[I wrote this in September after Kirk’s death, but I’m posting two months later because it did not seem wise to add more commentary at the time. Looking back, I still feel we’re missing something.]
Buckle up. I might offend everyone with this post.
It was not long ago that I had just finished serving on a church search committee that left me bubbling with hope for revival. I will not be able to share the whole story so let me share the Cliffs Notes.
I served on a committee of roughly 15 people including and not limited to: mostly Boomers, two African American men, three Asian Americans, one of whom was a toddler during Japanese internment, two Armenian men of different generations, an immigrant from Guatemala, a former rock musician, a psychologist, a professor, and a formerly incarcerated person. Most, but not all, were conservative.
We struggled together over the course of three years to choose a senior pastor. We were not helped by COVID or the political divisiveness of those years.
In the end, we chose an Indian immigrant by way of Canada and the Middle East. At the time, the choice represented to me something of a third way (an alternative to two extremes, an outside perspective).
I cannot speak to all the mechanisms that moved behind the scenes without the consent of the members at large, but for our part we experienced a miraculous unification as we covenanted with one another through prayer to discern our decision.
Shortly after, while still buzzing with the Holy Spirit about what I had learned through my transformation in that community of prayer and discernment, I was giving a seminar for ministry colleagues. I called it, “Can These Bones Live?” and I explained the components that made for a sort of revival among the committee members.
I depicted the conditions that created a pathway for the Holy Spirit:
•Confession and repentance
•Humility and letting go of control
•Releasing fear and performance concerns
•Prophetic actions of reconciliation that crossed barriers
•Meeting together for prayer
•Fasting
•Dependence on God and surrendering our personal wills for the sake of what God might be directing us toward as a whole
I made it clear to those attending the seminar that the spiritual transformation we found as a group with one another came from these spiritual practices and conditions above and that there was something extremely important about all the forms of diversity on that committee. These were not forms of diversity determined by an ideology that dictates what types need to be checked off. This is our God-given diversity of story and experience and personality, and God’s unique way of using that to show us that we needed one another. The quickest way to decide something is if everyone agrees, but the best way to discern something for a collective is to wrestle through our diversity and difference. This is why God gives us community, so we can reflect the infiniteness of God more than a singular person or perspective can.
Out of my own sense of anticipation, I began to formulate five Rs of revival: reversal, repentance, renunciation, reconciliation, and restoration. Looking back, our church made it through the first two of these five. We never quite took off for the rest while I was still around to see it.
To my great sadness, once we moved through the phase of choosing the pastor, the commitment to diverse perspectives flew out the window and a group of people decided that they “won” the outcome. Those winners got to determine the direction of the church to some extent. Without the task of needing to choose a pastor across differences, the regular machinations came back into play.
What does this have to do with Charlie Kirk?
It has to do with a commitment to try to understand arguments from within. There is nothing more frustrating than to see people talk past one another, for groups to shout accusations at one another that reflect group think.
We now tell ourselves that because we deem an ideology toxic or sinful we do not have to try to understand it from within the perspectives of the people who are drawn to it. This, I believe, is a mistake. Without this practice we have little hope of ever moving past where we are right now and we will continue to get sicker as a society.
Did I agree with Charlie Kirk? No. Can I put myself in the shoes of some of my friends and family and try to understand what they liked about him? Not at first glance. It requires drawing from a very deep well. It requires a kind of integrity to debate or argumentation where you see it through the eyes of the other person. Does that mean I cannot have a final opinion on whether there are problems with the idea or person? No. But, it does require for me not to play the game of name-calling and dehumanizing.
When I was on that committee, I was with people who probably upheld Charlie Kirk as a saint with great insights and those who would not. It was only in our proximity to one another that we began to question whether each person, as an individual participating in a larger movement and dialogue, was inherently evil for doing so. The answer in the case of the members of our committee was no. I certainly believe that there are truly evil individuals across a spectrum of ideologies. But most of us are everyday citizens and, in this case, Christians, trying to live out what we have been taught and shaped by. There is a good amount of malformation to contend with, and certainly there are evil systems, but that does not make individuals caught up in a system evil.
I can reject everything I do not agree with wholesale. That is a choice which is currently most popular across the political spectrum. But, I’ll be honest, I am too hungry for transformation. I do not do well in a society with a 50/50 split of hatred everyday and I see no hope in wondering when the other 50 percent will get to our side. This is going to take a very different kind of work with tools that are not being honed in the public eye.
If you unfriend everyone who says something opposite of what you hold dear, I cannot blame you for doing so out of repulsion. That is where we are at, we are dealing deeply in the emotion of disgust and that is a normal response to such a strong emotion. But, what I suggest instead is to silence it for a time and consider whether proximity to one another might allow you to find other redeemable qualities that help you stay open to the possibility of love and care for one another.
I get it. In the ears of every person on the left I am asking you to stay close to Serena Waterford. In the ears of every person on the right I am asking you compromise by hanging out with sinners.
The problem, Christians, is that Jesus did both.
None of us have to do this. We can choose to do it if we are empowered by the Spirit to do so.
That’s the big miss, our lack of appetite for the type of proximity that acknowledges the humanity in others. Once we begin to see and experience it, the Spirit flows freely and Satan has no where to hide. On the other hand, if our picture of revival is our group getting its way, we’re all going to be sorely disappointed in the end.
















