Is Charlie Kirk a martyr?

[Darrell C]

He was both an evangelistic and a political activist, but I think people's take depends on what they watched. If they watched him speak about Christianity, give his testimony, snd share the gospel they would probably view him as a martyr. But if they watched him defend conservatism then they would view him as a political advocate.

I have never seen him speak where he did not do both. But to be fair, I have only seen him address what others brought up (whether politics or religion).

Bottom line is it depends on why he was killed. Was it for speaking about Christ, Christianity and Christian positions? Was it for soeaking about conservative politics?

I can't say. It appears it had something to fo with his stance that the transgender agendas is wrong. That coukd go either way.

I think you did say: since you never saw him not preach the Gospel when he spoke.

The political issues he dealt with tie directly to a Biblical Worldview: abortion, homosexuality, and the numerous subtopics arising from those. Those who debated with him were political religionists. They were apostles and evangelists preaching the doctrine of their religion. Issues such as Free Speech and gun rights, though primarily political, were just the baggage of the true evil Charlie Kirk was dealing with.

The religion he battled on both fronts is the religion of the Democratic Mafia, which is born from the Liberal Agenda, which is itself born from the promise and efforts of Communism to destroy America. If we define a martyr" as someone who dies because they refuse to relinquish faith in Christ, then I think we would have to include Charlie Kirk with every soul that has perished because of that faith.

but I think people's take depends on what they watched.

This is very true. In a recent discussion with a family member, they "didn't see what I saw." The debate involved a young man who, bullhorn in hand, disrupted a lawful gathering, interrupting those trying to speak with Kirk. It's pretty amazing how two groups of people can look at the same thing and come to such radically opposite conclusions. I take that back: it's scary. I hope the recent wave of responses to his death lights a fire under the feet of all of us. Since I mention it, I'll usurp Paul's title, because I have been the chief of sinners concerning my duty to God to carry the Gospel to the lost.

I'll also mention that we need to be wary of who we align ourselves with, because the Democratic Mafia has adherents on both sides of the aisle. Many so-called "conservatives" will use Charlie Kirk's death as a political tool without taking into consideration the work Charlie Kirk was accomplishing. Because the political aspects are more important than Christ for them. Those people need the Gospel too, let's not forget that.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

In the few posts I read, you seem to place a divide between politics and religion. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Christianity is a religion: I am saying politics is a religion. While there were issues he debated that have political buttons, let's not forget that a number of those issues tie directly to a Biblical Worldview, not a political worldview. Abortion, for example. This is the only reason why I vote Republican: the Republican Party has always advocated for the sanctity of life. He was a staunch defender of Free Speech. How is that critical to evangelism? But he always based his reasoning on his faith in Christ and the Word of God. That's just a fact. Was he a martyr? I would say that's a silly question. He preached Christ as an alternative to the doctrine of the Democratic Mafia. He was doing what we should all be doing. Do we conclude he wasn't a martyr because, for some people, he didn't make that the only issue he preached for and against?

My issue with Charlie wasn't his politics, it was his inconsistent application of his worldview to his politics. His politics may have been informed by his faith, but his approach to politics was seemingly to set aside this worldview in favor of a secular one - or maybe what he thought to be a neutral one. Partnering with homosexuals, telling Dave Rubin that he thought it was great that he and his partner were having kids, and that gays should be able to adopt, etc. Thankfully God can strike a straight blow with a bent stick, we are all bent sticks, and in spite of his specific political and theological failings, there is no denying that he shamelessly preached the gospel, and spoke about Christ. I think it is appropriate to focus on his faithful service to God, rather than his failings - of which all Believers have.

Having considered it, I am sure that Charlie was trying to be careful not to advocate for theocracy, which led him into some of these other ditches.

 

[Ben1445]

My issue with Charlie wasn't his politics, it was his inconsistent application of his worldview to his politics. His politics may have been informed by his faith, but his approach to politics was seemingly to set aside this worldview in favor of a secular one - or maybe what he thought to be a neutral one. Partnering with homosexuals, telling Dave Rubin that he thought it was great that he and his partner were having kids, and that gays should be able to adopt, etc. Thankfully God can strike a straight blow with a bent stick, we are all bent sticks, and in spite of his specific political and theological failings, there is no denying that he shamelessly preached the gospel, and spoke about Christ. I think it is appropriate to focus on his faithful service to God, rather than his failings - of which all Believers have.

Having considered it, I am sure that Charlie was trying to be careful not to advocate for theocracy, which led him into some of these other ditches.

He was 31. He was, like we still are, learning, being molded and shaped. He understands more clearly now. We will in eternity also. His I’s may not have been dotted or his T’s crossed all the time. But every time I start looking sideways at people, I try to remember that the Books Paul wrote to the Corinthians were to the church and not the city.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

He was 31. He was, like we still are, learning, being molded and shaped. He understands more clearly now. We will in eternity also. His I’s may not have been dotted or his T’s crossed all the time. But every time I start looking sideways at people, I try to remember that the Books Paul wrote to the Corinthians were to the church and not the city.

Certainly. I can gladly rejoice in his kingdom work, regardless of his failings. Thankfully God commends us for our deeds of faithfulness, and does not remember our sins (hall of faith in Hebrews).

 

[canadyjd]

But was he preaching the gospel that day? He was seemingly doing one of his "prove me wrong" campus debates….

It doesn’t matter what Kirk was doing that day. What matters is why was he killed. From what little we know about the shooter’s motive, it was because of what he was saying on a regular basis. That included the gospel presentation and how modern debates about subjects like gender identity, race relations, abortion and the rest should be viewed through the lens of Christianity.

At first, I thought not a martyr. But the more I ponder it, I believe he was.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

It doesn’t matter what Kirk was doing that day. What matters is why was he killed. From what little we know about the shooter’s motive, it was because of what he was saying on a regular basis. That included the gospel presentation and how modern debates about subjects like gender identity, race relations, abortion and the rest should be viewed through the lens of Christianity.

At first, I thought not a martyr. But the more I ponder it, I believe he was.

Peace to you

I am starting to agree with you as well. It appears to me that Kirk's faith found an exoression in politics (the opposite of some, who's politics find an expression in fairh).

 

[Cathode]

I am starting to agree with you as well. It appears to me that Kirk's faith found an exoression in politics (the opposite of some, who's politics find an expression in fairh).

It’s the values behind his politics they hated.

“Man and woman He created them” Genesis

He embodied that truth, so they killed that body.

The Truth is invulnerable, but those that represent it aren’t. They bleed for the Truth.