I'm angry. Not necessarily at Robinson, whose heinous misguided action seems to have opened the floodgates that have been shut for far too long.
And that's why I'm angry. I've been forced to act OK with idiot pronouns, body-mutilation, and all manner of soul-crushing dogma for years now. The very dogma and mythical attachments that pushed not just Tyler -- but has been pushing young people into destroying themselves and by that measure, destroying their -- and our -- future.
I pity Robinson. He's in hell, and his hell will be magnified and presented for all the world to see. He was duped. His trans partner is duped. They were played as fools.
But I'm angry because no matter which way I turned the words -- as Kirk was doing -- trying to engage in GOOD FAITH--
I was met with BAD FAITH in return.
By people who've known me for decades, in some cases. I was guillotined for NOT hating Elon Musk by someone I really truly liked.
So yes, I'm angry. And I don't want to be angry anymore. In order for that feeling to ameliorate, I need to be F'n heard by the sinners who have somehow convinced themselves that evil is good, and no one should dare say otherwise.
Remember who is behind the deception. The blind leading the blind both fall into a pit. The father of lies is the devil. And our war is spiritual. So I pray that the lies would be exposed. It’s God’s kindness that leads to repentance, not any sharp or exquisite words from the minds of people. It’s fine to be angry at injustice but the root of it is simply lost people being consumed by darkness.
I generally find some common ground with your commentary but you’ve lost me on your responses to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I didn’t necessarily expect the killer to be a raving loon but it turns out that he is somehow even worse. He had less emotion than a hit man, did the act as if it were his day job but for reasons that require us to reject any rationalizations that he presented to his friends and his intimate. Further, I get the impression that he would have been fine with someone else taking the fall for him.
Did you expect him to be an exemplary person? No. He thought he could get away with it. That’s just one lie he bought out of a whole grocery store of lies. My response is to look at it from God’s perspective which is shown by Christ in the Bible. And anger is not the answer.
Hate the sin and not the sinner, I agree with that. But as far as anger is concerned, I am angry with the killer and even more so with a climate that celebrates violence against those who won’t subscribe to the ideology du jour.
Folks will characterize Tyler Robinson in a hundred different ways as long as they hit upon a version of him that comfortably reinforces their political or social viewpoint.
So be it. That’s their prerogative.
My take is he’s a confused, fucked-up young man who made a conscious decision to become a stone cold killer. And he needs to suffer the full consequences of his actions, in this world and whatever comes after.
I don't hate Tyler Robinson, either. Recent news is calling into question the extent of his involvement in this, as well. I'm still not convinced that he isn't just a patsy.
I continue to be alarmed at the degree of hatred leveled at Charlie Kirk, even after death. Many are misquoting him, or outright lying about his words, while spewing out depraved rants on social media. Some are positively gleeful about the assassination, asking why anyone should even have sympathy for his family, or lamenting the fact that he wasn't tortured.
These are the people I pray for the hardest, because their lives are so twisted with hate that they will never know peace.
Well written article Steve. I fully agree with your perspective that TR is lost and being angry and/or hating him isn't the way God would have us look at him or the situation. Extending the idea a bit further, is there any murderer or other lost soul that does merit our anger and hatred, or would God have us see all despicable acts as ones being done by a lost soul that needs our prayers more than anything else? And does that perspective of compassion and understanding not just potentially help the lost soul, but does it not also help us keep our own peace of mind and not get caught into the drama of this world?
I get the forgiveness angle, and I do support your overall message.
However, you make many errors in the terms you use.
Committing a crime in the name of love is definitely not what makes something a crime of passion.
Even discounting suspected gang-related crime, a huge percentage of crimes - even murders - go unsolved. Only about 58% of reported murders are ever solved in the U.S., and we cannot know how many of those were definitively gang-related (because they’re unsolved). Also, infant deaths by stray bullets, while immensely tragic, are not technically murder (though the shooter may be found guilty of such). Homicide victims, absolutely, but murder suggests intent.
The Greek language (in this case, Koine Greek), as you note, has several different words for love.
“Eros” refers specifically to intimate, sexual love. While it appears in the New Testament, it is not the same as the love the Bible teaches.
The word for the type of love in accordance with its teachings, the love of God for man and man for God, is “agapē.”
This is the unconditional, selfless love that a parent may hold for their child and vice-versa. There is a sacrificial quality to this, in that a parent would often willingly step in front of a bullet for their child (or a child for their parent); while it’s a stretch, I can theoretically see the association with firing a preemptive bullet for the same cause - but it doesn’t fit with “eros” - which would be the love between the shooter and his eunuch.
The love for one’s enemies is “philia” - the brotherly love that we are encouraged to embrace for all our fellow sinners (though agapē could also fit).
You point to the distinction between a few of these, but then blur the concepts.
Ultimately, I support your thesis. Some of the details, however, are imperfect.
I appreciate your thoughts. I get what you’re saying. But I meant what I wrote and believe I am in the right category for “crime of passion.” Legally, no: a crime of passion is not premeditated, by definition. However, I was speaking of the heart. It was a crime of opportunity, not for gain, but for lust, not lust for killing, but a passion of belief.
Also, I didn’t say a small percentage of murders go unsolved. I said a small percentage of premeditated murders go unsolved. Again, I am not using legal terms of art; though the same words are used that way. And let’s not confuse “leading to conviction” with “solved”. Knowing who did it and convicting them in court are two different things.
His trans lover did the right thing, and turned over Tyler to the cops even though the murder was done to protect his trans lover.
It would be nice to see Lance given any credit at all for this. Doing the right thing? Giving your lover up to be killed by people who hate you because it is the right thing to do?
That’s an angle I have not seen explored. It appears that Tyler Robinson was head over heels I love with Lance/Luna. But was it mutual and just as fervent? Was Tyler trying to win greater affection from Lance/Luna? Did he kill Kirk to impress his “love”? Totally unclear at this point but I expect we will know soon.
I’m glad I kept reading; wasn’t sure where this was going until you got to “God’s perspective” and the scripture. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Berman. The parable of the prodigal is my favorite, because it rings true in my life.
I find it hard to understand your reasoning in this article. You seem to be saying that you can’t be angry with Tyler Robinson because he’s a lost sheep. From a Christian perspective anyone who commits any horrific crime is a lost sheep. Does that mean we can’t be angry with them? And later in the article you appear to equate anger with hate. You can be angry with someone but not hate them. TBH I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say in this article. But I’ll tell you why I’m angry: because a large section of our society now thinks it is okay to end someone’s life simply because they say something you don’t agree with. It’s cancel culture taken to the extreme.
I am talking about my own experience. If you want to make doctrine out of it, that’s on you. But no, I can’t summon anger for this killer. There’s other killers I have plenty of anger for. So it’s not my doctrine. Am I required to manufacture anger when I grieve over a lost soul?
A man was killed for speaking his mind, and you can't be angry about that?
A man was killed for standing on his principles in the face of adversarial if not hostile crowds, and you cannot be angry about that?
A man was killed for valorizing above all else the importance of people talking through their disagreements, and you can't be angry about that?
You can't be angry that Tyler Robinson believed murder was the acceptable means to confront ideas he found objectionable?
You can't be angry that more people than Tyler Robinson have shown a willingness to be guided by hatred rather than by reason?
If Charlie Kirk's assassination does not awaken righteous anger within you, that says much about what is within you, none of it good, charitable, or commendable.
I pity you the poverty of your soul, that you are not angered by evil.
I pray you will someday find your soul filled with enough good to understand that evil should make us angry.
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Deuteronomy 24:16
People are always well advised to repent of their sins and seek God's forgiveness.
Tyler Robinson hopefully repents of his sin. That would be a wondrous thing.
Will the people who cheered Charlie Kirk's killing repent of their sin? It would be miraculous if they did.
Until they do repent, however, how can we value human life and not be horrified by what has been said in celebration of murder? How can we value human life and not be enraged by those who do not?
How can we advocate for the moral imperative of Free Speech and not be angered by the lengths people will go to silence and suppress speech? How can we not be appalled that those who have cheered Charlie Kirk's murder have said that the killing should not end with Charlie Kirk?
We all are well advised to repent of our sins. However, I challenge your assumption that anger at Charlie Kirk's assassination numbers among anyone's sins.
This post will not get you canceled, Steve. You are too good of a man for that. It does seem like a trial balloon that mixes your Christian values with criticism of a popular conservative victim just to see what the comments might be.
You essentially called Charlie Kirk a charlatan. I did not think he was, but I do not know much about him except he was lumped into a group of people like Riley Gaines, Ann Coulter and a few others who ae detested by left-wing campus radicals because they are somewhat conservative. You don't hate Tyler Robinson because to do so would not be Christian. I don't hate him either, but I would if he had murdered a close friend or family member who might have been imperfect or in the wrong political cohort or Jewish.
I do not believe, nor do I think or intended to call Charlie Kirk a charlatan. He genuinely believed most of what he said. But the way he said it was frequently designed to maximize press and controversy. Because that brings more supporters. Also some of the stuff he repeated was flat out conspiracy theory stuff. He may not have started those, but he did further them. His proximity to Trump always troubled me some. He bent the knee.
As for close friend and hate, this is not that. Charlie should not have been murdered for his politics, period, full stop, no excuse. That doesn’t mean anyone who agrees with the politics must be angry all the time at the killer. Many Christians have forgiven the killers of family members and found the strength to not be angry.
You say that you "do not believe,nor do I think or intended to call Charlie Kirk a charlatan". In the next sentence you he "genuinely believed most of what he said" . May I remind you , you are not God. To know another man's heart is a God thing. Did you know Charlie Kirk? Enough to know his heart? You criticize him for being close to Trump, I realize he supported Trump for President, but could he also been close to try to bring Christ in to the White House? Were you privy to those conversations?
Yes, we are called to preach love and forgiveness to all. Even murderers. You should have stuck to that message. If you want to criticize the character of a dead man, who cannot defend himself, do not preach the power of God's Love and Forgiveness.
Just one note, the lover is not 'transitioning to female' because such a thing is impossible. He might be getting surgeries or hormones to try to look female, but not one cell of his male body will 'transition' to female. We shouldn't use language that misleads people and affirms delusion.
Thanks for the Andrew Ngo link - I've been seeing folks talk about this a bit more confidently than the evidence would suggest, but his article did a good job closing that gap for me.
Just curious, can you find it in your soul to be angry with the demonic liars who convinced Tyler and his boyfriend it was possible for a man to become a woman? Or are they just poor, tragic figures who also deserve pity?
I'm angry. Not necessarily at Robinson, whose heinous misguided action seems to have opened the floodgates that have been shut for far too long.
And that's why I'm angry. I've been forced to act OK with idiot pronouns, body-mutilation, and all manner of soul-crushing dogma for years now. The very dogma and mythical attachments that pushed not just Tyler -- but has been pushing young people into destroying themselves and by that measure, destroying their -- and our -- future.
I pity Robinson. He's in hell, and his hell will be magnified and presented for all the world to see. He was duped. His trans partner is duped. They were played as fools.
But I'm angry because no matter which way I turned the words -- as Kirk was doing -- trying to engage in GOOD FAITH--
I was met with BAD FAITH in return.
By people who've known me for decades, in some cases. I was guillotined for NOT hating Elon Musk by someone I really truly liked.
So yes, I'm angry. And I don't want to be angry anymore. In order for that feeling to ameliorate, I need to be F'n heard by the sinners who have somehow convinced themselves that evil is good, and no one should dare say otherwise.
Remember who is behind the deception. The blind leading the blind both fall into a pit. The father of lies is the devil. And our war is spiritual. So I pray that the lies would be exposed. It’s God’s kindness that leads to repentance, not any sharp or exquisite words from the minds of people. It’s fine to be angry at injustice but the root of it is simply lost people being consumed by darkness.
Perfectly said!
I generally find some common ground with your commentary but you’ve lost me on your responses to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I didn’t necessarily expect the killer to be a raving loon but it turns out that he is somehow even worse. He had less emotion than a hit man, did the act as if it were his day job but for reasons that require us to reject any rationalizations that he presented to his friends and his intimate. Further, I get the impression that he would have been fine with someone else taking the fall for him.
Did you expect him to be an exemplary person? No. He thought he could get away with it. That’s just one lie he bought out of a whole grocery store of lies. My response is to look at it from God’s perspective which is shown by Christ in the Bible. And anger is not the answer.
Hate the sin and not the sinner, I agree with that. But as far as anger is concerned, I am angry with the killer and even more so with a climate that celebrates violence against those who won’t subscribe to the ideology du jour.
I am angry with a righteous anger. There is a difference.
Folks will characterize Tyler Robinson in a hundred different ways as long as they hit upon a version of him that comfortably reinforces their political or social viewpoint.
So be it. That’s their prerogative.
My take is he’s a confused, fucked-up young man who made a conscious decision to become a stone cold killer. And he needs to suffer the full consequences of his actions, in this world and whatever comes after.
Agreed.
Interesting take.
I don't hate Tyler Robinson, either. Recent news is calling into question the extent of his involvement in this, as well. I'm still not convinced that he isn't just a patsy.
I continue to be alarmed at the degree of hatred leveled at Charlie Kirk, even after death. Many are misquoting him, or outright lying about his words, while spewing out depraved rants on social media. Some are positively gleeful about the assassination, asking why anyone should even have sympathy for his family, or lamenting the fact that he wasn't tortured.
These are the people I pray for the hardest, because their lives are so twisted with hate that they will never know peace.
Well written article Steve. I fully agree with your perspective that TR is lost and being angry and/or hating him isn't the way God would have us look at him or the situation. Extending the idea a bit further, is there any murderer or other lost soul that does merit our anger and hatred, or would God have us see all despicable acts as ones being done by a lost soul that needs our prayers more than anything else? And does that perspective of compassion and understanding not just potentially help the lost soul, but does it not also help us keep our own peace of mind and not get caught into the drama of this world?
I get the forgiveness angle, and I do support your overall message.
However, you make many errors in the terms you use.
Committing a crime in the name of love is definitely not what makes something a crime of passion.
Even discounting suspected gang-related crime, a huge percentage of crimes - even murders - go unsolved. Only about 58% of reported murders are ever solved in the U.S., and we cannot know how many of those were definitively gang-related (because they’re unsolved). Also, infant deaths by stray bullets, while immensely tragic, are not technically murder (though the shooter may be found guilty of such). Homicide victims, absolutely, but murder suggests intent.
The Greek language (in this case, Koine Greek), as you note, has several different words for love.
“Eros” refers specifically to intimate, sexual love. While it appears in the New Testament, it is not the same as the love the Bible teaches.
The word for the type of love in accordance with its teachings, the love of God for man and man for God, is “agapē.”
This is the unconditional, selfless love that a parent may hold for their child and vice-versa. There is a sacrificial quality to this, in that a parent would often willingly step in front of a bullet for their child (or a child for their parent); while it’s a stretch, I can theoretically see the association with firing a preemptive bullet for the same cause - but it doesn’t fit with “eros” - which would be the love between the shooter and his eunuch.
The love for one’s enemies is “philia” - the brotherly love that we are encouraged to embrace for all our fellow sinners (though agapē could also fit).
You point to the distinction between a few of these, but then blur the concepts.
Ultimately, I support your thesis. Some of the details, however, are imperfect.
I appreciate your thoughts. I get what you’re saying. But I meant what I wrote and believe I am in the right category for “crime of passion.” Legally, no: a crime of passion is not premeditated, by definition. However, I was speaking of the heart. It was a crime of opportunity, not for gain, but for lust, not lust for killing, but a passion of belief.
Also, I didn’t say a small percentage of murders go unsolved. I said a small percentage of premeditated murders go unsolved. Again, I am not using legal terms of art; though the same words are used that way. And let’s not confuse “leading to conviction” with “solved”. Knowing who did it and convicting them in court are two different things.
In any case, thank you for the kind words.
I was thinking much the same way, and I hope Tyler receives God’s love and forgiveness before he is executed.
'His trans lover is lost in the same way.'
His trans lover did the right thing, and turned over Tyler to the cops even though the murder was done to protect his trans lover.
It would be nice to see Lance given any credit at all for this. Doing the right thing? Giving your lover up to be killed by people who hate you because it is the right thing to do?
That is hard.
That’s an angle I have not seen explored. It appears that Tyler Robinson was head over heels I love with Lance/Luna. But was it mutual and just as fervent? Was Tyler trying to win greater affection from Lance/Luna? Did he kill Kirk to impress his “love”? Totally unclear at this point but I expect we will know soon.
I guess you most have missed the Kirk videos of him wiping the floor with his debating opponents at Oxford.
Speaks poorly of Oxford.
I’m glad I kept reading; wasn’t sure where this was going until you got to “God’s perspective” and the scripture. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Berman. The parable of the prodigal is my favorite, because it rings true in my life.
I find it hard to understand your reasoning in this article. You seem to be saying that you can’t be angry with Tyler Robinson because he’s a lost sheep. From a Christian perspective anyone who commits any horrific crime is a lost sheep. Does that mean we can’t be angry with them? And later in the article you appear to equate anger with hate. You can be angry with someone but not hate them. TBH I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say in this article. But I’ll tell you why I’m angry: because a large section of our society now thinks it is okay to end someone’s life simply because they say something you don’t agree with. It’s cancel culture taken to the extreme.
I am talking about my own experience. If you want to make doctrine out of it, that’s on you. But no, I can’t summon anger for this killer. There’s other killers I have plenty of anger for. So it’s not my doctrine. Am I required to manufacture anger when I grieve over a lost soul?
A man was killed for speaking his mind, and you can't be angry about that?
A man was killed for standing on his principles in the face of adversarial if not hostile crowds, and you cannot be angry about that?
A man was killed for valorizing above all else the importance of people talking through their disagreements, and you can't be angry about that?
You can't be angry that Tyler Robinson believed murder was the acceptable means to confront ideas he found objectionable?
You can't be angry that more people than Tyler Robinson have shown a willingness to be guided by hatred rather than by reason?
If Charlie Kirk's assassination does not awaken righteous anger within you, that says much about what is within you, none of it good, charitable, or commendable.
I pity you the poverty of your soul, that you are not angered by evil.
I pray you will someday find your soul filled with enough good to understand that evil should make us angry.
I am angry others are making it about victimhood. I want to see everyone come to repentance. I believe Charlie Kirk believed that also.
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Deuteronomy 24:16
People are always well advised to repent of their sins and seek God's forgiveness.
Tyler Robinson hopefully repents of his sin. That would be a wondrous thing.
Will the people who cheered Charlie Kirk's killing repent of their sin? It would be miraculous if they did.
Until they do repent, however, how can we value human life and not be horrified by what has been said in celebration of murder? How can we value human life and not be enraged by those who do not?
How can we advocate for the moral imperative of Free Speech and not be angered by the lengths people will go to silence and suppress speech? How can we not be appalled that those who have cheered Charlie Kirk's murder have said that the killing should not end with Charlie Kirk?
We all are well advised to repent of our sins. However, I challenge your assumption that anger at Charlie Kirk's assassination numbers among anyone's sins.
The person who wrote this article exhibits the very embodiment of suicidal empathy.
A lot of people out there will use your kindness against you.
This post will not get you canceled, Steve. You are too good of a man for that. It does seem like a trial balloon that mixes your Christian values with criticism of a popular conservative victim just to see what the comments might be.
I’m not that clever to try.
You essentially called Charlie Kirk a charlatan. I did not think he was, but I do not know much about him except he was lumped into a group of people like Riley Gaines, Ann Coulter and a few others who ae detested by left-wing campus radicals because they are somewhat conservative. You don't hate Tyler Robinson because to do so would not be Christian. I don't hate him either, but I would if he had murdered a close friend or family member who might have been imperfect or in the wrong political cohort or Jewish.
I do not believe, nor do I think or intended to call Charlie Kirk a charlatan. He genuinely believed most of what he said. But the way he said it was frequently designed to maximize press and controversy. Because that brings more supporters. Also some of the stuff he repeated was flat out conspiracy theory stuff. He may not have started those, but he did further them. His proximity to Trump always troubled me some. He bent the knee.
As for close friend and hate, this is not that. Charlie should not have been murdered for his politics, period, full stop, no excuse. That doesn’t mean anyone who agrees with the politics must be angry all the time at the killer. Many Christians have forgiven the killers of family members and found the strength to not be angry.
My apologies. If one does not wish to say things in a way to maximize their impact, he is wasting time by saying anything.
Steve
You say that you "do not believe,nor do I think or intended to call Charlie Kirk a charlatan". In the next sentence you he "genuinely believed most of what he said" . May I remind you , you are not God. To know another man's heart is a God thing. Did you know Charlie Kirk? Enough to know his heart? You criticize him for being close to Trump, I realize he supported Trump for President, but could he also been close to try to bring Christ in to the White House? Were you privy to those conversations?
Yes, we are called to preach love and forgiveness to all. Even murderers. You should have stuck to that message. If you want to criticize the character of a dead man, who cannot defend himself, do not preach the power of God's Love and Forgiveness.
Just one note, the lover is not 'transitioning to female' because such a thing is impossible. He might be getting surgeries or hormones to try to look female, but not one cell of his male body will 'transition' to female. We shouldn't use language that misleads people and affirms delusion.
Thanks for the Andrew Ngo link - I've been seeing folks talk about this a bit more confidently than the evidence would suggest, but his article did a good job closing that gap for me.
Just curious, can you find it in your soul to be angry with the demonic liars who convinced Tyler and his boyfriend it was possible for a man to become a woman? Or are they just poor, tragic figures who also deserve pity?