A Culture of Murder

At the time of this article, we are all processing the most recent act of political violence in the U.S.––the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Some responses are vitriolic and vile celebrations, some vengeful calls of retaliation, some venerations and exaltations, some genuine calls for a lowering of the temperature, and some calls for some measure of unity. There is no shortage of responses, and there are still so many unanswered questions. That said, admittedly, because there is so much commentary right now, I’ve been unsure if any more is needed.

But as I have sat with the news of this recent act of violence, and as I have processed what has led to our current environment, I am continually struck by the extent to which we, as a society, have succumbed to a culture that breeds murder, in particular, politically motivated violence. Charlie Kirk should have been able to espouse all of his ideas and convictions without fear of violence. Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, should not have been murdered for their political associations. Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, should not have been shot. Governor Josh Shapiro should not have been a victim of arson. Paul Pelosi should never have been attacked. Vice President Pence should never have been threatened with hanging. The assassination attempt on President Trump should not have occurred. I could go on and on. And this, of course, is speaking only of the violence and murder of a political type. Murder is pervasive in communities and amongst nations.

I hope we all agree. What I just said should not at all be controversial. However, even though many might agree about these specific acts of violence and murder (or attempted murder), I do not think we all agree about a culture that breeds murder. What I mean is that while we might never actually murder someone we disagree with, or ever call for acts of violence, we all too often participate in creating an environment for the kinds of political murder and violence that’s becoming pervasive.  

How so? Consider what the Heidelberg Catechism teaches about the sixth commandment––thou shalt not murder. Surveying the totality of Scripture's teachings, we are taught that the act of murder is but a consequence of a much deeper problem (emphasis mine):

Q & A 105

Q 105. What is God’s will for you in the sixth commandment?

A. I am not to belittle, hate, insult, or kill my neighbor—not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds—and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge…

Q & A 106

Q. Does this commandment refer only to murder?

A. By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God’s sight all such are disguised forms of murder.

Q & A 107

Q. Is it enough then that we do not murder our neighbor in any such way?

A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.

Murder starts with the belittlement, hatred, and mockery of our neighbors. Murder is rooted in envy, hatred, anger, and vindictiveness. And even more, “In God’s sight all such are disguised forms of murder.” Murder is the antithesis of the patience, peace, gentleness, mercy, and friendliness we are to show others, even our enemies. That being the case, how hypocritical we can be in assuming a moral high-ground in our denouncement of violence while, at the same time, fueling the fires of murder through our arrogant, blame-shifting, double-tongued, hypocritical, vitriolic belittlement of our political or social opponents. 

To push the point even further, in his Reformed Ethics Vol. 2, Herman Bavinck goes even further, arguing (emphasis mine):

We kill a soul whenever we seduce someone, causing them to fall into sin through our word or our example. This happens when we flatter our neighbors’ pride, incite their evil lusts and desires, feed their anger, encourage their lust for revenge, weaken their tender consciences, shock their faith by our doubt, crush their faith by our ridicule, or offend them in anything whatsoever...And all of us are murderers—it was our sins that caused Jesus’s death.

In other words, we are not only murderers in our hearts when we point our envy, hatred, anger, and vindictiveness toward our opponents. We are also murderers in the way we influence others to do the same. 

What does this mean for public and political discourse and debate? If you know me, you know that in some circles I am the “oppressive conservative” and in others the “Marxist liberal” (I often joke about, and at times lament, how I was called both those exact names in the span of three days). In other words, I constantly find myself amongst those with whom I disagree. What this reality has required of me (and please know I remain far from perfect in this) is the discipline of gleaning the best from what someone claims, to denounce what I believe to be wrong, and—perhaps most importantly—to assess manner in which one holds a position. I often find myself listening to those whose positions might resonate with me, yet I hear them weave belittling vindictiveness into their arguments. And, if I am honest, I am sure others have listened to me do the same. Is this not exactly what the catechism and Bavinck are rightly defining as the roots of murder or the killing of a soul?

We are in a time when there is a pervasive dehumanization through the demonization of the other, the us vs. them rhetoric, the fear-mongering, straw-manning, and caricaturing of an opponent's position to make them an existential threat, and the belittling language pervasive in debate. All of this contributes to a culture that breeds murder. And, ironically, undermines our ability to condemn ideas, positions, and actions when necessary. When we are always angry, godly and righteous anger is lost in the fog. There are genuinely abhorrent ideas and ideologies that must be denounced in the strongest possible terms. There are policies that must be resisted. There are genuine existential threats that exist. But when we allow sincere disagreements amongst good-faith actors to devolve into the dehumanization of others, that dehumanization is murder. 

What is the way forward? Honestly, I am not sure. I do know we need leadership willing to bring down the temperature by rejecting partisanship, humanizing their political rivals, and refusing to blame-shift, finger-point, or turn fellow citizens into enemies. I pray we see such leadership in the coming days. 

However, it also seems to me that Bavinck offers us some wisdom on how we might break free from the culture of murder that we have contributed to. I have referenced this quote before, but in considering the impact of common grace, Bavinck notes, 

From this common grace proceeds all that is good and true that we still see in fallen man. The light still shines in the darkness. The Spirit of God lives and works in everything that has been created. Therefore there still remain in man certain traces of the image of God. There is still intellect and reason; all kinds of natural gifts are still present in him…In matters that concern this earthly life, man is still able to do much good.... Through the doctrine of common grace the Reformed have, on the one hand, maintained the specific and absolute character of the Christian religion, but on the other hand they have been second to none in their appreciation for whatever of the good and beautiful is still being given by God to sinful human beings.

We are not all Reformed and, as a nation, we are all obviously not Christians, but the fundamental argument still remains. As those made in the image of God, “there still remain in man certain traces of the image of God” and as a result, “their appreciation for whatever of the good and beautiful is still being given by God to sinful human beings,” including our political and social rivals. Do we actively seek what is good, right, and true amongst our opponents, or are we so committed to our own ideologies that others become nothing more than enemies to destroy? When that happens, to put it plainly, we have, at minimum, contributed to a culture that breeds murder. 

If, as a conservative, we cannot clearly denounce the “murder” present within conservatism and affirm the truth found in progressivism, we are contributing to a culture of murder. If, as a progressive, we cannot clearly denounce the “murder” present within progressivism and affirm the truth found in conservatism, we are contributing to a culture of murder. And this is not some call for a mushy middle ground that lacks conviction. Frankly, there are certain seasons and cycles when some are more guilty of creating the worst versions of our culture of murder.

However, this is a recognition of how pervasive and deceptive the sin of murder, when rightly understood, can be amongst us. “If we claim to be without sin”––and dare I be so bold as to say the sin of murder––“we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

Debate must happen. Disagreements will be ever-present. Existential threats exist. Evil must be denounced. None of this, however, justifies murder––the literal taking of another’s life or, and more to the point, the envy, hatred, anger, and vindictiveness we have allowed to pervade our cultural dialogue. 

Father, forgive us, point us to the cross, and send your Spirit to breathe resurrection life into the dry bones of our day.