Since the online age’s dawn, content creators have generally followed one of two paths. The first is striving to produce and publish quality material for the betterment of others, be it factual news reporting, informed opinion, or entertaining. The second is saying whatever draws the most attention to oneself, usually via generating heat by striking outlandish poses demanding the reader, listener, or viewer pick a side either pro or con the creator even more than the content. As Living Colour said some years back, it is the living embodiment of the cult of personality.

This is seldom more true than on political or religious topics, especially when a content creator weaves the two together. Rather than follow Christ’s example, namely saying little about politics much to the annoyance of many chafing under Rome’s rule of Israel, politics and religion are brought together not with the mindset of examining political philosophies, platforms, and policies based on a Biblically-rooted worldview. Instead, it is for assigning validity to political beliefs based on ones standing regarding religious beliefs. This is not strictly a Christian issue, as ISIS amply demonstrates.

Many believers in public view face a severe temptation to assume service to Christ excludes them from the personal responsibilities claiming Jesus as Lord and not just Savior entail. Or, believing their faith elevates and/or validates their political opinions regardless of where they lay. As Steve Taylor once sang, if you don’t die to yourself, pride kills.

Which leads to Matt Walsh.

Walsh has been floating around social media, informal or otherwise, for several years. He has long portrayed himself as the conservative Christian thinking man, unafraid to take the unpopular view on morality-based issues. Walsh has worked this into a nice little career, albeit one seeing him bounce from host to host. Currently, he works at Ben Shapiro’s media conglomerate alongside Candace Owens and others.

The other day, Walsh took umbrage with a post from yours truly, specifically the title and, along with it, the subject.

The "brilliant tribute" literally presents Zelensky as a Christ figure who is sacrificing himself for the redemption of mankind https://t.co/OwkDpprFxq

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 17, 2022

This intense dislike of John Ondrasik’s song saluting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky bubbled to the surface again the following day.

I still can’t get over the fact that this batshit insane song was made and is being hailed as inspirational by so many people. It literally presents Zelensky as a messiah “carrying his cross” to save mankind. People have lost their damned minds. My God.

pic.twitter.com/ARAUledRvU

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 18, 2022

It is difficult to ascertain what or who Walsh hates more: the song, or Zelensky himself. While having no desire to involve American troops in the Russia-Ukraine War directly is hardly a mark against any individual, Walsh’s constant railing against Zelensky is the stuff of which Tucker Carlson has been oft accused. It warrants mention that Walsh’s coworker Owens shares his utter dislike for Zelensky:

President Zelensky is a very bad character who is working with globalists against the interests of his own people. I will not move one inch away from that assessment—ever—no matter how flowery the media depictions of him are.

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 17, 2022

Curiously, neither Walsh nor Owens have much to say about Putin or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, they are obsessed with Zelensky. Change the names, and you have the NeverTrumpets doing their daily routine regarding Donald Trump. But I digress. Let’s return to the song in question.

Ondrasik, a skilled lyricist, uses his words well. The song does not present Zelensky as a literal Savior. It uses the line “can one man save the world” as an allegory in the same manner as, for example, people said in WWII that Churchill saved the world when he was standing alone against Hitler. This should be clear, but Walsh chooses to ignore this in favor of scoring points among his followers or whatever his motivations may be.

This war started with Vladimir Putin deciding to invade Ukraine as part of his dream to lead a reunified USSR. Volodymyr Zelensky is leading his country’s fight to remain a sovereign state. This is admirable, or at least should be considered as such. Is Zelensky imperfect? Of course. We all are. However, from all appearances, he does not seem to be so utterly consumed by hubris that he is incapable of realizing the realities of this war. Which, unfortunately, is a status Matt Walsh cannot claim.