Truth without love is arrogance
A few days ago, the world was shocked by the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk. I have seen many of his videos. He was a man with robust, clear, and convincing thinking, which does not necessarily mean that his arguments were valid. But the fact is that in a world where anything goes, where the subjective defines the objective, where folly is considered mental health, where distortion is understood as inner liberation and a sign of balance, where emotional conflicts are resolved with changes in form, but not from the soul, Charlie, like other conservative influencers, brought logic to certain issues, amid a sea of subjectivity, in a culture that has made of delirium a banner and of incoherence a virtue.
He would set up his booth on university campuses with a slogan: “Prove me wrong.” Hundreds and sometimes thousands of students crowded around his stand to listen to the brave souls who dared to step up to the microphone Kirk offered them in order to challenge him.
Today Kirk is applauded by crowds for being a “model Christian.” But it strikes me that he is not referred to as a “model of holiness.” Shouldn’t these be synonymous? Could it be that for certain groups, both on the right and on the left, being a “good Christian” actually means participating in a “heroic” cultural struggle, in which certain Christian values are used as a banner to promote an ideology?
But no need to worry about Charlie’s canonization. We have a cardinal who compares him to St. Paul. Anything is possible when ideology takes precedence even over common sense.
Kirk’s dialoguing system is a closed monologue
Kirk was definitely polarizing. When someone challenged him and put forward their point of view, his response was always intellectual. Kirk always responded from his own perspective, from his mental framework, from his position. He did not listen to his audience in order to understand their point of view and integrate it into his own worldview, but rather used the divergence to assert his position and expose the alleged error of those he considered opponents.
Polarization
Charlie Kirk is a symbol of the polarizing culture that grips the modern mind. Polarization is the weapon politicians use to control society. For both the ruling elite and the addicted consumer, it’s a gluttonous feast—a drug that demands more and more. Whether on the right or the left, those who thrive on polarization often start from valid principles, but they stir up hatred toward the opponent and demand blind loyalty from their followers to the entire package they promote. And so we see—on both sides—that what was once unacceptable to them suddenly becomes the banner of their ideology, simply because their “messiah” has decreed it so.
We must clearly state here that Charlie Kirk did not use messages of hate, but his opponents, finding themselves cornered, sometimes accused him of being a hater, generating reactions of approval toward Kirk and humiliation of those who sought dialogue among the crowd (or not). His reels always end with a categorical phrase that seals his point of view, presenting it as absolute, and him as the smiling winner of the contest.
Expressing “the truth” can be a monologue that divides
It is overwhelming to see videos of Christians imposing “the truth,” using verse after verse, or texts from doctrine, dogmatizing their own points of view, monologuing, without the ability to listen, to put ideas in context, and find paths to integration. It is a malady attacking multitudes, both Evangelicals and Catholics. All are convinced of possessing “the truth,” and they can substantiate it by quoting writings. They need no discernment, because “it’s written here.”
The violence that led to Kirk’s death, which must be strongly condemned, is a symptom of an intolerant society that does not listen, that imposes. It is so easy to find sectarian, narrow-minded thinking that is detached from human reality. As if Christ had not become man to show us the sacredness of human beings, which includes limitation, sin, misery, as well as the wonderful genius we possess and the infinite dignity of being children of God. How can we detect this sectarian thinking? When someone claims to speak “the truth,” “we must continue to fight for the truth,” etc.
Conversion of the heart does not occur by dogmatically declaring truths. Compassion and empathy must prevail in order to open up an inner space where God’s grace can penetrate and work. It is love, rather than doctrinal assertions, that will transform hearts. As John reminds us, “God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him” (1 Jn. 4:16).
Failing to empathize with one’s brother or sister distances us from God and truth
By not empathizing with the other person, by not listening to them, by not opening our hearts to learn from them, by seeing a brother or sister in God the Father as an enemy, and by intellectually fighting against their position, no matter how logical our argument may be, we are only distancing ourselves from God.
God expresses himself both in my soul and in the soul of the other. If I block out the reality of the other and only blindly proclaim “the truth” of which I am totally convinced, I close myself off to the contexts that it implies, and therefore, I distance myself from the truth itself, given that God is love and truth. By closing myself off to love, which is the first truth, I distance myself from the truth, from God, and from my brother.
This is the syndrome of today’s people, who attack the Church head-on. Radicalized Christians clash over tangled concepts that have nothing to do with Christ. Catholics cling to ideas and fight the pope as if it were the Crusades, but show no trace of love.
Charlie Kirk: a controversial but kind person
Kirk, beyond his conspiracy-laden and radicalized ideas, brought some logic amid so much confusion. He was a kind person with good intentions, but unfortunately, he lacked empathy in his monologues disguised as dialogue.
Not once did he let slip a “I understand you,” “I appreciate what you’re saying,” or “You’re right about this, but…”
Our response
Perhaps we can learn not to be “defenders of the truth,” but simply witnesses of God’s love. Of a God who listens, who loves us, who understands us, and who invites us to grow in love.
How far we still have to go!
Perhaps it is time to be an open, synodal, prophetic Church that does not judge, but invites everyone, in the name of Jesus, to be part of the Lord’s family, growing in holiness, healing the wounds of the human heart.
And no! This does not mean that everything is good.
It means that we are all invited.
Published originally in Religión Digital:
https://www.religiondigital.org/opinion/Charlie-Kirk-disfrazar-constructivo-polarizante_0_2821217880.html