The recent murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is a tragedy. It is reprehensible that violence has become commonplace in America. I pray God’s comfort for Charlie Kirk’s family as they mourn his loss.

The proliferation of memorials about his passing has raised another question for me. What are people lamenting? For many, the main loss was a young life — a prominent husband and father. For others, however, there is a different take that is emerging. They saw Charlie Kirk as a Christian leader, an advocate for Christian values and the bringing of one’s faith into the public arena. They saw him as calling for America to return to Christian roots and biblical cultural values.

On the face of it, this lament seems plausible. In addition to the political organization he co-founded, Charlie Kirk helped found an organization called Turning Point Faith, and organization articulating a desire to “help “serve the American church.” Its website states: “We believe in the Gospel, and an outworking of the Gospel is for the Church to be salt and light in every aspect of life, including the public square.”

This sounds commendable. Who could be opposed to the spreading of the Gospel? Christians who are familiar with the good news of Jesus Christ, who heard Charlie Kirk talk about his personal faith in Jesus, were encouraged that this young man was vocal about his faith and interested in public exchanges about issues of importance to Christians.

Why the controversy, then? It arises from the other things that Charlie Kirk said, things that seem as troubling as his professions of faith seem comforting. Like it or not, he said some disturbing things, and while it may be tempting to reject them as off-hand comments made out of context, he said them often enough and consistently enough that they cannot be so easily dismissed. His comments about race, immigration, marital roles, second amendment rights, and the priority of Christian religion in the public sphere (you can find a selection here) raise real questions about the nature of his Christian faith.

Christians are called not only to articulate faith in traditional beliefs about the life and work of Jesus. Christians are called to follow the example of Jesus with their lives, as disciples and witnesses. How do Christians know how Jesus lived? By reading the collective witness of the Bible, which Christians have long believed is both inspired by God and authoritative for Christians as a guide to faith and life.

This does not mean that Scripture is an encyclopedia of morality that people can mine at their discretion. The Bible says a lot of things that Christians are not called to do, because biblical accounts mention people who performed wrong actions and often received the penalty for them. Even more, the witness of Scripture takes priority over other popular principles in guiding Christian responses to life.

For example, while people like Charlie Kirk proposed that individual liberty is a core Christian value that Christians need to organize to defend. But is it? Do we find it modelled in the life of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who humbled himself, became obedient even unto death? How does this accord with Jesus’ call to take up one’s cross and follow him?

Would Jesus have supported second amendment rights as so necessary that they are worth the human lives that they take? Would Jesus, who sought out the marginalized, the outcasts, and the sick, agree that immigration should be disallowed to non-English-speaking people today? Would Jesus agree that the way to social transformation is the mandating and enforcement of Christian morality?

The message that Charlie Kirk proclaimed paid lip-service to Christian faith, but differed in several key aspects. One may counter by noting that there are many statements that Christians find acceptable, perhaps even (for some), more than are theologically disagreeable. In response, I ask this: Does God play percentages? Are we called to follow leaders simply on the basis of more correct statements than false?

Repeatedly in the Old Testament, the children of Israel are reminded that the validation of a prophet’s message rests upon whether or not the prophecy made comes true. If this is the case, how much more essential must it be for what the prophet teaches to be true. And Paul, writing to the Galatians, scolds them for turning to a different gospel preached by people who are “throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:7 NIV)

Charlie Kirk was a prophet, not of Christianity, but of conservatism. His teachings call for a return to a time in American history that he saw as a golden age now lost. We harbour no such illusions. We are aware of our past, and our gaze is resolutely forward, looking for a kingdom established not by politics and laws, but by God’s Spirit at work. It will be a kingdom open to all who truly call on the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

In the meantime, we persevere. We endure hardship. Rather than fight for our own liberty, we surrender our liberties so that others might be truly free in Christ. I agree that the Gospel is at stake in the conversations that Charlie Kirk championed. What I hope is that Christians will remember his example in light of the true Gospel, and contend for the Gospel in the way that Jesus calls us to embrace.