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’m going to come back next week and write something about some of the beliefs and practices of Charlie Kirk. I’m not taking this down, what I wrote, because I still agree with what I wrote. However, I think it would help some people to understand how the most important change will take place, and it won’t through Turning Point USA or through Charlie Kirk’s particular belief and practice.
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.
Grok reports:
Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was an outspoken evangelical Christian who frequently shared elements of his personal faith journey and views on salvation through his public speaking, social media posts, interviews, and writings. While he did not often detail a single, dramatic “road to Damascus” conversion moment in widely available accounts, his testimony centered on a gradual realization of his need for Jesus Christ, influenced by his upbringing and early life experiences. Kirk grew up in a nominally Christian household in the Chicago suburbs, attending a Presbyterian church, but described himself as spiritually uncommitted during his high school years, focusing more on academics, sports, and conservative activism. He has said that his faith deepened around age 18, shortly before founding Turning Point USA in 2012, when he began to fully embrace the gospel message of repentance and trust in Christ alone for salvation. In a 2023 interview clip shared on X (formerly Twitter), Kirk recounted responding to the Holy Spirit’s conviction about his sin and need for a Savior, leading him to commit his life to Jesus. He emphasized that this was not through personal merit but through grace: “I realized I couldn’t save myself; only Jesus could.”
Kirk’s doctrine of salvation aligned with evangelical Protestant theology, rooted in sola fide (faith alone) and sola gratia (grace alone). He taught that salvation is a free gift from God, not earned by good works, but received through personal faith in Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection. Key scriptures he referenced include John 14:6 (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”), Ephesians 2:8-9 (“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast”), and Romans 10:9 (“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”). Kirk often urged others to “repent and trust in Jesus Christ alone,” viewing salvation as eternal security for believers but warning of judgment for those who reject it. In a mini-testimony video from early 2025, he shared: “They will spend eternity apart from Him unless they repent and trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation. Preach that. Explain that.” He integrated this into his activism, seeing political conservatism as secondary to spiritual renewal, and frequently posted Bible verses on X encouraging people to “tell someone about Jesus” or “spend time with Jesus.”
Kirk’s faith was central to his identity; in an August 2025 interview, he stated he wanted to be remembered for “courage for my faith” over his political achievements. Just hours before his assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, he proclaimed under a tent: “He [Jesus] lived a perfect life, he was crucified, died and rose on the third day, and he is Lord and God over all.” His life exemplified his belief that true salvation transforms individuals to boldly witness, even amid opposition, as he did on college campuses.
Bruce,
Reading through your comment, what do you think it means to be a “theist”? Do you think that the Charlie Kirk show is a religious show or a political one? Do you believe that the Old Testament moral law advocated stoning homosexuals? What do you think in the Apostle’s creed is heresy?
Bruce,
What you’ve answered is a lot. I started with your bottom video, the baptism video. I stopped there after watching just that. Did you watch it? The whole thing? What did Charlie Kirk actually say in the video, besides the little six word phrase that you took totally out of context, which is a way to pervert what he said? What you’ve said is the opposite of what the Apostle Paul exemplified in Philippians 1:12-18. It also clashes with other things you said about him not giving any kind of testimony about a true gospel. The guy with whom he argued was the one arguing for faith plus baptism. Kirk wasn’t. When Kirk said, the Bible is split on it, when you include what he said afterwards, it was clear what he was doing with the guy. But you put just the clip on there. Yes, you included the video, but you misrepresented the video that you posted. I look forward to your answer.
Bruce,
I don’t respect how you speak, especially to me. When you say something like, “How on Earth…” this is not how respectful people speak to one another. I think I could help you, but that might not be possible. I’m not sure. Charlie Kirk does not believe in baptismal regeneration and that was easy to see in that video. He mainly talks to unbelievers on college campuses, who know almost nothing. I talk to unbelievers myself in hostile situations all the time and I recognize what he’s doing. He does not know how to do this with the Bible at least to the same degree as he does other Christian worldview subjects, such as economics, the border, education, etc., that are more political. He’s mainly been political and only recently, I believe, become more a spokesman for the Bible and God. He’s much better at that than many people, but for many reasons, he could be better at it.
When he says, the Bible is split, he’s not saying, I don’t believe, and based on what he said, that he thinks the Bible teaches two different things. He’s saying that the Bible says two different things. I very often say that in the following way. The Bible presents entrance requirements for salvation, but it also presents expected outcomes. Baptism is an expected outcome of repentance, something we read with John the Baptist and with Peter on the Day of Pentecost. Paul also talks that way in Romans, Galatians, and Colossians. He was dealing with someone who seemed to espouse baptism as a necessity for salvation and he opposed it. You didn’t represent him that way, which means you misrepresented him, which some might call ‘lying about him.’ I see it that way. When someone is not careful about what someone says, he is guilty too. Charlie Kirk could be guilty of getting something wrong for many various reasons, but you are also guilty for misrepresenting him and getting what he says wrong in a selfish and unloving manner –especially after the man was killed, murdered, assassinated less than a week ago. It’s bad to do it ever, but especially right now.
You are taking him out of context and any right minded person can see that. I don’t trust you to deal with you on other things you wrote, unless you are willing to retract this one thing.
I believe Charlie Kirk is confusing on some doctrine for many various reasons and it would be helpful for you to understand that. He is a 31 year old man, who didn’t grow up with clear, biblical influences. He still is influenced not in the best way, but has gotten better through the years. Jumping on those things right now, I believe, shows bad discernment on your part. You especially do misrepresent him, which I see as bad as some of what he does when he gets wrong what he gets wrong. The difference right now is that he died for what was right. He didn’t die because he said something not in the best way about baptism in one sentence, that he later clarified in what he said to a young man. Did you see his strong statement about the young man’s t-shirt at the end? You could not say anything positive then about what he did say right about baptism and about that t-shirt that young man wore. I don’t know you, Bruce. You are welcome to comment here, but you need to do better.
Bruce is now up to 20-30 angry comments here. A big chunk of them deal with saving faith not requiring the Lordship of Christ. He calls that a heresy, which explains how I have gone off the rails.
Hello everyone,
I’m not publishing Bruce’s last three insulting comments, high anger level on his part and much name-calling in three separate raging comments, but what I would expect from reading everything else he wrote. Not one bit of penitence or pause about his misrepresentation of Kirk here. He can only be lauded and agreed with, praised for his incisive comments, lecturing everyone on the correct position on Kirk, which is a large percentage bad, so totally missing it.
I have a post coming, Lord-willing, later today. He does have my rethinking my comment policy here, what I will accept from someone and how I’ll deal with someone who would do what he did.
*********
Bruce since published rapid fire 8 more insulting comments, making accusations that are not true. It would take a small booklet to answer everything he said, most of which is false.
I asked Grok if he was an old earth creationist and Grok reported the following.
One of the weaknesses of a parachurch, political organization, that wants to encourage a big tent approach is the desire to include more than one theological view. Like many evangelicals, Kirk tried to do this with creationism. He was young earth, but wanted to give room to old earth. However, when he died, Ken Ham, probably the most prominent young earth creationist on the planet, immediately praised Charlie Kirk in a lengthy video. He said nothing about Kirk pushing old earth creationism.
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.
I included this one Bruce comment, because it was one of the few without an insult, and in case Thomas might want to explain.
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.