Remembering Charlie
An entirely unknown Charlie Kirk was just five years old when I started working for the Center for Bio-ethical Reform. This was in January of 1999. I’m struck by this fact for two reasons. The first being that Charlie Kirk was assassinated last week amidst a large crowd of students on the campus of an American university, and my pro-life career began amidst a large crowd of students on the campus of an American university. For me, it was the University of Florida. I was there with the newly-minted Genocide Awareness Project, which displays giant pictures of abortion victims alongside images of traditionally-recognized victims of genocide. And when students or professors came up to say—as they did early and often, “How dare you compare abortion to slavery or the Holocaust?!” we were there to give a defense. But no one did it better than our director, Gregg Cunningham. He would hold court in front of these signs as the crowds grew and intensified, deftly deflecting their rage while relieving them of their abortion ignorance. But not everyone took it well, which is why we had crowd-control barricades and a constant police presence.
Towards the end of that first day, my first day in what would become my life’s work, a grad student I’d been conversing with told me that our director would be shot one day. He didn’t say it maliciously or threateningly. Just matter of factly. Because he could see how unhinged some people became when their worldview was suddenly challenged and exposed. But despite years of doing this project, Gregg Cunningham was never shot. Glory be. Nor were any of our staff or volunteers. Someone drove a car into the exhibit once and a staffer got punched in the face, but that was about the extent of the violence leveled against us on college campuses across the country. And a couple years later, when I found myself daily donning a ballistic vest and helmet to drive a box body truck around Los Angeles, with gigantic abortion pictures on the sides and back, I again survived unscathed. But Charlie Kirk did not—and I’ve had a hard time getting over it.
I did not know Charlie Kirk. I never got to meet him in person or interact with him online, but his death feels incredibly personal. I couldn’t bring myself to listen to any of the coverage or commentary that first day. My grief was still too fresh. And when I listened to Megyn Kelly’s Wednesday show the following afternoon, it was even more agonizing than I’d expected. My wife was in tears when I got home. She loved Charlie Kirk’s courage and charisma. And my octogenarian mom was so impressed with Charlie that she paid a small fortune for a ticket to his Myrtle Beach show just three weeks ago. In other words, Kirk’s appeal went well beyond young men—but now he’s gone. The warning I’d received 26 years earlier in Gainesville, Florida, was realized in Orem, Utah.
Some will insist that Charlie Kirk was struck down for his opposition to transgenderism, not his opposition to abortion, but I would counter that they are both fruit of the same demonic tree. And the reason it was Charlie who lost his life instead of any of us is a rather humbling one. He was simply better at what he did. Better at drawing a crowd. Better at engaging people on the fly. Better at marketing his message. Better at going viral. Better at building coalitions. Better at mobilizing young people. Better at raising money. Better at creating buzz. And better at changing public opinion. Matt Taibbi confessed on Friday’s episode of America This Weekthat he had tried to do what Charlie Kirk did. “I tried to get people on college campuses to argue with me about censorship and free speech,” he said, “[but I couldn’t] get a single [one].”
There’s no telling how many people on both sides of the political aisle begrudged Charlie Kirk’s success, little realizing what that success would ultimately cost him. I may even have been one of them, which suddenly makes me feel a bit like James and John in Matthew 20, after their mother asked Jesus to grant them more prominence and recognition. “You do not know what you are asking,” Jesus answered in rebuke. “Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” Or in this case, “Are you able to drink the cup I have prepared for Charlie Kirk?” You see, I have spent years asking the Lord for more of what Charlie had: influence, exposure, funding, success—not considering, perhaps, the ramifications of what I was seeking. “You speak like a foolish woman,” Job told his moralizing friends. “Shall we receive good from God but not evil?” So isn’t it possible that when God withholds from us what may seem a perfectly reasonable blessing, he is actually protecting us from all the perils that are intrinsically linked. The prince of darkness, after all, does not yield his ground willingly.
Abort73 has never been successful enough to matter in the way Charlie Kirk did. Nor has Planned Abortion. Perhaps I should be thanking God for that. Perhaps God is simply sparing me through anonymity. But either way, it’s our job to prepare the horse and God’s job to provide the victory (Proverbs 21:31). While still processing Charlie’s death, I did a search for “Abort73 Charlie Kirk” because I couldn’t remember if I’d ever referenced or written about Charlie before. This is what Google’s AI-enhanced search returned to me in response:
Abort73 is an anti-abortion advocacy group that has ties to and has been supported by conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk and his organization Turning Point USA share many of the same conservative and Christian nationalist views as Abort73, including their strong opposition to abortion.
Key connections between Kirk and Abort73:
Shared Christian nationalist ideology: Abort73 was founded in 2005 by Michael Spielman as a ministry with a goal of ending abortion by making it "unthinkable." Similarly, Kirk and his organization TPUSA have become increasingly vocal in promoting Christian nationalist views and a biblically-based approach to politics.
Use of similar strategies: Both Kirk and Abort73 employ confrontational, on-campus tactics to engage students in debates about abortion. They have been criticized for targeting young people with their message…
Shared views on abortion: Kirk and Abort73 hold uncompromising anti-abortion stances. Abort73 opposes abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest. Kirk has expressed a similar opinion, arguing that there is "never a reason" for an abortion.
Criticism of opposing views: Kirk has used his platform to criticize pro-choice arguments, calling abortion "weaponized medical narcissism" and telling students that a pregnancy does not "ruin your collegiate life". Abort73 uses similar rhetoric to frame abortion as a narcissistic and selfish choice.
Although Abort73 and Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA are separate entities, they share a similar vision and employ comparable strategies to advance their anti-abortion goals on college campuses.
To my knowledge, Charlie Kirk never made mention of Abort73. If he had, I suspect there’d be more money in our bank account and a lot more people following us on X. That’s just the kind of influence he had, but AI has never been overly concerned with the truth. Its seamless blending of fact and fiction makes both almost indistinguishable. But whether Charlie Kirk ever plugged Abort73 or not, I can say with certainty that Abort73 has never engaged in any on-campus tactics—confrontational or otherwise—because Abort73 is a web-based entity. Its explicit purpose is to offer a more efficient means of reaching students than having to travel to them one campus at a time. I can also say that the term “Christian nationalist” is one that’s never been used on the Abort73 website—nor is it one Charlie Kirk ever used of himself. And yet it appears three times in our joint AI description—just to let people know how thoroughly disreputable we both are. On the list of disgraced bogeyman descriptors, Christian nationalist sits right alongside Nazi and racist.
Even though I turn 50 this year, I have no comps for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The closest I can come is 9/11. That’s the last time I felt anything quite like this. “So Charlie Kirk’s murder was like 9/11?” our youngest son asked, after listening to our shared grief. Yes and no, I told him in return. The details are very different—along with the number of lives lost—but the heaviness feels very similar, with one notable exception. On 9/11, the whole country was brought to its knees. Anger and sorrow abounded everywhere. But last Wednesday when I first got the news, I found myself surrounded by people who didn’t seem to know who Charlie Kirk was and didn’t seem to much care that he’d been assassinated for his political beliefs. For me,life will never be the same. For them, what’s for dinner?
Whether people realize it or not, America hasn’t experienced an assassination like this since since Martin Luther King, Jr.—which means almost all of us are flying blind. A living memory of MLK gets harder and harder to find six decades after his death. And while those who despised Charlie Kirk will bristle at the comparison, the lives of these two larger-than-life men had much more in common than Kirk’s detractors would like to admit. Both were men of faith. Both practiced non-violent resistance. Both used their rhetoric to build bridges. Both sought to heal that which divides the nation. Both were beloved by a wide swath of the population, and both were hated enough to be shot dead in cold blood. And plenty would say of each man afterwards: Good riddance; he got what he deserved. Call that an unfair comparison if you like, but bullets don’t lie. “If you “want to find a society’s power center,” Alex Berenson wrote last Thursday, “follow an assassin’s bullet.”
“Why didn’t Charlie Kirk have body guards?” my son asked me the day following. He did, I explained, but body guards aren’t faster than a bullet—not even President Trump’s—which is why Ben Shapiro says he’ll never do another outdoor event again. The risks have become too great, echoing John Adam’s warning from centuries ago: the freer a country is, the more damage a godless man can do. But on the other side of the ledger, Charlie Kirk’s death has provided—for me, and my wife, and a whole nation of admirers—a surge of courage and adrenaline. The motivation to say, I will not be silent in the face of evil. I will not yield to the devil—no matter how many highbrowed Christians call for nuance and accommodation. That’s not to say we become the kind of people who will kill for their convictions. But we must become the kind of people who will die for them.
I am as leery of rich, young celebrity Christians as anyone. And I have serious doubts about truncated “altar call” evangelism. The decision to follow Jesus is a decision you make every single day. But if I had any concerns about Charlie Kirk, they have entirely vanished. The enemies of God do not kill their own. So if you find yourself apologizing for for the life of Charlie Kirk instead of celebrating it, I would humbly advise a course correction. Don’t yield to the lukewarm, left-leaning Christians who demand a lukewarm, left-leaning Jesus. These are the words of Christ: The world hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. (John 7:7). Does that sound familiar? Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but Jesus chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
“Those for whom [Charlie Kirk] was a hero,” Walter Kirn urges, “are best off emulating him rather than avenging him.” So what does it mean to emulate Charlie Kirk? I’ll take my cue from Ephesians 5, which strikes me as a good place to start:
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
“Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”
Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.
Personal holiness (take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness) and the calling out of cultural sins (expose the shameful practices done in secret) are not the things most rich, young celebrity Christians have much stomach for, but Charlie Kirk did. And he didn’t stop there. Because the implied response to not participating in the unfruitful deeds of darkness is that we should be participating in the fruitful deeds of light. What does that entail exactly? Many things, I suppose. But how could it not include the first directive ever given to mankind? Be fruitful and multiply—both physically and spiritually. This is how we fight our battles. We get married, we have children, and—I would suggest—we name lots of them Charlie. Or Kirk.