by Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov) –
What is especially admirable about Charlie Kirk is his willingness to go and speak about the Kingdom of Heaven, about traditional values, about conservative principles in the very places that seemed most unsuitable.
Just a week ago, the name Charlie Kirk was virtually unknown in Russia. Then, like a supernova explosion, he burst into our information space, unleashing a wave of both indignation and admiration. Some saw in him the embodiment of values they found unacceptable and reacted with open hatred and outrage toward Kirk: “How can an American (an American!) be like that?”
Others—astonished and grieved that he is no longer among the living—discovered in him an unexpected kindred spirit. Death, without a doubt, became both the chief sermon and the pinnacle of Charles Kirk’s ministry. It also illuminated his complete image—one filled with faith, resolve, and Christian love—refuting the slanders of those who read the Gospel with their soul’s eyes shut, failing to understand that the bold defense of Gospel truth is love in action.
The murderer—and all those who stood behind him—are powerless to place a final period on the existence of a man who believes in Christ. And in the hearts of millions of his like-minded followers and friends, Charlie’s martyric death breathed new, greatly multiplied life in service of their goals, thoughts, and convictions.
In an age of post-truth, relativism, and libertarianism—when reality is constructed by the media and social networks, and conformity has become the norm—truth is drowning in a sea of political correctness. Charlie Kirk dared to go against the current. He acknowledged no shades of gray, no compromises, no deals with the conscience. He couldn’t have cared less about what was fashionable, accepted, or dictated by the crowd. He allowed himself a luxury almost unheard of in our time—to call things by their proper names, even if that meant that such a royal choice would, inevitably and without a doubt, bring a series of consequences, including the most dreadful ones.
What is especially admirable about Charlie Kirk is his willingness to go and speak about the Kingdom of Heaven, about traditional values, about conservative principles in the very places that seemed most unsuitable—places whose inhabitants, for the most part, do not want to hear anything of the kind. He chose a “mission field” perhaps the most important, but—as we now see—far from safe, not unlike preaching somewhere among a tribe of cannibals. University campuses, the youth culture of Generations Z and Y. But Charlie Kirk, even among these young and often aggressive beings—so dearly loved by him in a truly Christian way, each one of whom he saw as bearing the image and likeness of God—was not afraid to be a “black sheep,” was not afraid to go against the current, was not afraid to speak the truth as he understood it, even if it frequently provoked anger and rejection.
The example of Charlie Kirk is a lesson for us.
Here is what Jordan Peterson wrote about him: Charlie came out of nowhere ten years ago and built the world’s most influential organization of young conservatives. And he did that from scratch. He did that by going to universities, pretty much single handedly, setting up card tables, offering to discuss and debate all the issues that weren’t being discussed and debated in these places, set up for exactly that reason, and iterating as he grew, establishing conservative clubs on campuses all across the United States, building a grassroots organization, learning how to debate despite the fact that he hadn’t gone to college…”
We must not underestimate the great labor of countless Russian missionaries over the past decades. But—this is no secret—our nation has not yet overcome its centuries-old chronic weakness: the urge to imitate the West, which in its extremes becomes something contrary to true preaching. Some Orthodox missionaries, undoubtedly driven by the best intentions, after watching too many Western modernist preachers, try to please everyone and, in adapting to the tastes of youth, stoop to tasteless jokes and playful “missionary gimmicks.”
The example and astonishing success of Charlie Kirk—who, it would seem, comes from that very same Western culture, but used a completely different approach—compels us to reflect on what is truly effective in missionary work. Charlie had the intelligence and tact to respect the intellect of his young interlocutors, to speak with them seriously, as equals, without descending into clownery.
Charlie Kirk spoke, first and foremost, about what he truly believed. His sincere passion, integrity, and conviction were contagious to young people and compelled them to think. That is precisely why he was both loved and hated—but he left no one indifferent.
The life and death of Charlie Kirk—his entire life’s work—cannot help but evoke the deepest respect. His stand against retreat and decline, against what our Orthodox elder Father John (Krestiankin) once called “the march of the destroyer,” proved, despite the confessional differences, to be strikingly resonant for many of us.
+ Metropolitan Tikhon of Simferopol and Crimea
—————————————————
HT: Orthodox Christianity. (Bolding of key words and phrases, and some minor content organizational changes made by blog editors to improve readability.)
