Making Biblical sense of Charlie Kirk’s fans, critics and a complicated legacy.

An Introductory Note: The goal of this article is to take a careful, honest, humble and Scripturally-informed look at Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Indeed, as so many at his memorial service pointed out, there is much to celebrate, but as Charlie so frequently taught us, we must think honestly and critically about what we believe, driven by the facts, no matter the cost – all for the greater good. Charlie’s assassination was wicked, as have been too many of the responses to his death. We join together with his family and friends in mourning his death and celebrating his Savior who we trust, by God’s grace alone, brought him safely home. Indeed, I believe it’s through both a celebration of Charlie’s strengths and an honest look at his weaknesses, that we best honor Charlie, the movement he’s created, and Jesus, whom he served.

If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that Charlie Kirk was a polarizing figure.  And just like the magnetic force from which the turn of phrase originates, it seems for the vast majority of us, Kirk is now seen as one of two extremes – either an angelic saint or a pernicious devil. And so the debate has raged on, illustrating just how divisive we have become as a culture.  But why does the wanton assassination of a young, principled political activist produce such a contentious debate?  I believe at the core of this divide is both a religio-political ideological chasm and an increasing inability for us to understand or express the nuances of reality. Everything has become a zero-sum-game.  You are either 100% for or 100% against.  There is no middle ground – in fact, to be moderate is to be seen as weak or unprincipled.    

News that Divides

Why is this? In large part, I think we can point to the democratization, proliferation and specialization of how and where we now get our news. When I was growing up, news was consumed largely through reading the paper, watching the nightly network news, and perhaps some news on the radio. That was it. It was limited, and compared to today, it was largely uniform – focused primarily on reporting facts. The news was generally trusted and respected. But, with the advent of cable news, that began to change. Today, we have news coming from every corner – and because of social media, most of us are getting a largely one-dimensional, sensationalized versions of the news – where everything from legitimate news to a conspiracy theorist in his garage get equal weight. On top of that, outrage sells, and politicians, news agencies and even the faceless algorithms of social media are all increasingly exploiting that loophole in human nature, with devastating effect.

So, like the old proverb of blind people attempting to describe an elephant only by what they can immediately touch, the vast majority of us are getting only part of the picture in the news we consume, yet assuming its the whole picture. To compound the issue, it’s like the elephant is wearing various parts of halloween costumes, further distorting the perception of the blind men. So it is with social media. The algorithms continue to function in a way that pushes people to the extremes by what they see and don’t see. And, because both politicians and news agencies are increasingly willing to play along with this lucrative us-versus-them game, it’s the American people that get stuck in the middle.

All that to say, one thing I urge us to reject out of hand is the idea that the other half of the country – whichever half that is – are all off their rocker and have lost all reason. We must avoid the assumption that those people on the other side of the political aisle are not, as a whole, reasonable people with beliefs logically in line with the version of media they have received. No one wins if we continue to look at the other half of the country as dangerous, delusional and inferior to us. I’d encourage you, as you read this article, if you find it pulling you uncomfortably one way or another, to know I have dutifully researched this question, followed the primary sources, and where possible, linked to further information in an attempt to sift out truth from sensationalized rhetoric, and so, my analysis flows directly from Charlie’s words, and not from what others are saying about him – because, as I’ve seen, it’s all over the place! I’d encourage you to take a moment to watch this short video that helps illustrate the different versions of Charlie people are seeing.

As Christians, it is crucial that we are critical thinkers – able to take the time and effort to carefully and intentionally weigh the facts to come to truth – whether that be wrestling through a difficult Bible passage or wading through the conflicting accounts of the day’s news. We owe it to our culture to be better, and by God’s grace, and His good pleasure, I pray that it will be so. In fact, Charlie’s uncanny ability to think critically on such a wide range of subjects was one of the most admirable things about him – something we should largely co-opt as we seek to exegete our culture for the glory of God and the good of our nation.

With these realities as the backdrop, I believe that to both honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy, and the Gospel that he preached, we must be honest both about his strengths and his weaknesses, lest we unwittingly compromise our public witness and undermine the clear commands of Scripture. 

My Own Struggling

If I’m honest, I am still struggling to understand exactly what to think of Charlie.  He just doesn’t seem to fit neatly into the categories so many others have put him in.  Perhaps you noticed in my previous article, What Have We Become, that I was careful not to call Charlie a Christian.  That was intentional – but perhaps not for the reasons you may think.  It’s not because I’m uncomfortable calling him a Christian. Though there are a few things that give me some pause, in as much as I can tell, he seemed to have a genuine faith.  But rather, I’m uncomfortable giving him the label of Christian political activist.  It didn’t feel right to hold him up on that high pedestal, given some of my concerns.  But why, you ask?  

Prior to Charlie’s assassination, I was aware of him in general – his posts and reels would often find their way to my media feed – though to be honest, I didn’t know his name.  Even then, I found myself typically appreciating his message and how intelligent and bold he was, but I also struggled with how he often treated his opponents – seeming to be more concerned with mastering them then bringing them to the Master’s feet.  But that was only a cursory impression, so in preparation for writing my last article, and now this one, I’ve gone through well over a hundred additional posts from both Charlie’s and TPUSA’s social media accounts.  

In Charlie, I found much to celebrate and commend.  He was a bold defender of the faith, a man devoted to so many of the causes that I too hold dear, a loving husband and doting father, and a person willing to engage in open discourse in the public square in the face of vehement opposition.  But there are also things about his conduct and demeanor that I have found unsettling, chief among them the frequency of his joy in mocking and “owning” those with whom he disagreed.  

But perhaps you will rightly point out that every one of us, no matter how mature in our faith, have sinful blind spots and proclivities too. We’re saved by grace after all, so why bring up the areas where Charlie fell short? Fair enough. That’s a question I have wrestled with a lot, vacillating back and forth, before ultimately endeavoring to write this article. Ultimately, my reason for bringing these concerns to the forefront is not simply because I see ways that Charlie may have missed the mark. If it was merely that, this article would not exist. But what I see is a much broader concern. In Charlie, at least in the public caricature that is portrayed of him, I see a representation of a growing brand of conservative Christianity that I fear threatens to undermine the very foundations of the Gospel. And that’s not just hyperbole. Here’s what I’m seeing: I see a growing trend in Christianity that cherry-picks Christian morals yet largely dismisses Christian virtue – one that prizes boldness but not humility, lauds selective justice but not enemy love, that elevates law to the place that the heart-changing power of the Gospel alone belongs.

So, in a world prone to hair-trigger snap judgments, I resisted coming down on one side or another.  And now, a week or so removed, I wanted to take some time here to intentionally slow down and wrestle through these questions and the broader Biblical principles that come to bear.  I invite you to join me.   

Protecting our Gospel Witness

Central to my concern is, that left unaddressed, the darker parts of Charlie’s brand of Christianity, with it’s full alignment with MAGA politics and a general braggadocious celebration of disrespecting and mocking opponents, could shift not only how outsiders see American Christians, but actually misshape the church in America in those unhealthy ways. As I mentioned in the introduction, I fear, especially among those of us prone to look at Charlie’s life through rose-colored glasses, that we could unintentionally be jeopardizing not only his legacy, but also our Gospel witness by painting his life with too broad a brush.  By holding Charlie up to our culture as a model Christian, without qualification, we very well may be unnecessarily handicapping our ability to evangelize our countrymen and distorting the perception of what it means to be a godly Christian leader.       

Let me explain.  For those who oppose Charlie Kirk, their objections can be grouped into two broad categories – ideological differences and character deficiencies.  You can see this clearly, both through his interactions with others, and in the responses of his opponents in the days after his death.  When they see Christians holding up Charlie as a martyred saint, their response is to bristle, both because they disagree with his positions and because they see him as a hypocrite and bully. Further, with the little they know or think they know of Christianity, they see us praising Charlie and label us as hypocrites too for supporting someone so at odds with their largely one-dimensional, love-only view of Jesus. 

“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” 

Romans 12:9, NASB1995

To be fair, we need to look at these objections one by one.  The first, stemming out of a cultural redefining of love that equates to acceptance and approval, has redefined what love and truth are.  No longer are they rooted in general Judeo-Christian beliefs, but in one’s personal experience and desires. But this is not Biblical.  There is absolute truth, and according to Romans 12, true love, informed by objective truth, hates what is evil.  Why?  Because what is evil hurts people – and we love people enough to warn and rescue them from what is evil.  Yet, for our culture, such love is often reinterpreted to be hated and bigotry, especially when it comes to matters of sexuality and personal liberty. 

“For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. 4 In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you” 

1 Peter 4:3,4, NASB1995  

As Christians, we must stand up for the objective truths of Scripture.  Yes, we should do it winsomely.  Yes, we should do it in a way that doesn’t put up unnecessary barriers, but even if we do all that, many will label us haters and bigots, not because of our conduct, but because we don’t give approval to their sin (Romans 1:32).  Peter offers this same reminder – even if our conduct is exemplary, we can expect to be slandered as evildoers because we love our enemy enough to warn them of the dreadful cost of their sin.   However, that’s presuming that our conduct – the way in which we treat those who would make themselves our enemies – is above reproach. If its not, this passage and 1 Peter 2:10-12 implies, they have a valid reason to malign you.

What the Critics are Getting Right

“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” 

Galatians 5:19-24, NASB1995  

However, there’s a second component of objections about Charlie that focus not on the substance of his beliefs, but on his conduct toward his opponents.  For example, if you scroll through the Turning Point USA reels on Facebook, you’ll see recent headlines like: “Charlie Kirk Shuts Down Feminist Talking Points”, “Charlie Kirk Schools Pro-Choice Heckler on Basic Biology”, “Charlie Kirk Shreds Teacher’s Excuses for Government Waste and Failing Schools”, “Charlie Kirk Destroys Liberal Logic in 4 Viral Debates”, and “Charlie Kirk Takes a Flamethrower to Lib Snowflakes”. This is the brand that they have cultivated.

While such clickbait titles are good for social media engagement, they are an affront to the Christianity of the Bible.  Critics are, at least in part, right to say that Charlie’s conduct has often missed the mark.  As I have watched Charlie’s interactions, there is, more often than not, both in Charlie and in his supporters, a sort of attitude that comes across as reveling in judgment – a sort of glib cheerleading when a verbal blow finds its mark. At least, as far as I have seen, there is no weeping over our lost countrymen (Luke 19:14f), no sorrow over the rejection of their Messiah (Romans 9:1f), but rather a sort of macho rejoicing in the defeat of a foe. This is not the way of Christ.

The passage above suggests the same. Have you ever noticed that among the deeds of the flesh listed above, are sexual sin, idolatry, and oddly enough, the longest string of sins is focused on interpersonal conduct and conflict?  I think everyone would agree that Charlie was exceptional at calling out immorality, sexual sin, and even in a sense, idolatry.  But I believe it can be argued that, by his conduct, he too often actively fostered enmity, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissension, factions and the like.  

Think I’m being too harsh, consider the next verse, the fruit of the Spirit. Too often in Charlie’s videos, I am not clearly seeing a pattern of love, patience, kindness, or gentleness. It’s not entirely absent, but it’s also not overwhelmingly present.  Of course, what we’re seeing on social media is a curated collection – a tiny percentage of countless hours of debates, so perhaps my view is skewed by what is available online – a possibility I fully welcome.  But even the fact that these are the clips his organization chooses to highlight seems to somewhat prove the point.        

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” 

2 Timothy 2:24-26, NASB1995  

By contrast, look at Paul’s words to Timothy on how a servant of the Lord is to conduct themselves. While this is directed at pastors, I think it can prove instructive in our conversation of a young Christian whose a political leader as well. Yes, the Lord’s servant should be able to teach and to correct error. But how? Not in a quarrelsome manner, but kind to all, patient, and gentle. I will say, often in the exchanges I have seen, Charlie was patient when wronged, but too often, his actions suggested that he was more concerned with winning a debate than winning the person’s heart. And, judging by the cheers when Charlie landed a harsh insult, that seemed to be what his crowds loved to see as well. That’s dangerous.

Some might object, and say, he was being bold and courageous, which is also commanded in Scripture. But to say that in order to be a bold defender of the faith we must jettison other clear commands of Scripture relating to character is to undermine the very Gospel itself. Again and again and again the normal prescription for saints in the New Testament is to win others through gentle, loving and bold proclamations of truth – not either or, but both!

Caution 1: Partial Truths

Theologian J.I. Packer once warned, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth”.  My fear in the elevation of Charlie Kirk as a great Christian example to be emulated, is that we are tacitly guilty of Packer’s critique.  In a post he shared just over a year ago, Charlie bragged that despite the counsel of pastors, he didn’t strive to be nice, he strove to be obedient – as though a Christian ought not to be both – adding, “Don’t care if I’m nice.  Completely irrelevant.”   To say that one can be an exemplary man of God because he rightly supports many of the things the Bible commends, while at the same time excusing or even celebrating the sinful bullying and belittling of his opponents, is to endanger the heart-changing, enemy-loving Gospel itself. 

“For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44 For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 45 The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.” 

Luke 6:43-45, NASB1995  

A central truth that Jesus labored much to teach was the reality that what ultimately matters is not one’s doctrine or even one’s law-keeping, but the heart from which those things proceed.  In one of the most haunting passages in all of Scripture, Jesus warns that many (not a few, not some, but many) will come to Jesus on the last day, their hands full of powerful works they did for Jesus, only to be told, “I never knew you, depart from me you who practice lawlessness”  

We can do lots of good things for God in our own power and for our own glory, but the constant pride-killing refrain of the Gospel is not like this.  Yes, there is hard working, yes there is striving and struggling and suffering and blood, sweat and tears, but at the end of the day, it’s “not I, but Christ in me” (Galatians 2:20).  And so, a heart transformed by the Gospel, and renewed day by day by the Spirit, will increasingly embody the fruit of the Spirit – not perfectly, but evidentially.  

Now, in the case of Charlie, he was young, and he also had the dangerous, pride-tempting handicap of being both really intelligent and a celebrity (1 Corinthians 1:26-31), but it very well may have been that if the Lord had given Charlie more years, he would have grown into a more godly example of humility, gentleness, kindness and love for his opponents.  Nor am I saying that myself, chief among us, or anyone else has arrived when it comes to the fruit of the Spirit. If we belong to Christ, the Lord is at work in each of us, day by day, shaping us more and more into the likeness of Jesus.        

But what I am trying to avoid is us condoning a sort of so-called Christian leadership that is bold in defending the faith, but is not, humble, gentle, kind, loving and gracious.  A sort of leader who considers those types of character traits to be weaknesses that are not becoming of a bold Christian leader – whether in the political realm or in our churches – is profoundly missing the mark.  At best, these men are misguided saints in need of loving correction, at worst they are wolves masquerading as shepherds. But regardless of their own hearts, by their conduct they unnecessarily wound many believers and put stumbling blocks in the path of unbelievers.  And that, my friends, we should not tolerate.    

One other related thought, as and aside: I think it’s helpful to pause and consider the debate formula in and of itself, especially in its current form with TPUSA. Though there is some merit to debating (we see this example with Paul at the Areopagus – Acts 17), I fear where it often falls short is that it deals almost exclusively with the arguments of the mind and not the intentions of the heart. Yes, there is a mental aspect to our faith, one that can be swayed by reason and logic, but it is subservient to our heart. A person may be convinced that speeding is against the law, but if their heart still desires to go fast, guess what, they’re still going to speed. The Bible is clear that first and foremost, what we need is a changed heart. Yet Charlie’s signature college campus events seemed to be more like a raucous sporting event – a competition to see who was smarter – complete with cheering fans and jeering opponents. And so, despite all of Charlie’s skill in examining and dismantling his opponents arguments, the result seems to seldom have been any sort of heart change, in part because, unlike Paul at the Areopagus, Charlie didn’t often talk at that heart level. And while there are some beautiful exceptions to this rule (like this conversation and this one), given my exposure, it seems at least in general, that Charlie’s exchanges were more about proving the validity of his political positions by triumphing over an opponent, and less about leading a fellow beggar to the Fountain of grace.

Caution 2: Syncretism

“For you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.” 

1 Peter 2:10-12, NASB1995  

One other broad area of concern for me is the degree to which Charlie Kirk, and many others in the church, seemed to accept without qualification all of the tenants and policies of modern MAGA conservatism, seemingly treating them as though they were part and parcel of true Christian faith.  Truth be told, I have heard this narrative before – what to me seems like an over-simplified us vs. them argument – that considers Republicans to be God’s people defending the Christian faith and Democrats to be the domain of darkness doing the devil’s bidding. Some even go as far as to say it is impossible for someone to be a Democrat and be a true Christian.  Not only is this an uncharitable sweeping generalization, but it also tends to produce a sort of hatred for the left that inevitably goes beyond policies and to the people themselves.  This type of tribalism does not embody the self-sacrificing, enemy-loving call of the Gospel, but rather undermines its very foundation by attaching to it a mixed bag of political baggage, some of which is toxic to true Christianity.  

What many have adopted as Christian Nationalism, I fear might be rightly called by another name; Syncretism.  To be clear, I think it is a noble thing for Christians to seek to impact a culture for Christ. It is a good desire to want to see our culture conformed to Christ.  It’s a laudable ambition to seek to be a Christ-honoring politician.  It’s good to push for God-honoring, people-protecting laws.  It’s a wonderful ambition to seek to see America fall at our Savior’s feet.  But, to equate Christianity with one or another human political institution is a bridge too far.  And as with all forms of Syncretism, it comes with a dreadful cost.  

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” 

Galatians 1:6-9, NASB1995  

What exactly is syncretism, you might ask?  Simply put, it’s the adding of another system of beliefs onto Christianity – making a sort of hybrid faith.  For Paul, this was no trivial matter.  We see in his letter to the Galatians a scathing condemnation of such practices. As Paul makes clear, adding to the Gospel results in a distorted, ineffective, and destructive heresy.  If we add anything to the Gospel – whether it be a set of laws, a partisan litmus test, or required political positions, we have lost the essence of the grace-alone reality of the Gospel.  

My fear is that modern Christian Nationalism may be in danger, if not outright guilty, of doing precisely this – looking primarily to the law to do what only grace can do – putting the brunt of our trust and effort into political change in hopes of changing the heart of the people.  But what that makes is not Christians, but Pharisees and libertines.     

Case in point, consider the striking down of Roe v. Wade.  I thank God that this horrific miscarriage of justice was finally struck down.  Full stop.  It should never have been.  To prioritize one human’s choice over another human’s life is fundamentally backwards and has done untold harm to our society.  But the stark reality is, despite Roe being overturned, despite 41 states having some level of abortion bans, abortions have actually gone up.  Why?  Because the heart of our culture hasn’t been changed. If anything, it’s been galvanized against the unborn.  And so, new avenues have opened up – avenues that are more anonymous, more convenient, and more expedient. Just one implication of this is that it makes the life-saving work of crisis pregnancy organizations that much harder.  

You see, the danger in drawing an equal sign between Christianity and Conservative politics is that, in order to be true, one side or the other needs to significantly compromise.  And generally, what I’ve seen is that Christian principles – especially those focused on sacrificial love, humility, gentleness and grace – tend to be what is thrown aside.  Our hearts are turned from Christ-like loving across the political divide into prideful, chest-beating condemnation of our enemies.  We lose sight of the grace of God that bought us, and instead focus on our moral superiority.  Our political opponents are no longer seen through the lens of the Gospel, but through the sights of a canon.  It’s no longer their redemption we pursue, but their conquest. 

In the end, such syncretism makes us prone to hypocrisy and partiality – as perhaps seen most clearly in President Trump, himself.  In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, he has been quick to condemn those who used outrage-inciting rhetoric against the right, while he himself continues to be regularly guilty of the same.  And to the degree that all this is true, I dare say with Paul, that the greatest casualty of this movement is the Gospel itself.   

Immigration as Indictment

“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22 You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. 23 If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; 24 and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.”

“You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.”

“He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?”

“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’”

“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

Exodus 22:21-24, Deuteronomy 24:17,18, Micah 6:8, Matthew 25:34-40, James 1:27, NASB1995  

For me, perhaps the most glaring example of the disconnect between the heart of God and the general policies and perceptions of MAGA conservatism is the question of immigration.  The heart of the Lord is really quite clear on this question.  Just look at the passages above. Because God has lavished us with grace and mercy, we too should be merciful, gracious people.  Note, how in both the Exodus and Deuteronomy passages, God links the people’s own experience of being delivered from Egypt to the call to love the immigrants among them well.  The passages above all warn of dire consequences for falling short of this high calling.  

And yet, in today’s political climate, immigrants – even those seeking asylum – are too often being treated as something less than human.  Why? In a word, fear.  Consider this quote from then-candidate Trump at a campaign event in April of 2024: “The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans, they’re animals’ … Nancy Pelosi told me that. She said, ‘Please don’t use the word animals when you’re talking about these people.’ I said, ‘I’ll use the word animal because that’s what they are.” As this quote illustrates, the issue isn’t simply a difference in policy that may or may not align with Scripture. It’s much deeper than that – it goes right to the heart – encouraging an atmosphere that justifies fear, hatred and condemnation of immigrants.

Despite significant statistical evidence to the contrary, the current administration would have us believe that the vast majority of the immigrants who have entered our country illegally are criminals here to rape, pillage and destroy the American way of life. Whenever a high-visibility crime or tragedy happens at the hands of an undocumented worker, it is quickly snatched up and used as political fodder to further vilify all immigrants and justify not just extradition, but punitive, vengeful retribution.  This is not the way of Christ.  

Yes, having secure borders and a reasonable and efficient immigration system are important and worthwhile goals, but it cannot be at the cost of human decency.  These are men, women and children, made in the image of God – most of them very much fitting into the “least of these” category Jesus describes.  If we treat them like animals, and not with the honor and dignity a human being deserves, it is we who become the animals.

Our Better Angels

“This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;” 

James 1:19, NASB1995  

At Abraham Lincoln’s 1881 inaugural address, on the eve of the bloody and butcherous American Civil War, he closed with an appeal to all his countrymen, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”   

We are in a tenuous time of social instability and sectarian strife of a magnitude that I have never seen in my lifetime.  What awaits America in the coming months and years, the Lord only knows.  But, might I echo Abraham Lincoln’s words – words I think Charlie too would echo – appealing to the better angels of our nature – the Lord’s multitude of common graces in all our lives – that we might be able, in love, to reach across the isle, look each other in the face, and be quick to listen – seeking the common ground from which we can once again find unity. 

And that, my friends, is where Charlie certainly excelled.  In a culture marked by soundbites and shutdowns, Charlie dedicated his life to public discourse around the most heated topics of the day.  He did not shy away from his convictions, nor capitulate to the pressures of compromise.  In season and out of season, no matter the political current of the day, he was a constant for what he believed.  And in the end, he was committed to putting the first things first – wanting to be remembered not primarily for his political activism or influencer status, but simply that he was a faithful Christian.  

But, like us all, he was also a walking contradiction. At times he excelled at emulating his Savior, but at times he dismally failed – perhaps compounded by the fact that so much of his life’s work has been turned into reels and soundbites for all the world to see. I can only imagine how much concern there would be over my own conduct, were my life to be so thoroughly broadcast. Careless words, prideful boasts, graceless responses – I have been guilty of them all.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we are Christian first, for we were bought with so great a price (1 Corinthians 6:20). Therefore we should strive with all the power Christ provides to make that reality shape every aspect of our lives. And, when we see anything fighting for dominance of our hearts, whether that be a political ideology or the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life (1 John 2:16) – we must not be content until it is put to death! But thanks be to God, we do not stand on our own merit, but Christ’s alone. Indeed, we do not stand in our own power, but in the power Christ provides, especially when we are content to be weak (2 Corinthians 12:10)! May these Gospel truths fuel our own courageous, truth-upholding, enemy-loving, God-glorifying endeavors!

Indeed, if we wish to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy, I can think of nothing better than pursuing gracious, humble, enemy-loving, truth-exalting, discourse in the public square.  Of all people, it must be us, as Christians who, in the power Christ provides, take that first step in faith and hope.  

Postscript: Carrying the Torch

“Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, 13 so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, 14 and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. 15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.” 

Philippians 1:12-18A, NASB1995  

While I first began working on this article a few days before Charlie’s memorial service, I felt it was appropriate to wait some time before sharing the post widely. And I’m glad I did. I’ve been home sick the last few days, and so, when I’d normally be out with my family after church, instead I was in front of my computer after our service ended its stream and stumbled upon the pre-service program for Charlie Kirk’s service. Admittedly, given the promotion of the event by TPUSA, I was anxious for what might be said at the service – and specifically that what should be a service ultimately dedicated to the glory of God could be co-opted for the glory of American conservatism – which admittedly, at times it certainly was.

But as I watched the pre-service program, filled almost entirely with a wide array of worship music and peppered with earnest proclamations of the Gospel, Paul’s words to the Philippians came to mind. Truth be told, some of the music suggested theology that I struggle with, and some of the statements about the Gospel were a bit off target, but I can say with Paul that I praise God that the Gospel was declared. Indeed I rejoice. For, if anything is going to transform the hearts of America – right or left – it is the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And just as Paul rejoiced in his imprisonment because his suffering served for the greatest advance of the Gospel, so too can we look back at the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk and see some of God’s glorious purposes in it. We must not forget friends, to die in Christ is not a penalty but a glorious gift. For those of us left behind, there is pain and grief and sorrow, but there’s also great hope and anticipation for what is to come – a reminder echoed by one of the worship leaders at the service.

One poignant moment just before the pre-program finished had thousands of people raising up posters that had been provided – one of them depicted Charlie with “Here I am Lord, send me”. And while I can safely say that Charlie did not shy away from sharing the Gospel, I find myself at the end of this article not far from where I began, wondering if Charlie’s legacy will primarily be a proclamation of the Gospel of Christ or the Gospel of American Conservatism. I pray earnestly that his legacy will be the former, building on the supernatural, heart-wrenching, enemy-forgiving love shown by Charlie’s widow, Erica, in her eulogy at Charlie’s memorial service. That kind of Gospel, my friends, will change the world! May the Gospel proclaimed in his remembrance be used mightily by God to bring many – both on the right and the left – into a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

May the Lord be pleased to use us all as instruments of His redeeming grace, that our neighbor and our nation might be transformed from the inside-out  – for God’s glory, the good of our nation and the joy of all peoples!   

---

Want to explore the more on the intersection of Christianity, politics and the public square? Consider reading one of these past articles from The Two Books :