A week before he was shot and killed while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University, Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, posted to his more than 5 million followers on X, “No civilization has ever collapsed because it prays too much.”
“But a civilization that abandons God will deteriorate and ultimately collapse from the inside out, or because it loses the will to repel a malicious, external force,” Kirk tweeted.
It was one of dozens of religious messages Kirk tweeted or said publicly over the past few years, each promoting an uncompromising form of evangelical Christian faith fused with his political conservatism. Initially known for his work with college students, Kirk’s Christianity became a central part of his public life in recent years. Mentored by and connected with prominent conservative pastors, Kirk’s take on religion seemed to be one he hoped would permeate American society from education to culture to politics.
It was an approach that proved deeply controversial, but also powerful: in the wake of his killing, Kirk leaves behind a vast faith-rooted network of politically active religious leaders that will likely continue to influence politics for years to come.
“Turning Point USA is an organization that is unparalleled on the Christian right today,” said Matthew Taylor, a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies in Baltimore.
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive “To Heal or Harm” by Steven R. Tracy, click here.
It’s a somewhat unexpected legacy for Kirk, whose fervent embrace of evangelicalism came near the end of his life. Kirk, who died this week at age 31, grew up attending a congregation in the Chicago suburbs affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA), a liberal mainline tradition. It wasn’t until 2019 that his evangelical shift became apparent in his public work, when he joined then-Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. to create the Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty at the evangelical Christian school.
While that project ultimately faltered after Falwell was involved with a series of scandals, it was around the same time Kirk met the Rev. Rob McCoy of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Newbury Park, California. McCoy said the two found common cause in a desire to intermingle their faith with their politics.
“Charlie goes, ‘I didn’t know a guy like you existed,’” McCoy recalled in a 2023 interview with Religion News Service. “And I go ‘What?’ And he goes, ‘A pastor in politics.’”
Godspeak was the first church to invite Kirk to visit as a guest speaker, McCoy said. Soon, the two began organizing what would become Turning Point USA Faith, a religion-focused TPUSA project.
Matthew Boedy, a professor at the University of North Georgia who has studied TPUSA, said McCoy pushed Kirk to embrace a specific theology known as the Seven Mountains Mandate, an evangelical movement revolving around the idea that Christians should influence seven “mountains” of society — family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government.
“(Kirk) then moved Turning Point into all those seven areas,” said Boedy, author of the forthcoming book “The Seven Mountains Mandate: Exposing the Dangerous Plan to Christianize America and Destroy Democracy.”
By 2020, Kirk was referring to the concept publicly and tying it directly to his political projects. While discussing President Donald Trump at that year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Kirk exclaimed to the crowd, “Finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence.”
Kirk would invoke the phrase rarely over the next few years, but he became a fixture in a broader effort to create a distinctly conservative Christian America, with TPUSA leaning harder into faith. By 2023, some churches openly affiliated with the organization on their websites. That year, a Turning Point Academy initiative offering “both a classic, pro-American curriculum as well as a Christian educational programming option” listed nearly 20 affiliated schools, many of them Christian.
One church in particular became a launching pad for Kirk’s religious work: Dream City Church in Phoenix, near where Kirk lived. For a time, Kirk hosted monthly “Freedom Night in America” events at the megachurch, a model that was eventually replicated at other houses of worship.
By 2023, TPUSA Faith was hosting conferences for pastors, encouraging them to preach politics from the pulpit as part of a church-growth strategy. Boedy said he attended Turning Point’s most recent pastors’ summit this summer in Georgia and was struck by the spectrum of faith leaders who traveled from across the state to attend.
“What Turning Point was doing at Dream City and these Freedom Nights and at different pastor summits, I think the people (Kirk) brought there really helped the people in the audience — and the audience’s pastors — to see how they could do politics from the pulpit that they weren’t doing before,” Boedy said.
Kirk’s own brand of faith was deeply conservative and often appeared infused with forms of Christian nationalism. In a public appearance he promoted on his X feed, Kirk argued the “body politic” of the United States at its founding was so Protestant that the “structure of government was built for the people who believed in Christ our Lord.” He then argued the U.S. requires a Christian populace to properly function.
“One of the reasons we’re living through a Constitutional crisis is that we no longer have a Christian nation, but we have a Christian form of government, and they’re incompatible,” he said. “You cannot have liberty if you do not have a Christian population.”
Much like his famously debate-focused politics, Kirk’s public religious appeals could be similarly contentious. He criticized religious leaders whom he disagreed with, such as Civil Rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who Kirk, in a 2023 appearance, derided as “awful” and “not a good person.” He also urged followers to pressure otherwise like-minded faith leaders who stopped short of embracing his politics to do so, such as when he chided pastors for not doing more to resist COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on churches or condemn abortion.
“If you are a pastor and you are not speaking out for pro-life ideas and policies and politicians, you should resign from the ministry, because every pastor needs to be speaking out about abortion in their church,” Kirk said in 2024 while speaking at a conference at Dream City. He later added, “How many of you know a weak pastor that needs to be confronted by a believer and say, ‘Either you need to lead, follow, or get out of the way — and preach the word, or not be a pastor any longer?’”
Kirk also voiced frustration in a debate over Catholicism while speaking with Michael Knowles, a conservative political commentator, at TPUSA’s America Fest late last year. In a cordial but sometimes tense back-and-forth with Knowles, who is Catholic, Kirk referred to then-Pope Francis as a “Marxist” and suggested the pontiff was a heretic.
Boedy noted he has personal experience with Kirk’s willingness to single out opponents: Boedy was placed on a TPUSA “professor watch list” in 2016 for writing an editorial opposing legislation that would allow concealed weapons on college campuses.
Meanwhile, Kirk sometimes sparred with opponents further to his right, both politically and religiously. Nick Fuentes, known for extremist rhetoric that conflates white nationalism and Christian nationalism, feuded with Kirk for years, accusing him of being inadequately conservative. In 2019, followers of Fuentes — sometimes called “Groypers” — regularly disrupted Kirk’s campus events.
But even when steeped in theological debate, Taylor and Boedy both said Kirk was focused on building a winning political coalition. He routinely worked with people he disagreed with theologically — including Knowles — so long as they overlapped with his political vision. The result was building an influential network of conservative Christian pastors, leaders, churches and schools in a shockingly short amount of time.
That coalition has mourned Kirk’s killing with a zeal he long modeled. In the hours following his death, faith leaders and politicians alike — including Trump — declared Kirk not just a victim of political violence, but a martyr.
It’s that kind of fervor, experts say, that will likely keep Kirk’s religious network a force to be reckoned with for some time.
“I’d argue there might not be a more important institution on the religious right, right now,” than Turning Point Faith and Turning Point USA, Taylor said.
TRR contributed to this report.
Jack Jenkins is an award-winning journalist and national reporter for the Religion News Service.
English 
Spanish
24 Responses
Who would have thought a non-politician who advocated family, God faith, free discussion a US citizen a martyr Charlie Kirk! Over a million people marching in London chanting Charlie Kirk inspiring a movement of England’s abusive gov’t weaponization & imprisonment of innocent free speech, immigration, criminals, & children trafficked! Praise God Charlie’s message of free godly democracy is inspiring a sea of people stand up w/great courage & March in the streets! Prayers & worship, celebration of Charlie’s life ALL over the world!
Are you even aware of who Tommy Robinson is (The one leading the protest in GB)?
You might want to read a little about him on this Wikipedia page to find out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson
Wikipedia? As a trustworthy source? There’s a reason you can’t even use that in a high school paper.
Wikipedia is generally a good source, just not a primary one. For school work, you need to look at the original, so you’re not getting something second-hand. Wikipedia is a secondary source by design, bringing together lots of primary sources, and it points to them all for anyone to check. For example in the article linked, there are 302 external links!
Exactly. Wiki has to be checked with the external source links provided. It’s a great site to whet one’s appetite for more detailed info.
It’s also useful to acquire the ‘big picture’ or main ideas of any given topic.
That’s why I checked the sources of the statements provided.
What specifically bothers you about Wikipedia as it applies to Tommy Robinson? Doesn’t Wiki allow users to check the sources? If you think there are inaccuracies about Tommy Robinson on the Wiki page then what are they? Can’t Wikipedia be used as a starting point for more serious research?
George Arthur
Here in the UK we are well aware of who Tommy Robinson is and the smear campaign against him for simply loving his country and flag. He is indeed labelled and smeared as a right wing nationalist. He has and still is fighting battles against left wing media and radical politicians but he has massive support.
Yes, here in England we have Tommy Robinson who loved Charlie Kirk. You however have Tyler Robinson.
So I need you to examine all of the Criminal Offenses by Tommy Robinson and refute them. Sources are included on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson#Criminal_offences
Here is the short list
– 2005 assault against an off duty police constable
– 2011 using threatening, abusive or insulting behavior that involved a major brawl
– Use of a false passport
– Mortgage fraud
– Stalking and harassment of journalists
– 2025 harassment allegations
– refusal to obey a Dispersal Order at an Antisemitism rally
– 2025 alleged assault
– Supported Mark Meechan who had engaged and was found guilty of anti-Semitic speech and actions celebrating/mocking the death of Jews during the holocaust.
And finally I do not support Tyler Robinson. He is a criminal and must be treated as one.
George Arthur
We know Tommy Robinson has a checkered past. Nothing to refute there. You wasted your time listing all his past offences. We in UK know.
What you miss is that the hundreds of thousands of British people who marched were there to stand up for Britain.
Tommy Robinson was merely the organiser of the event.
The people hold the power, that’s what you miss. You can easily label Tommy Robinson (see his past offences) but you can’t slander the masses with UK flags as far right. They are not far right. They are simply right.
It needs to be said that the protest gatherings that took place in London were on the calendar some time before Kirk’s murder. I point that out to make it clear that the huge crowds did not was not spontaneously take to the streets in response to Kirk’s death. This is not to say that response to Kirk’s killing was not added on to the anti-immigrant message that the protests were primarily intended to send. Also, the number of people attending the protest is in dispute, with “Over a million people” being on the much higher end of estimates.
Charlie Kirk lived out his faith…in every aspect of his life…as ALL Christians are supposed to do…I am so sick of so-called journalist who just think they are so clever…Living out your faith menas all aspects of life, even your politics…
With regard to one of the “seven mountains”, education, I would love to ask Professor Boedy what philosophy he would have guide American public education. I went thru American public schools a long time ago: it was dreary, dehumanizing, and in many ways morally bankrupt. We certainly CAN educate children in that manner, but the results which follow will do so; whether or not we like them is another question.
I’ve looked at a lot of articles/opinions on Charlie Kirk and what happened to him, and the only thing I’ve learned is that every one of them is biased in some way.
The truth remains that the only way people and therefor countries are changed is by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the church fails other forces take over.
How do people claim he was radicalized by one person. Here is a kid that had an impeccable Right Wing upbringing….his father worked for the sheriff department for 27 years. None of you defenders talk about his gun skills. We have seen all of those pictures of him with all sorts of assault weapons, Of course that has nothing to do with this. And, former GOP congressman man Jay Walsh has been on CNN telling the world how he – a republican congressman – mentored this guy. You are so desperate to lay blame rather than look at yourselves and your ways.
Charlie Kirk was a Christian Conservative, not Christian right wing. Tell the truth.
The problem I have with Charlie Kirk’s understanding of Christianity is that he fit it into just one party’s ideals. He drew lines that placed “Christians” on one side and “Democrats” on the other. But because Christianity cannot fit into either political platform, in his debates and interactions with young adults he failed to proclaim the full Gospel of Christ,
Tim Keller spoke to this. He said essential biblical principles cut across party lines. They cannot be aligned to just one side. For example, sanctity of life and marriage ethics align more closely with Republican priorities, while care for the poor, pursuit of justice and racial reconciliation are addressed more in Democratic policies.
People say of Charlie Kirk that he loved “God, family, country” – in that order.
The problem with this is that Jesus gave us the two greatest commandments – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Remember the Good Samaritan parable if, as the lawyer in the story wants to know, “Who is my neighbor?”
-hint: it goes beyond “family and country” .
Added to this, and simply going from his own statements and exchanges with others, not to mention of course his preoccupation with politics. Is the fact that he didn’t seem to get his head around the significance of the new dispensation and the general and specific implications of the incarnation, past, present and future. Seemed obvious too, like others, he starts first with his own ‘world view’ and then endeavours to utilise a given text to underpin it. Contextualisation didn’t seem to be his strong suit, nor for that matter understanding the spirit and truth of why something was said/written. 🤔
This is well said, and, IMO, said in a way that promotes reflection rather than defensiveness or desperation to make Charlie Kirk “right”. To know scripture is to know that Charlie did not get everything right.
In today’s world, we can get so excited to hear someone quote scripture or say Jesus’s name that we lose sight of if they are doing so in proper context and with proper intent (to promote FULL knowledge of the FULL gospel and win people to Christ as sold-out disciples). This is to be led by emotion. Same thing for martyrizing: we can be so focused on how tragic it is that Charlie lost his life (and it REALLY is a tragedy) that we lose FULL, honest, fact-based sight of all Charlie said and did as the human being he was.
With healing comes the ability to have a FULL view of all sides of what or who was lost – whether a relationship through divorce, a dream unfulfilled, or a person through death. When we are stuck in either glorifying or vilifying what or who was lost – seeing them as 100% good or 100% bad – our grief turns into idolatry, which is a trap of the devil that brings destruction, NOT the healing we seek and need.
I continue to pray for the Kirk family, Kirk’s followers, and for us as a nation. We all need healing.
Let me start by saying that I was not an admirer of Kirk by any stretch of imagination. But putting his political perspectives at least somewhat aside, to me, at least, the rush to turn Kirk into some sort of martyr is a piece of unfortunate myth making. I’m reacting in part to a Facebook post I read just this evening wherein the writer made the claim that Kirk was “one of the brightest and the best theological minds of the century.” God help us! I dare say I would choke on such statements even if I admired his politics more. I’m trying to resist dismissing that sort of hyperbole simply by stating that his bad politics are the result of bad theology. But aside from all that, many of the concerns expressed in the previous posts on this thread point out what can only be described as a theological immaturity and lack of depth that reveal him to be much more about politics than about faith—a leader who happens to be a Christian rather than a Christian leader.
I don’t really know how to feel about Charlie Kirk. I am sorry he was killed, just as I am sorry for the policeman shot at the CDC in Georgia, and all the kids killed in school shootings. At the same time, was he a martyr? Some of his comments, particularly around race, leave me deeply uncomfortable. Are those the views of true Christian?
I’m okay with people calling him a martyr. It doesn’t imply anything admirable. It is pretty neutral:
“a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.”
The definition of martyr is neutral:
“a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.”
So if people want to call him that it wouldn’t be wrong.
But I do think it’s a problem if people put him among the martyrs for the Christian Faith, as his Christianity was full of holes
Charlie Kirk said: “No civilization has ever collapsed because it prays too much. But a civilization that abandons God will deteriorate and ultimately collapse from the inside out, or because it loses the will to repel a malicious, external force.”
A civilization is defined as “an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.”
Where in history, biblical or otherwise, does Charlie draw this conclusion?
Several civilizations were birthed, existed for hundreds of years each, then died. Sumerian, Egyptian, Indus Valley, Babylonian, Persian, etc. And more recently Greco-Roman. None of them ever started with the God of the Bible, so how did they grow to the power and influence that they did. Even Israel, which is a nation, not a “civilization”, had its downfall. Civilizations and nations go the way of all flesh, but the Kingdom of God and its visible representation, the church, will go on. It’s this kind of pop culture ideology, rooted in Christian Nationalism (not true Christianity) that leads to spiritual error and divided allegiances. Rendering to Caesar (aka America) that which is God’s (Matthew 22:21).
“This decision is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones, in order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the basest of men.” (Daniel 4:17)
David Jayakaran:
Here is the verse you quoted IN CONTEXT:
“This decision is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones, in order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the basest of men.” (Daniel 4:17)
This verse is part of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which he shared with Daniel. Daniel then proceeded to interpret his dream for him. The verse has absolutely NOTHING to do with ancient kingdoms in the sense that you imply. It is simply a quote from the heavenly messenger who proclaimed it to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream before he was banished to the forest and became a wild beast.
Please make sure, in future, that you quote Bible verses in context. Otherwise, people will misinterpret your statements.
Further, God sets up ALL kingdoms and civilizations on the earth, Godly or otherwise. He can set them up and he can make them fall, but “Blessed in the nation whose God is the Lord….” Psalm 33:12.