If You Are Elevating Charlie Kirk, Consider Who You Are Crushing Underfoot
The Time To Listen Is Now
Before last week, if you asked me who Charlie Kirk was, I couldn’t tell you. I am sure I came across some of his videos on Youtube or TikTok, but my stream has mostly goofy parenting stuff, recipes, pranks, and Nate Bargatze clips. I recognize Kirk’s face as someone associated with Trump. That’s about all I knew.
But, of course, Kirk was mercilessly shot and killed on Sept 10, 2025. It’s a horrific tragedy. Political violence is un-American and un-Christian, full stop. I am genuinely sorry and sad for his family and community. He was engaging in open discussion and debate on a school campus. As a teacher myself, I respect that.
As the news spread across the US of his death, I expected MAGA praise for Kirk. He was a conservative party hero and young influencer. From what I have seen, he was very sharp and quick on his feet. He had a good sense of humor. He seemed to genuinely care for the person standing in front of him. He energized young people and encouraged young men to be committed to their spouses and families. I don’t question that. I can see why people liked debating him. I was prepared for MAGA rallying after his untimely death. He deserved that as one of their own.
What I wasn’t prepared for was widespread, unqualified praise for Kirk amongst evangelical Christians across the US. Not all Christians, mind you, but many people, some of whom I know personally, celebrating Kirk as a Christian martyr, a hero of the faith.
I’m Shocked.
Let me say: Charlie Kirk seemed to be serious about his faith. He believed in God, he read the Bible, he talked about Jesus often, he wanted his views to be guided by Scripture, he wanted all people to know the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was uncompromising and consistent in his religious beliefs.
But Charlie Kirk was not a saint, as some tried to portray him. Kirk said some good things, he believed some good things, I have no doubt. I didn’t see or read enough of his work to know any of this in detail, but I just assume based on the little I have consumed in recent days. He cared about the lives of unborn babies. He wanted everyone to know the Jesus he knows. He wanted to realize a vision of the kingdom of heaven in America. He invited open discussion. He wanted to strengthen people’s beliefs and resolve. He loved his family. I don’t doubt his genuineness for a second.
BUT: my goodness. I came across some of his thoughts on race and immigration and MY GOODNESS. Please, read it for yourselves. Just because someone says some things you like doesn’t excuse the things they say or write that are destructively hostile and fundamentally anti-Christian. Like calling for the death of government leaders.
Kirk commented on public-facing civil servant black women like Michelle Obama and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “[these black women] do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.” (JD Vance has contested this, so I encourage you to view the clip of Kirk saying it if you question it as well; I viewed it more than once.) If my pastor said this from the pulpit, I would walk out and I would call for their immediate firing. Wouldn’t you?
First, explain to me what a “white person’s slot” is? (Kirk opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of factors like race, color, or national origin, btw. Kirk also said MLK was “awful…not a good person”) Secondly, Ketanji Brown Jackson went to Harvard, Charlie Kirk did not finish his undergraduate degree at Harper College. Michelle Obama went to Princeton, then Harvard Law. Who is he to question whether or not they are intellectually worthy, unless he is solely demeaning them on the basis of color?
Now you might say, well, these minorities get these scholarships and sail through because of affirmative action and wokeness. Aha, therein lies the problem. As you might guess, I am a person of color and no matter where I study or what I do, because of people like Kirk, there will always be skepticism about whether or not I actually deserved my degree, or my job, or my career, or my awards, or my book contracts.
Think about this from my perspective as a brown man in America. A threat against Michelle Obama or Ketanji Brown Jackson is a threat against me. Because I am not the same skin color as Charlie Kirk. “Nijay does not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. Nijay had to go steal a white person’s slot.” I hear Kirk and I hear 80 million white evangelical Christians telling me that I’m actually less intelligent than my white counterparts (solely because of the color of my skin) and that I stole a white person’s “slot.” That I don’t belong here. A white person deserves my job more and I robbed them of that. Every time you utter unqualified praise for Kirk publicly as a model Christian you inadvertently send a message that I am a lesser Christian, a lesser person and that I am a threat to white America.
Wait, there’s more.
I’m Indian American. My parents came from India in the 1970s. My dad came to America with a medical degree in hand. He wanted a safe and good life for his young family. He became a celebrated eye surgeon in Ohio, practicing medicine in America for more than 50 years. My mom is a certified medical technician. They have devoted their lives to public health. They don’t smoke, they don’t drink. They are naturalized citizens. They pay their taxes. They give to charities. They do medical missions to the Dominican Republic and other countries. They never taught me to hate anyone, even people that say nasty things about us. Only love. My dad taught me to love every human being I encounter, even the ones that hate me. There’s always room for good people in America. No matter their color, accent, or origin. That was the Indian value system my dad grew up with and what he believed to be the American way as well.
“America does not need more visas for people from India…Perhaps no form of legal immigration has so displaced American workers as those from India. Enough already. We’re full. Let’s finally put our own people first.”
American Kirk supporters: I am an American. My parents are legal Americans. And unless you are Native American, at some point in history someone in your family came to the US from another country and America made room for them. It’s a big country. There’s room for good people. I don’t know any Indians in America who aren’t trying to do their part.
I’m not supporting unregulated open borders, I respect the need for laws and limitations. But the notion of “our own people first” can be dangerous. Visa approvals, which I know from many of my relatives who have come to the US legally, follow work and education needs and desires. Businesses and even colleges and universities head hunt the best and brightest from the around the world. The visa approvals are not forced upon America, they are driven by industry and American ambition to achieve a higher quality of life for everyone.
Charlie Kirk consistently made deeply destructive, anti-Biblical and anti-Christian statements. I can value his life, mourn his death, but I find absolutely abhorrent the unqualified support for him amongst Christians.
We must hold our thought leaders to a high standard of respectful discussion. I am not against conservative thought leaders in evangelical Christianity. I think of Tim Keller who is sadly no longer with us. I think of my friend, apologist and philosopher Sean McDowell. Or the incredibly wise Rebbeca McLaughlin. Excellent communicators like Jen Wilkin. There are so many wise people to read, listen to, and follow, conservatives who reflect Christlike character.
Please consider how your unqualified praise for Kirk will inevitably have an equal and opposite reaction of marginalization and harm for people of color, people like me. Black and brown Christians at white churches were terrified to go to church last Sunday, wondering if there would be unqualified praise for a man who preached that non-whites have a lesser intelligence and Asians are stealing “white” jobs.
I am heartbroken that we are running away from, rather than towards, Jesus’ big beautiful vision of a unified, many-colored kingdom. Jesus did not see people and weigh their lives or worthiness through the filter of their ethnicity, skin color, or gender. With the Samaritan woman, he had a deep theological conversation about the temple and the Messiah. Jesus commended the faith of a Roman soldier, the kind of person many fellow Jews of Jesus’ time despised.
No More “Barbarians”
Paul wrote to the Colossians that in the new life brought by Christ, there shall no longer be the category of “barbarian” (Col 3:11). “Barbarian” was the smear that proper Romanized people used for what they considered disgusting, unintelligent, non-Greek-speaking foreigners. Outsiders. Cultural invaders. Savages. Paul made it clear to the Colossians: we don’t categorize people the way the world does.
In the dark hours of recent days, and there have been far too many, I cling to the beautiful ideal expressed by Martin Luther King Jr:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” (MLK)
We can’t beat the devil if we demean and hurt one another. We are playing into his hands. Only love and light can overcome. But the healing work of Christ can only come through truth, repentance, confession, and reconciliation.
Postscript
I wrote this piece and sat on it for several days. Long days. I wanted to allow for a time of quiet mourning and I wanted to get feedback from trusted colleagues on a sensitive topic. I also needed to prepare my heart for any backlash, which I expect will come. I know I am going to get lots of knee-jerk comments about how I am smearing the name of a “good Christian man.” I promise you I wish I didn’t have to write this.
I ask that you don’t respond to this essay I have written for one week.
(I am blocking comments and I will delete anything that comes through private messages, sorry.) Then come back and respond. I am trying to practice slow theology, I ask that of you as well. I won’t respond to tags or mentions for one week. I am preaching this weekend (not on this subject) and I need to have presence of mind for that as well. I ask you to respect that.
Those of you who know me personally, know that I am not a person who likes to stir the pot or be controversial or weigh in on debated issues, especially hot button politics. But I know too many people who need a voice like mine calling out unquestioned support of someone who made clear and persistent racist statements. Many people of color are looking to pastors and scholars to speak up for us. Normally I am silent. I assumed I would be silent on this. But I just can’t be silent. We simply can’t realize a vision for Christ’s many-colored kingdom when some of us are treated as second-class citizens with lesser worth and intelligence.
If my white brothers and sisters want black and brown people to feel safe in their churches and ministries, you need to have open ears and hearts right now. Otherwise, I fear we are heading into a new era of segregation, and I desperately want to avoid that at all costs.
Be safe out there, don’t hate, only love. No more barbarians, just brothers and sisters.
[Update: as promised, I have updated to allow for comments.]



Fortunately the author does stop short of outright calling Charlie Kirk a racist. Many have made that mistake. One important thing to point out is that Charlie Kirk never said, or treated people of color as "second-class citizens with lesser worth and intelligence" as the author states. When he made comments based on specific people's intelligence (namely Ketanji Brown Jackson and Michelle Obama) it was through the lens of DEI and Affirmative Action. I.e. hiring people based on criteria that involve immutable characteristics, rather than merit and actual qualifications. Ketanji Brown Jackson herself was selected by Joe Biden who himself promised to nominate "The first black woman to the Supreme Court" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Those are his words, not mine, per Time Magazine.
During her confirmation hearings, Jackson was unable to define the word "Woman". The ability to tell the difference between a man and a woman is in fact relevant to her position as a justice on the Supreme Court. She was unable to do so. This either calls her intelligence and/or integrity into question. There were certainly more qualified candidates available at the time who would be able to accurately answer such a question. Unfortunately, they were passed over because perhaps some were either not black, or not a woman (the criteria laid out by the President). Charlie Kirk's contention is that we are now worse off because we now have a justice on the Supreme Court who was selected because of her immutable characteristics rather than her merit (i.e. DEI/Affirmative Action in action).
In no way, shape, or form during that discussion did Charlie Kirk insinuate that ALL black women/POC's/etc. are of lesser intelligence or worth. That is a gross misrepresentation of his statement, which completely ignores the context and subject matter that was being directly discussed. Now you may disagree with his conclusions around DEI and that is perfectly fine. You may think immutable characteristics should be used when considering people for certain positions. Charlie Kirk makes his case why he does not think that is what is best for America, and you are free to make yours for the opposite position. This disagreement on public policy, however, does not make Charlie Kirk hateful or racist.
The difficult thing here is that the intersection of faith and politics is inherently messy. Nothing gets people fired up quite like these two subjects and then bring them together things get very contentious very quickly. I have wrestled with this myself. What is the Christians place in the public square? Should we get involved or not? If you choose to enter the political arena as a Christian, half of the country will automatically think you are deplorable without even knowing anything else about you. This will inevitably include some of your brothers and sisters in Christ who think a certain way about you because of your politics. Should Christians avoid this arena altogether because it is a minefield that is literally impossible to navigate without some calling you names like racist, bigot (on the right), or baby killer, groomer (on the left)? Hard to say, but I wouldn't want to think what the world would look like if it were devoid of Christians in positions of political leadership. There are many instances in the Bible where believers also happen to be in positions of high political influence so I don't think it is correct to shy away from it completely despite some of the ugly consequences.
So that leaves us with Charlie Kirk. Agree with him or not on his political stances that is fair. I myself don't align with 100% of his political stances or anywhere near for that matter. I have participated in every presidential election since 2008 but have never voted for Donald Trump, as he would have wanted me to. We can debate over things like DEI, abortion, the 2nd Amendment, LGBT, and immigration policy, and still at the end of the day come together as brothers and sisters in Christ. But what I don't think is fair is to characterize Charlie Kirk as a racist or a hatemonger. If you wish to see his unvarnished take on race, without the distraction of peripheral topics such as DEI, I encourage you to watch this short video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-Dscpvq2xeA
At the end of the day, we are left with his death and subsequent memorial service. Literally over a hundred million people saw the Gospel proclaimed as a result of that memorial service, AND COUNTING as it is still able to be viewed on YouTube and countless other places. It was, quite possibly, the single widest-viewed proclamation of the Gospel in human history. If even a small fraction of people came to faith as a result of that (we're still talking THOUSANDS of people), the eternal impact on the Kingdom that singular event had is unfathomable. Now you can claim that some people who spoke of the Gospel did so out of selfish reasons for political gain. Very possible that is the case. Others spoke the Gospel out of a pure heart. Literal millions saw a grieving widow forgive her husband's murderer. That is the power of the Holy Spirit on display for all to see. Regardless of who had what motive in proclaiming the Gospel, it was indeed proclaimed. And as Paul rejoiced in Philippians 1:15-18, I also rejoice, along with millions, without fear of crushing ANYBODY underfoot:
"Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."
Let me say I have been dismayed at the number of shares I have seen of your article that do nothing more than accuse you of denigrating Kirk's legacy, and make no effort to understand the lived experience that led you to speak up.
While not related specifically to Kirk, this is related to the circles he ran in and supported. My wife is a native of Mexico. We've been married for 26 years. She became a naturalized citizen over 22 year ago. But because of the current rhetoric about immigrants, and the detentions that are just grabbing people because they speak Spanish, or their English has a strong accent, she now feels the need to keep her passport on her at all times, even on her short (under 5 mile) commute to her job as a bilingual school secretary.
While I may not personally be able to feel what you have experienced in all this, the person on earth closest to me does know what it feels like first-hand.