Before his assassination, I don’t think I ever mentioned Charlie Kirk’s name on this website. I was aware of who he was. Watched his videos. Admired – no, greatly admired – his work. But I never mentioned him here. Since his murder, I’ve written a half dozen posts about the guy. For some reason, I just feel called to counter the falsehoods and anger I see floating around the social sphere. I know, that’s a vain effort.
Let’s get this out of the way: Charlie Kirk was not the Easter Bunny. He was blunt, sometimes abrasive, and he didn’t exactly tuck people into bed with warm milk and affirmations. But here’s the kicker – that didn’t make him “hateful.” It made him Christian in the old-school sense: love rooted in truth, not Hallmark card slogans.
The internet mob hears “sin” and instantly translates it to “hate.” No, Karen, that’s not how it works. Hate is when you want someone destroyed. Conviction is when you want someone rescued – even if they don’t like the lifeline you’re throwing.
Love ≠ Affirmation
Somewhere along the way, culture decided that “love” means patting every decision on the head like a golden retriever. That’s not Christianity. Jesus didn’t hand out participation trophies. He forgave, yes – but he also told people, “Go and sin no more.” That’s not affirmation. That’s tough love and clear instruction.
Kirk stood in that lane. When he said he doesn’t agree with certain lifestyles or identities, critics screamed “hate.” But disagreement isn’t hate – unless you’re in kindergarten, in which case every “no” feels like the end of the world.
Where People Get It Twisted
- Tone: Charlie talked like a man trying to win a debate, not like a yoga instructor. Strong words sting, but sting ≠ hate.
- Culture clash: In today’s world, “love” = “tell me I’m perfect.” In Christianity, “love” = “tell me the truth even if it hurts.”
- Cherry-picking: Critics play the same clips on loop, skipping over when Kirk defends Jews, calls antisemitism demonic, or welcomes anyone who wants to fight for America. Not quite the manifesto of a hate-filled villain.
- I write and say these things because his voice must be replaced and his mission continued.
Why It Matters
If calling out sin is automatically hate, then Jesus himself would’ve been canceled before the Sermon on the Mount was finished. The Gospel is love, but it’s not a free-for-all. Love can be kind without being permissive. It can open its arms without rubber-stamping every desire.
Kirk preached that version – the one that makes people squirm because it’s not affirm-at-all-costs. That’s not hate. That’s consistency.
Watch For Yourself
Don’t take my word for it — listen to the man in his own words:
My Bottom Line
Charlie Kirk wasn’t out there wishing doom on people. He was out there saying, “God has standards, and I believe in them.” If that feels hateful, maybe the problem wasn’t Kirk’s tone – maybe it’s that truth and affirmation aren’t the same thing, and deep down we all know it.
yea, telling the truth hurts. Their is no man on the face of the earth who comitts more horrible crimes than white people. I good pastor does’nt pick and choose what parts of the bible suits him.white people are the skunk of the planet earth and they are fit for divine destruction.(it tells you in the bible)
The truth does hurt – but what you just posted isn’t God’s truth, it’s human rage. Scripture is clear: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Not “white people,” not “black people,” not “this nation” or “that tribe” – all.
When you call one group the “skunk of the planet,” you’re preaching partiality, and James 2:9 says plainly: “If you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” That’s not the Gospel. That’s hatred with a Bible verse taped to it.
A “good pastor” doesn’t cherry-pick verses to justify bitterness against one race. A good pastor preaches the whole counsel of God – and that includes Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Divine destruction isn’t parceled out by skin color. It’s poured out on sin. The only way any of us escape it isn’t by being black, white, or anything else – it’s by the blood of Jesus (John 3:16–17).
If you really want to tell the truth, start there.
What verse does it say that? Your words are as poisonous as that venomous snake in the desert. We all will me our maker and will be judged accordingly. Bless your soul.
God is not a conservative, liberal, leftist, progressive, right wing or any other political party. I feel that things has reach it apex. God will erase and replace. It’s ashamed that godless people try to preach what God said! FIRE, WATER, WIND, SUN, and the EARTH are tired with the shananigans of white people. Read the signs!
You’re right about one thing: God isn’t registered to any political party – He’s King of kings, not a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Scripture makes that clear (Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 47:7). But let’s also remember: God doesn’t divide by skin color either. Acts 17:26 says “From one man He made all the nations.”
So when we start blaming one race for all the world’s problems, that’s not the Gospel talking – that’s bitterness dressed up as prophecy. The Bible warns us against that (Hebrews 12:15).
Yes, God will judge the nations, but not because of the “shenanigans of white people.” Judgment comes because all have sinned and fallen short (Romans 3:23). The solution isn’t fire and water tearing us apart – it’s Christ on the cross putting us back together (Colossians 1:20).
Read the signs, sure – but read the Word first. Otherwise, you end up preaching politics with Bible wallpaper.
I appreciate your description of Kirk’s style and whole heartedly agree with it. “He was blunt, sometimes abrasive, and he didn’t exactly tuck people into bed with warm milk and affirmations.” However, immediately after the statement about his style, you justify it. “But here’s the kicker – that didn’t make him “hateful.” It made him Christian in the old-school sense: love rooted in truth, not Hallmark card slogans.”
Webster Dictionary defines hateful as
“Adjective-
1. arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred:
2. expressing prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds:
3. very unpleasant”
Jesus taught why sin should not be done, blessed the person with their need being met, and then after they had experienced His love, told them to go and sin no more. No name calling. No demeaning language. Just go and sin no more. The videos I have seen of Kirk were not kind or caring. They bring to mind this scripture. Proverbs 15:1 – “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” I believe the anger he stirred up brought him death.
So, Mr. James, share your explanation of Kirk’s comments about black pilots, DEI, Martin Luther King, and black women. How are those comments like Jesus; not hateful? How are his “blunt, abrasive, non-affirming comments/responses gentle, encouraging?
If you would kindly share the videos to which you refer, I could better respond.
Add to the points Tricia listed of racism, stoning Homosexuals, there was Mr Kirk’s statement to a church in 2023 that it was “prudent” for some lives to be lost to gun violence to protect our “God-given” right under the Second Amendment. Where is the right in scripture? Would Jesus put the right to carry a gun over a life? If Mr. Kirk hated sin so much, why did he never criticize key GOP leader for unbiblical words and actions? He was quick to condemn Democrats but gave a pass to Republicans. Jesus never showed favoritism.