What Jimmy Kimmel said about Erika Kirk

Jimmy Kimmel returned to ABC last night, less than a week after his show was suspended over on-air comments he made about the political response to the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel addressed the controversy at the top of his opening monologue:

It was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. I don’t think there’s anything funny about it. I understand that to some, that felt either ill-timed or unclear, or maybe both—and for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you’re upset. If the situation were reversed, there’s a good chance I’d have felt the same way.

This was not an apology, but at least he acknowledged the pain his comments caused many. Kimmel did, however, speak directly about Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, and her statement last Sunday that she forgave her husband’s alleged killer. He said:

If you believe in the teachings of Jesus as I do, there it was. That’s it, a selfless act of grace, forgiveness from a grieving widow, that touched me deeply. And I hope it touches many and if there’s anything we should take from this tragedy to carry forward, I hope it can be that.

“The real test of character”

Jimmy Kimmel was right: forgiving those who harm us is “in the teachings of Jesus.” For example, our Lord declared in his Sermon on the Mount:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:43–45).

George Orwell observed, “The real test of character is how you treat someone who has no possibility of doing you any good.” But Jesus took this a step further. As my friend Dr. Howie Batson notes, “Jesus tells us the uniqueness of his followers is that they love even their enemies, as anyone can love their friends.”

Such forgiving grace can be transformative for those who receive it. Here’s an example: In 2 Kings 6, we read that “the king of Syria was warring against Israel” (v. 8). Whenever the Syrian king sent soldiers into Israel, however, the prophet Elisha warned the Jewish king beforehand (vv. 9–10).

So the Syrian king sent his soldiers to capture Elisha. They surrounded him in the town of Dothan, but the prophet prayed for God to strike them with blindness and then led them into the city of Samaria (vv. 13–19). The king of Israel then asked Elisha, “Shall I strike them down? Shall I strike them down?” (v. 21). The prophet advised the king instead to “set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master” (v. 22).

With this result: “So he prepared for them a great feast, and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. And the Syrians did not come again on raids into the land of Israel” (v. 23, my emphasis).

The text does not tell us why, but it would seem obvious that they had learned they could not defeat Israel so long as Elisha was prophetically predicting their attacks. However, I think another dimension of this story is plausible as well: perhaps they reacted with kindness to the kindness they had received.

“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth”

It is human nature to respond to the actions of others in kind. If people slander us, we are angered and feel justified in slandering them. If they lie to us, we might lie to them. But if they forgive us when we harm them, we are more likely to forgive them when they harm us.

The biblical prescription, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Leviticus 24:20), was intended to stop the escalatory violence and retribution of the ancient world. In their day, when there were no criminal courts to prosecute criminals or police forces to prevent crime, the threat of escalatory response was a significant deterrent: If you harm me, I will kill you. If you kill me, my family will kill your family. If you kill my family, my tribe will kill your tribe.

In this context, limiting the punishment to the crime was a significant step forward in social development. But limiting retribution in this way does not require retribution. The victim was still free to forgive their assailant. As Solomon observed, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1).

Otherwise, while retribution is limited to the crime, it can foster further retribution. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right: “If we do an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we will be a blind and toothless nation.”

“Certain things cannot be said”

This year, an average of thirty-five Nigeran Christians have been killed per day. According to the human rights organization Open Doors, more Christians are killed for their faith in Nigeria than in the rest of the world combined.

Christians in America obviously do not face such dire threats. Persecution against us is more ideological than physical. As I noted in today’s Daily Article, the critical theory proponent Herbert Marcuse convinced generations of progressives that they must repress the speech and actions of those with whom they disagree.

He wrote: “Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.” The behavior he sought to prohibit was expressed by traditional morality and the structures of capitalism, both of which he considered to be oppressive and repressive. His influence became so pervasive in academia that many who have never read Marcuse or even heard of him have nonetheless imbibed his insistence on “canceling” conservatives and conservative speech.

Marcuse and others have persuaded many that biblical morality is not just irrelevant but actually dangerous to society. In their view, our position on abortion is part of a “war on women”; our position on same-sex marriage is homophobic; our stand against euthanasia discriminates against the infirm. The way you and I see the KKK is the way many see us.

I say that to say this: We can expect the topic of forgiveness to continue to be relevant to our faith and our personal lives. As Jesus warned us, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20).

“To forgive is to set a prisoner free”

The good news is that opposition is a tremendous opportunity for the gospel. Just as we cannot be courageous unless we face fear, so we cannot forgive unless there is something to forgive. But when we forgive as we are forgiven, we demonstrate the difference Christ alone can make in a human heart. And our grace draws others to the Source of grace.

How is this fact relevant to your life today?

It has been said that coincidence is when God prefers to remain anonymous. If you are reading this article by coincidence, you’re really not. If you don’t have someone to forgive now, it would seem that you soon will.

Biblical forgiveness is not pretending you were not hurt or forgetting that the hurt occurred. It is pardoning, choosing not to punish, and leaving the consequences to God.

• Are there hurts in your past? Choose to stop punishing them with your angry remembrance and wished-for retribution, turning them over to God’s justice and mercy.

• Are there hurts in your present? Choose to pardon the person who harmed you, and tell them so. Take the initiative to break the cycle of vengeance with the gift of grace (Matthew 18:15). (Of course, this does not apply to physical danger—in this case, please seek safety and the support of friends and law enforcement. You can still forgive these crimes relationally, but you must not allow yourself to be further harmed and should trust the legal system for the consequences of criminal behavior.)

• Are there hurts for which you need to be forgiven? Take the initiative to seek forgiveness and experience the joy of a burden lifted and a relationship restored (Matthew 5:23–24).

The famed ethicist Lewis B. Smedes observed,

“To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you.”

Will you choose such freedom today?