Several facts evince that Charlie Kirk strove to be the sort of friend who speaks difficult, but healing words. To begin, he kept engaging the secularists and progressives with whom he disagreed as one who had sincere hope for them. He certainly had not written off his opponents as beyond repair or “good for nothing.” He also maintained relationships with a variety of political commentators who opposed his views. He ritually bore witness to the Gospel of redemption from sin, confusion, and condemnation for anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation.

In a series of appalling displays, a vocal minority of progressives across the country have taken to social media to broadcast their elation over Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Though the celebrants come from all different economic backgrounds, occupations, and social statuses, they are united in their dark assessment of tragedy as near comedy. Most onlookers are dumbfounded. Under what circumstances could men fall prey to such glee, much more to the sheer indiscretion to air that glee for others to see?

The biblical doctrine of human depravity supplies the general answer. But a specific kind of tragedy, arising from our fallen nature, sheds more light. Before Charlie Kirk’s life was taken, and before many celebrated it, his enemies had already transgressed the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shall not murder,” many times, and without repentance. We develop the combination of callousness and foolhardiness necessary to celebrate an unlawful killing, when we cut off relationship with anyone who is sufficiently courageous and committed to our well-being to contradict our worst beliefs. This attitude which would forever write-off as “good for nothing” a brother, a mother, a friend, or a mentor, Jesus denounces as homicidal in His “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt. 5:22). Sadly, over the last half decade, many have committed social fratricide toward everyone with the wrong vaccination status, voting record, beliefs about immigration, stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, use of pronouns, etc. With many of the hardliners, like those publishing their celebrations, the problem is clear. They have slain all their real friendships with grounded individuals, who might dissuade them from such evil; or who, at the very least, might warn them of the serious consequences of their social media posts. Whatever semblance of community they may have, they are without the sorts of counselors who have their best in mind. In reality, they are alone.

Somewhat more grounded are those who denounce these public displays but still share the celebrants’ belief that Charlie Kirk is partly to blame for his own demise. Many even contend that he too was an especial transgressor of Jesus’ teaching in the “Sermon on the Mount” cited above. They argue that the unkind rhetoric to which Kirk was allegedly prone, falls under Jesus’ condemnation when he taught that “whoever says, ‘you fool’” transgresses the Sixth Commandment. This simplistic reading betrays a lack of acquaintance with Jesus and His rhetorical method. If Jesus had strictly prohibited addressing anyone as a “fool,” or strictly prohibited the use of cutting words, then Jesus would be a stark transgressor of His own ethic; not the greatest moral teacher encountered by men. Jesus not only called certain men “fools” but “dogs,” “swine,” “whitewashed tombs,” etc. (Matt. 7:6; 15:26; 23:17, 27).

By their reactions, it is quite clear that the people so addressed by Jesus usually did not appreciate it. This forces us to recognize that the Savior, in Matthew 5:22, is prohibiting an appetite to destroy by denouncing a sort of speech that is often, but not always expressive of it. Frequently, when a man calls his neighbor a “fool” it is indicative of a basic appetite to afflict harm on his neighbor. Jesus strictly forbids any speech birthed from this disposition.

Other times, however, a man may use cutting speech and even call his neighbor a “fool” with the sincere hope that it will shake him from his folly and bring about repentance. This is how David in the Psalms (14:1; 53:1), Solomon in the Proverbs (Prov. 1:7), Jesus in His “Woes Speech” (Matt. 23:17), and Paul in Romans (1:22) spoke. In each of these instances piercing language was a deep expression of love, even if that love was uninvited and unwelcome to many.

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6). The slaying of Charlie Kirk, and the celebrations of that crime are stark reminders of the frightening human appetite to evade sanctifying wounds, and to forego vital friendships.

Several facts evince that Charlie Kirk strove to be the sort of friend who speaks difficult, but healing words. To begin, he kept engaging the secularists and progressives with whom he disagreed as one who had sincere hope for them. He certainly had not written off his opponents as beyond repair or “good for nothing.” He also maintained relationships with a variety of political commentators who opposed his views. He ritually bore witness to the Gospel of redemption from sin, confusion, and condemnation for anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation. He did not celebrate when unbelievers died in their sins. None of this means that Charlie Kirk was flawless in his presentation, or that he never manifested pride, undue hostility, or foolishness in his addresses to others. All mere men since the Fall and prior to glorification succumb to these sins in different manners and degrees (Rom. 3:10-18; 1 John 1:8-9). Those with a calling to speak often—Martin Luther, Winston Churchill, etc.—tend to commit sins of speech more than others (Prov. 10:19).

However, if the necessary condition for delivering faithful wounds were the maintenance of flawless speech, none could perform the duty of a true friend; and the Proverb (27:6) would come to naught. Given the context where he so often disseminated his message—to crowds on college campuses with hostile members—it is remarkable how capable Charlie Kirk was of maintaining a reasonable disposition, and keeping his interlocutors engaged. So many people came to find his reasoning coherent, compelling, and liberating from grave errors, that his audience grew to vast proportions. Many were thankful that he withstood their initial hostility, spoke true but stinging words, and carried out the duty of a genuine friend. Despite these positive fruits, quasi-idealists insist that Kirk should have shared his message in a fashion that did not leave so many others agitated and angry. Their mistaken assumption, however, is that there exists a manner of correction that all, or even most, will happily reciprocate. God tell us that masses of people will always despise sound reasoning and discipline (Prov. 12:1; 15:5; Matt. 7:6; Jn. 16:2). Jesus Christ, the very Truth and Love of God incarnate could not so season His words that He only won people’s hearts and never their hatred. In fact, Jesus was crucified because His enemies could not bear the wounds of mankind’s one and only, flawless friend.

When we recognize Charlie Kirk’s assassination as that of a friend, we can better understand why the many celebrations of it have deeply grieved people throughout the world. So many of those who disagreed with Charlie Kirk are of one mind with his most ardent supporters, sensing that the mentality on display in these celebrations portends the demise of our culture. Where people spurn all real, and for that reason, challenging friends; where people celebrate the death of those who say things they would rather not hear, the natural mechanisms for developing common pursuits have been destroyed. Some, therefore, have not only lost all hope for the celebrants, but cut off every acquaintance who has progressive beliefs. Ironically, this sort of response is more in line with the materialist worldview that Kirk opposed.

On this view, if we are without natural means to persuade one another, there can be no persuasion. Another reaction to Kirk’s death, which is proving to be a sizeable one, has not been despairing. We are seeing a revival of faith in Jesus Christ, and of reliance on supernatural means to change the hearts and minds of those who have lost the appetite for friendship. People are turning to prayer, Lord’s Day worship, biblical preaching, and Christian fellowship. People are determining to speak hard truths in love, relying not on worldly wisdom, but the power of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. As masses react to Charlie Kirk’s death in this hopeful manner, it will become all the more evident that his assassination did not accomplish the removal of an enemy.  It made for the loss of a genuine friend.

Dr. Brant Bosserman is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Trinitas PCA in Woodinville, WA.