As millions worldwide mourned the Sept. 10 murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) issued a statement lamenting his death and praising his message. While saying he believes Kirk’s assassination was “demonic,” the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a prominent Black pastor in the SBC, claims the statement’s omission of Kirk’s demeaning comments about persons of color was glaring and wrong.
“We need to lament his death,” McKissic, senior pastor of the SBC-affiliated Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, told The Roys Report (TRR). “It was senseless. I believe it was demonic. At the same time, can we acknowledge where Charlie Kirk went wrong?”
Published on Sept. 13, the SBC’s 300-word “Statement of Lament and a Call for Justice” has so far garnered more than 5,000 signatures. It states in part that SBC leaders “lament the assassination of Charlie Kirk and we mourn his death. Political violence is a grave sin and it represents a threat to our nation and its government.”
But the statement, with the denomination’s president Clint Pressley listed as the first signatory, adds: “We rightly appreciate the profound impact Charlie Kirk has had on our young people, inspiring them to live with bold conviction and take righteous action.”
McKissic said this blanket endorsement of Kirk is inappropriate, given some of his comments on race, which have been shared widely on social posts and in articles.
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 “Primal Fire: Reigniting the Church with the Five Gifts of Jesus” by Neil Cole, click here.
Some of the quotes that set McKissic off included one at AmericaFest in December 2023, where Kirk reportedly labeled Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “awful” and “not a good person.” He later added, “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.”
Some of the meaning behind Kirk’s more outrageous comments have been lost in the translation. For instance, Kirk’s on-air Jan. 23, 2024, quote, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” has been widely disseminated with little explanation that it’s part of a mock dialogue between several panelists. Two sentences later, Kirk qualifies that statement, explaining, “That’s not who I am. That’s not what I believe.”
When he spoke last May of how “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people,” it was in response to a video showing a pregnant white woman being terrorized by a group of Black men.
Still, there was enough vitriol to prompt McKissic to speak out online.
“Everything I’ve heard him say about race—and I mean everything—I disagree with,” said McKissic. “By Charlie Kirk having those kinds of attitudes, it attacks the imago dei, the image of God that’s stamped over each one of us.”
He added: “So I’m appalled that Southern Baptists would only mention the lament and not mention the false doctrine.”
McKissic also shared on X a TikTok video from a Black Christian woman, who said she walked out of her church last Sunday because of comments made about Charlie Kirk.
“I genuinely don’t understand how Christians are pushing this man as though hate didn’t come out of his mouth and heart on a consistent basis,” she said. “And I’m genuinely sitting here saying, ‘If this is the God that we serve, if this is the reflection of the God we serve, do I want to be a part of it?’”
Why The SBC “lament” statement is racially alienating and in sympathy with racist ideology. pic.twitter.com/EwDAy4LJ3y
— Dwight McKissic (@pastordmack) September 15, 2025
TRR reached out to the SBC national office but did not receive any specific comment by publication time.
Dan Darling, director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) in Ft. Worth, Texas, who signed the statement, called its wording “appropriate to the moment.”
“I think it’s appropriate to honor his life for the areas where we agreed and for his courage to speak up for the truth and for his desire to point people to the love of Christ.”
Horror and shock among diverse voices
Ideologically diverse scholars contacted for this story expressed their shock at Kirk’s death.
Matthew Boedy, a professor at University of North Georgia, who studies religious trends including among Christian conservatives, said the shooting of Kirk “shook him to the core.”
“We crossed a line as a nation when that shot was taken,” he told TRR. “It was a brutal event that not only disrupted the peace of that campus but all of them. It concerns me that open spaces are now open to assassination and people who are not elected officials . . . are targets.”
Boedy praised the SBC statement as a “heartfelt call for peace,” but added, “What stands out to me is the timing. No statement was put out like this for the murder of Melissa Hortman, for instance, or other incidents of violence.” Hortman was speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2019 until her assassination on June 14, along with her husband.
Darling, who teaches at the seminary’s north Texas campus, said his students have been “shocked and stunned.”
“My son, who is 17, was particularly shook by this, as were his classmates,” he said. “Thousands of young people looked up to Charlie. I am grieving for my country, that there are people who believe violence is the way to refute ideas they disagree with, rather than debate and discourse.”
McKissic, who has preached at the SWBTS chapel, agreed that Kirk was “a public figure with enormous influence” particularly among conservative evangelicals.
“The first tweet I did on this was to say, ‘Hey, I was blown away by some of the things Charlie said about Christ.’ He was on point,” said McKissic. “His proud, uncompromising views on the deity and exclusivity of Christ, pro-life advocacy, pro traditional marriage, I applaud all of it.”
But he added: “It’s a misrepresentation of his message, and the totality of who he was, if his proud, uncompromising, views on race are not reported.”
Disparaging remarks about Black women, affirmative action
Among the examples of racially charged remarks said by Kirk, McKissic pointed to a particular segment on ‘The Charlie Kirk Show’ on July 13, 2023, about the issue of affirmative action.
Kirk listed four Black women leaders: First Lady Michelle Obama, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and political commentator Joy Reid — all of whom graduated from Harvard – as well as Yale graduate Sheila Jackson Lee, a retired U.S representative from Texas who died in 2024.
In the segment, Kirk called the women “affirmative action picks.” Then he said, “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
McKissic said he considered that “an insult” to his wife and two daughters — each of whom have earned master’s degrees — and “by extension, any Black woman, whether with a degree or not.”
“I know Charlie Kirk only referred to those four Black ladies,” he said. “But you have to be very naive to believe that didn’t extend to other Black women. I don’t recall him saying similar things about white women. Or white students at Harvard admitted under the legacy program.”
He concluded: “He had the right to disagree with their policies or politics. But if you’re going to question somebody’s intellectual capacity, you need proof beyond just not liking their politics.”
Affirmative action policies, championed by Black civil rights advocate Arthur Fletcher, who served in several Republican administrations, seek to ensure fairness for disadvantaged communities in jobs, education, and other sectors.
“In the 1950s, white people had economic advantages that we did not have,” said McKissic, sharing an example from his childhood.
“My mother taught school for about $250 a month, in the same school district and with the same accredited degree as her white peers. But they made a couple hundred dollars more than her.”
Author Darling, often on podcasts and talk shows, explained that radio host Kirk, with hours to fill each day in an often-incendiary format, likely “said some words he’d prefer to take back.”
“That’s the hazard of what we do. Charlie wasn’t perfect in this.”
“However, he seemed to be a work in progress and was growing as a man,” added Darling. “He was only 31. In the last few weeks of his life, he was increasingly pointing young men away from rage and urging them to channel their passions toward family and toward God.”
Kirk’s views on race opposed to past SBC statements
McKissic is not alone in his concerns.
In a Tuesday post, historian Jemar Tisby excerpted Sunday sermons from three Black pastors — Virginia Baptist Pastor John Howard Wesley, Dallas-area pastor Frederick Haynes, and Georgia minister Jamal Bryant. Each of them condemned the assassin’s violence along with rhetoric “rooted in white supremacy,” to quote Haynes.
“I respectfully disagree with those brothers,” Darling told TRR. “I didn’t agree with everything Charlie said or every single way he said it. But that’s not the point at this moment.”
Karen Swallow Prior, a best-selling author who recently left the SBC after two decades of affiliation, commented to TRR about the lack of diversity among those who drafted the denomination’s statement.
“It is lamentable that almost all of the initial signatories on this statement are white men,” she said. “Especially as Christians, we must be a body in which each part recognizes and honors the other parts. It is essential for majority peoples to listen to and learn from the experiences of minorities.”
McKissic put a finer point on it, referring to the top leaders of official SBC entities.
“These entity heads, none of whom are Black or Hispanic, crafted and approved this statement, telling all Black Southern Baptists how they ought to think about this issue,” he said.
The pastor also stated that Kirk’s views on racial issues “conflict with every resolution the Southern Baptist Convention has adopted since the 1950s on race.”
Recent notable resolutions include a 1995 statement on racial reconciliation, a 2016 resolution repudiating displays of the Confederate battle flag, and a carefully worded 2019 statement on how critical theory must be subordinate to Scripture.
He concluded: “I don’t think the statement as it is, an unqualified endorsement of Kirk, would pass an SBC convention vote.”
Seeking a full, truthful accounting
For decades, McKissic has been a force seeking to see greater racial representation in the SBC, often through the National African American Fellowship (NAAF) of the SBC.
At the SBC’s 2009 annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, McKissic introduced a resolution to recognize the significance of Barack Obama’s election as a signal of “racial reconciliation.” The resolution passed, though it was redrafted to include language speaking against President Obama’s pro-choice and LGBTQ rights positions.
“They added those denotations, but the historic value and the fact that he overcame all odds to be elected president came through,” said McKissic. “It should be the same with Charlie Kirk. Lament his death, praise his Gospel views, and point out his anti-biblical racial views.”
TRR reached out to leaders of the NAAF about the recent statement but did not receive a response.
Long known as a conservative Republican, the pastor recently registered as an independent with the rise of MAGA ideology in the party. In 2021, Cornerstone Baptist Church disaffiliated from one state-level Baptist convention but stopped short of full withdrawal from the SBC.
This past June, with the annual meeting only miles away, McKissic spoke at a breakout event for NAAF and received an award for his past efforts but avoided the larger gathering.
Despite his years of connection to the SBC, McKissic said a full break from the SBC may be in his church’s future. “I’m waiting on a green light from God to leave the SBC,” he said. “At the moment, I’m trying to live with where they are.”
The interest in racial justice issues among Southern Baptists seems to have ebbed from its peak in the early 2020s, when the death of George Floyd sparked a wave of education and action initiatives.
For his part, McKissic said he’s done trying to drum up believers who are apathetic.
“I’m not trying to persuade anybody. Jesus put it this way: ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’ That’s all I’m trying to say.”
Correction 9/18: This story has been updated to accurately state the date when Melissa Hortman was assassinated.
Josh Shepherd is production editor at The Roys Report and a journalist who writes on faith, culture, and public policy for several media outlets. He and his family live in central Florida.
English 
Spanish
68 Responses
I wonder if Pastor McKissic has read or listened to Dr. Thomas Sowell’s opinion of Affirmative Action, or his opinion of President Obama, and many other issues that somehow seem to be left out of the discussions on race and politics. For those who may not be familiar with Dr. Sowell, he is a brilliant Black man who once embraced Marxism, but has come full circle to completely and forcefully repudiate it. Read his bio on Wikipedia to get a glimpse of his most remarkable life.
Thank you, CW – I looked it up and it’s true, Dr. Sowell said harsher things about AA than Charlie Kirk did. To this we should add Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who agreed with Sowell not just based on his observation of the social impact, but on his own personal experience at Yale.
Having heard Justice Thomas speak at a lunch several years ago, it was never lost on me that he himself admitted to having benefitted from affirmative action.
One of the biggest points of disagreement I have with Justice Thomas and Dr Sowell is this notion of people doubting the capabilities of Black people because of affirmative action. I have two things to say to this:
1. Personal accountability: we are all responsible for what we believe about others, period. “I believe Black people are inferior because of affirmative action” just doesn’t cut it. You believe what you believe because you want to and think that it’s true. If you really want to challenge it, get out and meet more Black people (or women or whatever other group you believe is inferior).
2. Affirmative action was created because before it, Black people (and other groups) were being denied opportunities because of the belief that they were inferior! (See stories such as the Tuskegee Airmen). So that disproves the “it’s because of AA, I believe…” excuse. AA is a reaction to, not a cause of discrimination.
The problem is the person, not the policy.
Footnote: my disagreements with Justice Thomas and Dr Sowell do not undermine my respect for who they are and what they have accomplished. Want to be clear about that.
Yes, many have….and guess what….we STILL disagree! Not all Black folks agree on all subjects. Never have, never will. And just because it comes out of the mouth of a Black person does not suddenly make it less problematic or more agreeable. We somehow understand this concept when it comes to other groups (like women); why is it HARD when it comes to Black people?
I wish we as Black people were allowed to have a disapora of opinions, informed by a diaspora of experiences, without comments like “but another Black person said…” as if that will make us go, “another Black person said that? Oh yeah, then it must be valid and I agree!”
I know that’s likely not the intent, but it is insulting.
After I noted that two nationally recognized Black authorities have criticized affirmative action in strong terms, Marin wrote in response:
“And just because it comes out of the mouth of a Black person does not suddenly make it less problematic or more agreeable.”
Correct. My point was that holding this view does not automatically make someone guilty of white supremacy.
Yet both Sowell and Thomas have been accused of ‘selling out to white supremacy’ by other Blacks, simply because they were skeptical on the construct of systemic racism in America.
I join you in wishing that Blacks were allowed to freely express a wide range of thoughtful opinions, without having to endure insulting slurs for expressing the ‘wrong’ ones.
And this goes both ways, Hannah. Because holding a different view from Sowell (or other conservative Black authorities) does not automatically make someone a “race baiter” or “race peddler” who is “playing victim.” So yes, I wish we could express a wide range of thoughtful opinions without those sorts of insults, or being grouped into “good Blacks” (who agree with Sowell) and “bad Blacks” (who dare to mention racism) either.
There are numerous political, social and economic ideologies and systems that look good on paper, the problem of course if implemented they are then managed by not so perfect human beings who have inclination to covertly or overtly sin no matter what their gender & skin colour. Yes, Marxism is in that group and so too poorly regulated capitalism.
Jesus too lived within a flawed political system that entailed his culture and faith heritage. Within all this and more, “God with us” modelled a life for all of us to endeavour to emulate with the understanding that such a life would in itself transcends this very short life.
Ah, Thomas sowell, every white man’s friend!
His words somehow carry more weight?
Full Disclosure – I am a personal friend of Pastor Dwight Mckissic and have tremendous respect for him and his perspective on this and other issues. However, as it specifically pertain to Charlie Kirk, I respectfully disagree with Dwight’s view that Charlie was a racist. I have stated on my own social media outlets that I do think that Charlie could have been more artful when speaking about certain subjects, particularly the Black community. If I were advising him, I would have told him my thoughts. I’ve listened to Charlie since he was between 20-21 years of age, and speaking in an inartful manner doesn’t equate to having racial animus in the heart! I do not believe that Charlie Kirk was a racist young man, though he spoke hard truths that many in the Black Community struggle to deal with.
Wayne –
I cannot speak to what was in the heart of Charlie Kirk or the intent of his words (only the Lord knows that). I CAN speak to the impact of them:
“He spoke hard truths that many in the Black community struggle to deal with”…hmmm…is it that we struggle to deal with them or that we question Charlie’s intent in saying them? You yourself said “he could be more artful when speaking on certain subjects”: this is why scripture calls us to speak the truth IN LOVE. Even if what one is saying is true, when it is said with condescension and as an insult to others (which Charlie did), it does not bring about healing or revelation. In that moment, truth becomes a weapon to cut others down, which Charlie did EXCELLENTLY. And now people are surprised those he cut down are expressing that it hurt? Make it make sense.
And BTW, it’s not that Black people deny our community struggles. We just don’t all agree with each other on how to address them (especially when you look across socioeconomic class and generational lines), and we don’t all agree with non-Black people on how to address them. Isn’t that the same for pretty much all conmmunities?
Marin, yes many in the Black Community struggle to hear hard truths, especially hard Biblical truths. Yes, I believe that Charlie could have been more “artful” in explaining what he desired to communicate, to give his words careful and prayer considerations when speaking to or about Black people or the Black Community, as Black People (I’ve been one for 66 years) will be significantly more sensitive about various subjects than other communities. Hopefully you know, and you sound like you know, the Black community is NOT a monolith. We do not all come from the same family cultures and value systems.
While I had a great relationship with my late Father, it should be said that I did not grow up with my Father in the home due to my Mother and him were separated (they never divorced until I became a young adult and both got remarried), but on the other hand, my wife of 45 years was born and bred with both parents in the home, and there was some differences, especially in our perspectives and expectations. But God healed me and we overcame some issues in the early years. I listened to Charlie Kirk going back when he was pretty still a kid, at 20-21 years of age. He was only 31 when murdered, so he wasn’t perfect, but I believe that he was an honorable and sincere Christian man.
“Yes, I believe that Charlie could have been more “artful” in explaining what he desired to communicate, to give his words careful and prayer considerations when speaking to or about Black people or the Black Community, as Black People (I’ve been one for 66 years) will be significantly more sensitive about various subjects than other communities.”
Well said. If only our white brothers and sisters in Christ could even contemplate this point, I think we could make progress.
“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”
Matthew 12:34 and Luke 6:45.
When people say that “charlie kirk was a racist” we are not suggesting that he used the N word, or ever said the words “I hate Black people”. We are saying that across his body of work, he consistently talked about Black people as a group that was less qualified, less smart, and less deserving of jobs than white people. On the rare occasion that he gave reasons for these beliefs, it was “fatherlessness” or “gang culture”- and he never examined IF those problems were actually causes or just assumptions (and a way to place blame).
He also never turned that same critical eye on white people- never questioning why the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by white people (what kind of homes are they raised in?), the vast majority of white collar crime is committed by white people (white on white crime, if you will?), and so many white people get into college (legacy admits) or get jobs (cronyism) that they are undeserving of.
This is why he’s a racist- his foundational belief is that Black people are “less than” white people. And he knows just what tone and words to communicate that clearly, without actually SAYing things that are blatantly and directly racist.
Thank you for this.. absolutely correct!…unless Kirk supporters can grasp that message and see that Kirk “othered” not just folks of color, nothing will change!
Jen – I respectfully disagree! The gang culture, fatherlessness, and the hip hop culture all play a major role in the downfall of the Black Community. I know, because I’ve been Black for 66 years! Charlie spoke many hard truths that some in the Black Community loathe, but it did not change the truth. So, I totally reject the characterization that Charlie Kirk was racist, and that is especially true when the accusations come from misinformed White People!
Wayne, Many in the majority culture community struggle to deal with their
past and present complicities concerning slavery,Jim crow , and abuse of AA, Asian, Women, Poor.
Who do you include in “the majority culture community” and how are they complicit (both past & present) concerning slavery, Jim Crow, and the abuse of AA(?), Asians, women, and poor?
He did not have a complete understanding on life and what the Clivil Rights Movement was all about. He never displayed any Biblical truth to combate his argument. He was not civil in his “debates”. That’s the truth. Why talk about anyone in the manner that he did. How is the narritive on this guy changing to him being a man of God. Never in my time watching him, since the beggining of his time in the limelight, did he ever come across as kind!
How interesting you would say that, I’ve seen several videos where he was very kind and patient with people he disagreed with. Maybe we have different definitions of kind, or perhaps viewed compilations of videos that proved his character one way?
I encourage you to continue to look online. For every video of Charlie being “kind and patient”, there are videos of him insulting and talking over people (which is rude, arrogant, disrespectful and condescending) to make his point. I was watching one recently when he kept telling a college student he was debating that his point was silly, and I clapped when the student finally said “debate it, don’t just dismiss it as silly.” Charlie was clearly thrown off, as he thought he could insult his way into “winning.” Not very civil, kind or patient.
While I appreciate any good debate, especially in a world where people tend to talk in their own echo chambers, I did find several videos where Charlie lacked basic decorum and respect for those he was debating.
Jennifer, Charlie Kirk was very kind, polite, and a gentleman! I’ve listened to him since he was 20 or 21 years of age, and never heard him denigrate or mistreated any person debating him. This generation is “Soft” and anything hurts you guys feelings.
Once again, two things can be true at the same time. Many people saw a side of Charlie that was kind, articulate, and capable of forming good relationships — even with Black people who shared his belief system.
At the same time, he also held to underlying racist ideas that came out in his “inartful” public speech, (as Debra Howard says – “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” quoted from
Matthew 12:34 and Luke 6:45.) suggesting that race determined ability to a great degree, relying on stereotypes, and pre-judging groups of people rather than seeing them as individually in their circumstances.
Whether that adds up to white supremacist I don’t know.
So the questions then could be, which side was he being in ‘character’ and for what purpose? 🤔
I like this question, Ian, and believe it’s worth asking. I often wondered if Charlie altered his words and demeanor based on the group he was trying to pander to….or if he even believed some of what he was saying himself (especially as a professed believer).
At the very least, Charlie did not “consistently show the same face under the same hat” (to quote an elder from my church). That reveals a lack of integrity.
What’s the issue? Paul did it all of the time:
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (KJV): 19 “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
Andrew,
It is a great point, because it is what Peter did, and Paul called him out – to his face, for being “very wrong.” Peter avoided the Gentiles “around certain people” for fear of criticism. In other words, he “did not “consistently show the same face under the same hat.”
In fact, Paul did the exact “opposite.” Paul wasn’t saying, if they did drugs, he did drugs, etc…
He didn’t sin or water down the gospel.
This is such an important distinction. It is literally the dividing point for Christians when it comes to politics. No Christian is endorsing or turning a blind eye to sin, which is against God first – and foremost.
How can you win souls to Christ, unless you meet them where they’re at, like Paul. Name calling and spewing hate is anti-Paul, anti-Christ, and unproductive.
They are called the “lost”. Would you call someone stupid for being lost, or would you graciously tell them how to get on course? Paul used wisdom, not hostility, to win souls for Christ.
And, like Paul, we Christians on the other side, call sin, sin, regardless of who it is, because hypocrisy does enormous damage. It is another diving point, the selectivity of sin on the -“right.”
Honestly, the right- can come across like Jonah and decide who “they,” not God, decides is worthy to hear the gospel.
“As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas (Barnabas!) was led astray by their hypocrisy.” Galatians 2:13
The question was: “So the questions then could be, which side was he being in ‘character’ and for what purpose? ”
Peter has nothing to do with this conversation, we are talking about CK taking on different personalities, just as Paul did, and the implications of that means as his motives. You can claim to know how far Paul went with his deceptions, but a psychological profile on him reads as follows:
A person exhibiting these behaviors could be described using several terms, depending on the context and severity of their actions. Some possible terms include:
Deceitful, Manipulative, Conniving, Narcissistic, Cynical, Dishonest, Sycophantic, Inconsistency, and Mocking Behavior
Some other groups that uses this technique of personality changing, are politicians running for office, pastors when challenged on their preaching with scripture, salesmen, and con men.
It is called Pandering, defined as:
“Pandering means to say or do what someone wants, often in a way that is not good or reasonable, usually to gain favor or advantage. It can also refer to catering to the weaknesses or desires of others for personal gain”.
You cannot adopt a personality to fit one crowd, because you will upset another crowd that believes the opposite, there is only God’s truth under the Law, and the teachings of our final pastor, Jesus Christ, if you doubt this please read Matthew 24.
Marin – “I often wondered if Charlie altered his words and demeanor based on the group he was trying to pander to….or if he even believed some of what he was saying himself (especially as a professed believer).”
It was exactly what Peter did – not Paul. That is what Peter has to do with this.
I hope you weren’t implying that the apostle Paul was “Deceitful, Manipulative, Conniving, Narcissistic, Cynical, Dishonest, Sycophantic, Inconsistency, and Mocking Behavior”
Pandering is wrong and it doesn’t matter who does it, or why.
People have different customs, like abstaining from eating certain things. Paul was saying even though he knew he was free to do so, he didn’t while with them because he was trying to gain an opportunity to spread the gospel.
Missionaries apply this same tactic. They don’t go into the field calling them names like heathens, or demanding women put on bras! They meet them where they are so they may not “offend them.”
Paul wasn’t advocating for acting like a sleazy, lying politicians, or con man, or to have a platform spreading their idea that certain groups of people are thorns in the flesh of this nation.
He was saying if you want to lead people to Christ, don’t start out by calling them names and saying you hate them and want to see harm come to them– on live tv.
Matthew 24? Totally lost me there.
Proverbs 18:19. “A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, and contentions are like the bars of a castle”.
So Paul is correct in accusing Peter of a living a lie of being someone he is not, but Paul is allowed to engage in the same behavior? Not only is this hypocritical, but requires cognitive dissonance to allow as an acceptable behavior, for one, but not all.
As for your claim of implying the titles given to Paul, that is the response you get when put all of Paul’s claims about himself, into an AI psychological profile.
Also, Marin Heiskell was not quoted, Ian Docker’s question was, so your reply was to the wrong discussion.
Thank you for one of the best articles on this topic.
“I didn’t agree with everything Charlie said or every single way he said it. But that’s not the point at this moment.” Darling
If people were only sharing condolences, then this would be true. But… people are making grand claims about Charlie that are misleading. He was not a martyr. He spread lies including Christian Nationalism, which is a foul heresy. We can sympathise and pass on condolences and also call out those people who are seeking to whitewash his “legacy”.
In a time when to many voices stay silent, I admire a preacher who has the courage to call it like it is. Even when it is unpopular , even when his own conference may choose to honor those who has caused harm, he still speak truth. That kind of integrity is rare. His boldness shows that real faith does not bow to pressure, but stand on righteousness.
Thank you for reporting on this.
@ C.W. Dickens -While Dr. Sowell may be a brilliant black man, so is Dr. McKissic. Dr. McKissic has lived his life as a black man in SBC spaces. You discount this when you try to point toward another black man’s opinions on race, affirmative action, etc. Let Dr. McKissic speak for himself and don’t try to redirect the conversation.
Please note that Melissa Hortman was assassinated in June of this year and not January as written above.
Thank you for the fact-check correction note. Per the editorial process at The Roys Report, the error has been corrected and a correction notice added at the article’s end.
Some blacks seem to be opposed to Charlie because he rightly exposed the DEI scam.
Or we are opposed because we have different, but equally informed opinions and experiences? Why do all Blacks have to agree on a subject?
Threads like this often expose how simplistic and condescending the opinions are about the Black community – even from within the church. “The GOOD Black folks agree with Thomas Sowell and hate DEI and love Charlie Kirk! The BAD Black folks (insert something about “race baiting” or “race peddling” disagree!”
THIS is why there’s division.
Do older adults, of all races, who are more than qualified, yet rejected due to their age, or people with brilliant minds but undermined for their physical disabilities, or veterans returning from serving our country, yet are discounted because they “might” have PTSD, all falling for a scam too?
Are people assumed to be illegal because they have a Spanish and Portuguese sounding last name falling for the “scam” too?
Sounds like “you” have fallen for the scam that discrimination of any kind is not wrong before God.
What is the financial remedy for those shut out of employment in our society, Mr. Correa?
Lord help if they’re suffering mentally as well because they can’t get a break. Hopefully, a “Good Samaritan” will come along before they are killed by Brian Kilimeade and his like-minded friends.
DEI was not for Black Americans.
Thank you, Jennifer. Department of Labor data shows the biggest beneficiaries to be white women, yet we are still SO stuck on “but the Blacks!”
“DEI was not for Black Americans.”
“Which group of people benefited the most from DEI policies?” per A.I. :
The enforcement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives primarily benefits historically marginalized and underrepresented groups. These groups often include:
Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, such as Black,
Hispanic, Asian, and Indigenous peoples, benefit from DEI efforts aimed at reducing systemic barriers and promoting representation.
Women: DEI initiatives often focus on gender equity, helping to address disparities in hiring, promotion, and pay, thereby benefiting women in various sectors.
LGBTQ+ Individuals: DEI enforcement supports the rights and inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals, fostering environments that are more accepting and equitable.
People with Disabilities: DEI efforts aim to create accessible environments and opportunities for individuals with disabilities, ensuring they are included in the workforce and community activities.
Low-Income Communities: DEI initiatives can also address economic disparities, providing support and resources to individuals from low-income backgrounds.
Overall, while DEI initiatives aim to create a more equitable society for all, the groups that have historically faced discrimination and exclusion tend to benefit the most from these efforts.
Department of Labor stats will show that ever since affirmative action came into play, the biggest jumps in employment, education (college/grad school admissions and graduation levels), promotions (to management and senior leadership), and salary are – and continue to be – white women.
A.I.has a different conclusion:
This statement is false. While affirmative action has positively impacted various demographic groups, including women and minorities, the assertion that the biggest jumps in employment, education, promotions, and salary have been predominantly for white women is not supported by comprehensive data.
Affirmative action policies were designed to address historical inequalities and have benefited a range of groups, including people of color and women of all backgrounds. The effects of these policies can vary significantly by industry, region, and over time.
For a more accurate understanding, it’s essential to look at specific data from the Department of Labor and other relevant studies that analyze the impacts of affirmative action across different demographics.
I wonder if they think it problematic when Paul confirmed Epimenedes in Titus. Christians should be able to recognize cultural issues and urge the church to follow after Christ and not define themselves based on their past associations (including race or even as Jesus preached the things and worldview we would naturally inherit from father and mother) or adhere to the carnal culture. If your source of identity is found in things outside of Christ there will be issues.
Glad to see TRR finally putting something out there in its own voice, having done some of its own reporting.
To be fair to the SBC regarding Matthew Boedy’s critique, the Hortmans were not prominent national figures before they were murdered. Also, I am glad the denomination’s leadership is speaking out in plain terms for lawful prosecution of the accused and against acts of retribution. It’s a powder keg out there right now and lots of justifiably angry people need to be de-escalated. I think this helps with that. I hope pastors across this country are talking personally in similar terms with anyone they think might need to hear this message, especially young men.
But yes, one paragraph of the statement is a bit glossy regarding the fullness of who Kirk was and how he carried himself. A big part of the truth and the tragedy of this whole thing is, he was still a relatively young man with evolving views, while being a professional controversialist with an enormous platform. And he was living in an age when so many of our leaders are deeply flawed and appallingly unwise. And now, thanks to an assassin’s veto, Kirk’s followers and detractors will never get to see or hear or interact with the older, wiser man he might have grown to become.
“It is lamentable that almost all of the initial signatories on this statement are white men,” she said. “Especially as Christians, we must be a body in which each part recognizes and honors the other parts. It is essential for majority peoples to listen to and learn from the experiences of minorities.”
How in the world does it matter who the initial signatories are?
Charles – because it tells you whose perspective was represented, and who agreed. If the perspective of other groups were also represented and agreed, why were they not signatories as well? They couldn’t find ONE woman or person of color to sign? Not even ONE??
As long as harmful words to or about the Black community are met with:
– “but ”
– “maybe you need to understand the context” (as if context will make saying such words ok)
– “but this Black person over here said/wrote” (as if all Black people should agree on all things, or as if another Black person saying/writing it will make it less harmful)
– “but he loved the Lord” (as if that means it’s impossible they ever said anything insensitive or harmful)
instead of listening and seeking to understand how and why those words are harmful, there will be division among us. I expect such gaslighting justifications and dismissiveness from the world; it’s EXTRA disappointing when it comes from fellow believers.
The truth spoken in love can stand on its own. It doesn’t need a bunch of explanations and justifications. Having to put “see footnote for explanation/context/justification” asterisks next to so many of Charlie’s words to and about Black people should be a sign that something was off.
I’m tired of the “Racism is not a big thing anymore so let’s ignore it and it will go away” crowd that shows up when an issue like this is covered.
There’s no reason to feel guilty if you’re not a racist so you have nothing to worry about. But instead be always reforming. Semper Reformanda.
Charlie Kirk wasn’t a racist. He was literally the opposite of a racist. He was just too honest and forthright for most people to handle. Stop playing the victim card in your life and start taking responsibility for your own actions. That goes for every human in every circumstance. Read some Helen Keller quotes for goodness sake!
“Too honest and forthright”…more justifications for not speaking the truth in love and downplaying how that can harm others.
I don’t know Charlie’s heart, but I do know he used the “truth” to tear others down. And as long as we defend such UNBIBLICAL behavior and tell those harmed by it to “quit playing victim” rather than hearing them out, these divisions will remain.
And thus, the church remains as racially divided and animus as the world….while Jesus weeps.
Julie Roys must be a closet liberal. For the life of me, I can’t understand why Julie doesn’t do her OWN research as to what Charlie ACTUALLY said in FULL CONTEXT! He was the LEAST racist person you would ever meet. He had HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of black friends, all of whom agreed with his platform on DEI hires, as well as black on black crime and the suffering black communities. Good grief! Let’s stoke more fake rage, Julie.
Truth spoken in love can stand on its own. The constant “you need to understand the context” explanations and justifications should be a sign that Charlie didn’t always speak the truth in love. He often used it as a weapon to tear people down, which makes questioning his intent and “care” understandable.
And again, “other Black people agree” does not suddenly validate a stance or make it less racist or problematic. There are women on all sides of the abortion and feminism and trans arguments too, is that the standard for validating pro stances too?
Marin, To be fair, he often just made stuff up and misquoted (not just used out of context) scripture. So a lot of his “truth” wasn’t factually true, but I see you trying to meet people where they are.
So he was following Paul’s teachings, misquoting scripture, and teaching (contrary to Jesus) to stay away from sinners described as:
Per A.I. for QR:
Romans 1:26-27 – Paul discusses how God gave people over to shameful lusts, mentioning that women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, and men committed indecent acts with other men.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – Paul lists various wrongdoers, including “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” stating that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 – In this passage, Paul refers to the law being made for the ungodly and sinful, including those who practice homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 5:11 – He instructs not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a swindler.
Contradicts what he said was the greatest commandment, “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation where one attempts to make another doubt their own reality, and perception.
The gaslighter uses tactics like outright lying, denying witnessed events, spreading rumors, and minimizing feelings to make the victim question their sense of reality.
By twisting narratives and denying their own bad behavior, gaslighters avoid taking responsibility for their actions and shift the blame to their victim.
Rather than engaging in healthy debate, a gaslighter wants to “win” every disagreement by wearing down the victim’s resistance until they accept the gaslighter’s version of reality.
They dismiss the victim’s concerns by calling them “too sensitive” or “overreacting” to make their emotions feel invalid.
Gaslighting doesn’t work on everyone.
This is one of the best articles I have seen on this topic. He used the name of God as a tool to build his platform, and he was heavily funded in doing so. There are far more faithful and better-educated Christians, many of whom host podcasts and address the issues of our day with discernment.
No way I believe he should have passed in that manner. It was evil. I have followed his work from the beginning, but I blocked him on all platforms after his cruel remarks about Simone Biles during the Olympics, when he labeled her a selfish psychopath. Never in my life have I heard a true brother in Christ speak this way.
His comments after George Floyd’s death were equally disturbing. Regardless of Floyd’s past, he did not deserve to die as he did. He left behind a six-year-old daughter. Where was the compassion or sympathy for her? And then, his dismissive views on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. revealed a complete lack of understanding of the Civil Rights Movement. It was not just about Black Americans, it was about justice for ALL Americans.
Christians must stop hitching our wagons to anyone who uses the name of God to push political agendas. C.K. twisted Scripture, claiming even that Jesus built His church on government. This is false teaching.
As the body of Christ, we are called to stand against wolves who disguise themselves as believers. We must not allow politics to masquerade as faith. This must stop.
Thank you for your thoughtful, fair, and measured perspective.
To those decrying the importance of context when quoting anyone, I offer the following as illustrations of how critical it is to place everyone’s words in the correct context, including Charlie Kirk’s.
Example 1:
“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” Jesus
Wait… did Jesus actually mean Samaritans were DOGS???
Absent context, one might conclude that. See the problem?
Example 2:
“As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote.”
Who said this? Why? Where was this person when it was said? What did this person mean?
Contextual clues are invaluable when interpreting any words spoken by others. Indeed, I would argue they are critical if one is interested in understanding the meaning behind someone’s speech. It is simplistic and patently false to claim Charlie was a racist based on words taken out of context.
My point on context is not that context NEVER matters. It’s that when you have to do it SO FREQUENTLY, it’s likely something was off.
I do agree it is simplistic and “patently false” to claim Charlie was a racist based on words taken out of context, as that accusation requires knowing someone’s intent and heart. (Note I was very clear about not knowing either.) Only God knows that. Yet it is EQUALLY simplistic and “patently false” to claim that Charlie wasn’t racist unless you knew him and his heart. (And no, having a Black friend or helping Black children is not proof.)
It is NOT false to say Charlie often did not speak the truth in love, and made very racially insensitive remarks that cut others down. It is sad that the CHURCH has such a tough time admitting this, when there are brothers and sisters in Christ all around us pointing out how and when his words did just that. It is divisive to keep defending such behavior rather than acknowledging the harm it caused.
There is “Denialism”- refusing to acknowledge the reality of a situation despite overwhelming evidence that it is.
Then, there is “no context needed” like, “You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me”. Matthew 15:7–8.
It is so contextually independent that there is no way to misunderstand it.
Debra Howard,
“You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me”. Matthew 15:7–8.
Context is still needed here: Who is speaking? To whom is that person speaking? Who is being called “hypocrites”?
Absent context, those who have not read the Bible would have no clue.
Who is being called “hypocrites”?
“These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me”. Matthew 15:7–8.
Below zero is cold and it doesn’t matter where it is, or who is in that area to experience it – it doesn’t change the fact that below zero is cold.
It doesn’t even matter if relatively speaking, it’s not cold – to you. It does not matter if it doen’t feel that cold – to you. It doesn’t even matter if you have a coat, gloves, a heater, a fireplace to shield you from the cold, it is cold by “definition.“
The definition does not change because you have an affinity to coldness either.
Debra Howard,
It seems to me that you are confusing “Context” with “Definition.”
1) Context:
One online definition reads: “The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.”
2) Definition:
Merriam Webster online: “The meaning of DEFINITION is a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol.”
“I gave him the cold shoulder” could mean several different things, depending on the context. If I wanted to snub someone, I could give him the cold shoulder. If I had cooked a pork shoulder and served it cold, then I could also give someone the cold shoulder.
Just reading “I gave him the cold shoulder” by itself does not provide enough information to glean its meaning. Get it? This exact same concept applies to anyone’s and everyone’s spoken words, including those of Charlie Kirk. If you truly believe he was a racist, I can only conclude you have not looked at context.
No, I am not confusing “Context” with “Definition.”
It seems to me that you don’t know the definition of “Context-independent” – which means a word, idea, or action has a stable, core meaning that is consistent and understandable regardless of the surrounding situation or background.
However, definition is important. “Hypocrites” is a person whose behavior does not match the opinions that they claim to have. You do not need to know who, what, when or where because nothing will change the meaning.
In other words, no one will wonder if it is a snub or part of a meat. They will know “whoever” said one thing and did another.
We can go on and on because he was not “quoting” anyone, which could change the meaning. We’re not referencing a verse, but the entire song. There are simply too many comments that are a paraphrase of the last one. Therefore, the context before, during, and after, reflect the same opinions.
I would rather offer my condolences, especially today, to the mother, father, and sister who would have loved him if no one else ever heard of him because he had a 9 to 5 like most of us.
I have “empathy” (sharing another person’s feelings, experiences, and emotions) for them, because I can imagine how deep their sorrow must be.
For Debra Howard and others:
Charlie Kirk DID think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake, but that most definitely does not make him a racist. One of his reasons is stated below:
“The legislation, he said on his podcast in April 2024, “created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon.”
He did not believe correcting one form of discrimination should lead to the creation of another one. Does that make him a racist? I don’t think so.
Dr. Cynthia Norbeck,
Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud. Thank you for admitting the “context” is in fact rooted in racist thoughts, something like, “We shouldn’t have given them an inch, because now they expect a mile.”
The deeds of the flesh are hatred, discord, dissensions, factions… Galatians 5:19. You all skip right over those – but God doesn’t.
Suggesting there is “white hate” alone creates, or fuels, ill feelings between people. You saying you don’t see it as a problem is no surprise.
There was a lot of hate spewed at a service for a “Christian” leader, to applause. No surprise there either.
God may seem silent, but He certainly isn’t asleep, and He will not be mocked.
“As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.” Proverbs 26:11
America, here we go again!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not create another form of discrimination or an “anti-white” weapon; to believe so does not make one racist. It DOES make one ill-informed of what the legislation actually is, how it is still used today (even by the Trump administration), and a paranoid slave to a victimhood mentality (“everyone is out to get me because I’m white! Life is so hard for white people, even though white people are at the top of EVERY civic, economic, social, judicial, and legislative status and institution (unacknowledged part: after decades of denying non-whites access to these same institutions)!”).
Cynthia: I’m smiling, because these statements expose the true character of the racist, the disgust at seeing minorities improve their station in life