The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Martyr or Not?
- Scott Bullerwell
- 4 days ago
- 18 min read
Martyrdom is not a ‘modern’ invention. Any believer who has ever taken the time to investigate the early days of the church, will know that waves of Christians succumbed to licking flames ... unimaginable torture techniques ... and crazed beasts ... often ‘headlined’ through gory, public spectacles by the unnatural blood-lusts of Roman Caesars, Catholic Popes and other potentates. This was the cost of allegiance to Christ and His kingdom, as history’s centuries and pages witness.
Perhaps we should feel surprised to learn, though admittedly we are not, that the ‘Christian’ church often played a heavy hand against its own. John Hus (1415 CE), a Czech reformer, was pronounced a heretic against the doctrines of the Catholic Church and burned at the stake for exposing the abuses of the Church. Later, William Tyndale (1536 CE), who translated the Bible into English, would be strangled and burned at the stake for his unwillingness to submit to those same religious authorities.
Not surprisingly, politics and social ideology also have their martyrs: Socrates (399 BC), the Athenian philosopher, Joan of Arc (1431 AD) and ... to my way of thinking -- Charlie Kirk (2025 AD) ... who I believe died as a victim to free speech – while upholding ‘the cause.” Whether he meets the threshold of being a martyr, you can decide. More about that in a moment.
So widespread was the early persecution of Christians before Emperor Constantine I, that it is often called the "Age of Martyrs.”
The Elasticity of Martyrdom
The word ‘martyr’ comes from the Greek word martys (μάρτυς), the word for witness, a person who in a legal sense, had firsthand knowledge of an event and could testify to its veracity in court. Not surprisingly, in the early days of Christianity, the word became religiously attached to the Apostles and disciples of the New Testament, who themselves were witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:8, 22). However, by the middle of the second century, ‘martys’ grew in meaning to be applied to those who endured suffering and were executed for their faith, with Jesus being the archetypal martyr. Stated succinctly, martyrdom is enduring bodily death in witness to the Christian religion.
However, more recently, the term has become increasingly applied secularly to anyone who dies for a political ideal or social cause (secular martyrdom) — whether that cause be bad or evil.
The advantage in adopting traditional martyrologies and applying it to those who died while defending an ideology or geographical border, especially against non-believers, seems obvious to me ... and the Crusader campaigns (1096-1221 A.D.) come readily to mind as best exemplifying this theological shift. The Muslims had been attacking for over 450 years before Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade in his speech at Clermont in 1095. In his Papal promise he asserted that death in a Holy War was in effect an act of self-sacrifice — creating a new path to the status of martyr ... one that presented a significant shift from the non-violent ideals of early Christian martyrs. Speaking of Muslims, in the years following the attack on the Twin Towers on September, 2001, political and religious debates about Islamic martyrdom have only increased interest in the subject and its definition.
Whatever its current modalities (elasticity) however, it seems clear to me that the term ‘martyr’ fundamentally echoes its Christian roots – even though its meaning has been corrupted secularly.
Martyrdom has gained a bad reputation – connected to violence, cruelty and random killing — with Islamist extremists, holding to their twisted brand of shahada, responsible for a significant proportion of this carnage. This is not the traditional Christian framework that has underpinned martyrdom.
The Witness of Tertulian
Born around A.D. 155 to a pagan family in North Africa, Tertullian became a convert to Christianity and was the first major theologian to write extensively in Latin. A very capable apologist, he was the first Christian to directly write about martyrdom, though there is no record that he personally suffered persecution. In his earliest work “To the Martyrs” (c. AD 197) he exhorts the Christians in prison to stand strong in their faith with a soldier’s military discipline and embrace the promise of future glory.
“... no soldier comes out to the campaign laden with luxuries, nor does he go to action from his comfortable chamber, but from the light and narrow tent, where every kind of hardness, roughness and unpleasantness must be put up with .... You are about to pass through a noble struggle, in which the living God acts the part of superintendent, in which the Holy Spirit is your trainer, in which the prize is an eternal crown of angelic essence, citizenship in the heavens, glory everlasting.” (Chapter Three)
Appealing to the example of the Spartans, whose youth are scourged to toughen them, Tertullian writes:
“But if so high a value is put on the earthly glory, won by mental and bodily vigour, that men, for the praise of their fellows, I may say, despise the sword, the fire, the cross, the wild beasts, the torture; these surely are but trifling sufferings to obtain a celestial glory and a divine reward. If the bit of glass is so precious, what must the true pearl be worth? Are we not called on, then, most joyfully to lay out as much for the true as others do for the false?” (Chapter Four)
In his treatise “On Flight in Persecution” (c. A.D. 07) Tertullian again looks to strengthen the resolve of the Christian community and cohere the various groups within, for the martyrdom-spectrum was broad – with many voices arguing for the legitimacy of ‘flight’ in some form (including early church Fathers Clement and Origen) ... while others on the far extreme preferred to ‘rush to death’– to in effect, provoke their own martyrdom.
Framing persecution as a spiritual battle, Christians need to stick it out: 1
“So, too, persecution may be viewed as a contest. By whom is the conflict proclaimed, but by Him by whom the crown and the rewards are offered? You find in Revelation its edict, setting forth the rewards by which He incites to victory — those, above all, whose is the distinction of conquering in persecution, in very deed contending in their victorious struggle not against flesh and blood, but against spirits of wickedness. So, too, you will see that the [judging] of the contest belongs to the same glorious One, as umpire, who calls us to the prize.”
Martyrdom is not only an imitation of Christ’s sacrifice,
but surely the ultimate expression of witness to Christ’s truth, in a way that is meaningless if God does not exist.
But perhaps this Early Church Father’s greatest contribution to the subject of martyrdom lies in his “Apology” (AD 197). Unlike the gentle persuasions of Clement, Tertullian’s powerful sword is sarcasm, savage and strident – and he wields it with unsurpassed excellence and dexterity. Writing to Roman provincial governors, he offers a passionate defense of Christianity and argues against the persecution of Christians.
“Crucify, torture, condemn, grind us all to powder if you can; your injustice is an illustrious proof of our innocence, and for the proof of this it is that God permits us to suffer…. But do your worst, and rack your inventions for tortures for Christians—it is all to no purpose; you do but attract the world, and make it fall the more in love with our religion; the more you mow us down, the thicker we rise; the Christian blood you spill is like the seed you sow, it springs from the earth again, and fructifies the more.”
From Tertullian’s Apology 50
That’s right! It was Tertullian who famously stated, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church". No wonder I like reading the works and theology of the Church Father.
The Assassination
On September 10, 2025, one day after my Diamond Jubilee Birthday, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson put the crosshairs on his target and pulled the trigger: a brazen murder in broad daylight at Utah Valley University. Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA was now dead - as intended!
Yes, I know - Robinson has the right to a ‘presumption of innocence.’ OK, he is an ‘alleged’ killer ... None of the allegations have been tested in court. Sure – “innocent till proven guilty.” Now that I have said all the ‘correct’ words -- I use to tell mom I was innocent too ... even with the chocolate icing painted across my lips. She did not believe me, and would send me to sit in the corner for 10 minutes – cruel and unusual punishment for a 7-year-old. I told her I was thinking about arguing my case to the Supreme Court. She added another 10 minutes! At this writing, Robinson has yet to enter a plea. I wonder what he will plea? Well, not really!
He will get the benefit of a strenuous defense and his ‘defense team’ will move heaven and earth to keep him from the death penalty. I anticipate every aggravating factor will be resurrected to save his skin – his birth, childhood, education, social interaction, friends – or lack there-of, trauma, mental health issues, abuse, age, mental struggles, treatment by others, how the evidence was collected, the hiring of a mitigation expert to present a favourable public image of the defendant. Did I miss anything?
When these tools are exhausted, his team will then pivot to the supposed barbarity of the death penalty. Yes – every defence strategy imaginable will be pressed into service to turn Mr. Robinson into a ‘victim’. Heavens, they might even blame the Trump-er himself. All paid for courtesy of the Utah tax-payer, no less. From my perspective, proving innocence will be a steep hill to climb.
In addition to aggravated murder, Robinson faces multiple other charges, including the felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering and committing violent crime in the presence of children.
Some Christians believe connecting faith to cultural engagement and contending with Caesar is not permissible. I wonder if there is ‘anything’ that would move them to engage, in this war of ideas.
The Thorny Theological Question: Martyr or Not?
Was 31-year-old Charlie Kirk a martyr or ... the victim to free speech and political violence? Said another way, did Charlie’s death meet the threshold of what it means to be a martyr for Christ? No doubt Christians will be divided in their conclusions – after all, we seem to disagree on most other things these days. 2 Of course, whatever the conclusion (yours or mine), none of that changes the malicious, hateful, cruel, and evil actions of that September afternoon. It was reprehensible, despicable, and odious, and if Robinson is found guilty, he should feel the full weight of the law. Yes – the ‘full’ weight.
John the Baptist died a martyr's death, in ‘witness’ to the law of God regarding marriage (Mark 6:19-29); Paul, likely decapitated, died in ‘witness’ to the gospel of Christ (2 Timothy 4:6-8; Acts (;16; 21:13); and James the Just, the brother of Jesus, died in ‘witness’ to the truth of who Jesus Christ is (Matthew 24:9). 3 Likewise, the example of Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:23), comes readily to mind. The first among seven chosen as deacons in Jerusalem, he is hauled before the Sanhedrin, by corrupt witnesses and false charges ... and when he addresses his accusers – he yields no ground to them. His witness seals his fate and he is summarily executed (7:59-60). We should remind ourselves here that whether it was Jewish persecution of the Church (Acts, Matthew, John) or Roman persecution (Paul, Mark, Revelation), these examples of Apostolic ‘witness’ predate later history (Ante-Nicene / AD 325) when the term martys (Gk: μάρτυς) would morph into a more ominous, restrictive definition — the execution of Christians.4
“Allow me to become food for the wild beasts .... let me be
ground by the teeth of the wild beasts ...”
St Ignatius of Antioch, [Letter to the Romans], 5.1, p. 105; later martyred.
To my knowledge, Evangelicals do not have a single ‘unified’ position paper on martyrdom – outside of the general view that a martyr is someone killed for their faith in Jesus Christ. A broad definition, but lacking in detail. It is here I find Catholic theology useful in clarifying what the details could look like to meet the threshold needed. Three conditions are necessary:
Actual death
Death inflicted by an enemy out of hatred for Christianity; you die in witness to faith in Christ – expressed in words, implicit acts or sins refused;
Voluntary acceptance of death.
I would propose that this view of martyrdom can be helpful. Consider: If you die having contracted leprosy while doing ministry in a leper colony ... if you suffer death for heresy (e.g. Docetism - Jesus was not fully human; Arianism - Jesus is subordinate to the Father) ... if you die through self-infliction to safeguard yourself ... if you die in war, through self-suicide, for the sake of a religious cult, rescuing a child from drowning, or refusing to abort a child at the risk of your own life – have you met the required threshold? No!
A Muslim wrapped in a suicide vest, committed to inflicting unspeakable carnage – on their way to an Islamic heaven and sexual pleasure with "seventy-two virgins from the Hur al-Ayn of Paradise,” might be called a martyr – but it does not meet the threshold.5
A Buddhist who self-immolates in protest to Chinese communist rule, might be called a martyr – but it does not meet the threshold.
A Crusader battle death, trying to free Jerusalem [1099], might be called a martyr, especially if seen through the prism of a ‘just war,’ but it does not meet the threshold.6
Augustine (AD 354-430) developed a rather complex theology of martyrdom, shifting the focus from violent death to spiritual witness. This seems understandable, for two reasons: (a) Christianity had become legalized earlier under Constantine the Great (c. AD 274-337), and (b) Augustine was wanting to reclaim martyrdom from his ecclesiastical rivals – the schismatic Donatist Christians – who actively courted martyrdom, even inciting violence and committing suicide to achieve it. Not surprisingly, he reinterpreted martyrdom only in the light of the New Testament concept of bearing witness, emphasizing the martyrs cause ... over the martyrs suffering. In doing this, he expanded the classification of martyr beyond those who had died violently for their faith.
In his martyr’s discourse, Augustine writes, “Itaque martyres non facit poena, sed causa” - “the penalty does not make martyrs, but the cause.” He is not wrong, for if the mere death of someone makes a martyr, then dying for any reason, any idea (no matter how foolish), can turn every death into a heroic act. Note that Augustine does not say “any cause.” For him “the cause” was to stand as a witness to the truth, God’s truth — the truth of the Christian Church.
Maybe Charlie was not ‘your kind’ of Christian ... but maybe media lies and cultural arm-twisting have jaundiced what ‘your kind’ is supposed to look ... act ... think ... speak ... and live like.
Charlie Kirk was killed for a cause. The organization he created, Turning Point USA, was a political organization designed to rally young conservatives ... to conservative values, critical thinking, and free, open, and respectful dialogue. Many did not like his cause – including his killer. And when universities tried to block his presence on campus, for phony reasons, Kirk justly used the First Amendment and sued. Sounds like a page out of Acts 25. There, the apostle Paul was going to be unjustly treated as well:
The Jews had brought charges “which they could not prove.” (Acts 25:7);
Just like todays power-structures, Festus operated with an eye on political expediency – for as the new governor, he “wished to do the Jews a favour” (v. 9);
And of course, neither Jews or Festus had a legal leg to stand on. Paul rightfully dug his heels in, declaring “I have not done any wrong [to the Jews,] as you yourself know very well” (Acts 25:8).
Paul silently concludes that lady-justice appears to be peaking from under her blindfold, so he chooses to leverage his Roman citizenship, and appeal to Caesar’s tribunal. A deeply political move (25:8-12), he used Roman law to achieve spiritual goals (Acts 23:11).7
Charlie Kirk was killed for “the cause”.
Did Charlie’s killer target him because he was a Christian? There is no current evidence of this.
Did Charlie’s killer have a deep-seated aversion to his Christian faith? There is no current evidence of this.
Did Charlie’s killer connect the target’s values to his lived-out Christian virtues? There is no current evidence of this either.
If these statements be true (motive is still uncertain), then we can naturally conclude that Charlie Kirk was NOT a martyr within the boundaries that have traditionally defined Christian martyrdom. I have no issue with that.
However — it seems plainly obvious that at his core, Charlie’s faith, and by default, his worldview, shaped a great deal of his socio-political views, having their genesis in his understanding of the Bible and what it teaches. We call this a Christian worldview (see my Blog’s Home Page for an explanation). For Charlie there was no space between sacred and secular; between Christian and worldview.
Charlie described secular diversity, equity, inclusion frameworks (DEI) as ‘unbiblical’. At face-value DEI seems to align with biblical principles. But look deeper! Nowhere in scripture are incapable leaders considered for ‘diversity’ reasons (Exodus 18:21). Selection, based on race or identity markers directly contradicts qualifications and undermines merit and God-given talents, diversity of gifts and calling (Romans 12:4-8). DEI is toxic, social poison. The quicker DEI is torn down, the better!
Charlie argued that the embryo is “a baby made in the image of God deserving of protection.” (Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5). Not so says ‘Pro Choice’ – which btw is a misnomer since the organization overwhelmingly prefers death over the life of a child in the womb.
Charlie described being transgender as a “throbbing middle finger to God”. Sensitive Christians might not like his choice of words, so let me soften it: “Being transgender disappoints God – who in His wisdom created only two sexes - male and female. And even though exclusionary practices, like separate changing rooms for boys/girls can perpetuate feelings of marginalization, contribute to psychological distress and diminished self-esteem, say omniscient ‘Experts,’ and informed ‘Ethics educators’ — God is gently asking, tearfully wondering — “Can’t we not all just get along?” Personally, I like Charlie’s version, but hey!8
As Anglican theologian N.T. Wright rightfully reminds us:
“Jesus’ message was after all inescapably political. He denounced rulers, real and self-appointed. He spoke of good news for the poor .... He announced the imminent destruction of the Jerusalem temple .... He died the death of the lestai, the political insurrectionists (Barabbas, and the two crucified with Jesus, were lestai). How could he not have been ‘political’? (“The New Testament and the State”)
The Church’s mission is to reveal to the world, Christ the lover of humanity – to warn, teach, and guide them, through our behaviour, acts, words ... and in different ways, according to our ‘gifts’.
Kirk died for a cause! It may not be ‘your’ preferred cause ... and maybe not even the ‘best’ cause ... or ‘necessary’ cause, to your way of thinking. I get it! However, if we take in the entire panoramic of Kirk’s faith, life and walk, his ‘missionary service’ to college / university campuses (something 95+ % of Christians could never imagine doing ... and would not do), along with his unsubtle, unwavering public testimony of faith in Jesus Christ – clearly his Christian worldview-voice inspired millions to think critically, act boldly and not shy away from faith in God. I see that as a kingdom win! Thank you, Jesus!
Three days before his murder (September 7), Kirk wrote on X, “Jesus defeated death so you can live.” Minutes before his death (September 10), looking out into a gathered crowd of the unbelieving, he shared the Gospel (I Corinthians 15:3-4) ... once again reaffirming his belief in Jesus Christ, as he had publicly done countless times before. He said:
"That's all pretty amazing evidence, not just intra-biblical evidence but extra-biblical evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person. He lived a perfect life. He was crucified, died, and rose on the third day, and He is Lord and God overall."
So, though Charlie’s death (a) does not meet the threshold of Revelation 6:9 ... where the souls under the altar cry out because they were slain specifically for the word of God and for the testimony they had born, and (b) while we cannot start baptizing political death’s with sacred language that cheapens Christian martyrdom — I remain fully persuaded that Charlie died for ‘the cause’ as Augustine understood it. ‘Martyr / Not a martyr’ ... is just distracting noise ... and gives Christians another opportunity to argue! Vision, courage and faith in God, despite his failings, launched one of the most powerful conservative youth movements in the USA – and believers should celebrate every gain he made for ‘kingdom-sake’, ... and every ‘cup-of-water’ he metaphorically offered that brought spiritual relief and change in someone’s soul – especially among the younger generation. And if you say, “Yah, but what about those who were turned off?” Simple, “What about those who came to faith and into the kingdom?”
“I want to be remembered for the courage of my faith. That would be the most important thing.”
Charlie Kirk, Podcast Interview
Like a prophet crying in the wilderness, Charlie Kirk refused to be cowed by a culture that has adopted wickedness and wokeness as their team mascots. Preferring righteous truth over fickle feelings, he saw college campuses as cultural battlefields where a Christian worldview had a right to be represented and defended – but where few dare to tread (e.g. UC Berkeley; University of Vermont). He was not afraid of ideas or faith colliding in the marketplace – even when suffering the ‘wrath’ of fellow believers. Good for him! Jesus could not make everyone happy; why should Charlie?
Following Charlies assassination, nutty ideologues, political agitators. and their cultural-swamp alligator friends who routinely and predictably show up on cable news snapping mindless buzz words like bigot, racist, homophobe, race-baiter and more ... again went looking for someone holding a microphone. Their vanity makes it impossible for them to ever pass up an opportunity to show their faces. Feelings unmoored, it was nothing new! Same old tripe! Same old stupidity. Same old hatred. Just a different victim! Listening to some of them, you could conclude that Satan had a better approval rating. Many said they were glad he was dead. One ‘Christian’ said Kirk “was an evil person ... promoted and stood for evil;” biblically illiterate it would appear. Wonderful human beings – eh?
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you ... ‘If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.’ They will treat you this way because of my name.”
Jesus, John 15:18, 20-21
Martin Luther King, Jr. the preacher, spent his night in the arms of an unnamed woman in a Lorraine Motel (room # 306) in Memphis, Tennessee, mere hours before he was killed (April 4, 1968) – and today he is mythologized!
Charlie Kirk, the layman, was talking about Jesus and sharing his faith at Utah Valley University before a mix of sympathetic believers and critics hostile to Christianity, in Orem, Utah, mere minutes before he was killed (September 20, 2025) – and today he is maligned. We live in an up-side-down world.
As Jesus’ declared witnesses (Ambassadors, 2 Corinthians 5:20) until He returns to consummate His kingdom, our cross-shaped witness can / should be ‘prophetic’ ... in the face of crowd disapproval. Our world is dark in its ideas and its desires, redefining what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ ... revaluing our values ... jettisoning any transcendent framework for morality ... even stripping love of its divine reference so that it becomes (even among believers), a mere humanitarian abstract. I see no reason to not live by the power of the Spirit, challenge the idols of our culture with the truth of Scripture ... and put it at risk in the public arena in debate and argument. Yes, I am one of those who believes that sacred order helps shape culture. Truth is not always soft, or love quiet!
Someone said, “Jesus would not have approved of what Charlie was doing.” Frankly, you have no idea what Jesus would approve in Charlies’ life – so don’t sound like an expert on what Jesus thinks.
Is Charlie Kirk a martyr? No! I think not! He does not technically meet the threshold, whether the benchmark is 2nd – 3rd century Christianity ... or Catholic theology. However, I am OK in the knowledge that he did die while in the service of “the cause”. He does not have to be given a particular ‘award’ for me to esteem him for the effort he put into fearlessly engaging youth culture ... and unflinchingly declaring Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. I admire both attributes. Secretly I suspect Jesus met Charlie at Heaven’s gate with a smile on His face and a Crown of Life in His hands (Revelation 2:10) ... which is about as close as any believer can come to a Martyrs crown. Only Saying...
1. Interestingly, other Church Fathers like Clement, Origen and Cyprian (another African) wrote that flight was appropriate, to continue the work of witness, to make life safer for those remaining and to avoid being complicit in the sin of the one prosecuting. There are 5 early Christian works extolling martyrdom, you might find fascinating reading: the Epistle to the Romans attributed to Ignatius, Tertullian's Ad Martyras, Origen's Exhortation to Martyrdom, Cyprian's Exhortation to Martyrdom, and Pseudo-Cyprian's On the Glory of Martyrdom.
2. “Separation of Church and State” does not appear in our “Canadian Charter of Rights or Freedoms” or Constitution Act of 1867 or 1982 ... nor in The U.S. Constitution. It comes from a letter the 3rd U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson wrote (“wall of separation”) to Danbury Baptists, to protect churches from government control and reassure them – not remove religion from public. It is a misused metaphor – and not a prescribed, impregnable church-state wall. Hundreds of yeas later, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) uses the same phrase to sensor religious expression ... and to silence people of faith from engaging in public debate, armed with ideas informed by spiritual values.
3. Eusebius, a 4th cent. church historian gives us the details surrounding James’ martyrdom (Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXIII).
4. The stoning of Stephen likely occurred shortly before Saul was converted on his way to Jerusalem. Working backwards, we might assume a date of between 33 – 45 A.D.
5. You can find a description of these ‘companions’ in Surah Al-Waqi'ah 56:22, Surah Ar-Rahman 55:56, 72, and Surah An-Naba 78:33.
6. Thought exceedingly violent, the idea that the crusades were an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world, is a myth. They were rather, the Christian West’s first significant counterattack against a rising Muslim tide of conquest that had started with the birth of Islam and continued through to the 11th century, even into the 15th. – swallowing four (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople) of Christianity’s five (Rome) principal Christian sees.
7. Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata (Julian Law on Public and Private Violence) was a Roman law, likely enacted under Augustus, that divided crimes of vis (force/violence) into public (against the state) and private (against individuals) categories.
8. Charlie, like all believers, said things that others were convinced did not align with Scripture. Fair enough. So? Why do we require omniscience of everyone – but ourselves? Christianity has never required perfect people (think Moses, David Peter), just courageous ones! Imagine if I relegated every professor, congregant, or friend to the ash-heap of history for saying / believing something I did not agree with? Let God sort it out – seems reasonable!