Last week, our Devil’s Advocate, in his expected tongue-in-cheek manner, evoked “the latest case of proposed canonization that has emerged in the past few days,” that of political activists and entertaining debater, Charlie Kirk. It didn’t take long for someone in the canonization camp to cite the saint’s first miracle, and a substantial one at that.

The New York Post featured an article by author Anthony Blair with the title: “Surgeon calls Charlie Kirk ‘man of steel’ — reveals ‘miracle’ factor that likely prevented more from being hurt.” This Tony Blair (not to be confused with a slightly more famous one in the United Kingdom) attributes an extraordinary claim to the slain man’s camp in his opening sentence. “‘Man of steel’ Charlie Kirk likely prevented others from getting dangerously hurt when he was shot because the bullet miraculously failed to exit his body thanks to his strong bones.”

The surgeon who attended to the stricken debater reportedly claimed it “was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed.” The article appears to claim that Kirk’s “bone density” stands as the equivalent of the grace of God. It fulfilled a noble purpose as it spared the lives of others who should have been killed by the same bullet. The canonization process has taken a leap forward.

Unfortunately, Kirk was a Protestant and cannot be canonized, although there is serious testimony he was preparing to convert to Catholicism. Perhaps we could make an exception in this case, based on intention. But in the United States, there is another form of sanctity according to a secular frame of quasi-religious reference that possibly trumps the plurimillennial Catholic tradition. Here’s the full quote that established this claim: “His bone was so healthy and the density was so impressive that he’s like the man of steel. It should have just gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too.”

All Americans know who “the man of steel” is. Until this fatal historical moment, there was only one: Superman. The comic book character later immortalized in film is the ultimate American superhero saint. He isn’t simply virtuous, charitable and humble, like Catholic saints, but much more. He stands as an active “savior,” spending his valuable time — when not masquerading as humble newspaper reporter Clark Kent — saving people threatened by evildoers. God clearly designed Kirk’s bone density to prevent innocents with less bone density from sharing Charlie’s fate.

Contesting the miracle

Stepping into my role of Devil’s Advocate, let me raise a first objection, typically a technical point. It turns around the question of whether it’s possible, with a bullet of that caliber, that there would be no exit wound. One expert YouTube commentator judged such a thing possible but extremely unlikely, the chances being “one or two in a thousand.”  On the surface, this statistic would appear to validate the claim of a miracle. 

But I have a more fundamental objection based on procedure. No autopsy report has been released and very little if any true forensic evidence made public. Some claim that what we are told is the entrance wound in Kirk’s neck may actually be the exit wound. This would support the unexamined hypothesis that he had been shot from behind.

In other words, given the legal limbo we are in, Saint Charlie’s canonization will have to be put on hold for the moment.

Nevertheless, I’ve noticed what could be deemed a second miracle that few have bothered to analyze. I would call it the divinely inspired conversion or at least epiphany of Erika Kirk that provided the ultimate highlight at Charlie’s funeral.

If we are to believe the article in The New York Times titled, “For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee,” Charlie’s wife unequivocally possesses the theological virtues we attribute to saints. She expressed them clearly while reflecting on the tragedy she has had to endure. ‘Thy will be done. I surrender to it.’ Do I like it? No. That was the love of my life, my soul mate, my best friend. But God’s plan is always greater than ours.”

The article concludes with a quote expressing Erika’s sense of the meaning of theological eternity. “I’ve had so many people ask, ‘Do you feel anger toward this man? Like, do you want to seek the death penalty?’ I’ll be honest. I told our lawyer, I want the government to decide this. I do not want that man’s blood on my ledger. Because when I get to heaven, and Jesus is like: ‘Uh, eye for an eye? Is that how we do it?’ And that keeps me from being in heaven, from being with Charlie?”

Erika Kirk’s theology

This wasn’t just cheap sanctimonious piety, as she demonstrated during her performance at Sunday’s spectacular funeral in Glendale, Arizona. What she delivered was not a eulogy but a powerful homily. Although she touched all the bases, she spent only a minimum amount of time on her husband’s personality and public record. The general perception most people have of Charlie is that of a political activist rather than a moralist or thought leader. Religion always lingered in the background but it wasn’t the foundation of his discourse. He was cast in the specific role of a powerful influencer capable of inciting the younger generation to identify with the ideals of the Make America Great Again movement. It was all about endorsing traditional values and especially voting for conservative Republicans. Erika’s funeral speech had the curious effect of subverting that standard perception of Charlie’s mission. Instead, she presented it essentially as a spiritual quest.

Kirk’s widow appeared to have already begun redefining a highly partisan political movement, which she has now accepted to lead, as essentially a religious mission. With her insistence on forgiveness and humility, it even appeared closer to the Catholic mysticism than militant and militaristic Protestantism so characteristic of US religious culture. If Charlie’s case for canonization fails, Erika’s appears to have a better chance of succeeding, especially if, like Candace Owens, she converts.

Many have remarked that the most astonishing takeaway from Erika’s speech is its utter contrast with the content delivered by the array of political speakers that followed, most of whom preached the need to hate and actively combat a nebulous population of enemies, each of whom is accused of contributing to Charlie’s murder. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was the most violent, an adept Manichean (and notable militant Zionist). US President Donald Trump, as is his wont, chose to contradict Kirk’s widow with the following words: “[Charlie] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry. I am sorry, Erika.”

The future battle lines involve Israel

Charlie Kirk has been celebrated for his ability to generate soft power. Trump and his cohort, in contrast, focus on hard power and exploit every occasion to express their determination to use it to achieve their ends. The battle lines — as defined by Miller, Trump and “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth — are clearly drawn. Miller has his own theology. His message differs radically from Erika’s: “The day that Charlie died, the angels wept, but those tears had been turned into fire in our hearts. And that fire burns with a righteous fury that our enemies cannot comprehend or understand.” He directly contradicts Erika when he affirms: “Erika is the storm. We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion.” Even without a brown shirt, Miller is a true Stormtrooper.

The banner of Trump’s army displays the words hate and retribution; Erika’s, love and forgiveness.

As we learned in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, one of the battle lines concerns the question of Israel and Gaza. Erika, Turning Point’s new CEO, appears to have enrolled for the new Turning Point USA (TPUSA) program conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, attorney Megyn Kelly and commentator Glenn Beck, while apparently excluding commentator Ben Shapiro, who had initially and assertively volunteered to “pick up that blood-stained microphone.” Erika invokes TPUSA Faith, which “will add thousands of new pastors and congregations.” Will TPUSA’s traditional Israeli-sourced funding disappear as Kirk’s project becomes specifically Christian?

The question of possible Zionist/Israeli implication in Kirk’s murder is still a moot question. No concrete evidence exists for it, but Kirk’s resentment of the pressure put on him in recent months by the ultra-Zionist contingent, including from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, appears well documented. And for that matter, the concrete evidence for Tyler Robinson as the lone gunman appears very weak for the moment. Who might his eventual accomplices be?

On our side, we’ll keep all the potential canonization dossiers open as investigations proceed and rivalries develop. At the same time, we refuse to exclude the hypothesis that, as the drama unfolds, new martyrs may appear.

*[The Devil’s Advocate pursues the tradition Fair Observer began in 2017 with the launch of our “Devil’s Dictionary.” It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself — political and journalistic rhetoric — to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider’s point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.