Before 10 September, much of the world outside the United States likely had not heard of Charlie Kirk. However, after he was assassinated while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, his name quickly appeared across newspapers, social media platforms, and conversations among both young and old—not only in the States but also around the world.
Some church members have sent me videos of him speaking boldly about his faith, and they asked me what I thought of him.
Kirk openly identified himself as a committed Christian.
He urged young people to put their faith in Christ and to live courageously, even in environments where Christian belief was unpopular. He set an example for them by sharing his faith unapologetically at universities, rallies, and conferences.
He often quoted Scripture in contexts where it was considered controversial—such as discussions on sexuality, family, and justice—emphasising that the gospel is the true solution to America’s moral decline. Through Turning Point Faith, an organisation that he founded, he partnered with churches and pastors, encouraging a bold witness in the country he loved.
Kirk became an inspiration to many as he modelled a kind of courage that some Christians felt was lacking in public life. His example gave believers, especially younger ones, the confidence to speak about Christ without fear of the “cancel culture” so prevalent in society. I even heard a personal testimony from as far away as Australia of someone who was inspired by his boldness.
While many were inspired by him, not all believers agreed with his approach. Some felt that he blurred the lines between faith and politics. In fact, he openly called for the removal of the separation between church and state. Though he preached the gospel, his strong emphasis on advancing a conservative political agenda sometimes seemed to overshadow his message of Christ.
He was also regarded as one of Donald Trump’s most vocal public defenders, praising him as the most pro-life and pro-religious freedom president in modern history. For many, this close alignment made Kirk’s Christian identity and political allegiance appear indistinguishable.
The danger, however, is that to nonbelievers the gospel of Jesus might be equated with Republican or pro-Trump politics—a serious concern, since the gospel is meant to transcend earthly leaders. This concern is further compounded by the fact that Trump himself has been entangled in numerous scandals.
Kirk was actually more extreme than many mainstream conservatives. Take immigration policy as an example: while mainstream conservatives generally support tighter border security and strict enforcement, most stop short of calling for mass deportations or rejecting all avenues for undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Many even favour legal immigration, especially when based on skills or merit.
Kirk, however, went further. He pushed for mass deportations, and called for sealing the U.S.–Mexico border to deter or stop migrants from entering the country. He even viewed legal immigration itself as potentially harmful, believing it displaced U.S. workers.
His stance on LGBTQ+ issues was also more hardline. While many mainstream conservatives have come to accept same-sex marriage as “settled law,” their main focus today is on debates around transgender rights—such as participation in sports, access to school facilities, and bathrooms. They generally oppose gender-affirming care for minors, but few advocate criminal penalties for doctors, pastors, or others who provide such support.
Kirk, on the other hand, went further by calling for national bans, criminal penalties, and stronger cultural and moral condemnation of those involved in providing gender-affirming care. He also pushed for religious definitions to be built into law and policy, essentially expecting American society to live by biblical standards.
Whenever Kirk spoke, his confrontational tone and rhetoric led some Christians to question whether his approach truly reflected the gentleness and humility of Christ.
His supporters, however, compared him to the prophets of old—willing to speak the truth even to hostile audiences, urging people to believe in Christ and to live out their faith without compromise. When he was killed, many lamented that his voice had been silenced, and some even venerated him as having died a martyr’s death.
I am of the opinion that his killer, who was reportedly in a relationship with a transgender person, may have been infuriated by Kirk’s strong stance against LGBTQ+ issues. If so, Kirk did indeed die for standing on his biblical convictions.
America is no longer a Christian nation but a secular society. Kirk was attempting to impose Christian values on people who do not even believe in God. This raises an important question: is there a better way to do evangelism?
Moreover, the gospel should serve as a filter for political engagement. Let the gospel critique every political leader and party, exposing sin, pride, and injustice—no matter who is in power. If Kirk had allowed the gospel not only to affirm Trump but also to critique him, people might have seen him less as “all in with Trump” and more as all in with Christ.
For instance, on immigration, he could have highlighted compassion for the vulnerable (a gospel theme) alongside concerns for national security (a policy theme). On sexuality, he could have affirmed the dignity of every person as made in the image of God, loved by God, even while critiquing policies he disagreed with.
On Trump’s personal character, he could have acknowledged moral failings honestly while still supporting certain policies. When the gospel is clearly seen as the higher authority, it shines as a message that transcends politics: Christ is Lord over all—even presidents.
In summary, Charlie Kirk’s passion for his Christian faith made him an inspiration to many believers who admired his boldness. At the same time, his approach raised important questions about how Christians should balance fearless gospel witness with humility, grace, and maintain a clear distinction between Christ’s kingdom and earthly politics.
If Kirk had allowed the gospel not only to affirm but also to critique Trump, his public witness might have been perceived as more balanced. He could have been seen less as Trump’s loyalist and more as Christ’s ambassador—someone whose political positions were shaped first by the kingdom of God, and only secondarily by party politics.
That said, what was done to him was undeniably wrong; his murder can never be justified. We pray for his wife, Erika, and their two very young children. I cannot imagine the depth of her pain, nor what it means for the children to grow up without their father.
It’s interesting how social media algorithms work: once we watch a certain video, we are often fed more of the same, which reinforces our existing views. Yet, there may be other videos and perspectives that could give us a more balanced understanding of the same issue.
By intentionally seeking out these alternative voices, we can enrich our conversations with people at work, in church, and within our families. Even as we hold on to our own views and convictions, learning to see where others are coming from makes our dialogue deeper, more respectful, and ultimately more meaningful.
Someone asked me, “Did Satan win?” Look at the cross—Satan may have thought he had won when Jesus died, but God always has the last word, or perhaps better, the last laugh, as seen in the resurrection of Christ.
In the same way, God remains sovereign. If He has allowed such a heinous act to take place, then instead of losing hope in Him, let us, by faith, believe that His good, pleasing, and perfect will is being worked out—in the lives of Kirk and his family, and far, far beyond.
