Listening to all of the Leftist commentators on the Charlie Kirk assassination this week makes me think we're closer to civil war than ever before. I don't think things are going to cool off this time. The demonic spirit that seems to overtake murderers when they murder someone seems to be growing like a contagion. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the state found in many people who may just decide to murder one person but in the process of doing so, there seems to be some sort of irrational frenzy that comes over them where they end up murdering others or committing suicide, as though the killing of one was like an animal tasting blood for the first time and becoming insatiable in that moment. Usually, this state of bloodthirst ends with the murderer being killed or arrested and the rest of us condemning from the heart his reprehensible act and the arrogance one needs to have in taking an innocent life. However, it seems to have grown unbound as it finds minds and hearts on the Left who rejoice in it, as though they had done the killing themselves and are now thirsty for more, as they not only rejoice in the reenactment of the murder but fantasize outloud about murdering more innocents. These violent delights have violent ends, as murderers must first extinguish their own humanity in order to extinguish the lights of others.
But what caught me in all of this was the argument that both sides are guilty of political violence. I've commented before that we were in the middle of a church split and those who caused the split or joined it as some sort of cheerleader for it later included a couple people in leadership who were clearly informed of all of the sin being committed by the persons splitting the church. What was interesting to me is that they made this argument. “Both sides are in sin,” they said. Only, both sides actually weren't.
Can you imagine going up to a woman who was raped and saying to her that, "Hey, both sides, you and the guy who raped you, are sinners, so let's not act like you have the moral high ground." I really don't know what other example to use now since our entire culture thinks that saying this of a man who was murdered and making this argument to the murdered man's family is somehow a convincing argument.
But why is this argument made? Was WWII everyone's fault? Is every conflict and every time the innocent are slandered, harmed, canceled, killed to be met with the "well, everybody's a sinner" argument? "He has shown thee, O Man, what is good and what the Lord requires of thee, but to do justly." But how is justice possible if everyone, including the innocent victims, are at fault because in the end everyone's a sinner so sin can somehow be found out in anyone?
The truth is that Charlie Kirk was a sinner, so the statement that he wasn't without sin is true. But, biblically speaking, this doesn't matter. He's not guilty of the sin committed against him. Nor is it true that both sides are as guilty as one another in any given conflict. In fact, there is only one reason why the "both sides are guilty" argument is deployed, and that is to lessen the guilt of the actually guilty party.
The truth is, when I heard this from these people I knew what side they were on, the guilty one. Only guilty people use this argument to justify their evil rather than to repent of it. Whenever it's clearly on the side of their opponents, the "both sides" argument is nowhere to be found. When an injustice is done against them, for instance, the evidence clearly points to the condemnation of their opponent. But the “both sides” argument is a subconscious way of admitting that one is on the wrong side. The people making this argument in our case wanted to join the guilty party because they wanted to join the denomination he was joining and they lusted after the power he would give them to make church their way. Yet, it's evil to join evil, so what's a wicked man to do? He just makes both sides equal to justify his decision to be on that side. No one wants to be on the wrong side, the side of the wicked, standing with Korah and not Moses. Solution? Make the sins of Korah and the sin of Moses equivalent and then neither side is better than the other. David and Saul? Well, both sides are sinners. John the Baptist or Herod? Both sides are sinners. Who can blame you for choosing one of two equally bad sides, right? And everyone is a sinner so it's a sure bet that it must be true. After all, anyone who claims to be innocent must be arrogant and self-righteous and thus prove the point that both sides are in the wrong in every single case. It’s impossible to do anything without some sort of sin that can be conjured up somewhere and somehow.
The same thing has happened here. Leftists are now on the side of murder. They are the actual people of hatred and illegal violence. They are the insurrectionists and the destroyers who are harming everyone, and that was proven, not only in the assassination of Charlie Kirk but also in their celebration and justifications of it. But that would mean that they are the bad guys and no one wants to believe that. That would mean that all of the positions they've fought for, the people they've fought with and admired, are people on the wrong sides of those debates which means their stances are an alignment with, and fondness for, those who are evil.
Cognitive dissonance sets in. There are only two ways out. Do the hardest thing they'll ever do in life and admit that their life has been a lie, turn and join the truly innocent and right side, or do the easy thing that all cowards like these church leaders did, make both sides equivalent so that you don't have to admit that you were not just wrong but wicked and the only repentance is rejecting the side you are now on by exonerating the other side as innocent. Only the truly courageous will do so, and unfortunately, not many people have such bravery to look in the mirror and say, "Thou, not the other side, art the man."
In a way, those who continue to justify themselves re-establish the evil that was done toward those who are innocent perpetually. The sin never dies. It never goes out. As one lie leads to another, the person must continually justify to himself why he is not on the wrong side, and so his whole world becomes a delusion where the evil is done again and again, forever and ever, world without end. I imagine people in hell will be repeating their arguments for eternity, revictimizing the innocent forever, displaying that their condemnation is just.
This argument revictimizes the innocent by implying that since both sides are guilty, the innocent party isn’t innocent and deserved to be sinned against.
The truth of the matter is that maybe everyone has sinned. The problem is that this doesn't lessen the sins of others but rather shows that all sin must be weighed in terms of when, where, how, why it is committed. Moses may have sinned in his life and maybe he spoke harshly with Korah rather than building bridges, but the Lord determined that only Korah, not Moses, was in a sin worthy of death. Maybe David flaunted his victories too much in front of Saul or didn't show his gratefulness enough, but the Lord determined that it was Saul who was in a sin worthy of death and David was not. So he gave Saul over to death and put David on the throne. God never makes the "both sides" argument because when someone is being victimized by another, there is only one side that is in the wrong, even if the victim is a sinner. Justice is impartial but iniquity looks to make the scales measuring boulders and pebbles equal.
No one should ever consider himself a Christian or on the right side if this is something that he has done or is doing.
May God grant sight and courage to those who would cease from using the wicked shield of the "both sides" argument and turn from their unity with wicked people before it's too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment