic, meaning that morality, or rights and obligations, cannot be accounted for apart from the Christian God (I’ve argued for this here), we shouldn’t be too surprised when the non-Christians stop playing nice. They are merely living out the logical implications of their position. ‘Charlie Kirk advocates for things that are wicked according to my system,’ and ‘those who advance horrendously bad things should be stopped by any means. ’ As each system will give moral grades matching the degree to which its opponents deviate from it, the more one deviates, the more wicked the system grades an act or individual who performs it; thus, the greater and harsher the response ought to be from that system’s adherents. But even still, as the whole non-Christian system is arbitrary, so are its obligations for how one ought to deal with deviations from it. In other words, the non-Christian system offers no meaningful prohibition on resorting to the most ruthless, gruesome, and barbaric means to advance the position, even for the most minor deviations from that system. We see these things acted out with Donald Trump’s near assassination and Charlie Kirk’s murder. According to the non-Christian system, it cannot be said that the ruthless actions committed against Trump and Kirk were wrong.

This is not to say every non-Christian is an absolute savage. Everyone has a God-given moral conscience (Romans 2:15), and we see many non-Christians (by virtue of what theologians call ‘common grace’) do rather well in following this moral conscience. In fact, many non-Christians put to shame Christians with their acts of kindness and overall right-living. Furthermore, there are those who profess to be Christians, but bear such bad fruit (sometimes committing quite heinous acts) that their religiosity appears to be nothing more than a farce. And those who follow Christ sincerely end up receiving collateral reputational damage from such hypocrisy.

Nihilism and Moral Anarchy

However, the atrocious moral activity by hypocritical professing Christians is not the result of them being near to Christ, but them veering off and rebelling against Christ, whilst honoring him with their lips before men. The loss of civility to barbarism is the result of there being fewer Christians, Christians obeying Christ less than before, and a greater rebellion against Christ by non-Christians: deviation further from God’s laws toward more wickedness. We’ve been seeing more people drift away from God’s moral standards, which have been stamped on their consciences, and more toward a consistency with the non-Christian world and life view (even true of many Christians). Because the non-Christian system doesn’t have a coherent account for rights and obligations, it entails nihilism and moral anarchy. It is no wonder, then, that as we slip away from a Christian dominance, we experience such barbarism and savagery. We see increasingly aggressive behavior toward those who advance Christian morality, such as prevention from merely being able to express Christian beliefs (sometimes by force and violence), and more limp-wristed responses by Christians to wickedness perpetuated against those who advocate for Christ in the public sphere.

The Christian Duty

What do we do about this growing problem? Christians, keep evangelizing, discipling, learning, and then teaching how to obey God in all areas of life (including the public life), which means not looking toward anyone but Christ when trying to learn how to advance Christ and advance justice and righteousness, which is defined by who God is. 

It means refusing to please some religiously neutral standard of ethics: we cannot serve two masters (Mathew 6:24). We cannot seek to defeat the non-Christian ethical system whilst obeying it every step of the way, which is what it seems Christians in the West have been attempting for quite some time. This only upholds the non-Christian system, which is a path that eventually leads to barbarism. 

Yet, neither should we attempt to match savage means with savage means in order to stomp out opposition to Christ, which seems to be a growing inclination by some right-wing Christians (although understandable given the anger that increasing injustice done to Christians provokes). If we try to replace wickedness by using wickedness, we merely replace the wickedness with other wickedness under a different flag. Each pole ends in the society being governed by the same thing: wicked barbarism. The Bible tells us what it looks like to thread the needle and what justice would require of us in dealing with wickedness. It tells us how to deal with sin without being too harsh or too lenient. 

To the non-Christians who are appalled at the growing moral decay, consider what has led us here: it is the result of the population turning away from Christ. But do not turn back to the Christian religion merely as a means of improving social order or even to improve your own personal life. To do that is to not turn to the Christian religion at all. Come to Christ because you, too, are a sinner (as we all are) and in need of some way to be reconciled to God and have eternal life. This Christ procured at the cross when he died for sins: that our sins may be imputed to him and that his righteousness may be imputed to us. But if you do not repent (turn), then you will die in your sins and pay the penalty for all eternity. And even the greatest sinners, the most wicked and barbaric savages, can receive forgiveness for sins (even if God’s justice requires that they receive punitive retribution for their crimes), because there is no lack of abundance of God’s grace and mercy, nor is there a lack of potency in Christ’s atoning work on the cross. 

As more and more individuals turn to Christ and experience the transformative work in them, the more righteous they become, and the more righteous the community and nation they belong to will be, because the overarching ethical consensus of that community or nation will become more Christian. This is not to say that it results in a perfect utopia, but it will facilitate more order, freedom, prosperity, and justice. 

This is the answer.