
What can lead one person to kill someone they have never met?
I suspect you saw the news. On December 4, a gunman in a hooded jacket shot and killed Brian Thompson, the 50-year-old CEO of UnitedHealthcare, as he left his hotel in New York City. The killer fled the scene, triggering a nationwide manhunt, and given the victim’s job, reports that the words deny, defend, and depose were on the shell casings furthered the suspicion that this was a targeted attack. And I suspect you saw the quick, troubling reactions to the murder afterward, like t-shirts for sale with the words deny, defend, and depose on them, and references to the shooter as a hero for murdering a health insurance company CEO. And you probably saw the subsequent arrest at a Pennsylvania McDonalds of 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, a prep school valedictorian and Ivy League grad from a prominent Baltimore family.
The entire story sounds more like a Grisham novel than real life, so the media attention is unsurprising.
Murder is reprehensible. You might think that goes without saying, but it doesn’t; go without saying, that is. I strongly oppose all acts of violence and for both strategic and theological reasons promote creative nonviolent resistance as an alternative. I remain convinced that what theologian Walter Wink termed the “myth of redemptive violence” is descriptive not just of American history but all of human history, and I defy the claim that violence can be a source of good. So, I unequivocally condemn the murder of Brian Thompson.
As expected, the victim left behind heartbroken family and friends. I read the reactions of those who knew Brian Thompson the best and understand their bewilderment at the widespread popularity of the alleged killer. They described the victim as a small-town, blue-collar kid from Iowa who was a good student and then worked hard as he rose through the ranks to become the CEO of a major corporation. Thompson earned ten million dollars in salary and benefits last year and was in many ways the popularly-understood American success story. Rags to riches. How could anyone celebrate the cold-blooded murder of a Horatio Alger hero story?
If you find yourself so bewildered, there is another perspective that is helpful to understand. Consider, if you will, the perspective of countless human beings who have watched their loved ones suffer and die due to the cold denial of insurance coverage by a fabulously wealthy company whose chief executive was paid over ten million dollars last year. (To do the math, that’s well over $1,000/hour for every single hour of the year.) Some of you might not have to try very hard to imagine this alternative perspective, and to be honest, I didn’t have to try very hard either. To understand the anger and bitterness, that is.
When I consider the murder of an American rags-to-riches success story by someone who is representative of millions of wronged Americans using violent tactics characteristic of American history and popular culture, I ask myself how to make sense of it all, and it turns out that I do have a particular thought to share.
Ten years ago, Simon Sinek published a wonderful leadership book titled, Leaders Eat Last, and I was especially impressed by his chapter, The Abstract Challenge. [Note: I mentioned this book and chapter specifically in a recent and relevant post, Small but Mighty.] Sinek pictures the initial attempts of humans to live in groups and imagines a village deciding on a leader and granting the leader certain privileges but with an important understanding: When our village gets attacked by a lion or tiger, it’s your job to fight it for us! However, Sinek argues, as human civilization evolved over subsequent thousands of years, the leaders still received lots of privileges, but they also became further and further removed from the people they are there to protect. So, to the modern leader, those they are to protect often become more and more “abstract.” To illustrate, the CEO of a major corporation leads massive numbers of people whose names they will simply never know. And given this state of affairs, as Sinek concludes, in organizations—and he actually uses the following phrase as a chapter title—abstraction kills.
I was struck by how literal that may have become in this particular case.
What can lead a prep school valedictorian and Ivy League grad from a prominent Baltimore family to kill a hard-working rags-to-riches story from a blue-collar Iowa family when the two have never met?
Possibly, because abstraction kills.
There are many conversation topics that emerge from this popular true crime story, and I hope that on one hand we will remember to reaffirm the rule of law and condemn murder, and I hope that on the other hand we will at some point truly consider universal health care. But it seems to me that neither conversation will make a dent in The Abstract Challenge. We can hardly reverse millennia of sociological developments overnight to address such a fundamental reality.
But as I have argued before, I do think we can begin a grassroots effort toward that end and adopt a posture that consistently resists the powerful sociological inertia that constantly reduces actual human beings into invisible abstractions. To be candid, that is why I like living in a small town. And why I like working at a small college. And why I like being a part of a small church. In small towns, and small organizations, and small churches, it is exponentially more difficult for people—and their joys and their pains—to be invisible.
In a phrase, it is vital that we learn to truly see people.[1] All people. It’s a nearly impossible task in a modern world, but don’t let that stop us from trying. We are facing powerful forces that lead to violence and death, but I am convinced that life and love are worth the (creative, nonviolent) resistance.
[1] And I’ve also said this before, but I encourage you to read the latest book from David Brooks, How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply, and Being Deeply Seen (2023).

