Charlie Kirk

[Rella]

I have not seen this posted yet by anyone but I just am still in shock that such a man as he is taken so early in his life.


I had read the following earlier and just now found this article and thought I would post it for all to see, not trying to
debate a pro or con on it but just as general info.

I am tagging @Hobie for obvious reasons.

Somehow I find this humbling. He had a beautiful young wife, and she will miss him dearly.

March 25, 2022 Gerry Wagoner

Charlie Kirk is a co-founder of Turning Point USA, serving as its executive director since 2012 (at the age of 18).

He is also the CEO of Turning Point Action, and Turning Point Faith, president of Turning Point Endowment, and a member of the Council for National Policy. That’s an impressive list of accomplishments for a young man only 28 years old, however there are other accomplishments much more noteworthy.

Charlie is a Christian, and in May 2021 Kirk he married Erika Frantzve, a conservative podcaster and christian businesswoman from Arizona.

According to a recent video podcast, after discovering this truth in the Bible, Charlie and his wife began keeping the Sabbath last year, and they keep it pretty seriously.

Charlie turns his phone off on Friday night and puts it in a drawer and it stays there until Sabbath is over. He also spends the time resting, reading the Bible, praying and writing. Sometimes they go for walks. He says the Sabbath day is ‘restorative’ and a gift to mankind.

Erika says “There is something very powerful about obedience to Christ and honoring God with the Sabbath.” She continues,

“There’s so much spiritual warfare is going on right now. It is palpable, you can feel it in rooms you walk into, when you're watching the news it is surrounding us and the only way to fight back is with God's Word. The only way to understand and make sense of it [life] is with God's Word and if you don't take time to literally quiet your mind from the noise of life you will be inundated. From news articles to press releases, to your friend doing something, your family member's not allowing you to come to the holidays or whatever. It's really something special to be aligned with the Sabbath and God's Word, to be able to just take the time to just breathe, cut out the noise and just be in alignment with the [Holy] Spirit and know what your role is in all of this.”

****

And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11).

 

[Josheb]

As is often the case with sensational news, I have endeavored to refrain from commentary until the facts are in and emotions have subsided. Unblessedly, "news" media rarely gets anything correct the first time reporting, all of it is biased, and emotionally aroused people rarely reason well. Public murders are not an opportunity to trot out one's favorite political agenda. They are occasions for sadness, regret, compassion, empathy, prayer, and integrity. Whoever shot Kirk is innocent until proven guilty. Whoever shot Kirk should be forgiven (whether prosecuted or not), and prosecuted according to the rule of law.

I, personally, appreciated Kirk for his degree of personal integrity (as evidenced by the anecdotal reports of those closest to him and his public conduct), knowing he was no less flawed than you, me, or any other person (Christian or not). I also appreciated his general ability to foster well-mannered and respectful discourse, although were occasions when his public comport was lacking. There are apologists that conduct debate in controlled environments, but Kirk took his apologetics into a truly public arena. This is not the same as a pundit going on a cable show with a favorable host or within an interview that isn't honestly challenging. That being said, I didn't find Kirk a particularly good apologist. I believe a few of this forum's members could do a better job as far as asserting a rationally consistent position and countering dissent. I am often frustrated watching Kirk videos because of what was said or wasn't said, but also because of inconsistent methods. Method is often just as important as content. Judging what we see in social media is challenging because both sides edit to favor their agenda so everyone should understand the Kirk they think they know is probably not like the real public gatherings or like the in-person Kirk. Lastly, Kirk evolved and would have continued to do so had he not been murdered. Not only is the real person different than the public or media-edited presentation, but younger Kirk is also different from older (maturing) kirk.

 

[Hazelelponi]

As is often the case with sensational news, I have endeavored to refrain from commentary until the facts are in and emotions have subsided. Unblessedly, "news" media rarely gets anything correct the first time reporting, all of it is biased, and emotionally aroused people rarely reason well. Public murders are not an opportunity to trot out one's favorite political agenda. They are occasions for sadness, regret, compassion, empathy, prayer, and integrity. Whoever shot Kirk is innocent until proven guilty. Whoever shot Kirk should be forgiven (whether prosecuted or not), and prosecuted according to the rule of law.

I, personally, appreciated Kirk for his degree of personal integrity (as evidenced by the anecdotal reports of those closest to him and his public conduct), knowing he was no less flawed than you, me, or any other person (Christian or not). I also appreciated his general ability to foster well-mannered and respectful discourse, although were occasions when his public comport was lacking. There are apologists that conduct debate in controlled environments, but Kirk took his apologetics into a truly public arena. This is not the same as a pundit going on a cable show with a favorable host or within an interview that isn't honestly challenging. That being said, I didn't find Kirk a particularly good apologist. I believe a few of this forum's members could do a better job as far as asserting a rationally consistent position and countering dissent. I am often frustrated watching Kirk videos because of what was said or wasn't said, but also because of inconsistent methods. Method is often just as important as content. Judging what we see in social media is challenging because both sides edit to favor their agenda so everyone should understand the Kirk they think they know is probably not like the real public gatherings or like the in-person Kirk. Lastly, Kirk evolved and would have continued to do so had he not been murdered. Not only is the real person different than the public or media-edited presentation, but younger Kirk is also different from older (maturing) kirk.

You can't edit live, no need to spit on the dead.

He never intended to be a debater, the debates were initially not even filmed - it was just something he thought would generate interest in the campus organization enough to grow more chapters, and he thought it was fun.

What Charlie Kirk actually wanted to do he did and did well - and that was to get the Conservative Christian message to college campuses which have turned into left wing indoctrination factories.

Young men today are dealing with real issues in a world very unlike the world we grew up in.

My stepson dropped out of college after his first week of orientation because being told he was an evil rapist because he was a young white man was literally over the top.

The conservative message has been lost and our young men verbally abused.

Charlie just wanted the Conservative Christian message back on college campuses to tell young men and women who didn't know that there's another worldview and another voice out there in the one location conservative voices have been chased off - our college campuses.

I believe for a young man who didn't go to college Charlie Kirk did a phenomenal job, With Turning Point he's on many college campuses with a conservative message and club for young conservative men.

Do you remember the young Republicans when we were kids? There weren't many as I recall but in debate class they were there and were always very respectful men, church goers I think.

I believe Charlie Kirk was wanting to revitalize that idea and grow and expand upon it on college campuses in my understanding of the organization - which is international.

I remember when even conservatives like Milo Yiannopoulos who was homosexual were being threatened and chased off college campuses (hyperlink) - which from the so called "tolerant' left was eye opening. I don't even think that guy has a career anymore things got so bad for him being a public conservative.

It's far better now than it was for a while, and that's because of the efforts of people like Charlie Kirk creating inroads for conservative voices on college campuses again. Turning Point chapters on college campuses are a blessing.

 

[Josheb]

You can't edit live, no need to spit on the dead.

Who "spit on the dead"?

From AI: The metaphor "spit on the dead" or "spit on someone's grave" means to show profound disrespect or contempt for a deceased person or their legacy. Since the dead cannot defend themselves, this act of spitting—whether literal or figurative—is considered particularly cowardly and offensive.

Never happened.

 

[Josheb]

You can't edit live, no need to spit on the dead.

Who "spit on the dead"?

From AI: The metaphor "spit on the dead" or "spit on someone's grave" means to show profound disrespect or contempt for a deceased person or their legacy. Since the dead cannot defend themselves, this act of spitting—whether literal or figurative—is considered particularly cowardly and offensive.

Never happened.

 

[Josheb]

He never intended to be a debater, the debates were initially not even filmed - it was just something he thought would generate interest in the campus organization enough to grow more chapters, and he thought it was fun.

Hmmm...

Kirk never intended to do what he did. He never intended to do what he thought would generate interest. He never intended to do what what he thought would be fun.

That sort of failure to think through one's own words under the auspices of red herring and strawmen (Kirk's intentions are nowhere mentioned in my post and I did not profoundly disrespect the man).

What Charlie Kirk actually wanted to do he did and did well - and that was to get the Conservative Christian message to college campuses which have turned into left wing indoctrination factories.

As to whether or not he did what he did "well," or not requires clarification and unless some objective criteria is established for that discussion the conversation will be subjective. I think Kirk did somethings well, somethings adequately and some things he did were improved upon over his years of practice..... objectively demonstrating he knew he didn't do some things well and took responsibility for the lack. Hidden underneath those improvements was his teachability. Behind-the-scenes interviews with his wife and TP-USA staf reveal Kirk benefitted from the advice of those who supported TP and Kirk's campus ministry. A perfect person perfectly executing something (such as debate) doesn't need correction. The changes he made is evidence of a lack of wellness, a need for improvement, a teachable spirit, and a willingness and ability to improve. That is one of the things he did well.

Young men today are dealing with real issues in a world very unlike the world we grew up in.

So now we're going to discuss the purported "real issues" of young men today instead of Charlie Kirk? And we're going to do so in contradiction with Ecclesiastes 1:9?

Pass

Take up that dross with someone else.

My stepson.....

is not Charlie Kirk.

The conservative message has been lost and our young men verbally abused.

Hogwash. That is what liberals want you to believe. Kirk is proof of the exact opposite and your failure to understand that fact is part of the problem to be solved. We are, at least in many ways, observing a renaissance of conservativism in many ways and the grass roots efforts of conservativism are bearing fruit (despite our coming late to the party). The question is whether or not cons will persist and pursue continued victories. Thinking like that reflected in Post #3 undermines the prospect of victory.

Charlie just wanted the Conservative Christian message back on college campuses to tell young men and women who didn't know that there's another worldview and another voice out there in the one location conservative voices have been chased off - our college campuses.

I am not sure that is correct and if there were video of Kirk saying such a thing then it should be understood what he wanted was for people to come salvifically to Christ. All the politics are subordinate to that motive and any failure to understand that is, again, part of the problem to be solved. As is the case with any apologetic/evangelistic effort, there is great risk to others - to the listeners - anytime the gospel is preached because those who reject Christ harden their hearts and strengthen their eventual condemnation. The exact same cross that saves also condemns and any evangelist/apologist who doesn't correctly understand that fact, embrace it, and preach consciously and conscientiously knowing the truth of that fact has room for improvement in his/her preaching.

I have no idea whether or not Kirk was cognizant of what I just posted but given what I have seen of his preaching (as opposed to his political discourse) I believe he did grasp this truth.

I believe for a young man who didn't go to college Charlie Kirk did a phenomenal job...

And you may hold that personal, subjective opinion and do so without my misrepresenting your viewpoint. What you may not do is misrepresent my viewpoint, digress into matters that are irrelevant of the specified subject, and misrepresent the facts of reality and then expect everyone to say, "Well done."

Do you remember the young Republicans when we were kids? There weren't many as I recall but in debate class they were there and were always very respectful men, church goers I think.

You've just contradicted yourself. Either the conservative message is lost or "there weren't as many" in the past and the conservative message is growing accordingly. This is an example of poorly argued positions. If Kirk ever did any such thing then it is good, just, and right for others (anyone!) to point that out in hopes of improvement, in hopes of a better witness to Christ because Christ is what matters, not Kirk. Kirk knew, understood, and taught that.

It's far better now than it was for a while...

Again, which is it? Is the conservative message lost or is it much better than it was?


Do you realize you just qualified Kirk in the context of the "conservative message" and "conservative voices," and didn't once mention the gospel. It is better to go to heaven as a liberal than to go to hell as a conservative. You are alive to defend yourself but there is no defense for the indefensible. Before you respond, re-read Post #3 and try to do that re-reading presuppositionally. Try to identify the unstated assumptions from which the words in that post came. Reflect upon the last half of Luke 6, especially verse 45. A particularly wrong, provocative, and incorrect accusation was posted (the implication of someone spitting on another's grave) when no such thing happened. SO before thinking to debate the content of Post 2, first consider self-correcting Post 3's content because that post is void of a scriptural mindset, missing facts in favor of opinion and factual errors, and internally self-contradictory. If a discussion characterized by Rules 2.1 and 2.2 is desired the start over.

If you are interested or if anyone else is interested, I can cited specific examples of Kirk doing "well," and Kirk doing less than "well." I'd do so NOT for the purpose of "spitting on the man's grave," but for the edification of everyone still alive, everyone in this forum learning from his example as it pertains to what to do and what not to do. It's important because Kirk will be replaced. The question is will he be replaced by others who have learned from and improved upon his example, or mere copies. Every leader knows those under him get replicated in the example the leader provides. Mature and wise leaders eventually learn not to replicate themselves at the expense of replicating Christ and those he established as examples in his word. One of the greatest tragedies is that Krik did not live long enough to accomplish the latter. That, nonetheless, happened by Providence. Charlie drew the exact number of breaths God ordained for him to draw and both his life and his death will serve God's purpose(s).

And at some point get out a copy of Francis Schaeffer's trilogy, (or at least his "He is There and He is Not Silent"), read it, and develop a Biblical/Christian worldview that is capable of correctly and justly addressing everything, including how well other Christians, like Kirk, do what they do. Anything and everything off topic from this op will be ignored. Kirk was seminal, but he was not perfect. Kirk sought to bring others to Christ, and do so through many avenues of civil discourse. Kirk did not promote conservativism over the gospel.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Kirk never intended to do what he did.

Is it more understandable to note "did not initially intend to debate" as himself debating on camera was not part of his initial business plan when he was 18 and pitching his idea for Turning Point according to those who knew him and according to things he has said. Plus, the first debates were not filmed or placed online.

The debates were themselves organically evolved.

By the way, most people understand me fine when I speak to them in person and my children and husband don't allow my use of proper English claiming no one can understand me when I use it.

I don't know why online is different for some people. When I use middle college level English all my points are misunderstood, even online. So I revert to speaking in the manner people understand me best in person.

There's no making everyone happy. There's just not so please make some effort to understand my actual points instead of picking each word apart. I didn't sit and do the same to you.

I was simply noting that spitting on people's graves is impolite at best. We have had enough of that, he was just slaughtered and people still grieving his passing - surely you can grasp that.

Charlie Kirk was Arminian, when he created TP USA Faith in 2021 he teamed up with a Calvary Chapel pastor.

As such, I hold theological differences with him so my first criticism of him as a Christian apologist would not be his debating style - and now isn't the time to be critical since he's actually dead and in God's Hands and not mine to judge Charlie Kirk as a Christian or a Christian apologist - the man is dead.
.
TP USA is a different organisation and is just a secular conservative - see political - campus outreach organization and is not specific to faith, though certainly many conservatives are also denominationally Christian in the United States.

I'm calling Turning Point (TP USA) a political conservative organization because it is, that's why it was instrumental in the reelection of Donald Trump, it's a conservative political organization.

TP USA Faith is a specifically Christian organization headed by a Calvary Chapel pastor.
.
I wasn't speaking about the faith org but the main organization he started in general, and what started his debating - which wasn't his Christian faith, though kind of impossible to take our beliefs out of our secular political involvement since faith affects everything.

While his faith is what he wants to be remembered for and likely will be in the end, TP USA is not a faith organization, but a conservative political organization open to all conservatives.

That said, it helps to be familiar with the environment on college campuses during the time period Charlie Kirk himself decided against college attendance after not being accepted at Westpoint, and deciding instead to begin a university and college campus organization for political conservatives.

That's why my stepson's personal story became germane to the conversation, as they are of the same age. The atmosphere specifically for young white men, especially young white Christian men has changed since we were college age - and the changes have been drastic.

The reason for the worsening college campuses environment for this set of society (young white Christian conservative men) is a decline in conservatives in attendance amongst college faculty and leadership - we can all assume as a result of the decline in conservative professors and faculty members.

The Disappearing Conservative Professor

Back in 1969 according to one survey 26% of university professors were conservatives By 1999 that number had plummeted to 12%. Another survey using a different metric had slightly higher numbers overall but measured a similar decline conservative professorship.

The article also notes that moderates that were leaving were not being replaced by moderates but with people further left.

So when we get to the stage in society where even openly gay conservatives are attacked on college campuses by 2015-2017 you see there's been a problem recently due to the lack of diverse views which includes conservative viewpoints on university campuses because it's not just Milo being attacked for his views - or did you not notice the public slaughter of Charlie Kirk recently?

If you want to make an actual critique of the way Charlie Kirk approached apologetics maybe do so in a way that doesn't appear like snobbery spitting on the grave of a dead man.

 

[Josheb]

Hmmm...

Kirk never intended to do what he did.

Is it more understandable to note "did not initially intend to debate" as himself debating on camera was not part of his initial business plan when he was 18 and pitching his idea for Turning Point according to those who knew him and according to things he has said. Plus, the first debates were not filmed or placed online.

The salient point is Post #3 wasn't thought through well. It was a mistake to quote mine and then misrepresent Post #2 and Post #7 isn't much better.

Charlie Kirk was Arminian, when he created TP USA Faith in 2021 he teamed up with a Calvary Chapel pastor [which is a sect that preaches Dispensationalism and Dispensational Premillennialism eschatology].

Yep. The synergist soteriology and Dispensational eschatology are hugely problematic for those coming from the majority of Christendom,* so I do hope the man's grave is not being spit on when he's not here to defend himself.

I won't be responding further to this hypocrisy.






* I have viewed Kirk videos in which he mishandled the superiority of the New Testament for understanding the Old, and the matter of "Christian nationalism." I'll link the thread to them (if I can find the vid) if anyone is interested.
.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The salient point is Post #3 wasn't thought through well. It was a mistake to quote mine and then misrepresent Post #2 and Post #7 isn't much better.

If the man intended to go into Christian apologetics he would have gone into seminary in 2012 instead of starting a political organization.

If you want to be super critical of the dead who merely fell into Christian apologetics by accident be my guest...

But criticize yourself first for doing it, because all he ever did was give an answer for his faith.

And we don't have to do that perfectly and the dead cannot improve themselves BECAUSE they are DEAD so all your doing is harping on a dead man because you made your ministry so much better I'm sure plus I'm sure your ministry has a much larger international audience it's why you feel qualified to judge a man who slipped tripped and found he created an entire ministry.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And just so people know I think God used Charlie so I'll not be judging the man's deeds, only Jesus and the Apostles will be able to judge him. I pray He gets a well done good and faithful servant - that is my hope for him. Otherwise, I'm just sick of people who think they are somehow better.

 

[EarlyActs]

enjoy the memorial service, worship, be strengthened!