If Charlie Kirk had been a Democratic activist and Joe Biden were still president, the right-wing conspiracy theories would have taken over the conversation already.
But today, on the morning after Kirk’s dreadful assassination with a single shot to the neck, those who normally peddle conspiracies are instead obsessed with deifying a spokesman for their cause who had one of the meanest tongues around.
Ask yourself this: Who benefits most from Kirk’s untimely death? The answer: Donald Trump.
Mark Wingfield
I’m not saying Trump had him killed — although if the roles were reversed we’d definitely hear that from Laura Loomer and the Fox News crowd. This would be viewed as a political hit to change the conversation. That’s how the conspiracy-driven right thinks.
I’ve had more than one friend message me last night or this morning to point out how the conversation about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein has suddenly evaporated. And with Trump’s support sagging even among those who voted for him, he clearly needs his evangelical base to rally around his unrighteous cause again.
Those are the folks who admired Kirk, who, as our Rod Kennedy points out, was like a mini-Trump in his ability to stir a crowd with false information and bravado.
If you’ve watched the raw video of the assassination, you know this was just that — an assassination, a hit. The precision of that single shot — which harmed no one else nearby — is staggering. That shot was fired by someone who knew what they were doing. And we must consider the possibility that the shooter may never be apprehended. Something feels very different this time.
What’s not different is the sharp divisions in trying to make sense of this tragedy.
A friend texted me last night with this observation: “If I ever had my wonderings about where people stand politically, Charlie Kirk’s assassination leaves no doubt.”
“If I ever had my wonderings about where people stand politically, Charlie Kirk’s assassination leaves no doubt.”
And indeed that is true as we scroll through social media posts where otherwise nonpolitical people are either deifying or denouncing Kirk.
My own email and voicemail are full of that this morning. Some samples:
- “The lady that wrote the article on Charlie Kirk is disgusting. This is not Christian news in any form. Shame on you all for deceiving Baptists.”
- “I just read your article about Charlie Kirk, and I tried to press 1 to leave this message for your executive director publisher, but it wouldn’t go through. What a disgusting display of turning on a Christian brother. Shame, shame on all of you. I would love a call back. … What you did with that article is probably one of the most despicable things I’ve ever seen. I’d appreciate a call back. It’s almost 1.30 a.m. in Florida. I’m just livid. Many of us are heartbroken. We are devastated that a brother in Christ who you call a, quote, a nationalist, unquote, which is a made-up term. is dis… we’re dis… Devastated. How dare you? Please have one of your people call me back. I am going to spread your poison and what you’ve done everywhere I can and let Christians know that you are not an organization, obviously, guided by the word of God. I want them to know what you’re really about, because you’re dangerous.”
- “I’ve read some of your publications and as a Baptist by choice I fear that your organization is part of the problem in this country. After a fellow American and Christ follower was murdered today I can no longer be silent. Look in the mirror!! Are you publishing peace and unity or division? From what I read it is the latter! God have mercy on you. Be part of the solution, don’t stoke the fires of division.”
On the other hand, I’ve received some very kind comments of appreciation for our work. Some examples:
- “With the news of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, I was at a loss on how to react or feel. Everywhere I turned to on social media (even Christian influencers), people were picking sides, either stating that the shooting was a result of spiritual warfare or it was well-deserved. It was only after I read the analysis published by BNG (written by Rodney Kennedy) that I felt at peace. The challenge that we are all complicit — that we have deceived ourselves if we think that we can play with political violence without getting burned — is one that is not easy, but it is possibly the most nuanced one that I have read.”
- “When I got a link for a Baptist News site when I was reading the news today, I was expecting a right-wing story filled with hatred toward minorities and praising Trump as the second coming of Christ. But instead I found well-researched, well-thought-out writing that aligned with the true teachings of Jesus. I was so surprised, I felt the need to reach out and email you to thank you for being true Christians. I wish everyone in the faith acted as you do.”
Whatever else we learn about the events of yesterday afternoon, a few things already are clear:
- This shooting immediately changed the national political conversation and — once again — took attention away from more of Trump’s misdeeds.
- This shooting immediately divided an already divided American populace with people taking even more strident sides.
- This shooting — whether intentionally or not — made a martyr out of Charlie Kirk in the eyes of conservative evangelicals.
- And sadly, this assassination will do nothing to advance the conversation on gun violence and gun control.
Mark Wingfield serves as executive director and publisher of Baptist News Global and is the author of five books, including Honestly: Telling the Truth About the Bible and Ourselves and Why Churches Need to Talk About Sexuality.
Related articles:
Trump and allies blame ‘radical left’ for political violence
MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk shot dead in Utah
How Charlie Kirk went from college dropout to Trump influencer | Analysis by Mara Richards Bim
We are all complicit in Charlie Kirk’s death | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy