Tangled Up

Image by Marc Pascual from Pixabay

There was some unhealthy teaching attached to the purity culture of my teenage years in the church. Often it was implicitly rather than explicitly said, but it was the idea that I, as a woman, was responsible, from my clothing choices, for the actions of my brothers in Christ. It was tricky, because I do believe that as a human that loves others, I should make choices, understanding that it does affect others: and I want to be a positive, healthy influence. But this was a distortion of that truth. This is confusing correlation with causation.

The idea that someone else’s actions are BECAUSE of your choices: that can be dangerous. Let me say it clearly: if a woman is raped or sexually abused, it is because that man chose to make that evil choice. We are all to be held responsible for our OWN actions. Understanding that, and also that we cannot control other people’s reactions is an important step to healthy boundaries. I’ve seen two extremes in responses: some women wearing provocative clothing and saying “You can look but not touch.” They want a response, so they feel vindicated in their anger. It is a tease. It does not excuse a wrong, violent response, but it is used to bait and cry victim.

I’ve also seen people say things like “She asked for it” or “She deserved it” when women were attacked and raped. A more subtle version is “What was she wearing?” as the first question when hearing someone was raped. As if her clothing (or lack of clothing) was a magic potion that forced that man to rape her. No matter what, clothing choice does not equal rape. Rape is never a valid response to any clothing choice.

**

There have been some unhealthy responses attached to the killing of Charlie Kirk in our society. Often it was implicitly rather than explicitly said, but it was the idea that Charlie was killed for “Telling the truth” or “Being a Christian” or “Being effective.” In essence: he was killed because of his words. It is tricky, because I do believe that as a human that loves others, I should choose my words wisely, understanding that it does affect others: and I want to be a positive, healthy influence. But this was a distortion of that truth. This is confusing correlation with causation.

The idea that the shooters actions were BECAUSE of Charlie’s words: that can be dangerous. Let me say it clearly: Charlie was killed because the shooter made the evil choice to shoot and kill him. We are all to be held responsible for our OWN actions. Understanding that, and also that we cannot control other people’s reactions is an important step to healthy boundaries. I’ve seen two extremes in responses: some people deciding that this is the time to use MORE extreme political language and saying “You have no idea what you’ve unleashed” or “It’s too late to turn the temperature down.” They want a response, so they feel vindicated in their anger. It is a tease. It does not excuse a wrong, violent response, but it is used to bait and cry victim.

I’ve also seen people say things like “He asked for it” or “He deserved it.” A more subtle version is “Well what did Charlie say about guns?” Being the first question when they heard he was shot. As if Charlie’s words were a magic potion that forced that man to shoot him. No matter what, words do not equal murder. Murder is never a valid response to any words spoken.

**

Many responses I see seem to imagine a back room where “they” (whoever the person is against politically) are gathered together to make master plans to do the next bad thing to my side politically. “They killed Charlie.” Or “They are coming for me/you next.” In partisan politics, says Michael Brendan Dougherty, “When my opponents do something wrong, that’s emblematic, but when my allies do something wrong, that’s exceptional.” If someone on my side commits political violence, that is the exception to the case, but if they do it: that’s because it is who they are. “As a result, no matter the direction of the tragedy, the end result is the same — the right grows angrier at the left, and the left grows angrier at the right.” Says David French in his NY times article “There are Monsters in your midst, too.”

Let me leave out the end of John Daniel Davidson’s quote, “Charlie Kirk’s assassination should confirm what we already should have known: We cannot share a country with the _____.” Both sides have their data, proving they have less political violence than the other, to which the exhausted silent middle is laughing. It’s a cynical, hollow sound, but we are laughing at the pot and the kettle and crying because it is our country. When all is said and done, if we look back at everything it is probably about 50/50 because people are people and we have our crazies and our heroes on both sides, whether we claim them or not.

Political violence is something to be spoke out about by everyone, especially our leaders. Political violence against anyone, and perpetrated by anyone. “If we’re convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive authoritarianism is overwhelming. “They” are evil and violent, and “they” must be crushed. If, however, we accurately understand that America has an immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle — even if, at any given moment, one side is worse than the other — then the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination.”- David French

For some, Charlie Kirk’s death is being used as a rallying call to stand with Jesus. I am glad that there are some really amazing people out there really loving people and inviting them into God’s family. But also, I see that often it is all tangled up in the message that is saying “Stand with Jesus against THEM.” For some, Charlie’s been turned into Jesus, a Jesus that looks like a provocative Christian Nationalist Republican, which is a false gospel. That isn’t the Jesus of the Bible, and I weep for the generation that will have to detangle the mess that was given to them as a foundational part of their Christianity, just as I had to struggle through untangling the mess of purity culture that I grew up with. We are not grieving his death well. We are not grieving so many things well. Unhealthy grieving is demonizing or saint-ifying a human for our own agenda, to further our own narrative. May we fall in love our Lord, and His breathtakingly beautiful plan of reconciliation instead.