Sunday Morning Greek Blog

September 20, 2025

My Tribute to Charlie Kirk

I left for an eight-day road trip to Houston and then Minneapolis the day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. With all the travel and spending time with my kids for the first half of the trip and my coworkers the last half, it was difficult to sit down and focus on any serious reflection. This is probably good, because I’ve had a chance to see the reactions of others and witnesses the abomination of those especially on the Left who are mocking or celebrating Charlie’s death before I could finish up what I’m presenting here. The problem is Evil, pure and simple, and Charlie was a warrior fighting against the darkness of that evil in the heart of enemy territory at times. I had done the same thing on a much smaller scale thirty some years ago as a campus minister, so I appreciated Charlie’s courage. Here’s my reflection on how he influenced and emboldened me.

As a former campus minister who, with some fear and trepidation, walked into the offices of the nation’s largest Gay/Lesbian Student Union at Northern Illinois University in the early 90s to try to develop a dialogue with a very militant group (at least their rhetoric against Christians in the school paper made it seem as such), I have looked up to Charlie Kirk ever since he came on the scene in 2012. His approach was similar to mine. Let’s talk about the assumptions you’re making about Christianity and that some Christians are making about homosexuals. AT NIU, I was able to have what I thought were “productive” conversations with the G/LU to show a more compassionate side of Christianity that didn’t hate the sinner a la Westboro Baptist in Topeka, Kansas, back in the day. I earned enough respect to be invited to sit on some panel discussions, and several appreciated the tone I took. (For historical context, keep in mind that “political correctness” was just starting to rear its ugly head in those days.)

Unfortunately, that rhetoric has now reached intolerable levels. The way to counter speech you don’t like should be more speech. That is the Right’s attitude with a few rare exceptions. However, the Left’s attitude has been to cancel, shame, dox, impose fear, name calling, and rename our position as “politically incorrect.” Let’s not forget that they also burned up cities and vilified the police, and even committed open anarchy in places like Seattle all in the name of a criminal drug addict who refused to comply with police. Now you can add deadly violence to that as well. I’m not going to be silenced, and I have never shied away from confronting such things in my blog or from the pulpit.

I don’t think it’s a cop-out to suggest that mental health is part of the problem here, but the bigger problem is just plain evil. If we just say “Violence is wrong regardless of who commits it,” but it misses the point of the larger scope of violence, not just the act of cold-blooded murder. (The echoes of those criticizing “Our thoughts and prayers are with you” is still ringing loudly in my ears.) The moral equivalence would seem to stop there. Charlie Kirk stood for freedom of speech and freedom of peaceably assembling, guaranteed First Amendment rights. As a Christian, I believe those First Amendment rights are also God-given rights based in the Bible. Those First Amendment rights are guaranteed and protected, in part, by the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. Tyranny seeks to strip those rights from those who are citizens. The Second Amendment should not necessarily be the first response unless danger is imminent, but it can’t be ignored, either.

When you juxtapose what Charlie Kirk stood for against say the Democratic Farm-Labor Party former Speaker of the Minnesota House who was targeted, the moral contrast is stark if not frightening. Charlie stood for free speech, community engagement, and dialogue with those who disagreed with him. He believed in human dignity. That’s the fundamental basis for First Amendment rights. On the other hand, the Minnesota State Legislature, led by Speaker Hortman at the time, passed a law in 2023 that expanded abortion rights and eliminated clear language about NOT classifying pedophilia as a sexual orientation in favor of extremely vague language:[1]

Let the record show that Speaker Hortman voted in the affirmative for that bill (2023 S.F. 2909).[2]

Here’s a Twitter post that gives additional evidence that the bill (now law) is a step toward normalizing pedophilia.[3]

Here’s the finished product after it was enrolled (i.e., the law was updated):[4]

Yet for all these things she supported, she was never targeted by a MAGA loyalist for violence. Nor, apparently, were any of these things the motive for her and her husband’s assassin. Let the record show that their assassin was apparently not a MAGA supporter. He had “No Kings” literature in his vehicle when they caught him, and the “No Kings” rallies in Minnesota were cancelled after that discovery.[5] Those were anti-Trump rallies planned around the time of the 250th anniversary of the Army. Just a few days earlier, Hortman had voted with Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature as the only Democrat in support of a bill stripping State-funded health care benefits from adult illegal aliens (Who Is Vance Boelter? What We Know About Suspect in Democ… – Newsweek). Presumably that is what prompted the assassin to take lethal action (https://x.com/amuse/status/1969070353356820789). That puts the lie to the claim that the Right fostered any kind of culture of violence in this situation. When the violent, dangerous criminal and drug user George Floyd died, the country erupted in violence. No one in the media seemed to condemn that kind of violence. If violence is never okay, then why didn’t anyone make a concerted effort to stop that kind of violence when it spread across the country?

Yet when Charlie Kirk gets murdered by an assassin, Christians come together and pray and do NOT riot in the streets or burn down cities. When a liberal speaker comes to a campus to speak, there’s barely a fuss about security. When someone like Charlie or Ben Shapiro or Candice Owens comes to a campus to speak, there are riots and violent protests and a heightened need for greater security.

The causes of the Left’s violent bent are precisely the kinds of things Hortman and her Leftist colleagues supported. Abortion is the murder of innocents; the blood of the innocent is on the hands of the so-called professionals who perform them AND the politicians who legitimize the procedure. Otherwise, why would Minnesota law have to exempt abortion from the Minnesota criminal Murder statute when it comes to unborn deaths? If violence is never okay, then why do people continue to want to legitimize the violence of abortion against the innocent and helpless unborn?

Transitioning youth is also an act of violence against the human body. It involves bloodshed as well when you start cutting off body parts and making phony structures (glory holes; inflatable penises; etc.) in the body. It involves violence against the body when you start introducing high doses of the opposite-sex hormone into a system that was designed to function on the hormone native to the biological sex of the individual. If violence is never okay, then why is the violence of transitioning youth and making them infertile for life in many cases still tolerated and promoted?

Whether you transition from boy to girl or girl to a boy, pumping opposite-sex hormones into a body not designed for those hormones is like putting motor oil into the fuel tank of a car designed for unleaded gasoline. The body will push back against that. It will try to create what is missing or eliminate what it considers invasive. We’re starting to see what happens with these kinds of procedures, both mentally and physically. That’s why many European countries have started restricting or banning such transition procedures.[6] The individuals often end up in worse mental and physical shape than they were in before the transition. If violence is never okay, then why do we continue the violence of experimental surgeries on vulnerable populations?

In other words, when the Left condemns violence, they should start within their own house. None of these facts justify in any way the assassination of Hortman and her husband. But they do create the contrast between what Hortman stood for and what Charlie stood for.

Charlie Kirk argued against these acts of violence; held peaceful, orderly assemblies where he allowed those who disagreed with him to come to the front of the line; and preached the gospel of peace and salvation in Jesus Christ to a generation in need of hope, yet he was violently assassinated by a left-wing nut who confessed openly to it. If violence is never okay, then why do some on the Left mock, ridicule, and cheer on the death of a man of peace?

If you haven’t already seen it, I would encourage you to watch Erika Kirk’s Address to the Nation on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination she made just two days after his death. I would encourage you to look up the recording of the September 15, 2025, broadcast of the Charlie Kirk Radio Show hosted by Vice President J.D. Vance where he interviews several people from the Trump administration (including Robert F. Kennedy) talking about the influence and character of Charlie Kirk on their own lives.

Let me ask this question of men: Men, are you living the kind of life and loving your wife in such a way that she would praise you as Erika did Charlie? None of us are perfect, of course, but what can each of us do better? Women, do you love and support your husbands in such a way that they know they are appreciated and honored in your home?

Charlie Kirk’s assassination shows that the Left will stop at nothing to try to silence Christians and the political Right. We who believe are ALL in danger and need to be vigilant against such attacks. But we must also pray and allow God to be the one to take revenge in his time, not in our own. This is not to say we can’t act to protect ourselves or others from an immediate threat like an active shooter situation or an out-of-control individual flailing a knife around. The people who kill or try to kill in cold blood like these assassins and would-be assassins have mental health issues. We need to keep cooler heads and immerse ourselves in prayer and service. Get connected with a community of believers if you’re not already. Stay in your community of believers for mutual support and encouragement. Don’t stray from your community and act the lone wolf.

Put on the full armor of God, everyone. We are likely going to need it.

Scott Stocking

My opinions are my own.


[1] Chapter 52 – MN Laws

[2] House Journal 70th Day Monday May 15 2023

[3] Gays Against Groomers on X: “BREAKING: A transgender representative in Minnesota has introduced a bill that will remove the exclusion of pedophiles from the protected class of “sexual orientation.” This means it will be illegal to discriminate against child rapists. This is what we have been sounding the https://t.co/9Rjbp6C6rz” / X

[4] Sec. 363A.03 MN Statutes

[5] Minnesota Assassination Suspect Had Flyers Reading ‘No Ki… – Newsweek

[6] Why European Countries Are Rethinking Gender-Affirming Care for Minors | Best Countries | U.S. News

February 23, 2023

Confronting the Evil Within (Matthew 5:21–37)

Click the “Play” button above to hear the message.

Sermon preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, February 12, 2023, Sixth Sunday after Epiphany in the Revised Common Lectionary.

We’ve seen it before, right? Maybe in a soap opera or in an edgier Hallmark movie, if there is such a thing. It starts with a misstep, maybe innocent, maybe not so innocent. Someone forgets a birthday; the other makes that purchase that there’s no room in the budget for or that sets back the hope of a special trip. The husband is spending too much time in his “cave” watching sports or the news while the wife is struggling in the kitchen or with the kids. Then there’s the “not tonight, honey,” which may come from genuine exhaustion, or worse, maybe that’s the first expression of a spark of anger.

In a marriage, if such anger is left unchecked, or there’s not an immediate recognition that something may be going wrong, things start to happen in our head, and perhaps in our soul. Seeds of doubt may begin to creep in. You think a coworker may be noticing you more; that innocent conversation with someone of the opposite sex in the line at the Starbuck’s or grocery store touches you in such a way that it latches on to one of those seeds of anger or doubt, and the inappropriate desire starts taking root. Now you’re not just thinking that coworker is noticing you more; you’re actively seeking their attention. The woman in line slips you a business card or note with her personal “digits” (that’s phone number for those of us over 40) on the back.

And again, if left unchecked, eventually the ugly truth will come out. At some point, one or both get triggered by something the other does, and there’s an ugly fight. “You don’t pay attention to me anymore!” “You don’t love me anymore!” With each little stumble down the slippery slope, it becomes more and more critical that some kind of intervention is needed. One of two things may happen at this point: the couple realizes their need to turn things around. They make the attempt, oftentimes successful, to reconfirm their oaths or vows to each other, reconcile, and get back on the right track. But unfortunately, sometimes things progress so badly, or the reconciliation gets derailed because of a lack of commitment to it, the “D” word rears its ugly head, and the opportunity for any reconciliation fades into the sunset.

Jesus’s teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount really is about setting some boundaries for ourselves.

Now I set up this little scenario not because I want to talk about marriage in my message, but because I thought it might be a fairly concise way to show that the passage we just read from the Sermon on the Mount is not as disjointed as it may seem. I could have just as easily crafted the scenario to fit a friendship or a business relationship. What Jesus says in today’s gospel passage naturally flows from the claim he made in last week’s Lectionary gospel passage:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”[1]

The apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans 10:4:

Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.[2]

The New Living Translation puts it this way:

For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.[3]

Another way to put this is that the life Jesus lived while he dwelt with us on Earth was the embodiment of the law. He showed people what it meant to live a righteous life in God’s eyes. It wasn’t just about keeping the letter of the law; Jesus here is confronting the lax attitude about the law that seems to have taken hold in his day, perhaps enhanced by the strict legalism of the pharisees. Let’s take a closer look.

Now these passages have some difficult words for us to hear and may bring up some painful memories or even some feelings of guilt, especially for those of us who have been divorced when we get to that passage, but I want to emphasize this: If you are in Christ, who has accomplished everything the Law set out to do, then you share in that accomplishment. You have a share in that righteousness. Your sins have been forgiven and you have the absolute guarantee of eternal life. The old has gone, and the new has come. So take heart in that assurance of new and abundant life as we work our way through this difficult passage.

We’re looking at four of the last six sections of Matthew 5 this morning. You probably noticed that Jesus had a little formula he used to introduce each section: “You have heard people tell you X, but I’m going to tell you Y, and why X is shortsighted.” In the four sections we’re looking at today, Jesus is encountering an attitude that many people still have today about how good they think they are: “I’ve never killed anyone; I’ve never cheated on my wife; I’ve never stolen anything; so I don’t know why God wouldn’t let me into heaven.” What Jesus is saying in these passages is that these “big-time” sins are really just the ultimate expression of the attitude of our hearts.

Jesus first deals with the command, “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is a technical, legal term that refers to an intentional, illegal or unethical act of taking someone’s life. It doesn’t refer to the defense of one’s self, family, or country; it doesn’t refer to the death penalty justly applied; and it doesn’t refer to accidents. Jesus makes that clear by how he interprets that command: it’s not so much about actually killing someone, although that’s definitely forbidden: it’s about the attitude or disposition of your heart toward a person. Jesus equates getting angry with someone to murder, especially if that anger degrades into some pretty nasty name calling. “Raca” was probably the equivalent in the Hebrew language of a certain word describing a body part people use today. “You fool” comes from the Greek word from which we get the English word “moron.”

Murder is a technical, legal term that refers to an intentional, illegal or unethical act of taking someone’s life. It doesn’t refer to the defense of one’s self, family, or country; it doesn’t refer to the death penalty justly applied; and it doesn’t refer to accidents.

Anger is a natural reaction we have to situations that upset us, but because it’s dangerous to dwell on that anger too much, Jesus exhorts his listeners to deal with that anger quickly by going straight to the person who angered you and work it out, peacefully. Paul recognizes this principle from Psalm 4:4 as well when he says in Ephesians: “Get angry, but don’t sin. Don’t let the sun go down while you’re still angry, and don’t give the devil a foothold.” That’s why anger is just as dangerous as murder, because it allows the devil to get in and wreak havoc on our own lives.

The first paper I did in my first year of seminary was on this next section on adultery. I entitled it “Lusting, Lopping, and Living.” My instructor was so impressed with the title when I proposed it that he said he’d give me an A based on the title! Like murder, the physical act of adultery, having sex with another person in a marriage covenant relationship in violation of your own marriage covenant, was the ultimate expression of despising your covenant. This was not unique to the Jews; many cultures of the day had moral or legal sanctions against adultery.

Jesus again stresses the seriousness of any disposition we might have to take a misstep in the direction of adultery. He uses hyperbole here. He’s not really talking about cutting off body parts or gouging out our eyes. He’s saying cut out of our lives those things that might foster such an attitude. Job said, “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.”[4] Martin Luther advised that you can’t keep the birds from flying overhead, but you can keep them from nesting in your hair. Proverbs warns about being seduced by a “wayward” or “adulterous” woman. Many Christians have adopted the principle of never being alone in a room or other confined space with someone of the opposite sex to guard against even the accusation of adultery or impropriety. Maintaining an unimpeachable integrity in this regard requires establishing some pretty strict boundaries.

This brings us to the passage on divorce. Again, having been there myself, I know that those who are divorced go through some pretty serious soul searching. Feelings of failure, guilt, anger, grief, and a host of others are common, but as I said earlier, it’s important to realize that, in Christ, we have all that forgiven and covered by the blood of Jesus. That doesn’t mean all those feelings go away, necessarily, but they begin to pale in comparison in the light of our Savior’s love and healing.

What Jesus is addressing in verses 31 and 32 is not so much the consequences of divorce as he is the seriousness of it. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Moses had permitted writing a notice of divorce because of the hardness of Israel’s hearts. That’s never what God intended. Jesus is saying here that divorce carries several social and perhaps religious consequences with it that could stigmatize both parties permanently, negatively impacting their standing in the community, so be careful about such an “easy out” as writing out a bill of divorce.

Jesus is saying here that divorce carries several social and perhaps religious consequences with it that could stigmatize both parties permanently, negatively impacting their standing in the community.

We do have the writings of the rabbis in Jesus’s day about bills of divorce. One school of rabbis argued that if a wife “spoiled a dish,” that was a legitimate ground for divorce. Other schools were not quite so lenient. It would take some act of marital infidelity or perhaps even abuse or abandonment to justify divorce. In one passage from these writings, there’s a scenario about if a husband writes a bill of divorce and sends it to her by another person, but then changes his mind and gets back to her before the bill of divorce gets to her, he can tell her he’s nullifying the bill of divorce he sent her that she presumably knows nothing about. Yeah, that would go over well. Of course, if he gets there after the bill of divorce arrives, it’s too late to nullify it. These are just some of the examples about how flippantly at times the Jews acted about divorce.

If you know someone who is struggling with divorce, some congregations sponsor an excellent program called Divorce Care. I went through it myself, and it helped me immensely in dealing with all the feelings and emotions I was experiencing. If you need help finding such a group, just let me know. I’d be glad to put you in touch with them, or you can check out divorcecare.org.

Finally, we come to the passage on oaths. I think it’s significant that this passage comes after the divorce section that deals with violating a covenant promise. An oath is different from a covenant in that it typically invoked the name of God, heaven, or some other sacred place or object. Violating an oath thus given would bring shame on the oath maker and insult the reputation of God or other sacred places or article sworn on. Jesus warns it’s better not to make any oath at all and just do what you say you’re going to do, or not do what you say you won’t do. “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[5]” Here, we can call upon the profound wisdom of Pastor Yoda, I mean, Master Yoda: “Do or do not. There is no try.”

I’m not sure if my youngest daughter had this passage in mind when she and her husband got married a couple years ago. Everything was set up and beautifully decorated in the fairgrounds building where they got married. All the guests were seated, including the ceremonial seating of the parents and grandparents. I gave my permission when the officiant asked (or did he ask me?) and took my seat. He started the ceremony by asking Tim if he took Emma to be his wife, and he said yes. Then he asked Emma if she took Tim to be her husband. She responded yes as well. And without any further ado, the officiant announced that they were husband and wife, and that was the end of the ceremony! It took longer to walk everyone down the aisle than it did to go through the ceremony. No set of vows, no “until death do you part,” or anything like that. Short, simple, sweet. Everyone had the rest of the night to celebrate.

So to sum up here: Jesus’s teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount really is about setting some boundaries for ourselves so we can do our part to “deliver ourselves from the evil” around us, to guard against and defend ourselves from dangers within and without that would try to separate us from God. Jesus is fulfilling the promise that God gave in Jeremiah 31:33:

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God, and they will be my people.”[6]

Jesus calls us to not only give God first place in our hearts, but in our minds also, that we might know the heart and mind of God through him and see a lost world through eyes of the Savior who came to redeem his creation. Grace and peace to you all. Amen.

Scott Stocking

My opinions are my own conclusions based on my study of this passage.


[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Tyndale House Publishers. 2015. Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[5] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[6] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.