I am not a political commentator or a news pundit, but sometimes events occur which are significant enough, and have enough bearing on the life and witness of the church, that it falls within my purview as a shepherd to make some comments. My goal here is not to provoke controversy or attract attention, but simply to help the people I pastor (and anybody else who might want to listen in) think Biblically about the death of Charlie Kirk.
Some Things We Know
Here’s one thing we know for sure about September 10, 2025: what happened that day was unspeakably awful. To watch any man be killed is appalling; to have a man be killed in public, so gruesomely, so unexpectedly, is atrocious; and to know this happened to a husband and father of young children is heartbreaking.
One day, Kirk’s children will come to realize that millions of people watched their dad be killed, and will bear the burden of deciding whether or not to see that same footage themselves. It’s right for this to chew us up inside.
Charlie Kirk’s death was a tragedy and an atrocity.
Selah.
Some Things We Don’t Know
There are some very important things we don’t know about the death of Charlie Kirk, particularly why he was killed in the first place. While any information we have may be out of date within days or hours, at this point the news reports are still full of words like “allegedly,” “purportedly,” and “apparently.” There’s a lot that’s unknown.
Which means that, until we know more, Christians should refrain from referring to Kirk as a “martyr.” According to Merriam-Webster, a martyr is “a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion.”1https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr At this point, we simply have no basis for applying that term to Charlie Kirk. It’s neither certain nor clear that he was targeted for his faith, let alone that he voluntarily suffered death for refusing to renounce his religion. Even if it comes out that he was killed for being outspoken on issues that are adjacent to (or implications of) his Christian beliefs, this is still a step removed from actual martyrdom.
No matter how highly you may think of Kirk, I hope we can agree that words have meanings, and those meanings matter. By calling him a “martyr,” we devalue that word and dishonour the many real martyrs around the world who are killed for their faith in Jesus each and every day.2See more at persecution.com, opendoors.org, or globalchristianrelief.org/stories/christian-persecution/. What happened to Kirk is bad enough—there’s no need to embellish it with things that aren’t true.
Some Things to Consider
In the wake of last week’s tragedy, I’ve been concerned by much of the narrative and commentary I’ve heard from fellow Christians (including some I deeply respect).
I am concerned that many have been quick to call Charlie Kirk a “martyr” precisely because they perceive little difference between Christianity and the particular brand of conservative politics that Kirk was famous for promoting.
I am concerned that Evangelicals on both sides of the border are falling prey to a syncretism that espouses Christianity insofar as it is important for Making America (or Canada, or wherever) Great Again.
Albert Mohler unintentionally diagnosed the problem last week when he described how an earlier Charlie Kirk
…saw Christianity as a huge drag on conservative progress. He was pretty clear in calling for a new young conservatism of liberty and resistance. At the time, he didn’t have a lot of use for conservative Christians, and he wasn’t subtle.
Not long thereafter, Charlie embraced two things that had been missing from his earlier approach. He openly and boldly claimed the gospel of Christ and courageously identified himself as a Christian believer. He also began to argue with consistency that a recovery of Christian truth was essential for a lasting conservatism.3https://wng.org/opinions/a-most-tragic-turning-point-1757563042
The order of operations is not insignificant: conservatism first, Christianity second. This pattern is reflected in eulogies which describe Kirk as a patriot and a man of faith, in that sequence.
I am not picking on Charlie Kirk here. I am suggesting he was emblematic of an entire worldview that sees Christianity as an essential ingredient of the American republic (and Western civilization), and therefore embraces Christianity, not necessarily because it is objectively true, and not necessarily because Jesus is supremely worthy, but because Christian faith is necessary for the achievement of their specific sociopolitical vision.
Lest anyone accuse me of judging Kirk’s heart, I am not saying that he was not my brother in Christ. I am simply surveying the evidence of what he actually talked about most of the time. Yes, we heard about Jesus occasionally, but a Jesus so wrapped in red, white and blue that I question how recognizable He was to much of the world. I’m also looking at the speed at which Evangelicals have been quick to laud Kirk as a martyr, which I take as further evidence of increased confusion between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Republican Party.
It’s Not All or Nothing
As I type these words, I fully anticipate some writing me off as being a part of “the Left.” You must be a “lib” if you have anything critical to say about Charlie Kirk, right? The truth is that I’m thoroughly conservative in my social, economic and political convictions. But I’m a Christian first, and I don’t see complete alignment between the priorities of Jesus and any political party, platform, or persona. And I’m increasingly convinced of the importance of viewing the world through Biblical categories, not the simplistic zero-sum grid of “Left” and “Right.”
Here’s an example: we can reject the progressive social agenda without having to pretend that Donald Trump is a good man—or that Charlie Kirk was a respectful debater devoted to the open exchange of ideas for truth’s sake alone. Because, in general, that just wasn’t true. Of course you can find some good examples, but often enough I have to agree with Moira Donegan’s description of many of his interactions: “aggressive, unequal, trolling affairs, in which he sought to provoke his interlocutors to distress, shouted them down and belittled them… and selectively edited the ensuing footage to create maximally viral content in which his fans could witness him humiliating the liberals and leftists they perceived to be their enemies.”4https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/14/charlie-kirk-killing
Whether or not someone agrees with that description will probably depend on whether or not they agree with Kirk’s positions, and that’s exactly the problem I’m seeking to address. Christians, thinking with Biblical categories, should have room for nuance. We can grieve his death, and even agree with some of his conclusions, without having to cast Charlie Kirk as the model of Christian speech and missional purity. It’s not all or nothing.
Why This Matters
These issues are not theoretical. I write these words in particular for the many thoughtful young men in our church, one of whom texted me the news last Wednesday before I heard it anywhere else. (Yes, Kirk had an impact this far north of the border.) I have a genuine concern for these brothers, and the possibility of them being over-influenced by the Charlie Kirk hagiography currently circulating the Evangelical internet.
Brothers, don’t get swept up in the emotion of the moment. I know this sounds so clichéd, but Christ, and not Charlie Kirk, must be our example. Titus 3:2, which reminds us “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people,” applies to “libs” and “smug college students” too.
With renewed minds, let’s keep steady on in our refusal to be conformed to the pattern of this world—whether that pattern tries to press in on us from the Left or the Right.
