The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: How Justin Giboney and Corey Ruth Navigate America's Political Violence and Christian Response

[Music] Holy. >> We heard shot. >> Oh my god. >> There's been a shooting with a gunshot. Stop folks. >> Charlie Kirk was shot dead. >> On the rooftop is the figure of the assassin. They always come with violence. >> I think he deserved it. >> The number one lesson the church should have wanted people to get out of this was very simply this was tragic, wicked, and it never should have happened. No one deserves to get killed for expressing their opinion. And unfortunately, I think a lot of people on the left said that, but then they said, "But real quick." >> Donald Trump was accused of treason. He was impeached twice. He had his home raided. And then now a young charismatic general from his movement is assassinated. They view this as deeper than toxic rhetoric. Livelihoods are at stake here. It seemed like every Christian was like, "Hey, you have to say something about this." You were so vocal about George Floyd. You were so vocal about all these people. Why are you not vocal about Charlie Kirk? >> You create a company close to being a fascist. That's all it is. >> Can you name one thing I believe that's fascist? Um, you believe that like you >> One of the worst things you could call somebody is a fascist. Most people couldn't define it if you gave it to them. But again, words have meanings. The way that you're provoking people has consequences. The ideas that you put out into the public square have consequences. The last tweet I sent out about Charlie Kirk, probably in July, was basically saying something he said was racist. >> We haven't really grappled with the goals of political violence, which I think is to make you say, "I have children. I have a family. I can't afford to put myself out there that way." If nothing else happened but the image of Charlie Kirk being assassinated, the assassin achieved his goal. I do think that the right in some instances was very opportunistic. The left caused this. They're completely to blame for this. >> I mean, there were opportunists out there, but very, very, very polarizing views on Charlie's death on the left and the right. People say he's a martyr for the Christian faith. On the opposite side, I've heard people cheering for his death, saying this is what he deserves. With views like this on the sides being the most highlighted vantage points, what's a healthy perspective? So, I'm glad you brought that up because >> this is the deep end with LRAY. Well, uh, unless you have just unattached yourself from the news, from social media, from any type of media, um, you know, about, uh, the brutal and, um, horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. Um it has permeated our timelines, our worlds and the information about him. Uh regardless of your perspective on him has been made available everywhere. Um I personally was not very aware of all uh who Charlie Kirk was. I did know of him and um I'd seen a couple of his clips, but it my algorithm did not feed me a lot of information about him. Um and I was taken a back uh you know after his his murder. um not simply because someone was was murdered, but in the way in which it happened and the motive and and the implications and the impact. And I've been even more taken aback in the coming days in the in the in the days after because I've I've just not been able to process the level of division and polarity that exists in light of his death. Um and so it's been a lot for me to process and um you know I didn't want to make a premature statement and say, "Oh, I know what this is and this is this and this is that." I I really wanted to take some time to process and to hear from people who were candidly much smarter than me um and more informed than I am. Um and so I also wanted civil conversations. So, um, you know, having two people who've been here before, who were able to discuss polarizing issues, specifically politics, um, weigh in on what's going on in our society right now, I thought was very important. And so, of course, I I was fortunate to get Corey Ruth and Justin Gibney back in the room. I'm very grateful for y'all answering the call. Um, and I and I think people are genuinely all over the place with this one. Um, I think Charlie was um he's been heroicized and lionized and he's been vill villainized and it's like these polar perspectives. Um, I personally think he's a human and you know as a human we are there's many facets of us >> um, good and bad. But I'm I'm curious like for both of you and whoever would like to start like what were your thoughts when you first heard about this u about his his life being taken? >> It was it was deep for me. I was actually ironically coming back from a conference about Christian unity and I was on the plane. So I was going through my phone on the plane and just looking at Twitter X or whatever it said at first it was saying he there was a shooting like somebody shot at him. So, I'm looking through it and then I actually see what happened, not knowing like I I couldn't figure out what was really going on. >> And so, it hit me. It hit me pretty hard. I had been following him. I know a lot of people didn't know about him. That's kind of my job. I just follow thought leaders and activists just to see what everybody's talking about. Watch this show cuz I watch everybody's show. >> Um, >> and the first thing that came to mind was he's not coming back to his kids. Like, I go debate people who disagree with me. >> I've looked into the eyes of people who just hate me because my opinion. So >> when he got killed because of that, it was it was it was heavy. >> It was heavy. >> Yeah. >> How about you, Cory? >> I mean, it was horrific and and shocking. I think the initial um um sort of notification was a text from my son with a >> with that video that a lot of us clicked on >> and saw. And so it was very shocking I think for a lot of people. I know uh I engage a lot with people on other side of the aisle. Um and the initial response was the same for everyone. It was oh my gosh it was this is horrific. It was >> um it was just really really shocking to see. Mhm. >> Um but I also think it was um you know tragic in that the motive of it. Um I think about political violence in US history. I think about people like Lincoln and Kennedy and King and X >> and Charlie Kirk was not as central a figure as as they are. So, it was >> in a weird way um close to home >> and I'm thinking gosh I I'm out a little bit. I know people I'm very close to people who are out a lot >> and making stances and you know Justin talked about looking at people looking in the eyes of people who hate you because of what you believe >> and uh so it was shockingly close to home >> um for me I'm like picturing in my mind the people that I know all the way from uh governors down to ministers and I'm thinking I'm trying to picture their security uh uh footprint. I'm thinking about um how often they're in a crowd um of people who who disagree with them. So, it was shocking and it was close to home for me. >> Yeah. Uh, as you mentioned political violence, there's a a study um found that that 40% of both Biden and Trump supporters at least somewhat believe the other side have become so extreme that it's acceptable to use violence >> to prevent um them from achieving their goals. I'm just curious for for both of you like how do you think we got here? I know there's a history of political violence, but just to a place where we think it's acceptable to to where there are people not shocked, but like yeah, you know, just Yeah, of course. You know, like casual um in their views on it. Like how did we get here and and like how do we get to a place where we're we're okay with murdering a person we disagree with? I think part of it is just the culture war that's been going on for the last 50 or 60 years, right? You know, conservatives versus progressives that's been ratcheting up >> on and on again. And then I think when you add on top of that, social media, >> now we have these algorithms that are feeding us certain things like we quick on one thing, it's going to keep feeding us the most extreme information that we can get about the other side. >> Eventually, you get to a point where it builds up. Then you have politicians, a few I can think of in particular, who feed off of that and feed it for their benefit. And I think people are to the point where they just feel like the other side is so bad that it's better to get rid of them than to really have to deal and be civic and go through the democratic process with them because there's just there's no trust on either side. >> Uh and so it just builds up. Yeah, I agree uh with with Justin here and I think when you look back on the American history of political violence uh it often happens in those moments when we are at the ape of disagreement or division on a particular issue or set issues. So you think Kennedy um RFK, MLK acts, it all happened in like that decade of the 60s where um this proposition of changing society, integrating society um changing the way we select uh the people in powerful positions um by uh including more people into the voting process. um you know the desperation that your side might lose or that your that your cause is slipping away. Um I think in a population of hundreds of millions of free people, that kind of thing happens. Same thing with Lincoln. It was I feel like the cause is slipping away. um we're we're we're at risk of losing and that desperation will lead some true believers to go in and and take matters into their own hands. >> When I think of when I like the clips I've seen and not the clips, but the I've looked at long form videos of Charlie and um and he's a polarizing figure, right? He's a polarizing figure. Um, what I've noticed in the commentary, right, specifically from the right, is that a lot of people saw his views as synonymous with Christian views >> to almost to the degree now where um the views of the right are synonymous with the Christian perspective. And I'm curious for you specifically, Justin, as somebody who has disagreed with some things that Charlie said, has disagreed with some things on the right, >> what do you do as a Christian when it's perceived that the the right is religiously right >> and the the left is not? >> Like, how do you navigate that? >> Yeah. I mean, I think anytime you're trying to navigate what Christianity represents, you go to the Bible, >> right? And so I I would go to Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and say, "What were they doing in the public square, right? How how did they care about people, even the ones they disagree with?" One of my issues with how Charlie conducted himself is he did have that kind of MAGA rhetoric, >> which is sometimes purposefully offensive, uh, very provocative. And it and the question is, could he have made it to where he was without being provocative? That's another issue. doesn't justify it, >> but we know that plays into it. >> And so I would just say, what about the gentleness of how we speak to others? Can we get our point across like we saw the civil rights, so many people in the civil rights movement do >> without being so provocative? Because that >> the way that you're provoking people has consequences. >> The ideas that you put out into the public square have consequences. >> There's a even aside from the substance of what you're saying, >> the way that you're saying it is wrong. And I would say the substance of it when you make certain groups feel like they're lesser, especially groups that have been suffering in this country for years, I think that does fall short of a gospel standard. But we can't prove that amongst Christians outside of really looking at it with a a biblical lens. And so look looking at the sermon on the mount. >> Is that is that really represented in how MAGA attacks immigrants and some women and things of that nature? I don't I don't think that it is. >> And so that's to me that's where the conversation starts. But it needs to be a civil conversation where I'm actually listening to and engaging. >> Well, kind of a similar question for you, Corey, but I'm I'm curious from your vantage point when you hear Charlie make a valid point, right? And it it probably is biblical, right? Like the the point is biblical. Um, do you look at an opposing view? Uh, or or shall I say not an opposing view, but do you look at the left as unbiblical? Right? Like because a lot of thing a lot of people will say, well, the the the right is the the the more moral tribe. That's that's what the the the the narrative is out there. And I'm just curious for you. Is there room for you to say, "No, someone on the left actually can see things from the right vantage point." >> For sure. Um I I feel like the issues that are bubbling to the top that are getting the most attention um issues around you know transgenderism >> issues around um you know sort of LGBTQ um which has which has of late become really more transgender athlet athletes, transgender u uh youth and whether or not you can have these surgeries. I think in those instances um you know people could say that there are very powerful voices on the left who are not just taking a non-Christian stance on those issues >> um but are in fact taking a a sort of deliberately antichrist stance on them like when you listen to them they're very much anti-religion antichrist I I have a a a friend uh who's on the left. And when I say left, I mean far left politically. Um, who once said uh that he was not just pro-choice, he was pro-abortion. He believed that we were overpopulating the the world. And he also believed um that you know as a way to sort of moderate the amount of poverty that we have we should reduce the amount of babies that are born in poverty and and and he was saying it in very uh clear very uh sort of provocative ways like you know >> forget your Bible right these are realities that we have to deal with. So I think those voices are the loudest on the left. >> And so people start judging the entire left. The left that uh that that I admire is, you know, Justin Gibney. >> It's Howard Ford Jr. Um it's those people who um can you know stand on who they are and um and still embrace um those uh uh principles of economic principles for instance >> um that have been a signature of the left right um where you use uh the the power and the influence of government to expand you know generosity to those who are the least amongst us. >> I can respect those uh folks on the left. And so I but I think that where we are today, the voices that are further left than that are the ones that are being highlighted. >> There are very very very polarizing views on Charlie's death on the left and the right. right there. I've heard views on the right that have said um you know this is the closest if anybody should become a saint you know like saintthood like the pope it should be Charlie Kirk. I've heard someone say uh if he was walking with Jesus he'd be the 13th disciple. >> I've heard that people say he's a martyr for the Christian faith. on the opposite side. Um I've heard people cheering for his death and saying this is what he deserved. Um with views like this on the sides being the most highlighted vantage points like how where do we go to like what's a healthy perspective in all of this? >> Yeah. I would say I think this was a moment where the church needed to have moral clarity. >> And I'll be honest with you, I'm disappointed uh in both sides and how they responded. >> Um and I'm, you know, like you said before, I'm center left on some issues. I don't I don't find it to be my job to defend progressives because I think progressives get a lot wrong. But even if you look at it from kind of the the center left of the church, I think we missed an opportunity. Uh because one of the biggest parts of moral clarity is rightly ordering and prioritizing things. >> And the number one lesson the church should have wanted people to get out of this was very simply this was tragic, wicked, and it never should have happened. >> Our main message should have been no one deserves to get killed for expressing their opinion. Whether it's a bad opinion or good opinion, this never should have happened. >> And unfortunately, I think a lot of people on the left said that, but then they said, "But real quick." >> Now, there are people way far that were celebrating it, but that's not most people weren't celebrating it. But what folks some folks did was like, I got to say it's it's wrong. So, yeah, it's wrong, but >> let me throw my whole agenda out there. Let me make sure that my narrative is very clear. So instead of saying pausing, sometimes you just got to put that period there and say this was wrong. Let's sit on that for a week. >> Let's sit on that during my sermon. >> I think the problem is it got very tribal. >> And with tribalism within the culture war, you got to make sure, oh, he better not get too much credit. If I let that sit too long, it might convince people he was the greatest person ever. So now I can't just say it shouldn't have happened and let people really marinate on that. I got to say but this but that. I got to give sermons where I'm trying to give a viral clip. That wasn't necessary. >> Sometimes you just got to sit as a church. Sometimes you got to sit on it cuz that's grace. >> And you got to believe me sitting on the main priority, the main lesson of this >> Yeah. >> is not going to make the world blow up. We would have survived if nobody had to go off on, you know, questioning whether he was saved and naming every single thing. There's room. I'm not saying don't have that discussion. That discussion needs to be had. >> Sure. >> Did it need to be had immediately? >> That's right. >> Did it hurt the moral clarity of the moment. >> The last the last tweet I sent out about Charlie Kirk probably in July was say basically saying something he said was racist. So, I had plenty of issues with some of the things Charlie Kirk said. >> Yeah. >> It wasn't about me. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> You know, it wasn't about my narrative. It wasn't about making sure, well, man, they could actually get some points for this. You missing the whole point. And so, I think when we went from >> this was wrong, but so quickly, >> we lost the whole point. It's like if I go up to you and I'm like, "Man, you lied to me." Or you did something, you like, "Yeah, I know I lied to you, but." Well, I know you didn't really process or you didn't really internalize that because you said but too quickly. That's true. >> And that's exactly what I think a lot of people in church did because they were afraid based on the culture war that somehow the other side would get an advantage if they didn't express their whole agenda and narrative immediately. >> Man, that's a triple. >> And I think um we haven't really grappled with the goals of political violence, >> which I think is terror, >> disruption, and division. M >> the goal is to terrorize us. It's to it's to mute our voices. It's to frighten us into inaction. It's to keep good men and good women on the sidelines. >> Yeah. >> It's to make you say, "I have a I have children. I have a family. I can't afford to put myself out there that way." Um, if nothing else happened but the image of Charlie Kirk being assassinated, the assassin achieved its goals. >> Disruption is where political violence has as a goal to disrupt the organization or the movement or the institution or the process. So if you think of Abraham Lincoln, the goal was, hey, we just closed a civil war. We got a country that's less than 100 years old. If we take out Abraham Lincoln, let's challenge whether America can peaceibly transfer power. >> And um that's the goal, right? if I can strike at the right place in the org chart that I will splinter this movement. And then the final one is division. And division is the is the toughest one because every human relationship has division in it necessarily. >> Mhm. >> I mean there's I don't care how healthful um healthy your marriage is, there's some underlining fault line of division that's there >> that you navigate as a married couple. And the goal of political violence is to say, I'm going to aggravate that fault line >> and see if I can end this relationship >> and so we have regenerative cells in our body that if the process of regeneration is mutated, they turn into tumors. >> And that's the goal to mutate our division, the underlying division that we have. And so when we go from um the next days and weeks following an act of political violence straight to uh what Charlie Kirk did, said or believed. >> I think we we mutate that process. Mhm. >> And you know after uh Lincoln died, after his death, they ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. After Kennedy died, they pushed the uh landmark civil rights legislation within months. >> After King died, seven days later, they pushed more landmark uh civil rights legislation, effectively ending Jim Crow. M >> and so I think that was a moment to say how can we come together? What's the unifying symbol that we can present? Um that's the right response, not reminding ourselves why we were divided in the first place. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. But I would also add I do think I'd love to hear what you say about this. I do think that the right in some instances was very opportunistic. Was very much this the left caused this. They're they're completely to blame for this. And they were trying to score political points um based off this death, which to me is is despicable as well. I thought I thought there was a a big there was a time when you can mourn. And I'm I'm going to have some grace on how people mourn. Sure. I'm not going to try to I did see some people on the left kind of policing you can't say this. H I'll give you some grace. We can have that conversation later. But I saw a lot of trying to put political points on the board before the man was even, you know. Yeah. >> Placed to the ground. You know what I'm saying? There was a lot of that going on. Um, and so that was I found that to be problematic, too. Did you And I know you asking the questions, but >> No, no, I I did. And I do think that there I mean there were opportunists out there, but but I'm glad you brought that up because historically the political act of political violence is sort of a part of a of a period of political unrest. M >> and so I think that's we're in that period right now. The disagreement, this the the um the the um level of impact, the level of importance um um the stakes of our of who wins and who loses on these points of disagreement are so big >> and has been going on probably for what a decade now of this level of contention. So, not to place a value one way or the other, but I just want you to see from the eyes of a MAGA Republican. >> Mhm. >> Donald Trump was accused of treason. He had his first two years under investigation um whether or not he conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election. He was impeached twice. He had at least seven people in his inner circle, including two cabinet level people, jailed and bankrupt, corrupted. He had his home raided. um they tried to bankrupt him through two civil cases, right, where the prosecutors at state level uh set the bond at nearly the very amount that he had left in the bank. >> Mhm. >> He had 91 charges brought against him across local, state, and federal jurisdictions. And then he had two credible assassination attempts. And then now a young charismatic general from his movement is assassinated. They view this as deeper than toxic rhetoric. >> They see this as existential. >> They're saying not only are our lives at stake here uh and our livelihoods are at stake here. They're jailing us. They're raiding our homes. Uh Roger Stone had his home raided. Uh uh Rudy Giuliani had his home rated. Again, no value one way or the other. You might hear those names and say they should have had their homes rated. >> Fine. I'm just showing the perspective >> Yeah. >> of the right. >> So then when some people responded, for instance, take President Trump. his initial response was seen as being >> not within the tradition of American presidents when they're responding to these types of things. Uh and and >> um although since then he's he sort of moderated that and softened his tone and and spoke in a more consiliatory way about about that. >> Can we say what that response was? Do you mind? >> The response was, "Are you trying to bring America together?" And he said, "No, I'm not worried about that. The left is this, the left is that." Mhm. And and and so again, >> and part of being a statesman is and all that stuff is real, assassination tips and all that, but to me, part of being a statement >> statesman is rising above that moment. And that's why it's an extraordinary position to be in. Maybe most people can't do it. To be a president, you got to try to do >> and that's my issue. >> I'm curious in in light of what you said because that's actually kind of eyeopening specifically for me. I one of the things I was trying to reconcile and understand is because I I don't like virtue signaling. I didn't know Charlie Kirk. I didn't know much of him. There's been so many people that have lost their lives who are Christians and I've said nothing about it. A lot of Christians have said nothing about it. Charlie Kirk passes away and it seemed like every Christian was like, "Hey, you have to say something about this." Um, and I was I was like, "Wait, what? I'm I don't I was kind of unclear as to what was the mandate. And some of the the the push back that I began to hear from people against Christians and pastors was you were so vocal about George Floyd. You were so vocal about all these people. Why are you not vocal about Charlie Kirk? And I and in my mind I was like well that was like that those weren't isolated events. There was a narrative and they all were fitting a narrative. I mean, obviously they're humans, so you're acknowledging the the loss of a human, but I think people were trying to make sure people were aware of what they felt like the narrative was. I That's what So, so what you're kind of articulating is there's a narrative, a throughine that people feel like, hey, Charlie Kirk is not an isolated event, but it's a throughine of a consistent feeling of being targeted. >> Yeah. And just to go back uh the point that I was trying to make is yeah I do think there were people on the right particularly in media some of the podcasters uh that have captured um conservative audiences that were absolutely >> sort of taken advantage of this opportunity uh for clickbait um and for political to score political points. >> Sure. I just wanted to call out that there was also a lot of people who their response was kind of organic and emotional. Um, should they have risen higher? For sure. Charlie Kirk's like a son to Donald Trump, right? >> So, >> I understood his initial emotion, right? Even though uh you're in the presidency and and you have to you're called to a higher level, >> um he since adjusted and so that was good to see. But but um that I just wanted to point out that dichotomy. Um the the term you know fascist has been thrown around from both sides. >> Um you know I I've seen um Charlie fight that. I've seen Charlie give people that label. I've seen people call Donald Trump a fascist. I've seen people say the left or the fascist. Is it a is it a cycle? Is there truth to this anywhere? Do you guys see like why is this a heightened and heavy narrative that that's circulating right now? >> When it comes to politics, one of the worst things you could call somebody is a fascist, I think, right? which is force forcing people to telling people they can live a certain way, can't live another way, forcing kind of uniformity in in certain areas. It was just a very authoritarian point of view. So when you're in a a democracy, a >> democracy, >> the worst thing you can call somebody is a fascist. >> Most people couldn't define it if you gave it to them. So there's one thing I might say is I disagree with a lot of the opinions of the administration. I'm not sure they they fit the technical definition of fascism, right? Well, I'm pretty sure they don't, right? Like it's and that doesn't mean I agree with them. That just means >> words have meanings. And so when we throw that stuff around, people are using it. If you ask them, I guarantee they're probably most of them are like, I can't really explain it. I know it's really bad. And they're really bad. >> But we have to watch what we say. >> In that regard, we have to be more artful in how we how we speak. >> Cuz one thing that has happened is we just Nazi. Whatever word we can find that's the worst, we're going to use it. But again, words have meanings. Words put certain narratives out there. And we have to be very careful. And if you think they're bad, be more articulate in why you think they're bad and explain it instead of letting these words do the whole do it all for you. >> I think that's one of the issues that we have. We're just looking for the worst word. >> That's it. >> And and we move with that. >> You would agree? That's it 100%. uh like when people uh you know our democracy has uh survived a civil war, four presidential assassinations, uh the total collapse of our economy during the great depression. Um it has survived really um you know contentious elections like the year 2000 and in the year uh 2020. Um, and the reason why so many people around the world admire our democracy and the reason why our democracy is so longived, it's the longest continuous democracy in the world. >> Mhm. >> It's because our institutions are very very strong and um our founders founded the country out of revolution and they designed it so that it couldn't fall in revolution. And so I think we got to give a little credit to um the strength and the stability of our democracy which we take for granted. >> But there are hundreds of millions if not billions of people around the world who live in fledgling democracies or in authoritarian governments who wish they could be American, >> who idolize America, who do anything to get to this place. We see it with our immigration. >> Mhm. >> And they live vicariously through the United States. >> Mhm. >> And we have to be aware of that. So when we start talking like, hey, don't look to us. Our democracy is fragile too. >> Right. Um what is that going to do for democracy, the movement of democracy around the world? Hi historically though again I mean you're you you would know better than me but in my mind I would imagine a democracy is where the left and the right the the Democrats and the Republicans understand the process and understand like well everyone has an opportunity to have a voice to have an to >> to like it's a dance but it feels more as of late that both sides are like no our way is the way >> your way is not the way is is that democracy like it seems to undermine democracy in some sense. >> Well, I think you can have democracy which with people having very strong disagreements and saying y'all don't know anything. >> Okay. >> The question is do you still maintain the process? >> Okay. >> And so when the process starts falling away, I can say yeah you you know you don't everything you say is wrong. But if I then say you can't vote and I need to censor you, now we're getting to the point where it's not democratic and and I may be less with Cy everything is. I mean, I have over the past few years seen an expansion of executive power. >> There are some things that have been happening within this administration that I feel are anti-democratic. Even when we look at what's happening with Jimmy Jimmy Fallon recently, you know, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah, sorry. Jimmy Fallon Jimmy Kimmel. To me, that's not a place where the government needs to step in and push one way or the other. To me, that does say, "Hey, I'm not just going to trust our democracies." Okay, I need to say, "Hold up, hold up, hold up. That's not supposed to happen." >> So, to me, that's a violation of the process. Not to the extent where I would say it's certainly fascism because fashion would have handled that totally differently, right? They would have just handed him over, right? It's a whole different thing. >> But, it's worth concern. So, I do have serious concerns about those expansions. I have a concern about Congress really not doing much at all and handing everything to the courts and to the presidency. I I don't feel that sense of security. I have a concern, >> but it doesn't go into saying that, you know, we become authoritarian right now. >> Well, Tucker Carlson said that hate speech laws are worthy of civil disobedience. And then we we did see Jimmy Kimmel, >> you know, just lose his his his show. Obviously, that's not a >> it's not as if the president himself said, "We're canceling you." But there are powers and infrastructures in place. >> He kind of did, but >> I mean, but yeah, >> but through infrastructures, it happened, I guess, is what I'm saying. >> Mhm. >> What from somebody on the right, like what do you say to that? Well, I mean, the power of the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary expand in contrast. That that's a democracy. So, it may expand now and then he'll lose um the midterms or maybe Democrats win in 2028 and that's a correction that's made. Then it shifts back. Um you know, Abraham Lincoln suspended Habris corpus. you know, um, >> you know, presidents, each of these branches of government are equal. They're co-equal. And so, they're all going to push the envelope as to what authority they have. And the other branches are going to push back. >> Mhm. >> And right now, the right has all the of the power. And so, they're going to keep pushing. When they lose an election, >> that pendulum will swing. That's just part of that's part of being in a democracy. >> Would you say because I guess we're seeing a lot of people >> voice their feelings in the media and lose their jobs, right? saw someone from the I think it was a Phoenix uh news reporter, MSNBC, like we're seeing people voice their perspectives and opinions and lose their job um or get arrested. Um I guess what does that what does that say about free speech and in in this era that we're in right now? Look, I think the media has been a captured industry for some time now. Very far-left, very unfair to Republicans. Um, when Donald Trump won the election, um, it coincided with new media bosses coming in, like for instance, Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post. Um, NBC was going through new leadership. um CBS was going through a merger, right? So like all of this is happening at the same time. In addition to that, traditional media, we're sitting here on a podcast, traditional media is losing money. Late night television is losing like $400 million per year per show. >> So Jimmy Kimmel wasn't making ABC money. M >> so this is a good opportunity for them to make their shift uh in late night uh television. So, I think yes, the White House is going to press. When you're in power, and Justin, you you know this, when you're in power, you're the governor or or you're a mayor or you're the president, you don't have to direct something. There's people in place. If they see something being done unfairly to you or for that will not advantage you politically, they'll act. And so you're going to get the power of the presidency even if he doesn't direct it um himself. >> And those um executives that are making decisions, they're making market decisions, but they're also taking into consideration their relationship with uh the the administration and having access to the administration for news purposes, right? So, it doesn't help if in Coca-Cola if Coca-Cola says, "Hey, uh, if you can't read the room and you're an executive at Coca-Cola, you're probably going to be let go." Jimmy Kimmel was clearly not reading the room at ABC >> when he said what he said, and so he was let go. >> Sound like you want to respond? >> Yeah, I just think that's a lot of speculation on what was going to happen to Kimmel, and I just don't think it justifies what happened. So when your best argument is the circumstances are bad and they're bad too, it's just not a defense, >> right? None of that justifies. So what Kimmel said was wrong. He's a comedian. He basically can't comes in and says >> insinuates that the the person who tried to assassinate um Kirk was MAGA, which based on everything that's come out, that's just not true. There's nothing that says that that's true. So that was that was wrong. it doesn't justify the government stepping in and pushing for him to get fired or using other things. So, we can assume or speculate as to what would happen to him based on the industry, but when we're talking about the Constitution and what a presidency or an executive branch should be doing and shouldn't be doing, that's outside the lane. And just because yeah, there's some some administrations have pushed a little before when you clearly go outside of the constitution. I can't say take that and just say, well, you know, it kind of happens cuz we can say that all the way until the constitution if the if the >> it's free speech. >> No, but if the Federal Communications Commission says that was blatantly wrong, >> right? This guy was not mad. >> People say when what does the Constitution say that you can't say something that's wrong? But there's been a rash of suits against CBS, against CNN for saying things that weren't right on the air. >> And that's that's meant to be handled by the judiciary in those cases. >> Understood. I think the executives at ABC felt like, hey, you got a show that's losing $400 million a year. Uh, I'm not interested in taking on that risk right now. I mean, you just have to read the room. Like, this is not a time. I'm just saying that's a speculation that >> No, it's a specul. I also think it's a speculation that ABC would not have let Jimmy Kimmel go. Well, I don't think they let him go or or whatever they're doing with him, right? Cancelled the show. >> But the FCC wasn't silent. >> I'm saying even if the FCC was silent, >> I think ABC would have let him go in the current climate. I just the current media climate and what with the changing of the of leadership with the lawsuits that have happened, huge lawsuits that have happened um in in in the wake of these political debates and people saying things without uh fact. I I I don't think Jimmy Kimmel would have survived. We just lost a um >> I don't know if he's gone yet. I know he's been suspended, >> but we just lost a late night host, right? Um Stephen Cobear. Steven Coar. I I just think the climate is such that first of all, late night is going away. I think he just accelerated his >> So you would agree if the administration tipped the balance or weighed into it, that would be wrong. >> No, not necessarily. I think I think they're challenging. Now, look, ABC for instance, the executives made that decision, right? They didn't force ABC, but but I I I get it. They put the pressure on it. But my point is there's a judiciary. If you feel like you that this is undue influence, you have recourse. That's democracy. Now, this is interesting because I think what what's happening here in a very civil way happens outside in a way more intense way, right? where there are there are arguments and justifications and like hey you're not seeing it clearly no clearly you're not seeing it clearly this is what this is this is what that is and I guess you know I take both of you as individuals who are okay with saying well maybe I'm not seeing it clearly there's been instances where we've heard people on the right and the left you know who who've said um you know made statements that were clearly like no that's that's not true right um but I I haven't heard a lot of people from that their particular camps come out and condemn the wrongness that happened why is that like why is there a hesitancy to condemn someone from your party's wrong vantage point like what is that about >> two things as I said before there's a scoreboard >> so everybody's eyes on the scoreboard that says, "Who has the advantage right now?" If somebody on my side does something wrong and I call them out and then we get four points taken away, now I done hurt my side >> or my tribe just goes off on me and cancels me and now I'm no longer at the table. >> Now, as a Christian, I can't really take those things into consideration. >> I've got to speak the truth in those situations and I got to hold people accountable, especially on my side. But I think that's what keeps people from doing it. If my side represents justice, why would I call out my side and then hurt our cause? >> I think that's the calculus that people make when when making those decisions. >> Doesn't that feel irresponsible? >> I would think it is. It's understandable in the way that the reward and punishment mechanisms are set up in politics for a Christian is unfaithful is what I'm getting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I believe Justin is at the vanguard of this of that issue right there. um of why people don't sort of hold their own side accountable >> and what all those mechanism is. It's one thing to say, hey, you you need to hold your side accountable, but to talk about the levers that people are considering >> um before they make a decision to speak out on their own side or to hold someone accountable. Um I don't really hear anyone else talking about that. Um, and I think there needs to be um tools almost like um when you're helping a kid navigate bullying in in at school, it's one thing to say, you know, >> um >> stand up for yourself, right? But you got to give that kid tools like what do they do, right? Can they tell the teacher what happens if it's just me and him in the hallway or right? You got to give them tools to deal with that. And I think a lot of Christians um you know this is a call to listen uh to what Justin is saying on these issues because he's articulating what those levers are and and uh through like church politics podcast providing you with tools to actually deal with them. it it actually in speaking of Christians like we we kind of touched on it a little bit earlier but like it feels like you know evangelical Christianity specifically over the last few years you know within this decade is is growing stronger right like there's a >> there's a stronger entanglement with evangelical Christians and the the conservative right I don't want to say evangelical Christianity has grown stronger. The entanglement between the conservative right and evangelical Christianity is stronger. I mean, obviously the the religious right happened years ago and this has been an ongoing process, but but in my lifetime, I have never felt more like if you don't think this way politically, you're not an authentic Christian. Like I don't think that pressure I've never felt that pressure as much as it's been consistent now. And I guess I'm curious like there may be positive to that. There may be shortcomings. I think of Constantinian Constantinianism when it was like Christianity was the law of the land. There were some good things about that. There were some bad things about that. Um I guess along those those kind of lines like is is this for the is this a bad thing or is it a good thing? Is it a like what would you say in light of this? I'm the wrong person to ask because but I'm hearing it and I'm starting to wonder what I'm missing now being on the right. Um I've been told by donors don't talk about that about faith. don't talk about issues um like abortion and LGBTQ uh causes. Um I just don't support anyone that will do that is is I've I've actually heard those things. >> Wow. >> I've heard activists >> tell me um you know I I I like that guy until I heard him say a scripture. So, I think there's a libertarian thread in uh on the right that is um socially liberal and fiscally conservative. >> And I think those guys have the sway of things on the right. If you're a a candidate on the right, um I think Trump and MAGA Trump's movement has been much more open with uh its relationship with uh the religious um M right than say what happens in 98% of the rest of the right. >> So um and this is one reason why you it took a long time before anyone on the right would even speak up about child uh transgenderism or children going through transgender operations. I mean how long did it take? It wasn't until Donald Trump ran for reelection that you even heard that come up >> as a cause and and it's be it's because there's a real pressure on the right not to be religious, right? >> I would say that was I think there's been a vibe shift. I think since this second time that Trump gets in office, things have changed a little bit. You you see I I want to say that progressives had the culture in a lock in like a chokeold, >> right? They controlled entertainment, all those things. think they control the universities. In this second sweep, you see that kind of changing and partially because of people like Charlie Kirk. >> Mhm. >> Who goes into universities which were captured by progressivism and debates them on their turf about certain issues with these young people and he starts to turn young people. Young people in college were so far from being conservative it wasn't even close. The numbers weren't even close. M >> Charlie Kirk, one of the things he did, you like him or don't like him, you can say it's good or bad, is he goes in there and he starts to shift that to where I don't know if Trump wins without the young vote that he got this time. >> Part of that, part of that is due to Turning Point USA. >> Um, so I do think there's been a vibe shift and because of that vibe shift, there's a new confidence >> among a lot of white evangelicals like you need to get on here or you know what I'm saying? You are you really missing the wave? Uh, and that's what I've seen in the last year, year and a half, is that shift to say, "No, now we're in the driver's seat of culture." Yeah. >> So, we might have had >> the presidency or the Senate. Now, the culture is turning our way. You see the numbers on trans identity, all those things. And that's what I think is one of the big differences at this very moment. >> So, yeah, I guess and obviously there's silos everywhere. And I guess, you know, depending on what what strand of Christianity you're looking at or lens you're looking through or strand of uh republic republican you're you're navigating. I was just I I think I was as unaware until Charlie Kirk passed away how strongly the religious right felt, you know, and how and to where it was kind of like I couldn't I couldn't see what was politically Republican versus religiously Republican in some of the the commentary that was being made. And so that's what that's what made me want to ask that question, I guess. Yeah. I don't I don't know if there's thoughts. Do you feel like he incited or or added anything to that movement? >> I think he added >> like in his death I'm >> I think he added young people into that movement. I think his death is going to add energy to it for better or worse. That that's certain. One of the things it seems like you're getting at is >> just the meshing between Republicanism or, you know, ideological conservatism and white evangelicalism in general. And that's there. I mean, it is hard to tell the difference. And I think from a standpoint of >> Christian nationalism, that's the point, >> right? Is to have that be a mess to where you can't really see the difference. Now, here and there, you hear Trump talk about abortion here and there. There's some there's some differences there, but in general, I think the point is for it it to be very closely connected, which I don't see obviously as as a good thing, even on the issues I agree on. Right? I think this is still democracy. my Muslim neighbor or my atheist neighbor should have just as much of a say as I do. Absolutely. And that opinion should be respected even if I don't think it should win the day. >> Yeah. I there's there's a lot of commentary, some from Christians, some not in the Christian community, like the the the Utah governor said this was a watershed moment, right? He said uh this is a turning point in the nation's history. um >> Declaration of Independence, Civil War, Great Depression, 911, COVID. Like, why? What does that statement mean? You know, from I'm curious. What do you think he meant? But then what is there any validity to that from y'all's perspective? >> I think there's some validity. It's yet to be seen. Okay. >> So, you come back to me in a year, we'll know, you know, for sure. But it just looks like with the advancement of conservatism he made in certain areas came a real attachment to him. And when you take some you take somebody who people see as their leader, it radicalizes them. It energizes them in many instances, not always, but in many instances >> and they come back harder. And so the I think it's a turning point in that not that it made things better in any way, but it took the polarization to a higher level. >> Um, and we'll see how that, you know, shakes out. >> What do you think? >> Yeah. You know, I think it was the shock of seeing the video because remember not long ago there was some political assassinations in Minnesota with some state legislators, right? But we didn't see it. It wasn't vivid for us. Um, and so this was very, very shocking and vivid and riveting. It was in front of 2,000 people. Um, and a lot of people who did not follow Charlie Kirk before were like, "Well, who is this guy standing in front of 2,000 people and why is he a target for political assassination?" Um, I was telling Justin last week I was um maybe a month before um Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I was laying up in bed, sitting up in bed um surfing through YouTube and I get to this Turning Point video. I click on it and it's a Turning Point conference in Hungary. >> So I'm like what? It had the president of Hungary and and um presidents from surrounding uh countries there. And I was like >> I had no idea that this was the reach of Turning Point >> um that people were setting up their own satellites in in Europe and and probably in other places. We saw the the uh large protest in England uh 3 million people in South Korea. We are Charlie Kirk. And so I think it it has had a very big impact. I think a lot of that has to do with um the how visible it was, right? It's the same impact that the civil rights television had on the civil rights movement. It's like we're seeing it. >> It had more of a effect on people. I was in Zimbabwe um when it occurred and it was on every television screen everywhere in Zimbabwe. >> Zimbabwe. Wow. >> And so I'm I'm curious from your vantage point like >> how do you think other countries are viewing America right now? >> Like not just in light of this incident but just in general with our our politics, our country like how do you think other countries view America? Is it opportunistic? Is it still like you were mentioning like they still want this democracy that we have? Like what what is what do you think they're they're thinking? >> Maybe you know better. I mean you travel far more than I do and might have an international sense. I see it more as like the US is the parent and it's been a unipolar world since 1991 where just the US was the only world power. >> Mhm. >> And um you had the dream team and you had Obama and you had all these things that America was projecting across the world and everyone wanted to be America. But I think now our kids are teenagers and they see our flaws. Um, I'm one of these people who who don't think America is diminishing. I just think everyone else is growing up. And and Russia, for instance, in 1991, there was no Russia. Soviet Union collap. There was no China. You didn't say China until 2015. >> There was no European Union until the 2000s. They were all individual countries. India right just started asserting itself and sending out its best and brightest to operate in the west and we're seeing Indians run technology and run medicine and stuff like that and so I think it's a growing up of the rest of the world and we should applaud ourselves America did a good job as the single world power no other world power in the history of the world has nurtured that kind of growth outside of itself and so I think it's a good thing. Now, how are they interpreting it? Probably like a teenager. >> Like my mom ain't what I thought she was. My dad ain't what I thought he was. Rebellious a little bit. >> So, yeah. >> I just think the internal strife is of our own doing >> for sure. >> And I think people can see it. And so, it's not I don't see it as much as about them growing up or us um being a parent. I see it as it being apparent that there's something going on here that makes these United States seem even less united than before. And when you hear about uh some of the advances or expansions again of uh executive power, those who are really paying attention have to say this is this is different. I I see this I do see this as a different moment. um not necessarily catastrophic, doesn't have to be there, but of great concern. And those who are paying attention, I think, can see that concern. >> And and see, I I I think you point to a good thing. The fact is that they looked at America through a lens that was probably not realistic >> during that period of time where we were the sole superpower and even before when it was either Soviet Union or America. They they probably looked at us in a way that was um rosy and naive. >> But we had the same political strife during those times. I mean Reagan was shot at. Um, we had a decade in our country where five major leaders were shot down, right? King, Kennedy, Kennedy's brother, um, uh, X, Mega, Mega Evers, >> so at least five. >> Um, we've been here before. We've we've had a civil war >> where 600,000 people died and uh, nine states decided they wanted to go and form their own country. They they set up relationships with other countries uh and trade and and and alliances and they had their own constitution and Congress. So, we've been here before. That's the brilliance of America >> is is the resilience of this democratic experiment. >> And even if I grant what you're saying, and I actually do I I I grant that this is an expansion of executive power. I just think the constitution allows for that and also our political process allows for it and it'll be corrected if that's not what the American people want. >> It may be what they want and in which case it won't be corrected. And so to me, I just feel like the rest of the world is no longer seeing America as uh through rosy rose color glasses, right? They see it as okay. Wow, I didn't realize they just like we are. And that's what you learn when you become a young adult is that your parents were just young people trying to do their best. And now when you get to that point of maturity where you can recognize that your parents were just trying to do their best and they were human, >> you you probably got that after a phase of resentment and disappointment that they weren't who you thought they were. And I think that's where the world is today. There there's two perspectives that I I hear. There's a there's a there's a a perspective of a growing fear, right? Growing fear because of other nations and we we'll be cannibalized and there's just a fear that we will become I don't know in some senses like the slaves of another nation, right? Um, and then there's a fear of us, you know, imploding on ourselves, um, and and being our own detriment. I'm curious, do you feel is there any credence to any of those perspectives or how would you quell people's fears in those particular vantage points? I mean, I I think there's potential to implode if we don't have leadership that steps up and unifies uh in ways that I saw, you know, the governor of Utah doing, Spencer Cox, right? Coming in and saying, "Hey, I'm going to give you the facts. I'm going to, you know, I'm I'm going to lay it down the way that it is, but I'm going to do it in a way I'm going to frame it in a way that does give us an opportunity to see our joint interest in this project. Mhm. >> We need lead leaders who are going to show our joint interest in this democratic experience. >> We need the church to be able to do that. And that's why I said this was a an opportunity, this assassination was an opportunity to provide moral clarity and tragedy. And in so many ways, we failed because we had other ideological motives and other motives that were behind what we're doing. >> That's the leadership we need. It can happen. I'm prayerful that leadership starts to step up and and and change the narrative so that we can see our common interest. >> Absolutely. I mean, we we've been in a multipolar world before where there were other nations that were strong. Um that's the hope of it. The the fear is that, you know, when the last time we had that, we went into a world war, right? The first world war. Um so, um but I think we've learned from that. I think you could see the diplomacy. You also could see the power jockeying, right? China's trying to jockey for position. Russia's jockeying for position. >> Um and um the US is jockeying for position. And so I think um when the dust settles um you know I'm hopeful that we won't be going into another world war. Mhm. Is there a place for Christians to be nationalists? Like we have a civic responsibility to care for as a Christian, we have a a kingdom responsibility to care for the land that we live in. >> Um I think Jeremiah tells us to seek the peace of the city. Um, where's the line between idolatry maybe or caring too much or like like is there room for nationalism and Christianity? >> I think there's room for loving your country and to me what loving your country means is trying to make it better, right? not just saying how great we are today and how exceptional we are but to say we have great ideals and I want to hold us to those ideals >> right so so that's the first thing that's >> that's a type of care for country and love of country that I can deal with also to say hey when it does come to economic issues we can't help nobody if we don't help ourselves right so we do have to look and say how do we make sure that our workers are taken care of now where do we go over the line if somehow we denigrate others or in if somehow we're violating the rights of others to get what we need. >> We've done that in the past. Not always, but that's why I think you've crossed the line. Whether you're you're denigrating others, trying to bring them down, >> or violating them to get your luxuries and and wealth and all those things, that's where >> uh it goes too far. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and I would say um Bishop Monro Saunders used to say, "We have to be humans, but we do not have to be earthlings." And you know, we are not of this world. And so we have to have a constant reminder that we are aliens and sjourers in this world, that this is not our home. And so while I am I'm a nationalist, like I am an American. I love this country. I love that, you know, my people were brought here uh regardless of the circumstances. I love how strong my people were in this country and what we did to help America know, help those founders know what they actually wrote down meant when they said all men are created equal. >> And that uh we probably wouldn't have uh had the pressure and accountability on Abe Lincoln um the first Republican president if the first black Republican, Frederick Douglas, wasn't in his air saying you have to do this. And so I love my country. I'm a patriot and um I don't want another country um to be more powerful or more successful than America. In that sense, I'm competitive and that's what I mean and I think what most people mean when they say they are a nationalist, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of of my citizenship in heaven. >> So, I am I am first a citizen of heaven. And what we were what I was saying earlier, the constitution allows for this and our process. Our constitution also allows for us to move away from those original principles. Um, and if if we're ever in a place where I feel like um I can't be Christian, I can't live out my faith. Um, I'm a Christian first, not not an American first. >> I think some people get that mixed up by first of all by blurring it. Um and and second of all by just forgetting that you are not just a Christian in the sense that you are a member of the Rotary Club, but you're a Christian in the sense that your citizenship is in heaven. Final thoughts for a world out there who is looking for clarity in the midst of the polarization and the division. Um, specifically like Christians. I mean, you you've kind of said like we missed a moment, but I'm just curious like what do you give people in this time period? Like is there is there a I don't know something that you're you would want them to hold on to in the midst of it all or a perspective that you want them to process as they're running to their sides of the corner. >> How you treat your political and cultural opponents in time of tragedy says a lot about your character. M >> if I can somehow not be all about myself and my side in a time of tragedy, once that tragedy is over, I might actually have an opportunity to persuade you. >> And I'll give you an example. Uh 1972, uh George Wallace, who is the Alabama governor, starch segregationist. I mean, so many policies, so many things he did to hurt black people get shot. Rep. Uh, Representative Shirley Chisum, the first black female congresswoman, goes to his hospital during her campaign and sits with him, >> tells him, "I wouldn't want this to happen." And this is somebody who would call her the n-words. This is somebody who would not want her to even be able to run for office or vote. >> Let's be very clear. goes to his hospital, sits down with him, tells him that she's sorry this happened to him, has a conversation with them, acknowledges their differences, their real differences, and says, "You know what? I actually think you're right about how corporations have taken over the government and how the government isn't responsive to the people." So, not only did she sit with this person who hated her, she had actually listened to what he was saying, not just the bad things, >> but also knew even how bad he is. There's something he was saying that made sense. >> Most of us haven't done that with our opponents. >> After this happens, >> once the campaign is done, George Wallace goes on a tour where he's apologizing to black people, apologizing for many of the things that he had done. >> Wow. is her w is what Shirley Chisum did in that moment more powerful than our defense that we put up in the last few days. >> What's more powerful? And so I would just remember that example of the power of grace and having character even in those tragic moments. >> That's the mic drop, man. >> That was great, man. >> That was powerful. >> That was powerful. I I I want to personally say every time you both have been here, it has blessed me. Like I I I have made mental leaps just in this conversation like clarity has become it's it's there's been more clarity in light of you discussing this. And so I know plenty of people be blessed by I'm very grateful for y'all and also grateful for the civility. I don't know when or where we began to go at fisticuffs because of our uh political views. I mean, obviously, it's it's a historical thing, but um but as you said, we're Christians first and um and yeah, I greatly appreciate your words and thank y'all both for being here, man. >> Thanks for having us, man. Appreciate what you do. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Awesome. >> This is the deep end with Lra. >> What's going on everybody? My name is LRae and welcome to the workshop. The workshop is a place where you guys can understand my thought process. You guys are going to be able to unpack and dig into some of the old albums, some of the last several albums that I've done. And on top of that, it's a place where you're going to hear new music and some surprises. Make sure you stay tapped in. Let's build together. See you on the other side. [Music]