What a man, Charlie Kirk. So young, and yet larger than life. I didn’t know him at all, but I characterize him as the best, the absolute best of the movement that swept and continues to affect our country starting in June of 2015. That year, Charlie Kirk was just twenty-one years old.
The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:6 says, “Love rejoices in the truth.” Very few exemplified bold truth telling in the United States like Charlie Kirk. Again and again he stood and told the truth about God, the gospel, marriage, sex, economics, and the culture in some of the harshest conditions.
When you looked at Charlie Kirk’s face, you saw what has become a kind of cliche, but it wasn’t with him, “a happy warrior.” I never met him, but in his appearances on television and the internet, he shown with an effervescence. He smiled, he bounced, and radiated. Kirk was tough, yet kind. Even through his boldness he emanated a compassion for those he addressed. He hearkened to a former time, fitting of Make America Great Again. His life promised a brighter future for the country, optimism about what could be, which is why this is so devastating.
Killing Charlie Kirk feels like killing all of us that know and proclaim the truth. You might think I exaggerate and you can think that. It really is, as many already characterized this event, a turning point, using the name of the organization he founded. His absence leaves an actual void, because so few did what he did and said what he said.
Again, the Apostle Paul writes at the end of Romans 12 in application to the doctrine of the first eleven chapters. He wrote in verses 17-21:
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Paul uses a lot of verbiage to make this point in such a crucial juncture in Romans. Like I wrote on Monday, the tares, the children of the wicked one, grow right next to the wheat, the children of the kingdom sown by God in His field, the world. I support the death penalty, but vengeance comes later and it comes from God. God is just and He will meet out vengeance. Read the book of Revelation. It is futuristic, a prophecy of a future time, when God will bring vengeance.
Growing up in a small, rural town in Indiana on the Wabash River, I read all the biographies in our children’s library. Someone born in America could work hard and by the grace of God become something great. Heroes of American history came from ordinary upbringings. Charlie Kirk promoted this idea and represented it himself. Although possessing tremendous talents, gifts, and knowledge, he read, worked, and sweat to build his influential organization to change the country. Others can do this too with his short life as an inspiration.
I look at all the photos of Charlie Kirk and see him with his young wife and family. It’s over for him personally, but the best of his ideas remain for others to promote and push. The greatest of them come straight from the Bible. Don’t lose this moment. Be a part of a real solution, which starts with evangelism. Speak of Jesus Christ and from His Word with boldness, taking the example of Charlie Kirk. He died for it.
I could not agree more. Thanks for writing this.
Jim
Truly Sad! My heart is broken! I believe God is using this in a great way though for the glory of God. We need to be giving the gospel like never before. People are open and hurting.
Brother Brandenburg,
With respect, I’m having trouble with how to take this post. I believe Charlie was a good man in the sense of standing for certain Biblical truths. He was certainly a brave man in standing against the evils of American (even worldwide) leftists. He was even brave for speaking truths that were unpopular among many on the right side.
That said, it’s hard for me to overlook the following items: His wife is a Catholic and his children will now be raised in the Catholic church; He broadcasted on TBN and associated with many evangelicals and even blatantly stated that those in the Catholic church were true Christians; His favorite music artist was Kanye West; His church was of the charismatic stripe; Some of his professed good friends were sodomites (Dave Rubin); His wife did not dress modestly and feminine.
Could you explain how you think his gospel was the gospel of the Bible with these beliefs and practices? Also, if, as you say, he is an example to follow, am I free to partake in the afore-mentioned activities of which he partook?
If not, could you please clarify your post to either note or caveat your statements?
God, in the Bible, chose to tell us about the good and bad things that men did when he memorialized them in His Word. I’m fine with you memorializing Charlie, but I am having trouble seeing how what you said here fits in with much of your writing on the gospel, holiness, separation, etc.
David,
I think you understand where I’m coming from. The truths he stood for, which we agree with, resulted in his death. We rejoice in those truths. I wouldn’t have fellowshipped with Charlie Kirk according to a biblical belief and practice of fellowship. We would not have yoked together, but how many even in our midst will stand for the truth like he did? Very few. We should rejoice in that stand. This is why he died, because of the stands he took that were identical to ours, ones that many of our own people would not even make. Think of Paul in Philippians 1 when he talked about those with whom he would not fellowship with, yet he rejoiced in what they did do. Was he in fellowship with those people? No. But he still rejoiced in them. I like to compare it to a small, small circle and then within that circle is a smaller one. He’s still in a small circle.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I’ve always had a sense that I could celebrate good where it occurs, regardless of the source, but I couldn’t justify it with scripture. Thanks so much for pointing us to Phillipians 1. Even though I’ve read it, several times over the years, verses 12-18 opened my eyes!
David, you must be aware of the fact that Christians are all at different levels of spiritual maturity. I’ve certainly grown since my teens, midlife, & continue in spiritual growth as a progress through these senior years. Blessings @—>—-
I appreciate your kind words. I wasn’t that familiar with him, but it definitely feels personal. Thank you.
I agree, Bro Brandenburg, that when someone like Charlie Kirk gives his life for the truth, that is the time to be positive about him. We have the example of David being very kind to even king Saul when he died in battle (2 Sam 1), so we can be positive about Kirk when he died.
At the same time, I think Bro Thompson has a point. I did not follow Kirk, so perhaps people who did knew his wife was Roman Catholic and all the rest, but for those of us who did not, they ought to.
I don’t know if he held to any other false doctrines, but he also believed in sabbath keeping, although he was not a sabbatarian, it appears.
Now, if he was, as I trust he was, trusting in Christ alone for salvation, all his doctrine is perfect–better than mine, for sure, and he is also perfectly holy–better than me, for sure as well.
By the way, the Apostles Creed does not teach works salvation, nor does the (incorrect) statement that there is “one catholic church” mean works salvation, but a false view of the church. Furthermore, the earliest version(s) of the Apostles’ Creed did not even include this phrase, but confessed, instead, faith in the “holy church.”
Hi Thomas,
I didn’t deal with Apostle Creed portion of the comment, because I wanted to start generally by taking one at a time to see what would happen. Calling the Apostle’s Creed heresy is a bit tell-tale. I find most people are not strong enough doctrinally to give a good enough statement that would match that creed. They also don’t really understand the Trinity or the importance of that doctrine.
Yes, that is true.
It is important, even when something false is being critiqued, to critique it for what is actually false, not for something else. The later addition of faith in the “holy catholic (lower case “c”) church” to the Apostles’ Creed simply does not teach “ecumenical universalism,” as it was in use for 1,500 years before the ecumenical movement existed, and by people who were very far from teaching universal salvation.
Is it unbiblical? Yes, but for reasons that are not those reasons, and it does not mean that everyone who (wrongly) agrees with a universal church is going to go to hell.
It is important to critique something accurately.
It would have been better to say, “Yes, you are correct. The Apostles’ Creed does not teach ‘ecumenical universalism,’ and, for that matter, you are right, its earliest versions did not even mention a universal/catholic church. Also, you are right, works salvation is mentioned nowhere in the creed” than to ignore all of that and come up with a completely different question, about whether a sound church should reprint the Creed on its website.
I think I am done posting on this here. Thank you.
I agree that “the Bible is split on that” is a concerning statement. I would hope that if I was put on the spot in front of hundreds of (some hostile) college students, I would not ever say anything confusing (but I probably would at some point). When taken in the context of the entire video, it is much less concerning. He took the right stand, and even took a stand against “you are enough” as New Age–something that almost no evangelicals seem to be willing to stand against today.
Is his ecumenism concerning? Of course! One concern I have is that I hope that those who take over Turning Point after Charlie’s death are not going to be flat-out gospel-deniers. Either way, there is also much to commend of what he did, and much opportunity right now; and I think you are correct to say that we should not focus on the other stuff at this time.
Mat,
Thanks. I think I let the negative comments go too far, which was harmful overall, I believe.
KB
Hi everyone,
I removed a lot of the comments from this post. This is to honor someone who didn’t want my comments to what he said if I wasn’t going to allow all his comments. I’m not going to publish straight insults. I’m going to disallow that hopefully consistently from this point on.
I appreciated your post & encourage you to continue your good work including deleting what you must. God bless.