By Peter Larson
TE, Midwest Presbytery
Editors note: This is a revised version of the original article with the quotations removed. The original quotations were reported without attribution, which we believe honors confidentiality, but some have objected to using these quotations. To show respect for this opinion, we have revised the article. It was not our purpose to call anyone out or cause embarrassment, but simply to illustrate the great difference of opinion that exists in the EPC over the life and death of Charlie Kirk.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has revealed a deep divide among EPC pastors and two conflicting worldviews.
The contrast could not be more stark. In the wake of Kirk’s murder, some EPC pastors honored him as a Christian martyr and evangelist, while others branded him as a racist and Christian nationalist. The exchange on social media became so heated that one Facebook page shut down all further comments related to Kirk.
While there was general agreement that the killing was wrong and tragic, some EPC pastors were quick to disparage and discredit Kirk. Some claimed Kirk had harmed the gospel by blending his faith with Republican politics. Others branded Kirk as a racist, and accused him of being offensive, heartless, and dehumanizing in his words. Some even questioned his faith and salvation. For all of these reasons, Kirk did not deserve to be praised or honored, they claimed.
Responding to the attacks, some EPC pastors defended Kirk for his faith and commitment to the gospel. If Kirk spoke strong words, so did Calvin and Luther, responded one pastor. Another EPC pastor was disturbed that Kirk’s detractors seemed to focus so much on his politics and so little on his work as a Christian evangelist who led thousands of young people to saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Committing the ‘Unforgivable Sin’
As I read the anti-Kirk rhetoric, I began to wonder if these pastors knew anything about Charlie Kirk and his ministry. They cited no facts, evidence, quotes, or video clips to support their claims. Instead, they seemed to be attacking a straw man and caricature created by the liberal media.
How do you explain the contempt for Charlie Kirk? Very simply: Charlie Kirk committed the unforgivable sin of supporting Donald Trump. The fact that he proclaimed the gospel, advocated marriage and family, and defended biblical standards of gender and sexual morality made no difference. If you believe that Donald Trump is the anti-Christ and Republicans are the nexus of evil, then it becomes impossible to praise Charlie Kirk or speak a kind word about him. Of course, this is a now-familiar trope: “How could a Trump supporter possibly be a Christian?”
Some of the anti-Kirk posts contained dire warnings about Christian nationalism. Christians should not be involved in politics, or so we are told. And yet, in their disdain for Charlie Kirk these pastors reveal their own brand of Christian nationalism. Politics has become the idol they worship, to the point where it dominates their worldview. Hatred of Donald Trump is the lens through which they view everything. When their idol is threatened, they react hysterically.
Yes, we are citizens of heaven, and our primary allegiance belongs to Jesus and His Kingdom. And yet, we are also citizens of this world. As such, Christians should be engaged in civic life and the public square. In my personal library I have two lengthy volumes of sermons preached between 1730 and 1805 during the founding era of the American republic. In page after page, these preachers exhorted their congregations to engage in the political sphere. Were they misguided? The truth is Satan would like nothing better than for Christians to withdraw from politics and leave the world completely under his dominion.
For the critics of Charlie Kirk, the real problem was not that he engaged in politics, but that he was not on their side, the party that supports woke ideology, LGBTQ+, abortion, open borders, and DEI. It is a godless, immoral, and anti-biblical agenda. However, none of that mattered to his detractors. The fact that he supported Donald Trump was enough of a reason to demonize him. It explains why, within hours of his tragic death, they could not resist the impulse to vilify him.
Following the death of George Floyd five years ago, the Stated Clerk of the EPC released a lengthy statement declaring a day of lament, prayer, and fasting. When Charlie Kirk was gunned down, the Stated Clerk and Office of the General Assembly did not acknowledge his death or issue any statement whatsoever. The silence was deafening.
I did not know Charlie Kirk personally or follow him closely. However, I admired his boldness. Most of us preach the gospel in safe places to a friendly audience, in church on Sunday morning. Charlie Kirk took it to college campuses where crowds were often hostile. As a Christian apologist, he was not afraid to confront the woke, leftist, atheistic mindset that pervades many of our modern universities.
And yet, he was not adversarial. He invited people who disagreed with him to come to the front of the line. He didn’t shame or shout them down; he listened to them. Most of all, he made them think — which is so sadly missing in academia today where students are so often brainwashed and indoctrinated. And he relentlessly proclaimed the gospel: that Jesus is Lord and Savior.
How many of us are as bold as Charlie Kirk? The disciples of Jesus were marked by their boldness, testifying fearlessly in the public square.
“… for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” (2 Timothy 1:7).
“To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.” (Ephesians 6:18b-20).
It is this spirit of boldness that is missing in the church today. We are fearful of offending anyone, and eager to please the world and conform to its values. We call it meekness, but in truth it is cowardice. We think we can win the world to Christ by blending into the culture and being winsome and “missional.” However, this is a fallacy. I pray the death of Charlie Kirk will make us more bold in sharing our faith.
The death of Charlie Kirk has been called a watershed moment in our nation. Will it lead to spiritual revival, or perhaps a new era of political violence? What it means for the EPC is uncertain. It will be increasingly difficult to hold the EPC together when we hold such conflicting worldviews. Jesus calls us to be light in the darkness, but how is that possible when we cannot agree on what is darkness and what is light?
Leave a Reply to John CrimminsCancel reply