"How did we ever get here?"
That's what Altona pastor, Richard Bage, is challenging everyone, regardless of political stripe or religious standing, to ask themselves after the fatal shooting of American conservative political commentator and activist, Charlie Kirk.
Kirk was fatally shot this week in the United States. The incident has sparked widespread reactions across social and political communities, with public figures and private citizens expressing grief, concern, and calls for reflection.
Related stories:
'He was unashamed to be Charlie Kirk'
“He knew who he was. He knew what he believed. And he was not scared to share truth, to share what he believes with everyone," said Bage.
Kirk was best known for his conservative political commentary. His public appearances, including debates and Q&A sessions, often revealed a personal interest in discussing theology and Christian faith.
“He knew that his job was to talk politics. But whenever he had the opportunity to, he was also someone who was incredibly excited and passionate and wanting to talk about his faith," noted Bage.
Reactions and significance
Bage acknowledged the significant public response following Kirk's death. He believes part of the reason for the widespread attention is due to Kirk's approach to public discourse.
“Charlie was one of those people that went out of his way to engage with people that disagreed with him. He was conservative politically. He was conservative theologically. It would make sense that you would think he would go to Bible schools and to large churches and hold rallies. That's not what he was known for. He was rather known for going across the country and going to universities and college campuses and talking to university students, who are known to be much more on the liberal side than he is, and would very intentionally go out of his way to have conversations with people that disagreed with him, even though that seemed to be the complete opposite of what you see in so much other political discourse."
According to Bage, Kirk's style of disagreement was notable for its tone.
"You would see, regularly, people yelling at him, name-calling him, saying incredibly derogatory things to him and about him. Charlie never reciprocated. Yes, he would disagree with you, and he would very unapologetically tell you his understanding of the truth and he wouldn't compromise what he believes to be true and he shared it unapologetically. But he didn't do so with that vile anger that we see so often in politics."
Premier Wab Kinew comments on Charlie Kirk's death.
Bage suggested that Kirk's killing stands out, in part, because he did not hold public office.
“Typically, when we see assassination attempts, they are usually done at or towards political leaders... Charlie didn’t hold political office.”
He emphasized that Kirk’s role was centered on public speaking and debate rather than legislative power.
“It seems, again, we don’t know the motive yet for the person that fired that shot. But very early on, it looks as if he was killed because of his beliefs.”
Concerns about future precedent
Asked whether this event could set a new precedent for how society engages with ideological opponents, Bage said:
“I hope not...Regardless of what you thought of Charlie and of what he believed in... we will look at this and ask ourselves, how did we ever get here? What led us to such a place where somebody can be shot down in a public square because he disagreed with people?"
Bage called for public self-examination rather than blame.
"My hope is that in the days and weeks after this that, collectively, we do this examination as individuals. What do we have to do to turn down the rhetoric? What do you need to do to turn down the hate, to ensure that we never got back here again, regardless of how much we think somebody is wrong or how much we might disagree with someone's politics or someone's theology."
How do we do that?
"So, we can refrain from looking at our neighbour with such hatred, such animosity that it could cause us to delight in somebody's death or say, 'I'm indifferent', which is also incredibly scary," said Bage.
As a Christians, Bage believes that path can be easier.
"When we have those disagreements, when we find ourselves in opposition, when we feel incredibly self-righteous about how right we are or how wrong somebody else is, we need to remind ourselves that no matter how wrong we believe that person to be, they are still image bearers of God. And the Jesus that I declare as Lord sees them as somebody worth dying for," he said, noting this is a good starting point. "So, if Jesus can have that much love for them, and if they themselves are image bearers of God, how can I as a believer, harbor such anger and disgust towards somebody that I would either rejoice or be indifferent in their death?"
Thinking more broadly, Bage referenced the legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his 'I have a dream' speech.
"For those of you who know the historical context in which he lived and did his ministry and gave that speech, you can understand how incredible thought provoking those words actually are. And for all of us, I think that would be a very good starting place - I am going to choose to not wish ill will, hate, death upon anyone, including my enemies."
Approaches to civil discourse
Bage said conversations in modern society often begin by identifying disagreements.
“What if, instead, we went out of our way to find areas of commonality? For all the reasons we may disagree, what are the thoughts, what are the values we are aligned on and hold in common together, and then those are the things we intentionally talk about for the reminder of our time together?"
But what about handling the inevitable disagreements?
"Disagreement and hate are two very different things. Unfortunately, we seem to align those things," said Bage. "We can still choose to love.
Scripture calls us to speak truth and love... and as pastors, scripture commands that's what we teach from the pulpit. We need to be able to do that in our individual discourses as well.
How are you disagreeing with them? Are you name calling them? Are you yelling at them? Are you swearing at them? Are you using derogatory language? Are you doing all of these things to try to get your point across? Or are you trying to have a free exchange of ideas in a loving, respectful kind of way?
But if we can be respectful enough to engage lovingly, respectfully, and if the person across the table from us can do the same, yes, I believe that by anchoring our language and our posture in ways that are loving and gracious, that we can leave a conversation still caring about our neighbour, still caring for that individual, no matter how much they might disagree with me or I might disagree with them.
Is there hope?
Despite the circumstances, Bage concluded with a message of hope rooted in Christian belief:
“Yes, absolutely there is hope... Even on days like today where the world looks incredibly dark and we’re dealing with the aftermath of incredible violence, the hope of God, the hope of Christ is even greater than the darkest days in the world.”