Charlie Kirk (Part Two)

Part One

Dead for the Truth

Charlie Kirk died for the truth.  His assassin did not shoot and kill him because of his doctrinal or practical errors.  No, his murderer was the one in error.  Almost entirely, when he spoke and confronted young people on college campuses, he corrected their errors with truth, very often with something from the Bible in about as strong a manner as possible.  Almost no one in the MAGA world is in total agreement with one another, but they usually have many and enough similarities for this coalition to hold together.  Kirk was on the strong end of this, encouraging the strength of it.

Biblical Separation

Several years ago, Pillar and Ground Publishing, out of our church in California, published, A Pure Church.  This book exposed, using biblical theology, the scriptural doctrine of ecclesiastical separation.  A Pure Church, which depends on the Bible, could help someone know how to understand interaction with others.  It defines unity, fellowship, and the requirement of separation, and I recommend your reading it.

Biblical separation does not require separation from Turning Point USA.  Someone could hold a campus office of Turning Point, Charlie Kirk’s organization, because it wasn’t a church.  I wouldn’t have recommended Turning Point Faith, which I didn’t know existed until after his assassination.  I understand his starting it to encourage biblical faith.  It’s not the scriptural means of doing that, but I don’t think that was Charlie’s motive for it.  He knew the Christian worldview depended on faith as an epistemology.

Someone could set up a tent like Charlie Kirk and confront leftists and liberals on a college campus without the auspices of a church.  Government is a separate institution from the church.  It is important for believers to understand what I’m talking about here.  At the same time, churches could put tents up on college campuses, probably with the required invitation of a student there, and do what Kirk did and in a more pure manner as a church that teaches one cohesive doctrine and practice.

Jesus in His prayer in John 17 says we’re in the world, not of the world.  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5 that cannot separate ourselves from all unbelievers or we would need to leave the entire world.  This isn’t God’s will.  The Lord Jesus Christ in His parable of the tares in Matthew 13 says that the tares and the wheat grow up together in the world.  Separation occurs after this life in the judgment, not before that.

Lauding Charlie Kirk

Lauding Charlie Kirk emphasizes his influence on government and culture, that for which he stood and why.  Some variation exists out in the world with non-ecclesiastical institutions.  I didn’t fellowship with or completely align with Charlie Kirk, but I would have talked to him and endorsed his organization, because you don’t have to agree with everything as a matter of biblical separation.  Nonetheless, I agreed with most of what Charlie was saying.  It was very badly needed by Gen Z, still is.  Churches do well to encourage most of what he did.

I believe we should still talk about what’s wrong in the belief and philosophy of Charlie Kirk.  However, I don’t recommend doing it right now, immediately after his assassination.  This is a wisdom matter.  We have a responsibility for exposing error, but I believe it would take away from the positive effect of Kirk.  As a matter of fact, right now is a good time to get out there and confront people with the gospel, because of this event.  I would call this, striking while the iron is hot.  Talking to people just yesterday, I found people open and I believe in part because of the Charlie Kirk death.

When I spoke to people about the gospel yesterday, several, I wouldn’t have said bad things about Charlie Kirk.  I would identify with the commonality I did have with him.  Why did he die?  People are thinking about that.  Then I would take them to the Bible.  Associating in language with Charlie Kirk would not detract from what I told people.  Charlie Kirk was closer to what I believe than probably 95% of the groups out there.  I’m not going to emphasize right now our differences.  It’s not because I’m ashamed of them, but because I see it as unwise.

Wrong Commendation of Roman Catholicism, but Why?

I don’t know why Charlie Kirk gave some commendation to Roman Catholicism, but let me give my input on it.  One, he wanted college Roman Catholic students to attend Turning Point.  He looked for common ground with these students.  Two, many intellectual conservatives in the United States are Roman Catholic.  Look at the Supreme Court and then the Vice President of the United States.  William Buckley, one of the fathers of modern conservatism, was Roman Catholic.  I don’t like this, but I understand it.

Third, craziness exists in evangelicalism.  A certain kind of quiet, associated more with a conservative stance, seems to identify more with biblical worship, than the zany wackiness of evangelicals, including fundamentalists who attract with their youth activities and jumpers in the park.  It is a superficial view of the worship of Roman Catholicism, but it does often present an emphasis on some spiritual need of sin.

Charlie Kirk grew up in what seemed to be a somewhat nominal Presbyterian home.  He didn’t start with a strong, biblical mentor.  Like many I’ve seen, including myself to a degree, he had to choose his own mentor or mentors to find his way.  This is not the best way and it hinders spiritual development.  He didn’t see the very bad, evil dangers of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, so he still kept himself open to it on his own journey.

Explanations

I don’t know how Roman Catholic his wife Erika is.  She says many contradictory things about Catholic doctrine, but perhaps she also keeps ties because of her own family history and culture.  Maybe she sees the doctrinal problems, the differences from the Bible, helped by her husband, but he didn’t push her to leave.  Everyone got to watch this in action.

One of the best ladies ever at our church in California took awhile to become totally faithful to church.  Toward the beginning, she would attend a friend’s church.  This was an apostate, false religion.  She didn’t know better.  As she grew, she understood more and went away from that, becoming one of the best disciplers of especially single women or mothers for years.  Part of her effectiveness was understanding those struggles at the beginning, which sometimes goes for a few years, but the trajectory for the truly saved person is toward the truth.

How many people around Charlie Kirk in his spiritual trajectory told him the type of things that I and others like me believe?  Probably few.  He’s still responsible, but I am still thankful for the ways he responded faithfully to the Word of God.  This is why he died.  He died for this.  Can we recognize this right now before we start criticizing all the ways we think he was wrong?