The Deadly Conflation: When Equating Speech and Physical Violence Becomes a License to Assault

This blog post is a continuation of my previous blog post, “Christianity vs. Marxism: Two Worldviews with Two Fates for America.” In this week’s post, I talk about the connection between the phrase “words are violence” and the murder of Charlie Kirk. We are living in a culture that says, “words are violence.” This phrase refers to the idea that certain types of speech do not just offend but can cause genuine, measurable psychological, social, and physical harm. This perspective mistakenly treats language as an action, thereby demanding a reaction (or retaliation).

The idea that “words are violence” is a contemporary concept that does not originate directly from Karl Marx or Classical Marxism. The phrase is associated with thinkers from the Frankfurt School, a school of neo-Marxist thought that developed into Critical Theory. In this view, language and ideas that uphold an oppressive system (like capitalism, racism, or patriarchy) can be seen as a form of cultural/linguistic violence because they are believed to inflict psychological harm, negate identity, and contribute to unjust social structures. Words, therefore, are seen as weapons or tools used to oppress.

Issues With The Phrase “Words Are Violence”

The Core Difference in Intent: The “words are violence” concept usually addresses speech meant to attack, degrade, or oppress. It does not consider the speaker’s intent. Christian boldness, even when delivering unpopular truth (like sin, judgment, or the exclusivity of Christ), is an act of love meant to draw people towards salvation in Christ.

It justifies physical violence as self-defense: The most significant danger is that if words are redefined as violence, then physical violence against speech becomes justifiable as self-defense. Recent surveys have shown a significant percentage of college students believe violence is an acceptable response to stop a speaker whose views they disagree with. This logic threatens the foundation of a peaceful society, which settles disputes with words and debates.

It undermines free speech: Equating speech with physical harm provides justification for censorship and the suppression of ideas, prioritizing emotional impact over actual threat or objective reality. Because perceived psychological damage is subjective, this allows offended groups to silence opposing viewpoints. Many have witnessed censorship on social media, at work, and in other settings. When speakers fear their words will be labeled as “violence” and lead to consequences like physical harm or cancellation, they become less likely to engage in uncomfortable debate, which inhibits the free flow of ideas.

It devalues the seriousness of actual violence: Horrific acts of violence have occurred since the very beginning of human history, starting in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. Applying the term “violence” merely to offense dilutes the meaning and the sin of actual physical violence.

It discourages resilience and encourages offense: The phrase has been criticized for promoting a culture of psychological fragility rather than one of resilience, particularly among young people. When individuals are taught that exposure to challenging, offensive, or difficult ideas is equivalent to a physical attack, it discourages them from developing the emotional tools necessary to tolerate discomfort, process offense, and constructively engage in difficult arguments. As Christian we are called to not be easily offended. Proverbs 19:11: “A person’s wisdom yields patience; it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense.”

Christian Mandate

Christians are commanded to be bold. This boldness is required to preach messages that the world often finds deeply offensive: that all people are sinners (Romans 3:23), that there is only one path to salvation (John 14:6), and that certain behaviors are sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Christians must acknowledge that standing for certain biblical truths in a hostile culture, especially on issues of ethics, morality, or identity, will be perceived as violence or hate speech by some listeners. Boldness does not eliminate the possibility of offense, but it means prioritizing faithfulness over popular approval, while ensuring the tone is always respectful and Christ-like. “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” John 15:18