Charlie Kirk’s assassination was deeply shocking, yet not entirely surprising in a country where gun violence is endemic (in 2023, for instance, the US saw almost 47,000 firearm related deaths).

Charlie’s death prompted an outpouring of emotion – dismay, grief and anger. Large numbers turned out for his memorial service held at the State Farm Stadium in Arizona. The service was attended by prominent political figures led by President Trump and Vice President Vance. Charlie has since been posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the US.

To many Christians, especially in the US, Charlie Kirk is a martyr. He promoted the Gospel and pushed back forcefully against the progressive ideologies at odds with traditional Christian values. It is evident that Charlie was bright, quick witted and very self-assured in his beliefs. Those who knew him personally say he was warm, caring and respectful to others.

Whilst I am convinced of the sincerity of Charlie’s Christian faith, I am unsettled by the confluence of faith and politics that he epitomised and question whether this is an authentically biblical approach to the Gospel. In this article it is my aim to explain why I find such a fusion of Christian faith and political views problematic.

There is no question that Charlie revelled in debate and actively sought opponents to argue with at every opportunity. He was murdered at an event held on a university campus, where he typically invites bystanders to step up and take him on in debate, with the intention of publicly taking down their viewpoint.

This may surprise some readers, but I do not believe that as Christians we are called to win arguments with unbelievers. I would actually go further and say that no one is ever ‘argued’ into the Kingdom of God. Politics involves a lot of often, quite heated, argument; but Christian witness, as the word itself makes clear, is simply telling someone what we know to be true in our personal experience. Whether listeners care to accept our witness or how they might react to it is not a primary concern, since we trust the Holy Spirit to give effect to our words.

As the perfect model of witness, Jesus avoided arguments. Most notably, at His trial, Pilate marvelled that he said nothing in His own defence, making no attempt to refute the many false accusations being brought against Him (Mark 15:5). In so many other situations that are recorded in the gospels, Jesus defused situations rather than attempting to argue with his detractors. Whether we consider the account of the woman caught in adultery, the woman weeping at Jesus’ feet in Simon the Pharisee’s house, the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter and many others. In each instance Jesus acts to take the heat out of the situation.

Jesus opponents eventually gave up trying to draw Him into debating with them since He would invariably close down their line of attack with a single phrase or sentence, such as when he was challenged about paying taxes to Rome. Having asked them to show Him a coin, referencing the image on the coin, He simply replied, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Doubts regarding the biblical authenticity of Charlie’s approach also arises where he actively seeks to challenge an unbeliever about their behaviour or lifestyle. Paul explicitly rejects this attitude in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“For what do I have to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the Church. But those who are outside, God judges.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

A particular difficulty which arises when one conflates Christian witness with political views is highlighted by consideration of an example closer to home. Many Labour MPs would like the government to remove the two-child benefit cap (this is a restriction on entitlement to Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit payments to the first two children in a family). As a Christian I might well agree with them, believing that the Christian value of having regard for the poor means this restriction is wrong. However, another Christian, guided by their conscience, might think the complete opposite, supporting the restriction because they believe that encouraging welfare dependence disincentivises people from working (I imagine that this would be Charlie’s viewpoint). So, is the Gospel conveying two apparently opposing messages? No, because neither believer can claim with certainty that their viewpoint fully reflects the Gospel, they are merely political convictions, sincerely held by those respective individuals.

At this point some readers might wonder, am I effectively saying that as Christians we should have nothing to do with political discourse? No, I am not, for if that were the case the Christians who effectively overturned the slave trade in the 18^th Century (Wilberforce et al), would not have brought about this important political and societal change.

The fundamental issue here, is that in Charlie’s world view, the Christian Gospel and his political views are entirely synonymous (that is, one in the same) – yet, clearly, as I have sought to demonstrate, this is not the case. Yes, there may well be an overlap, but crucially, no-one can claim (be they on the political right or the left) that their politics is somehow the definitive outward expression of the Christian Gospel in society.

Charlie was part of a growing Christian nationalist movement in the US that likely finds some sympathy in the UK. Charlie believed in the Christianisation of the US through political means. He supported President Trump, because like many other Christians in the US, he saw Trump as a leader who would implement political change to bring about his vision of an America guided and governed by Christian values. 

In contrast to this, we might consider the ministry of Billy Graham, the US evangelist who went on to become a household name. As his ministry expanded Billy had an unrivalled speaking platform, yet his message remained the same. Like Paul, he ‘determined to know nothing among you except Christ, and Him crucified’ (1 Corinthians 2:2).

In the words of his biographer William Martin:

“Graham believed his calling was to save souls, not to reform society by political means. He consistently avoided taking sides on issues that divided America”[1].

Billy Graham could have used his platform to promote certain political views, he might have railed against the social ills of his day, but instead he remained true to the Gospel message and as a result saw vast numbers surrender their lives to Christ in stadiums and auditoriums across the world.

Had Billy Graham had been shot and killed whilst preaching, he would undoubtedly have joined the ranks of the martyred in Christ. Whilst no one can tell with any certainty what was in the mind of the individual who murdered Charlie Kirk, it seems he acted in this extreme way, not because he took objection to Charlie’s Christian faith, but rather to particular aspects of his political messaging.

Chris Follett – October 2025