Lessons from Charlie Kirk’s life

Article adapted from episode content.

The news of Charlie Kirk’s murder sent shockwaves through the community of believers and conservatives, rattling many who did not know him personally yet felt a profound loss. His death marked the passing of a figure widely regarded as a hero of the faith, prompting deep reflection among biblically grounded Christians on how to process the event, address the resulting fallout, and continue the mission he championed. While the emotional devastation is undeniable—a young father leaving behind a grieving widow and two small children—the primary reasons for this visceral reaction stem from the recognition of his unique and crucial role in cultural engagement. His life offers potent lessons for all who seek to integrate their faith into the public square.

The Model of Integration: Gospel and Culture

One of the most powerful lessons from Charlie Kirk’s life was his exemplary ability to integrate the gospel with cultural engagement. He was described as the “total package,” faithfully proclaiming the gospel while speaking truthfully on challenging cultural and political issues. He modeled what many Christians aspire to be.

Kirk demonstrated that gospel proclamation and cultural engagement need not be mutually exclusive. Christian leaders often fall into a false dilemma, suggesting that preaching the gospel alone is sufficient to end cultural strife. While preaching the gospel is certainly one way to improve the culture, Kirk’s approach showed that the better answer is to do both: preach the gospel and engage the culture on the idea level. He beautifully exemplified what it looks like to take Christian faith and integrate it across all areas of life, including public appearances, written materials, and conversations.

This integration had undeniable political impact. It is claimed that Charlie Kirk delivered the presidential election to Donald Trump in 2024. By starting Turning Point USA groups on college campuses, he converted thousands upon thousands of new voters into the conservative stream, demonstrating the effectiveness of taking a Christian worldview into the political arena.

Following his death, the community faced immediate challenges requiring adherence to biblical principles, emphasizing that Christians do not lose their responsibility to be Christlike simply because a hero has been killed.

One immediate necessity was addressing the “disgusting” conspiracy theories that emerged. Specifically, theories circulated that suggested apologist Frank Turk—a dear friend of the author—was involved in the murder, citing a video where Turk was seen touching his cap and chest as supposed hand signals to the shooter. This is deemed complete nonsense. Turk was, in fact, a father figure and mentor to Kirk, coaching him in apologetics and loving him like a son. The audacity of suggesting involvement when he witnessed the murder of someone he loved a few feet away is terrible, and the community must trust that Frank Turk had nothing to do with the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Furthermore, grieving Christians must exercise restraint in their reactions to critics. When an ABC journalist published an apology after making an inappropriate comment regarding the shooter and his “trans lover” (a terrible soundbite made in poor taste), some conservatives jumped to attribute the worst possible motives to him. A key lesson here is the need to step back, take a deep breath, and maybe accept people apologizing—even when done imperfectly—without automatically assuming the worst. Christians have a duty to respond biblically and extend forgiveness to those who make mistakes commenting on the event.

The Free Speech Imperative

The response to negativity directed at Kirk raises crucial concerns about free speech. While certain exceptions exist—such as people who incite violence or grade school teachers using their position to teach hate toward Kirk, which violates school policy and warrants firing—conservatives must be careful not to lead the charge to get people fired for mere derogatory speech.

A grave concern is that if free speech is lost in a culture like ours, the pro-life cause and the Christian cause are “dead on arrival”. We rely on free speech to disseminate our ideas. If a future leftist administration defines Christian statements as hate speech and tries to restrict expression, we will need to fight a battle on free speech. It looks disingenuous for Christians to rail against cancel culture when they are the ones then turning around and “dishing out cancelling speech to our enemies” when they have the power. While caution is needed, demands on social media to send lists of names of anyone who says anything negative about Kirk to organize protests and get them “canned” for what they said should be reconsidered. We must be more thoughtful and careful about leading with such demands.

The Sovereign God and the Problem of Evil

The death of a champion like Kirk forces Christians to struggle with the problem of evil: Why did God allow this to happen?. While the specific reasons remain unknown, the event should not silence the Christian faith.

Critics often raise the logical problem of evil: If evil exists, God cannot exist. This argument is flawed because to object to the problem of evil, one must assume that evil is an objectively true feature of the universe. If objective evil exists, then objective good must also exist, from which evil is a departure or deprivation. As both Frank Turk and Charlie Kirk pointed out, the existence of objective moral rules implies the existence of a transcendent objective moral lawgiver, otherwise, morals are just preferences. Therefore, the objection that God doesn’t exist because He allowed Kirk to be killed fails, as the objection itself points right back to God, in whose character objective right and wrong are grounded.

The primary challenge for Christians is pastoral: How do we explain God allowing this evil to our children and others?. The suggested approach is to reason from what we know to what we don’t know. We know that this is the same world where God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead—the central tenet of Christianity. If God can be trusted with that monumental truth, we can trust that He had morally sufficient, though currently unexplained, reasons for allowing this evil.

A second pastoral point is recognizing our own sinfulness when questioning God’s motives regarding justice. It is easy to ask, “Why doesn’t God just get rid of all evil?”. However, as C.S. Lewis noted, if God were to wipe out all evil completely at midnight, including our own evil, we would be in “deep dudu” at 12:01 AM. If we campaign solely on justice, we must remember that what we deserve is the wrath of God. Our good deeds, even pro-life work, cannot atone for our numerous bad deeds.

Instead of demanding strict justice, we must cling to the truth found in Lamentations 3: “It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed”. Thank God that His mercies are new every morning and that His hand is stayed, allowing us time to repent and turn to Him in saving faith. The ultimate comfort of the gospel is that Jesus stood in our place condemned, bearing the wrath of God for all the wrong we have done and continue to do, ensuring that we do not receive the infinite measure of punishment we deserve for offending our creator.

The Reality of Worldview Conflict: No Unity Possible

Following such a polarizing event, many call for national unity. However, another crucial lesson is that the woke worldview and the biblical worldview cannot peacefully coexist because they are diametrically opposed.

These two worldviews clash fundamentally:

  1. Ontology: They hold entirely different foundational beliefs regarding ultimate reality.
  2. Epistemology: They disagree on how we know things (truth). On the woke worldview, truth is not determined by objective evidence or reality; appealing to objective truth is considered oppressive. Truth is instead determined by standpoint epistemology, based on the perspective of the oppressed individual.
  3. Ethics: They differ on systems of right and wrong. The biblical worldview appeals to an objective moral standard. The woke worldview determines ethics by looking through the lens of the alleged oppressed group. This leads to the conclusion that if a white person like Charlie Kirk is murdered, no real wrong is done because he is considered part of the oppressor class. On this view, an oppressed person can never be wrong in what they do, and an oppressor is simply getting what is right when mistreated, murdered, or censored.
  4. Anthropology: They have opposing views on what it means to be human. The woke worldview denies the possibility of change, asserting that “once an oppressor, always the oppressor”. Conversely, the biblical worldview offers hope of redemption and transformation, proclaiming that believers are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the domain of God’s beloved son: “Such were some of you”.

In this kind of severe worldview clash—where the two sides disagree on first principles (what we ought to be, what knowledge is, what ethics are)—unity, defined as shared worldview principles, is impossible. This understanding does not, however, absolve Christians of their duty to love their neighbor and be loving and neighborly toward their enemies, including those on the radical left.

The Path Forward: A Fourfold Call to Action

In light of Kirk’s life and death, pro-life Christians must determine where to go from here. The way forward requires action and courage, building on Kirk’s integrated legacy.

First, Cultivate Courage. Many Christians admit they could never speak out on abortion as boldly as Kirk. We must challenge this mindset by asking a gut-check question: Are any of the reasons I would give for not speaking on the pro-life issue worth the price of babies’ lives that might have been saved had I been more courageous?. We must all be willing to be apologists now, whether by speaking to homeschool groups, church youth groups, or simply talking to a pastor to offer pro-life content.

Second, Be Bold in Proclamation of the Gospel. This moment, immediately following the tragedy, is one where people are potentially open to the gospel message, as evidenced by churches across America being packed out. Christians must seize this opportunity to evangelize, sharing that the ultimate answer to our sin problem is a sinless Savior who stood in our place condemned.

Third, Re-engage Politically. Politics is not a dirty word; the Christian worldview applies to all of life. We must follow Kirk’s model of integrating faith across all public and personal areas.

Fourth, Engage Your Mind (Be a Learner). This is a critical time to master the moral logic of the pro-life view. Kirk himself was a dedicated learner, frequently calling up apologists like Frank Turk to ask how he could better answer questions, explain the problem of evil, or defend the resurrection. He mastered his craft before stepping onto his platform, and we too must be willing to learn and “hit the books” to speak intelligently when God provides the opportunity.

Ultimately, the lesson of Charlie Kirk’s life and death is a call for courage. We must not shrink back from doing good, even when facing opposition and tragedy.