Introduction
This final post continues the breakdown of my exchange with Anthony Wade of @The ScatteredSheep Podcast (TSSP), focusing on the one issue that remained unresolved between us: whether Charlie Kirk’s words were racist — and how Christians reason their way toward, or away from, that judgment.
In Part 1- In the Aftermath, I explained the framework I bring to questions of speech, motive, and labels — why definitions matter, why intent matters, and why Christians should be careful with moral accusations. In Theology, Discernment, and the Clash Over Charlie Kirk (Part 2), I traced how that framework collided with Wade’s discernment methodology during our interaction.
This is where the exchange narrowed to the real point of disagreement:
What counts as evidence of racism, and how do Christians judge meaning without collapsing intent, impact, and accusation into a single moral reflex?
Wade held a settled conviction that Kirk’s speech was racist, hateful, and deceptive. I was not convinced of that conclusion — though, as I stated clearly in Part 1, I could be wrong and would be open to correction if compelling evidence warranted it. The spark for this conversation was not simply whether Charlie Kirk said something wrong, but how Christians assign meaning, determine guilt, and communicate moral boundaries in public discourse.
Wade did give a clear definition of martyr, which I appreciated. Yet when I asked him to define racism, he declined — and that refusal exposed the heart of our disagreement. I was asking for clarity of meaning; he believed the meaning was already obvious.
Without shared definitions, Christians end up arguing not only about conclusions but about the very criteria for reaching them.
Questioning intent is not a way of excusing speech or dismissing moral responsibility. It is how we determine whether a moral label accurately describes the speaker rather than merely registering disapproval of the words themselves — especially when claims of harm are asserted but never clearly articulated.
1. What Wade Believed He Was Identifying
From Wade’s perspective, the matter was straightforward: Charlie Kirk’s statements were racist, the intent was obvious, and Christians have a duty to condemn harmful speech quickly and clearly.
Wade’s core convictions as they emerged in the video and our exchange:
-
Racism is a moral category with clear boundaries.
-
Kirk’s statements were objectively racist; context cannot alter that.
-
Lying about DEI or racial quotas constitutes willful deception.
-
Intent does not mitigate harm: impact defines meaning.
-
Discernment requires labeling harmful speech without hesitation.
-
The Church is in danger because some believers elevate Kirk as a hero.
-
“Truth is not malleable” — claims must be judged as fact or lie.
-
Christians who hesitate to condemn harmful rhetoric risk enabling it.
How this came across publicly:
Wade communicated from a moral-absolutist stance: when speech causes harm, rebuke must be immediate and un-nuanced.
2. What I Was Actually Saying (Even When I Didn’t Spell It Out)
My disagreement wasn’t with the existence of sin, or the reality of harmful speech.
It was with the confidence of the accusation and the criteria being used to justify it.
My position, clarified:
-
The conflict centered on the meaning of the word racist.
-
“Racist” is a term with expanded, shifting, and sometimes inconsistent usage.
-
Intent and context matter in interpretation.
-
Overconfident labeling creates new forms of injustice.
-
I wasn’t defending CK’s rhetoric — I was questioning the standard of evidence.
-
If we don’t know someone’s heart, we should not speak as if we do.
-
CK acknowledged these were intrusive, sinful thoughts— that complicates motive attribution.
-
Celebrations of his murder, while using the same quotes to justify it, demonstrated a deeper moral distortion than anything in these particular quotes.
-
Two extremes distort truth:
-
some deify CK,
-
others demonize him.
-
How I hope my stance came across publicly:
I was grounding the conversation in interpretive fairness, not political or tribal loyalty.
3. Where We Talked Past Each Other
Even when we used the same words — harm, intent, truth, racism — we were not speaking the same conceptual language.
| My Intention | How Wade Seemed to Interpret It |
|---|---|
| “We must scrutinize definitions.” | “You’re minimizing harm.” |
| “Context helps us interpret meaning.” | “You’re excusing wrongdoing.” |
| “We should avoid presuming motives.” | “You’re afraid to speak boldly.” |
| “Both extremes distort truth.” | “You’re equivocating or being political.” |
Our reasoning paths didn’t meet because they started from different assumptions about how moral knowledge works.
4. The Framework Clash Beneath the Disagreement
The conflict was not personal — it was epistemological.
We were applying two legitimate, but incompatible, approaches to moral discernment.
| My Framework | Wade’s Framework |
|---|---|
| Theology shapes rhetoric. | Rhetoric reveals theology. |
| Interpretation → judgment. | Judgment → interpretation. |
| Intent + context = meaning. | Impact = meaning. |
| Language must be clarified. | Language has fixed moral weight. |
| Case-by-case discernment. | Corruption is contagious; act quickly. |
| Epistemic humility. | Moral certainty. |
Core tension:
-
I was trying to understand what was meant.
-
Wade was trying to judge what should be allowed.
Both approaches aim at truth — but they prioritize different safeguards.
Resulting perceptions:
-
A fair-minded observer might see my approach as consistent, careful, and humanizing.
-
Wade likely saw it as risking confusion or moral compromise.
Both views make internal sense.
They simply address different dangers.
5. What This Reveals About How Christians Judge Accusations
The exchange exposed a recurring problem in how Christians handle public controversy:
-
Moral urgency accelerates conclusions.
-
Interpretive humility slows them.
Neither wants to betray the truth.
But when urgency operates without humility:
-
Oversimplification → false accusation.
And when humility operates without urgency:
-
Over complication → moral paralysis.
The argument over Charlie Kirk wasn’t just political.
It exposed deeper fault lines in how Christians understand:
-
responsibility
-
speech ethics
-
motives
-
sin
-
epistemology
-
charity
-
and the limits of judgment
Put differently:
We often agree on the destination (truth),
but argue about the map.
6. A Clear, Quiet Ending
By the end of our exchange, I tried to put into words what I believed Wade was doing in his videos. I said:
“You (in this video) seem to be coming at this from a kind of ‘protect the Church from bad theology’ perspective in your own sort of way.
I am not sure if you think Kirk’s ideas were more of a threat to the Church or to the people he supposedly hated.”
Wade confirmed that understanding, replying:
“This channel is a discernment ministry.
So yes, it is about trying to protect the church per se.If the church was not actively deifying him, I would probably never have commented on this other than to say no one deserves to be shot for expressing their opinion.”
We did not resolve our disagreement about Charlie Kirk’s motives, intentions, or meaning.
But we did arrive at clarity about our priorities and our respective aims.
That clarity was its own form of peace.
If more Christian disagreements ended with clarity rather than caricature, we might find that unity does not require uniformity of method — only honesty about the good each person is trying to protect.
No comments:
Post a Comment