Charlie Kirk, MAGA influencer and Turning Point USA co-founder, killed at 31

Four days before he was shot, he posted this message, "Jesus defeated death so you can live." Although he endorsed Trump, he was about promoting Jesus more than promoting the president. For those who have never listened to him, or who have only listened to clips that have been shared by his critics, let me encourage you to listen to about 20 minutes of his interactions with students. It is a wonderful opportunity to listen to someone who is passionate about Jesus and the hope that we have when we apply the principles of Christ to our lives. He shows how living like Christ taught is how to show love for those around us. He promoted love and peace.

Kirk preached conservative values and defended MAGA republicanism. I don't question his deeply held Christian beliefs, and he made it clear in his Q&As that they are what led to his conservative political and moral values (particularly around abortion). However, to say that he was about promoting Jesus more than promoting the president or MAGA republicanism is not quite accurate. He routinely handed out MAGA and "47" hats at his rallies and Q&As.

I have significant differences with Kirk's political views, but what happened was absolutely horrific and tragic. He did not deserve to die and his family did not deserve to have their husband/father taken from them.

As a country we are going to have to figure out how to bridge the divide between left and right, and how to denounce political violence unilaterally rather than across party lines. It's really disturbing to see people celebrating Kirk's death, just as it was disturbing to see people celebrating Paul Pelosi being beaten near to death with a hammer. Both sides have people on the edges who are filled with hate. And it seems most people on both sides would prefer to demonize the other side rather than dialogue. Ironically, Kirk was dialoging with the other side when he was assassinated.

Somehow, we have to move as a society back toward allowing some things to not be political, even in government. There used to be a lot more ‘common ground,’ or at least seeking of common ground. But we are deep in a hyper-partisan, hyper-politicization phase. How to emerge from that? I really don’t know.

At the very least, someone has to be willing to be the first to stop defining their identity by “the fight” and replace that with “the principles.” But a strong component of our hyper-partisan disease is defining the tribes by the fight rather than what it is that is actually worth fighting for and why. The latter is less dramatic, harder to campaign on, harder to reduce to sound bytes and photo ops, and less “satisfying” to the constituencies that are all hot and bothered.

(Edit to add: “The principles” also severely limit what methods you are free to use in order to “win” and what kind of people you put in power.)

So… I’m not optimistic. Well, I guess I am, somewhat. Movements always fizzle eventually. Fads fade. If the country gets sick of the hyper-tribalism and gets hungry again for a leader that really is “a uniter,” whichever party is first to deliver that will win. And then maybe we can see a period that is less interested in party cred and more more interested in the common good.

What we need in leadership is “patient and strategic.” This results in a lot less of what looks like “wins, if you don’t look too close” but a lot lot more statesmanship and actual winning—because the goal is not drama or self-aggrandizing. The goal is finding common interests, seeking mutual understanding, building consensus and solving problems, not appearing to be dominant and victorious.

Somehow, we have to move as a society back toward allowing some things to not be political, even in government. There used to be a lot more ‘common ground,’ or at least seeking of common ground. But we are deep in a hyper-partisan, hyper-politicization phase. How to emerge from that? I really don’t know.

There is a sense of injury from speech from one side. They teach their side that if you say what I disagree with they say, it is "violence" and "aggression." It is not.

We need to abolish "hate-speech" laws. That is stupid. It's a suppression of free speech.

I am a Christian. If someone says, "I don't believe God exists," they have disagreed with me. They have not harmed me.

If I say that a man is a man (even when dressed as a woman), I have not harmed him.

We must stop submitting to compelled speech.

THoward: Kirk preached conservative values and defended MAGA republicanism. I don't question his deeply held Christian beliefs, and he made it clear in his Q&As that they are what led to his conservative political and moral values (particularly around abortion). However, to say that he was about promoting Jesus more than promoting the president or MAGA republicanism is not quite accurate. He routinely handed out MAGA and "47" hats at his rallies and Q&As.

Funny that you have two likes and two dislikes on this. Charlie was very clear in sharing his Christian faith.

I believe that any Christian who understands Biblical principles would applaud him for his MAGA support. But I'm aware some even here on SI don't agree.

Honestly, I'm not sure whether his Christianity or his MAGA is "more" expressed. So you might be right.

Kirk's impact on our country is massive. A whole section of young people are seeing that you can be Christian and conservative and speak openly about it, which, oddly, is revolutionary to some.

Two big things that I think contribute way too much to this environment:

1. In a lot of political discourse on both sides, we aren't satisfied with simply saying "I disagree with their methods and goals", but rather we greatly exaggerate and say things like "He's a new Hitler".
2. Along the same lines, we do way too much inferring of motives. Instead of simply saying "I disagree", we assume bad faith.

And with that, it's no wonder that arguments become screaming matches, and screaming matches start to be punctuated with fists, knives, and gunfire.

My personal take on Kirk is that I am grateful for many of his stands, but I disagreed with portions of his support of Trump and other issues. Rest in peace, Charlie.

I believe that any Christian who understands Biblical principles would applaud him for his MAGA support. But I’m aware some even here on SI don’t agree.

There are many everywhere who do not agree, for reasons that have well articulated and explained.

There is a bit of not-entirely-coincidental overlap between MAGA and some biblical principles. That’s about the best I can say for the relationship between the two. I have to think most of the resemblance is superficial, given the quantity of biblical principle that Trump and Trumpism openly (and, I think, increasingly) flout.

Hannah Ingram

Yesterday at 1:19 PM ·

For anyone that is interested in the FULL quote made by Charlie Kirk that is being taken so out of context, I have it here and if you’re willing to read it, you may have a different opinion.

“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”

"God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government."

This is why some people have been taking up arms for political purposes lately. They view the current situation as tyrannical and that it must be stopped. We are entering a very serious state in this country. You have a citizenry that took up arms and stormed the capital building, erected hanging gallows on the front lawn and were actively seeking the Vice President so that he could be hung. You now have other individuals attempting to assassinate the President and successfully assassinating someone close to him and one of his key supporters. You now have have far-right extremist groups and maybe some not so extreme talking about taking up arms and seeking retribution (https://www.wired.com/story/far-right-reactions-charlie-kirk-shooting-c…), while others are cheering the death of Charlie Kirk. Violence should not be viewed as an option, but we have a country that is ideologically steadfast, lacks movement of compromise and seeks to "root" out the other side. The left views the right as dangerous and must be removed at all cost, and the right views the left as dangerous and they must be rooted out. Violence is not the answer. Rhetoric needs to be tempered. I feel we are entering a dangerous time where rhetoric will increasingly become heated and apocolyptic and the fringes will use violence to extract a message or seek change. We as Christians need to seek ways to love our neighbors. Love those around us.

I was not a fan of Charlie Kirk, but in no way should his life have been taken. I mourn for his family and especially his children. His family will bear a very heavy burden, and it is so sad that this is the state of affairs we are in. You may have not liked his message. But he had a right to speak and give his opinion, and that right should not have been taken through vigilantism violence. I pray that it does not continue to escalate, but I am fearful that it may.

So, let me start by saying that I appreciated Charlie Kirk's desire to defend traditional, conservative, Christian values in the public square. You can tell he was winning the argument by the very fact that the only way to stop him was to murder him.

That said, I wish we would pump the breaks on calling him a Christian martyr. I don't think he was killed for his faith but for promoting conservative Republican values. Also, while it appears he was evangelical, it is also clear that he tried to create a broad religious base for his political organization. The very first thing he said at his last event was how much he appreciated Mormons, that he was glad they sent out missionaries and how much of his staff was Mormon. Did he not realize that Mormons preach a false gospel that dooms people to hell? How can any "Christian apologist" be for Mormon missionaries? It is also coming out that his wife is Catholic and they he would often go to Mass with her. I'm not sure what she meant by going to a Bible Believing church, but it clearly didn't mean what we wanted it to mean when we heard that with our evangelical ears.

I'm a conservative Republican. But just because you are a conservative Republican, doesn't make you a Christian, and I really feel like the line is being blurred here with Mormons, Catholic, Charismatics, and evangelicals all embracing each other as Christian in the name of conservative republican politics.

Yes, the question of whether to cooperate with people like Mormons and Catholics on political matters is tough.

As far as calling him a martyr, I saw a few videos of pastors addressing their church yesterday about Charlie’s death. One went so far as to call him a martyr and define martyr as someone who dies for his faith. But that’s not the definition. It’s a witness. Many of them died, yes.

I certainly agree that it’s not so clear right now what the real reasons are that Charlie was shot, other than that he pushed back against the values of this world, whether from a Christian or traditionally conservative viewpoint (or both).

I have no idea of the state of Charlie’s faith before our Savior, though I could also say that about many of the figures in Christianity’s history, from the church fathers, the martyrs, the reformers or even more recent theologians that we study, but do not agree with on every point, and some of whom had major problems with their theology.

What is apparent is that he spoke often of Jesus and of his redeeming work, and quoted much scripture in defense. Of course that alone does not make him a Christian. However, from the standpoint of most of the world today, they lump all of Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelicals into the category “Christians” without really understanding the differences between them. Jesus said he would be hated, and when the world sees people from all these religions opposing their values, often in the name of Jesus, it’s very likely that part of the reason Charlie was killed was because he boldly named the name of Christ. The people in the world are not stupid, which Christ himself confirmed, and they are are going to hone in on the commonalities of those faiths, not the differences, when looking for what motivates those opposed to them.

I didn’t really know Charlie Kirk, nor listen to him often, and I wouldn’t call him a Christian martyr, particularly until I know more about the killer’s motives. Some of what he has said about Mormons and Catholics is definitely quite problematic, but from what I have read and seen, I can fairly confidently say that he would agree with Paul when he said “What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”

I am concerned about calling him a martyr. We don't know the shooter's motives and based on what we have seen so far, the motives may be a bit complicated and disjointed. I don't get a sense that he was shot because he voiced his opinion on Christ and talked about the gospel, but instead was because of his confrontational style and his conservative ideas. It really disturbs me when I see others comparing him to Christ (another young 30's year old male who was killed for his faith). Charlie could articulate his faith, and many of us would agree with his core faith principles, but he had a lot of ideas that created a theological framework that we would not be comfortable with. He was clearly a Christian Nationalist and one of the key voices in the New Apostolic Reformation movement. While it is great that he went on campuses and spread the gospel, we should also keep in mind that he was a brand. A brand that brought in 100's of millions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands when he spoke. He owned multiple multi-million dollar homes and left behind a media empire worth a fortune. So it is challenging for me to put him in the same group as Paul, Peter, Christ...

I do agree with Dave's reference to Paul, "whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”

I do agree with Dave's reference to Paul, "whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”

I definitely agree that when Charlie preached the gospel, regardless of his flaws, all believers should be happy and rejoice in it. Where I have big problems is when he glosses over the gospel for political reasons to promote political conservatism. I'm not going to rejoice with him over Mormon missionaries or conservative Catholics. Our loyalty needs to be to Christ first and then political positions. When you have Catholics praising Charlie for his stand for Christianity, it makes me wonder how well he actually articulated the gospel. Granted, I have not listened to him a lot. Maybe he did a fine job. My main concern with all this is that the gospel not be compromised.