I did not know Charlie Kirk, and, in fact, barely knew of him until his death. Like so many others, I was horrified by his murder and have been attempting to understand its significance. As a committed curator of distinctly Christian content, I have had many articles come through my app, and each of them has helped me in its own way. A week ago, I created a roundup of immediate responses to Kirk’s death. Today, I offer a second roundup, and this one offers some mature and thoughtful reflections. Their purpose is not so much to explain what happened, but to consider what it means and how Christians ought to respond.1
Contents:
- What is the significance of Kirk’s murder?
- Does it matter if Kirk was an exemplary Christian?
- Should pastors speak about his death in their services?
- Should we refer to Charlie Kirk as a martyr?
- How can we help young Christians?
- How should Christians respond?
David Robertson addresses a number of concerns in this lengthy article, but what I found most helpful was his explanation of why Kirk’s murder seems so significant to so many people. He says, “When I was a 31 year old with two young children I too was going round universities debating with those who disagreed with me. Like Charlie, I too recall getting threats, abuse and endless mockery. But there the similarity ends – I faced nothing like this. The seeds of modern intolerance were certainly sown in universities in my generation, but today those seeds are coming to fruition.” The left has been whipped into a frenzy, he says, and this was the bomb going off. (Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Exposes the Heart of Darkness in These Troubled Times)
Brett McCracken also considers whether Kirk’s death will mark a kind of cultural turning point. “It’s hard to not notice that the name of the organization Kirk founded—Turning Point USA—mirrors the way Kirk’s assassination feels. Will this event be culture-shifting in the way the 1960s political assassinations were? Is it a ‘generation-shaping event’ like 9/11? Only time will tell. But I do sense that Kirk’s assassination might be uniquely catalytic in American culture. It may not be a decisive turning point, but here are three ways this event might accelerate already-in-motion trends, and why it matters for Christians…” (Is Charlie Kirk’s Assassination a Turning Point?)
Stephen McAlpine says he blames the parents, but doesn’t mean the parents of the murderer. Rather, he refers to the intellectual parents of the progressive left. “Over the past two years since October 7 we have seen the fruit of some pretty ugly and degrading ideology passing off as intellectual endeavour. The very institutions that have built the type of culture that we in the West presume allow for free speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of association, and all without fear of retribution, have sheltered brutes.” (I Blame the Parents)
Alan Noble grapples with what Kirk’s death tells us about the relationship of violence and technology. “Our political and theological opponents become digital chimeras which we can loath and distance ourselves from without knowing meaningfully. Already in the wake of the Charlotte stabbing and Kirk’s death I’ve seen a Christian pundit announce their unwillingness to sit next to democrats in the pews. I’m reminded of the Tower of Babel. With the Internet, we’ve built a Tower stretching toward the heavens, and God has struck us with division.” (Violence and Technology)
Some people have tried to understand whether Kirk was truly a Christian or, if so, an exemplary one.
Barry York grapples with some of Kirk’s less gracious comments and interactions and asks a series of questions. “Did Charlie Kirk make regretful statements? Yes. In his youthful zeal, did Charlie Kirk hurt some people with his rhetoric? Yes. Did Charlie Kirk sometimes misrepresent others’ positions? Yes. Do you disagree with some of Charlie Kirk’s positions? Yes. Do you believe some of Charlie Kirk’s theology was flawed, as he was a professing Christian? Yes. If I substituted my name or yours in the above questions where Charlie Kirk’s name appears, would your answers differ?” He goes on to say, “It is uncharitable for Christians to find a clip or two from the thousands of video hours where Kirk was recorded and then judge the whole of his life based upon it.” (The Church and Kirk)
A couple of writers considered whether churches should or should not speak about Kirk’s death during their worship services.
Casey McCall is concerned that some who insist pastors must address it are essentially advocating a kind of new fundamentalism. He chose to address it in his church, but is sure to say this: “John Stott used to describe preaching as bridging the chasm between God’s unchanging word and our ever-changing world. God calls preachers to uncompromisingly deliver God’s word in a manner that pertinently connects to the lives of the people being addressed. With that said, the local pastors of a given church—the men called by God to lead a specific congregation—are the most qualified people for making the hard decisions about how and when contemporary cultural issues need to be addressed in that church’s Lord’s Day worship service. Last time I checked, God doesn’t name bishops of the internet to define faithfulness for everyone else.” (A New Fundamentalism in Conservative Churches)
John Beeson explains why he and his co-pastor chose not to address it. He offers several useful questions to guide pastors as they consider what to address (and what not to address) before the church. “How should pastors handle cultural moments such as Charlie Kirk’s death? I don’t think there is a correct answer. I would encourage charity from all sides for whatever choice your leaders made. Don’t assume that there is a political agenda from your leadership based on what they choose to say or not say. There are likely other factors at play.” (Why Didn’t We Preach About Charlie Kirk’s Assassination?)
Several people have wondered whether we should consider Kirk a martyr. Part of the difficulty is that “martyr” can be defined in different ways, sometimes referring simply to someone who stood as a witness and sometimes as someone who not only died for his faith, but who was given the opportunity to live if he would only recant.
Karen Ellis did some historical work to show how Catholics and Protestants have differed and, more importantly, how Protestants have tended to decide who fits the label. “When Catholics want to know if someone is a martyr, they can point to the Vatican. Protestants, on the other hand, are spread across denominations and movements: Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Anglican, and more. Each body has tended to handle martyr recognition differently throughout history, without appealing to one central office.” This means the task falls to a variety of individuals and organizations. She provides the kinds of questions they tend to consider. I should note that Ellis never mentions Kirk, so it’s possible the timing of the article was coincidental. (Who Gets to Decide if Someone Is a Martyr?)
Chris Hutchison, while affirming that what took place was a tragedy and an atrocity, believes we should not refer to it as a 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. What happened to Kirk is bad enough—there’s no need to embellish it with things that aren’t true.” It is not necessary to consider the death a martyrdom to still consider it especially significant. (About Last Week)
Joe Rigney, on the other hand, refers to Kirk as “an American Stephen.” “Charlie Kirk was a martyr. The original meaning of that term was ‘witness,’ someone who testified to some great truth. It came to bear its modern meaning because such testimony to the truth frequently met with hostility, violence, and death. Charlie Kirk is now a martyr in both senses.” (An American Stephen)
Albert Mohler also believes (perhaps in a limited sense) it is fitting to use the term “martyr” in Kirk’s case. (The Briefing, around the 23:30 mark)
I have not seen a lot of articles written specifically for young Christians, but I would very much like to see one that counsels those who saw the video and were especially horrified or traumatized by it. Those of us who are older may have seen many horrifying things on the Internet, but for many younger people, this was the first time they saw someone die. I hope a counselor will write an article for them.
Andy Montgomery wrote for a younger audience. “Like many of you have, I’ve been wrestling with the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk this week. I realize that for many of you, Charlie Kirk was a hero. Many of you viewed him as more than just a public figure; he was a spiritual mentor, someone whose voice shaped your convictions, stirred your courage, encouraged your faith. Losing someone like that feels painful. None of us wants to idolize a person, but neither can we deny the deep impact that Godly leaders have on our lives. Scripture reminds us: we follow God’s servants as they follow Christ.” (When You Lose a Hero: Reflections on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk)
Several people considered how Charlie Kirk’s example should motivate believers.
James Wood expresses the importance of eschewing talk of vengeance or meeting blood with blood. “Charlie Kirk’s assassination marks a turning point in the culture wars. For many conservatives, Kirk was not just a movement leader but an icon. His tragic death has been interpreted by some as a form of martyrdom: a man who modeled charity in debate and generosity toward opponents, yet was met with violence in return. The temptation among his admirers is clear: he fought with grace, and look what it got him; now it’s time to take the gloves off.” He looks especially to Augustine for guidance. (We Do Not Seek Vengeance Upon Our Enemies)
Jordan Standridge says that we should be especially inspired by Kirk’s example of boldness and unashamedness. “He was a fascinating individual. He was an incredible debater. He was unbelievably smart. But what I hope we can see and learn from him is that he was unashamed of Christ. That’s what he wanted to be known for.” How Charlie Kirk Should Inspire Us
Justin Poythress considers how Christians should move forward, especially at the intersection of faith and politics. “If there is one thing I want to be remembered for politically, it’s telling people that politics isn’t the answer, but Jesus is. And those two aren’t even close. In fact, those two answers are so far apart it’s almost shameful to mention them in the same sentence. The answer isn’t better policies. It isn’t truly liberal or truly conservative values winning the day. It isn’t getting more laws passed, or enough of the right kind of people in office.” (How Do We Move Forward After Charlie Kirk?)
Kyle Borg expresses the importance of stewarding the moment. “Stewardship is a helpful paradigm for this moment. A steward is one who manages what belongs to another, entrusted with responsibility by his master. The Bible uses this framework for our lives. Stewards have a single responsibility, as Paul wrote, ‘Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.’ What is needed now are faithful men — men who will engage, confront, and lead with courage — so that our culture may yet be influenced by steady, God-honoring faithfulness.” (Stewarding the Moment)
Cara Ray offers ways to grieve with hope. “This one hurts really bad, and as I scroll through the news, I find myself looking for hope – something good and true to hold onto when it seems like evil has won. I need the gospel to inform how I think about this event and how I process the tidal wave of information coming my way every day.” (How to Grieve with Hope after the Loss of Charlie Kirk)
- I offer this word of explanation: Each of these articles was written by a person or published through a platform that makes up part of my regular media diet. Additionally, I chose not to share any of the articles I shared in my first roundup. ↩︎
