The Church and Kirk
The days following the Charlie Kirk assassination have already proven to be a cultural phenomenon. Seemingly, every post on social media addresses it in one way or another. The major networks are devoting significant coverage to it. Prayer vigils are springing up across the country, with people amazed that large crowds are gathering even in places like California. People at church yesterday were discussing how everyone around them is talking about it, telling me that many of the friends they would not expect to do so are paying tribute to Kirk.
Many do not understand this fascination with Kirk. I believe, in part, it is because they readily associate him with President Trump. Kirk did support Trump in the past election and advocated politically for many of his positions. People do not like Trump, and it is not difficult to understand why. Calling the president a highly polarizing figure is like calling a volcano a campfire. President Trump’s acidic, harsh rhetoric (called fool’s speech in the Scriptures), combined with his immoral background, makes him unlikable. But I suggest that it is Kirk’s contrast with Trump, rather than his association with him, that has created the groundswell we are witnessing.
Watch some of his videos, and you will readily see this contrast. In his interactions with young people across the country at college campuses, you will consistently see Charlie demonstrating a pattern. He worked hard to dialogue with students. As students addressed him, Charlie would regularly do a “mic drop” of a different nature. As students came up to the microphone to ask him questions, he would put down his own microphone and actually listen—even when others were yelling at him or demeaning him. When he picked the mic back up, he often asked clarifying questions before responding. Charlie would try to reach points of agreement even while respectfully seeking to move those with opposing views to his position. He practiced civil discourse, and the Gen Z demographic flocked by the thousands to hear him and to talk with him. He was so unlike Trump.
Now, at this point in expressing admiration for Kirk, I imagine some readers have already blown a gasket. After all, many believe Charlie Kirk was a racist, fascist, or ________ (you fill in the blank). I understand when the world responds to Kirk in this fashion. However, this article, as the title suggests, is directed to the church. So, I will do the obligatory qualification with a series of questions. However, the last one is for you. Be prepared to answer it honestly.
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?
I hope not, for you would be measuring your life by a different standard than you use for his. From the statements he made, I also believe Charlie would have answered those questions with the same answers I gave.
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. This is especially true when you read Al Mohler's article about Charlie’s conversion in recent years, and learn how he was growing in his faith. Charlie Kirk, at 31, was a different man than he was at 21 or 25 because of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was transformed by Christ and maturing in him. These changes were evidenced by such things as marrying, having children, learning to speak with more grace, etc. Even more, at each of his events these last few years, he was speaking boldly for the gospel of Christ before the watching world—right in the heart of the most secular universities in our nation. Are these not actions for which the church should give thanks?
Further, it should not pass our notice that his surname, as he was of Scottish descent, means “church.” Kirk had started living up to his name. He had the practice of arranging his schedule to be at home with his family so that he could attend church and honor the Sabbath Day, about which he was learning. In her first public statement after his murder, his wife Erika urged people to pray and to attend church. Numerous reports indicate that many who never attend church heeded that admonition and sought out places of worship yesterday.
What can the church learn from Kirk? In one of those videos recorded two months before his death, Charlie was asked what he wanted most to be remembered for when he died. After pausing to think for a moment, he said, "For the courage that my faith (in Christ) gave me." In the midst of the growing evil of our age, the church needs such courage. May the Lord be pleased to draw many to himself, who worship him in church on the Lord's Day, and then go out into the other six days to boldly and kindly persuade others into the kingdom of God, like Charlie sought to do.
