In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, left-leaning Christians have been quick to lecture the world about the ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ supposedly plaguing all sides of politics. What else could they do? Admit that the political machine they’ve defended for years is unhinged, violent, and increasingly murderous? Hardly. Instead, they hide behind vague platitudes: “Both sides are to blame.” “Both sides are inflammatory.” “Both sides need to cool it down.”
But this false equivalence clearly collapses under the weight of reality. Do we really need a reminder?
Instead of confronting the very real violence and incitement prevalent within their own ranks, left-leaning Christians either dismiss it as a vague ‘both-sides’ issue or pin the blame squarely on conservatives—condemning them for waging the so-called ‘culture war,’ and insinuating that left-wing political violence is a direct result of right-wing rhetoric.
Of course, this misses the entire point. Politics is rhetoric, and the ‘culture war’ they insist on dismissing is just that. It is a war of ideas—a battle fought with words to win hearts and minds before society descends into bloodshed. The entire point of cultural engagement is to prevent physical conflict by persuading people with truth and reason. This is the mark of a civilised society. We don’t advance our politics with bloodshed, but open debate. And this is exactly what Charlie Kirk was known for championing.
Yet, in today’s discourse, “culture war” has become a pejorative wielded mostly by left-leaning Christians to discredit the efforts of their right-leaning political opponents. It’s often used as a label to characterise conservative concerns as unnecessary, divisive, and even un-Christian. When conservative believers bring their convictions into the public square—on life, family, sexuality, or religious freedom—they are accused of “culture warring.” But when so-called Christians champion leftist causes—immigration, Black Lives Matter, welfare, racial and gender inequalities, or progressive economic policies—suddenly that’s not “culture war.” That’s called “social justice.” That’s a “Gospel issue.”
In the aftermath of Kirk’s murder, some on the so-called Christian left have implied that he was, in a sense, a casualty of his own “culture war.” Rather than attributing responsibility to the violent, radicalised left they’ve spent years legitimising, they subtly shift blame onto Kirk himself.
These voices are not serious. Their political commentary is thinly veiled partisanship masquerading as theology. They accuse conservatives of inflammatory rhetoric while simultaneously excusing, legitimising, or outright supporting movements marked by violence and chaos—from Antifa protests to Black Lives Matter riots.
Consider the coverage from Christianity Today. When George Floyd died, the headline read: “George Floyd Left a Gospel Legacy in Houston.” But when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, the headline was: “Died: Charlie Kirk, Activist Who Championed ‘MAGA Doctrine.’” Floyd was sainted. Kirk was reduced to a MAGA activist. Why? Because Floyd was canonised by the Democrats, while Kirk was demonised for daring to challenge them.
The hypocrisy is impossible to miss. After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and now the assassination of America’s most influential Gen-Z conservative voice, we are told to focus on dangerous “right-wing” voices. Yet it is innocent conservatives—not progressives—who are bleeding in the streets.
Unable to rationally or biblically engage conservative arguments, the Christian left resorts to projection. They accuse conservatives of incitement while their own allies openly celebrate bloodshed. They cry “harsh tone” or “inflammatory rhetoric” whenever Christians speak the truth plainly. This is not honest engagement—it is a deliberate attempt to silence opposition and cover for their own side’s extremism.
Granted, there’s a good number who claim to politically fall neither “right” nor “left.” “Too liberal for conservatives, too conservative for liberals,” as they like to say. However, the “middle” isn’t the humble position many claim it is. It’s often the most arrogant of all, because it pretends to see all the faults and flaws that everyone else is oblivious to. That’s why it’s the preferred posture of those who imagine themselves intellectuals. In truth, they’re just leftists who want to make the left sound more Christian, and the right less.
The fact is, the modern left has become the party of violence, looting, and bloodshed. Unable to defend this reality, they accuse their opponents of the very sins their own team commits, or at least, pretend it’s a general, “both sides” problem.
As author Megan Basham put it: “Do you know why we’ve seen The Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today, and other evangelical leaders trying to suggest Charlie Kirk’s death is the result of a generic political problem, and not concentrated on one side? Because they have coddled and accommodated that side for years, trying to pretend that their positions on climate change or gun control or Marxist antiracism were the moral equivalents of trying to rescue babies in the womb and children from the trans surgeons. So now they are in a position that they cannot speak the truth about what happened Wednesday. Because they would be indicting much of the very audience they’ve worked so hard to attract.”
Without doubt, the assassination of Charlie Kirk has revealed the intellectual bankruptcy and moral compromise of left-leaning Christians who continue to run interference for a movement that despises the church, undermines Scripture, and increasingly celebrates the murder of its enemies.
Let’s not pretend their commentary is offered in good faith. It isn’t. It is spin, projection, and gaslighting. By refusing to name the violence on their own side and instead scapegoating conservatives with the charge of ‘culture war,’ left-leaning “Christians” don’t calm the storm—they intensify it. Their silence toward their allies and slander toward their opponents only deepens the divisions they pretend to lament.
