Charlie Kirk and Independent Baptists: A Theological Comparison in an Age of Celebrity Influence
- Brent Madaris
- Sep 24
- 19 min read
Updated: Oct 3
Charlie Kirk has drawn attention among Independent Baptists for his political activism. This article examines where his theology aligns and diverges from Baptist convictions, encouraging discernment without personal attacks.
Influence, Celebration, and the Need for Discernment
In recent years, Charlie Kirk has emerged as one of the most prominent voices at the intersection of politics, culture, and faith. His boldness in speaking about Jesus in public arenas has drawn praise from many evangelicals, and even among Independent Baptists, there has been a surge of admiration.
In more recent days, Independent Baptists have been both encouraged and unsettled by the memorial service for Charlie Kirk (and the broader understanding of who he is and what he stands for). On one hand, the name of Christ was lifted before millions of viewers, and many gave testimony to the power of the gospel. On the other hand, questions have surfaced about Kirk’s theological commitments and the implications of aligning ourselves too closely with his platform.
Unfortunately, discussions within Baptist circles have often been polarized. Some voices have dismissed any concerns as pharisaical nitpicking, accusing their brethren of “missing the point.” Others, in their zeal for discernment, have painted Kirk as nothing less than an ecumenical deceiver. What is lacking is a careful, charitable, and biblically rooted evaluation.
This article seeks to provide exactly that: an understanding of Kirk’s theology so that both the similarities and the differences may be better understood. I think that is only fair since there has been a great deal of controversy on the matter, with little to no direct evidence brought to bear. The goal is not to attack individuals but to equip believers with discernment — to rejoice when Christ is preached, while also guarding the truth entrusted to us. Genuine discernment is not legalism. Scripture commands believers: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). To evaluate teaching in the light of God’s Word is not to miss the point, but to obey Christ. We take doctrine seriously because God’s Word commands us to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3). If we fail to compare what we see and hear with Scripture, we (or the people we love) risk being swept away by personalities, platforms, or movements that are close to the truth but not fully aligned with it.
The question, then, is not whether Kirk’s boldness in public life should be appreciated, but whether his theology is aligned with the faith once delivered to the saints. It is not the fact that "millions heard the gospel." For this, we can all give thanks! For Independent Baptists, who cherish biblical separation and doctrinal clarity, this comparison matters deeply. Along the way, we will also consider how we, as Baptists, should respond when God seems to be (or is) working outside of our circles.
What Independent Baptists Believe
Independent Baptist churches share a set of distinctives that have historically marked them off from broader evangelicalism. A few of these include:
Biblical Authority: The Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice, without equal tradition or authority alongside it.
Salvation by Faith Alone: Justification is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ, apart from works, sacraments, or rituals.
Local Church Autonomy: Each church is independent, governed by its congregation under Christ, without denominational hierarchy.
Baptism by Immersion: Baptism follows personal faith in Christ, and only immersion pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
Separation: Both personal and ecclesiastical separation are practiced, meaning Christians are called to live holy lives and churches must guard against partnerships that dilute the gospel.
Future Hope: A dispensational, premillennial view of eschatology is common, teaching that Christ will rapture His church and later return to establish a literal kingdom on earth.
These distinctives mean that Independent Baptists are often cautious about ecumenism or partnerships that blur doctrinal lines. The issue is not narrowness for its own sake but fidelity to Scripture.
Comparing Key Doctrines: Independent Baptists and Charlie Kirk
Many Independent Baptists have appreciated Charlie Kirk’s defense of religious liberty, family values, and biblical morality in the public square. His boldness has inspired many believers to be more vocal about their faith. However, when examining his teachings and associations, significant theological differences emerge.
This comparison is not about questioning Charlie Kirk’s sincerity or patriotism. It is about clarity. Scripture calls us to “prove all things” and “hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).
1. The Doctrine of Salvation
Independent Baptists hold firmly to the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8–9).
No ritual, sacrament, or human mediator can save.
Baptism is a public testimony of inward faith, not a means of regeneration.
Jesus’ finished work on the cross is completely sufficient for our salvation (John 19:30).
Update Regarding Charlie Kirk’s View of Salvation
In my original article, I noted that Charlie Kirk appeared to be orthodox on the matter of salvation, seemingly affirming the biblical truth of salvation by grace through faith. As an evangelical, this was generally assumed to be his position. However, I recently came across a troubling video that calls this into question.
In the video, when asked directly whether baptism is necessary for salvation, Kirk responded: “The Bible is split on that.” Later, as a student brought up John 3, Kirk interrupted by saying: “I understand—you have to be born first of your mother’s womb and born again by the water of baptism, I know.”
This language is concerning because it reflects a sacramental view of baptism that is inconsistent with salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9). While Kirk may not have consistently or systematically taught baptismal regeneration, his words reveal confusion on one of the most vital doctrines of the Christian faith.
The link for this video is here
2. The Doctrine of the Church
Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The Historic Baptist View
Independent Baptists have consistently understood the “church” (ekklesia) to mean:
A local assembly of baptized believers under Christ’s headship (Acts 11:22; 1 Cor. 1:2).
A spiritual body with Christ alone as its head (Eph. 1:22–23).
A mission focused on making disciples, not ruling over earthly governments (Matt. 28:19–20).
Baptists historically rejected the idea of a state church, often suffering persecution for their conviction that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, not political.
Charlie Kirk’s Alternative Teaching
In a recent public video, Charlie Kirk explicitly claimed that the Greek word ekklesia was mistranslated as “church.”
He argued that it should instead be translated as “government structure,” suggesting that Jesus was referring to a political or societal authority. (Instagram video source)
Why This Matters
While Christians are called to influence society as salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16), the church itself is not a political institution.
Its mission is to evangelize, baptize, teach, and disciple believers (Matt. 28:19–20).
Christ’s kingdom will be established fully at His return, not through human political structures (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 11:15).
By redefining ekklesia as a “government structure,” Kirk confuses the church’s spiritual mission with political activism. This undermines a key Baptist distinctive for which our spiritual forefathers suffered greatly.
Let's examine this aspect more fully.
Charlie Kirk’s Disturbing Redefinition of “Church” and Its Implications
Even though Charlie Kirk has established a reputation in conservative political circles through his involvement with Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and has energized many young people to engage in politics, his recent theological claim about the church is cause for concern, especially for Bible-believing Christians. His public teaching that the Greek word ekklesia—translated “church” in our English Bibles—does not mean “church” but instead refers to a "government structure" is not merely a linguistic error; it is a doctrinal distortion that undermines biblical teaching about the nature of the church and dangerously merges politics with theology.
The Greek word ekklesia occurs 115 times in the New Testament. It literally means “assembly” or “called-out ones” and was used by the writers of Scripture to describe the body of believers—what we rightly call the church. While the word could, in secular Greek, refer to simply a gathering of people or even a legal assembly (Acts 19:32, 39, 41) the New Testament writers consistently use it in a spiritual sense, describing local congregations…churches.
By redefining (biblically) ekklesia as “government structure,” Kirk blurs the line between Christ’s church and secular politics. This is more than a slip of the tongue; it is an attempt to reframe the mission of the church, shifting it from the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19–20) to political activism. This interpretation closely aligns with Dominion theology and the Seven Mountain Mandate, teachings promoted within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). These systems see the church’s role as taking control of key areas of society, such as government, education, and media.
“Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”—Matthew 16:18
Jesus clearly stated that the church is His—not a political structure, not a government body, and not a wing of any political party.
Why This Matters
When a political figure redefines the church, it inevitably leads to a redefinition of its mission. If the church is viewed as a political assembly, then evangelism and discipleship are replaced (or at least juxtaposed) by campaigning and lobbying. This is not the biblical calling of God’s people. As believers, we are instructed to:
Preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).
Make disciples, baptizing and teaching them (Matthew 28:19–20).
Live separated from the world while being salt and light within it (John 17:15–18; Matthew 5:13–16).
When the focus shifts to political power, the church becomes an arm of the state rather than a beacon of truth. This has historically led to corruption and persecution, as seen in medieval Christendom and other state-church systems.
What Pastors and Churches Should Consider
Since the 1980’s keen observers have noted that as the church has declined in attendance ans influence that politics has become the new American religion and pundits have become it preachers! Many undiscering preachers have gotten in the bandwagon of this quasi religio-political juggernaut; many, I think, not realizing the implications and long term prospects! What must we do? We must remind ourselves of some things.
The Mission of the Church Is Spiritual, Not Political - Churches (individual believers) are called to be ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), not campaign headquarters for any earthly kingdom.
Partnerships Require Doctrinal Clarity - Before allowing outside groups like TPUSA Faith into your pulpit or congregation, ensure that their teachings/purpose/mission align with Scripture.
Beware of Redefining Biblical Terms - When someone changes the biblical definition of “church,” they are altering the foundation of our faith. This is not a minor issue—it is a serious threat to sound doctrine.
3. The Doctrine of Scripture and Authority
Independent Baptists believe the Bible alone is the final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16–17). This conviction — sola Scriptura — means that every tradition, teaching, or movement must be tested by God’s Word.
Charlie Kirk regularly spoke about the authority of Scripture. He hosted Bible studies, quoted verses extensively, and encouraged Christians to live by biblical truth. These are points of genuine agreement and appreciation.
However, his speeches often blended biblical themes with political and cultural causes. At times, national identity and cultural renewal were elevated alongside the gospel message, creating the impression that political freedom and spiritual revival were inseparable.
This reflects a danger known as civil religion — where Christianity and national identity are so tightly interwoven that they become indistinguishable, creating a kind of “national faith” that isn’t true Christianity but borrows its symbols.
Independent Baptists love their country and pray for leaders (1 Tim. 2:1–2),
But they carefully distinguish between civil liberty and the spiritual liberty found in Christ (Gal. 5:1). The liberty that we have in Christ can never be taken away, though historically, many Christian’s have labored under great civil restrictions/persecution. This fact reminds us that as our country loses its Biblical and spiritual foundation, we as Christians, will once again (and increasingly) be targeted as “difficulties.“ Hence the push in certain elements of Christianity to push for Christian dominance any way possible (especially politically).
National revival (and patriotic love of country), while desirable, is not the same as gospel revival.
4. The Doctrine of Separation in the Context of Ecumenicism
One thing that must be remembered in this context of discussion is the fact that there are two organizations associated with Charlie Kirk: TPUSA and TPUSA Faith.
Turning Point USA (TPUSA) was founded by Kirk in 2012 as a conservative student organization devoted to promoting free markets, limited government, and American exceptionalism. Its early years were marked by campus activism, training young conservatives, voter mobilization, and headline-grabbing “culture war” messaging. The flagship events—such as the Student Action Summit and AmericaFest—relied heavily on populist conservatism and celebrity politics, with various prominent speakers. At the outset, TPUSA was not positioned as a religious movement, and its partnerships extended to libertarians, secular conservatives, and cultural commentators as much as to Christians.
In recent years, however, TPUSA has increasingly adopted overtly religious tones in its broader programming. Prayers, worship music, and biblical references have become regular features at large gatherings such as AmericaFest, blurring the line between political rally and revival meeting. Kirk himself has been outspoken about framing America as a Christian nation and calling for churches to take their place on the frontlines of cultural battles. In practice, TPUSA now speaks with a quasi-religious voice, even when operating outside the formal framework of its church-focused branch.
That branch, TPUSA Faith, was launched in 2021–2022 as a dedicated outreach to pastors and congregations. Its stated goal is to equip churches to engage in civic life by connecting political action with biblical duty. Unlike the parent organization’s earlier approach, TPUSA Faith is explicitly ecumenical: partnering with evangelicals, charismatics, New Apostolic Reformation–associated leaders, and Catholic voices. It intentionally downplays theological differences in order to build a unified front against what it describes as threats to religious liberty and American freedom.
Taken together, TPUSA and TPUSA Faith reveal two aspects of one movement. TPUSA proper remains the political engine, but it has increasingly taken on religious overtones, while TPUSA Faith serves as the religious outreach wing that formalizes ecumenical partnerships to “save America.” The trajectory shows a growing fusion of politics and religion, raising concerns among Baptists and others who prize doctrinal clarity and separation.
For siimplified clarity, here is a chart showing the breakdown betweeen the two organizations.
TPUSA vs. TPUSA Faith
Category | TPUSA (Core Organization) | TPUSA Faith (Religious Arm) |
Founded | 2012 by Charlie Kirk as a conservative student movement | 2021–2022 as an outreach specifically to pastors & churches |
Stated Mission | “Educate students about free markets, limited government, and American exceptionalism.” | “Equip the church to stand boldly in the public square and defend biblical truth.” |
Primary Audience | College students, young conservatives, grassroots activists | Pastors, church leaders, and Christian congregations |
Main Activities | Campus chapters, Student Action Summit, AmericaFest, voter mobilization, media shows (The Charlie Kirk Show) | Freedom Nights at churches, Pastors Summits, church mobilization campaigns |
Religious Rhetoric | Increasingly explicit: Kirk often uses Christian-nationalist framing (e.g., America as a Christian nation, divine providence over U.S. founding) | Central and overt: sermons, worship services, altar calls at political events |
Partnerships | Politicians, pundits, conservative celebrities | Ecumenical mix of evangelical pastors, charismatics, NAR-associated figures, and Catholics |
Ecumenical Dimension | Implicit — religious language and Bible quotes used to rally conservatives broadly | Explicit — brings together multiple Christian traditions on stage, downplays doctrinal differences for cultural/political unity |
Criticism from Baptists/Conservatives | Blurs the line between Christianity and nationalism; it elevates conservative politics as a natural and an ultimate expression of conservative biblical understanding. | Compounds the ecumenical problem by formally mixing incompatible theologies (Catholic, NAR, prosperity gospel) with Baptist/evangelical settings |
Bottom Line | A political activist group that increasingly frames its mission in religious terms | The formal “church-facing” branch that institutionalizes TPUSA’s ecumenical religious outreach |
More on TPUSA Faith
Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA Faith was designed from its inception to mobilize churches and pastors across denominational lines for civic and cultural engagement. The record shows that this outreach was not confined to conservative evangelicals. TPUSA Faith events have featured charismatic and New Apostolic Reformation–associated leaders, Catholic commentators and clergy, and mainstream evangelical pastors from large non-denominational churches. Media coverage and promotional materials alike describe TPUSA Faith as an intentionally broad-based coalition, deliberately downplaying theological distinctions in favor of shared political and cultural goals.
From a Baptist perspective, this amounts to a practical ecumenism: the platform embraces leaders from movements that Baptists have historically warned against — Rome’s sacramental theology, prosperity/Word-of-Faith emphases, and the extra-biblical authority claimed by NAR figures. While Kirk frames this as necessary unity for preserving American liberty, the result is a movement where doctrinal boundaries are blurred for political expedience. Independent Baptists, who have long emphasized both personal separation from sin and worldliness (2 Cor. 6:14–18) and ecclesiastical separation from false teaching (Rom. 16:17), have reason to be cautious and think critically/biblically about any overt alliance.
Thus, the evidence supports the conclusion that TPUSA Faith is ecumenical in practice — drawing together evangelicals, charismatics, Catholics, and NAR voices under one umbrella — even if it does not formally seek creedal or sacramental unity. The concern is not whether political alliances are possible, but whether a Christian platform that blurs lines with such movements inadvertently undermines the biblical doctrine of separation.
Paul modeled a balance:
He rejoiced whenever Christ was truly preached (Phil. 1:18),
But also warned sternly against those who promoted “another gospel” and doctrinal division (Gal. 1:6–9; Romans 16:17).
Separation is not about being critical for its own sake. It is about guarding the flock. A shepherd who ignores wolves because they sometimes speak well of Jesus fails in his duty to protect the sheep.
5. Eschatology: Future Hope vs. Present Dominion
Independent Baptists typically hold to a dispensational, premillennial eschatology, which includes:
A future rapture of the church (1 Thess. 4:16–17).
A seven-year Tribulation period (Dan. 9:24–27).
Christ’s literal Second Coming to reign for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:1–6).
A distinct role for Israel in God’s prophetic plan (Rom. 11:25–27).
Baptists teach that God’s kingdom is spiritually present now in the hearts of believers. For the most part, we do believe in influencing our government and actively participating by preaching, moral influence, voting, volunteering, and even running for office. But, we also believe that God's Kingdom, in its full political and cosmic manifestation, is future, brought by Christ Himself — not by human effort.
Charlie Kirk, as far as can be determined, did not adhere to any specific eschatological framework. However, his rhetoric frequently emphasized Christians taking leadership roles in government, education, and culture. While engaging society is certainly biblical, his language sometimes reflected dominionist thinking, with its underlying postmillennialism portraying cultural success as a necessary indicator of God’s activity.
Let it also be said here that Kirk never claimed to be a Christian Nationalist, at least not in the typical understanding of that term, although he did proclaim himself to be a Christian and a Nationalist. In the Instagram video referenced above, this is clearly stated, but he also clearly conflates Old Testament Theocratic ideals—Joseph, Moses/Deuteronomy, and even the experiences of Israel in the captivity described in Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther/Mordecai—with New Testament positions concerning the church and its role in society, apparently failing to recognize that these represent distinct programs in God’s redemptive plan. The fact that Jesus came to fulfill all the law and the prophets necessitates the realization that this is the reason we have a NEW TESTAMENT or a new covenant.
This creates a stark theological divide between two understandings of the church’s mission. From an Independent Baptist perspective, the church’s calling is straightforward: proclaim the gospel, make disciples, and faithfully wait for Christ’s return. Its influence in the world flows naturally, and primarily, from the transformed lives of believers, not from political or cultural conquest.
By contrast, the dominionist (even a soft dominionist) view casts the church as an agent for establishing God’s kingdom through control of society, politics, and culture—measuring success by earthly victories rather than spiritual obedience.
Scripture, however, reminds us that Christ alone sets the timing and scope of His kingdom: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44), and “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15). Human triumphs, no matter how visible or impressive, are temporary at best and cannot be taken as proof of divine approval. I have written an article on the Dominionist mindset. It is called Christian Nationalism - Revealing the Tapestry and Exploring the Interplay with Dominionism
Now let's deal with one final aspect of this discussion.
6. The Discernment vs. Rejoicing Debate
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s memorial, Independent Baptists found themselves responding in three different ways:
The “Critics Are Pharisees” Response
Some voices mocked anyone raising concerns, portraying them as legalistic nitpickers who “missed the point.” The comparison was made to the Pharisees in John 5, who criticized the man healed by Jesus for carrying his bed on the Sabbath. While this perspective rightly warns against pharisaical criticism, it unfairly dismisses legitimate doctrinal concerns by caricaturing them as petty. Discernment is not Pharisaism. To raise legitimate concerns about doctrine is not to “miss the point.” It is to guard the flock against confusion. The better question is: How can we rejoice in gospel fruit while remaining faithful to our convictions?
The “Rejoice, Don’t Divide” Response
Others urged Baptists to simply rejoice that Christ was named. They cited Luke 9:49–50, where Jesus told His disciples not to forbid those casting out demons in His name. This response rightly emphasizes unity in Christ, but it risks glossing over the real danger of ecumenism. Paul both rejoiced in Christ being preached (Phil. 1:18) and fiercely opposed false gospels (Gal. 1:8–9). To emphasize one without the other is unbalanced. A certain genre of relgious understanding cannot seem to fathom this position.
The “Revival Is Bigger Than Us” Response
A third group acknowledged doctrinal differences but argued that God is sovereign and may work even through imperfect vessels. They reminded us that in past revivals, questionable methods and flawed preachers were still used by God to bring people to faith. The call was for humility — recognizing that God is bigger than our "Baptist box" and that we do not have all the “cheese on our cracker.”
This third perspective reflects a healthy humility, but it too can lean toward minimizing error. Church history is indeed full of flawed instruments — from Augustine to Luther to Whitefield. Yet the lesson is not that doctrine doesn’t matter, but that God works despite human weakness. To suggest that theology is secondary in revival risks undermining the very truth that makes revival genuine. The Spirit of God always works in harmony with the Word of God, not apart from it. Right?
Together, these three responses reveal the tension Independent Baptists face: how to rejoice when Christ is named without endorsing movements and platforms that dilute or distort the gospel. The answer is not to scoff at discernment, nor to silence rejoicing, nor to excuse error in the name of revival. The answer is to hold truth, love, and discernment together, refusing to let either be sacrificed.
There is a balance here that can be achieved.
Let's look at the third aspect a bit more, as I find it the most credible:
Revival in Historical Context
Both the First Great Awakening (1730s–40s) and the Second Great Awakening (1790s–1830s) were broad, interdenominational movements. Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and Baptists were all swept into the stirrings. Leaders included Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Shubal Stearns, John Wesley, Francis Asbury, Peter Cartwright, Charles Finney, and others.
It is obvious and must be admitted that Baptists were not the only players in these moves of God. It also must be remembered (and this is an extremely important point) that in those days, there was not the level of moral, theological, and doctrinal corruption and compromise that there is today.
Here is a simple comparison:
First Great Awakening (1730s–40s) | Second Great Awakening (1790s–1830s) |
Leaders: Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Shubal Stearns | Leaders: Charles Finney, Lyman Beecher, Barton Stone, Peter Cartwright |
More Calvinistic in tone, revival began in an established church framework but soon divided the churches into "Old Lights" versus "New Lights" | More Arminian in tone, stressed human decision in revival, and built new religious infrastrcture on the American frontier |
Emphasized the glory of God, conviction of sin, and sovereign grace | Emphasized camp meetings, evangelistic methods, and voluntary societies |
Spread mainly in New England and the Middle Colonies | Exploded in the frontier, especially Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio |
Key Baptist figures: Shubal Stearns and the Separate Baptists carried revival fire to the South, sparking growth | Key Baptist figures: Isaac Backus advocated for religious liberty; John Leland championed the separation of church and state |
It is an interesting sidelight that when considering the first and second Great Awakenings that Baptists grew faster than any other group. In fact, the "congregationalist South" was literally transformed into a Baptist stronghold. Why? They combined revival fervor with strong convictions about believers’ baptism, church planting, local church autonomy, and religious liberty. Converts of Whitefield and others often became Baptists when they searched the Scriptures for themselves.
More recently, the experience of John R. Rice provides a clear example of how fundamentalists navigated cooperation across denominational lines. Rice regularly participated in revival campaigns and conferences with other evangelicals, including Baptists, Presbyterians, and non-denominational leaders, as long as they maintained sound doctrine. He even supported Billy Graham early in Graham’s ministry, featuring him in The Sword of the Lord and endorsing his evangelistic campaigns. However, Rice and Bob Jones Sr. eventually opposed Graham’s methods because Graham embraced a broader ecumenical approach, partnering with mainline Protestants and Catholics whom Rice considered doctrinally compromised. The issue was not evangelism itself—Rice never opposed preaching the gospel—but the partners and the boundaries of cooperation. Whereas Graham prioritized reaching as many souls as possible, even at the cost of temporary doctrinal compromise, Rice insisted that doctrinal purity must govern any collaboration, illustrating the fundamentalist principle that faithful evangelism cannot override the call to separate from error.
The takeaway is clear: Baptists historically participated in broad revival movements without surrendering their distinctives. They rejoiced in gospel advance, but they also preached believer’s baptism, defended liberty of conscience, and planted churches rooted in Scripture.
So today, Baptists need not be the “party of no.” We don't have to approach everything with a censorious, harsh, disparaging spirit. We can give thanks that millions heard Christ’s name at Kirk’s memorial — while also warning against false unity and compromised doctrine. To do less is not humility; it is negligence.
Why This Matters: Discipleship, Doctrine, and the Future of the Church
Why devote so much attention to comparing the theology of a political activist with Baptist doctrine? Because influence matters. Kirk spoke to millions of young Christians, and his framing of the church as a “government structure” or his embrace of ecumenism will shape how they view Christianity.
For Independent Baptists, the priority is not a public platform but biblical purity. Churches are called to make disciples, not celebrities. The gospel is not advanced by confusing Catholic sacraments with saving faith, nor by promoting a dominionist agenda as the mission of the church.
At the same time, discernment must be exercised with humility. Kirk was bold in his witness. His life and death should remind us of the urgency of proclaiming Christ. But success and faithfulness are measured not by applause or reach but by conformity to God’s Word.
Social media may prefer quick celebration over careful evaluation, but Scripture calls us to both rejoice and discern. In an age of celebrity influence, clarity is kindness. The church cannot afford to trade doctrinal fidelity for cultural applause.
Conclusion: Why Doctrine Matters
Charlie Kirk’s bold defense of biblical morality, pro-life advocacy, and encouragement to live out Christian values are commendable. Many of his concerns resonate deeply with Independent Baptists. The fact that the Gospel was proclaimed so widely across the world during his memorial service was powerful and, frankly, amazing!
The Independent Baptists' concern with Charlie Kirk’s theology is not about nitpicking or jealousy. It is about guarding the gospel and its witness. We can appreciate his boldness in public life while recognizing the theological differences that matter.
Independent Baptists must be discerning because, among other considerations:
Redefining ekklesia as a “government structure” distorts the church’s mission.
Ecumenical partnerships risk blurring the lines of truth.
Civil religion can confuse patriotism with the gospel.
Dominionist thinking undermines our future hope in Christ’s return.
The issue is not Charlie Kirk’s sincerity, but doctrinal clarity. Scripture commands us to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3). We must lovingly hold the line, even when standing apart from those we admire in other areas.
________________________
Select Sources
Charlie Kirk Answers a Question About Baptism and Salvation https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOsfHXJDBrc/?igsh=c2Q0bWNqdndhZWk=
Fox News. “Who Is Erika Kirk? What to Know about Late Charlie Kirk’s Widow from Love Story to His Legacy.” Fox News, September 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-erika-kirk-what-know-about-late-charlie-kirks-widow-from-love-story-his-legacy.
National Catholic Register. “Who Is Charlie Kirk’s Wife? Catholic Faith.” National Catholic Register, September 2025. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/who-is-charlie-kirks-wife-catholic-faith.
Wikipedia. “Charlie Kirk (Activist).” Wikipedia, last modified September 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk.
Catholic News Agency. “Charlie Kirk Emphasizes Belonging to a Bible-Believing Church.” Catholic News Agency, September 2025. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/266557/erika-kirk-charlie-kirk-tv-address.
Religion News Service. “How Charlie Kirk Drew Power from His Influence with Young Christians.” Religion News Service, September 11, 2025. https://religionnews.com/2025/09/11/how-charlie-kirk-drew-power-from-his-influence-with-young-christians.
Charlie Kirk, remarks on Matthew 16:18, quoted in “The Bible in Context,” Instagram reel, accessed September 20, 2025, https://www.instagram.com/thebibleincontext/reel/DOhj8K_kUNc.
“Charlie Kirk’s TV Address,” Catholic News Agency, September 14, 2025, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/266557/erika-kirk-charlie-kirk-tv-address.
National Catholic Register, “Who Is Charlie Kirk’s Wife?” Accessed September, 22 2025, https://www.ncregister.com/blog/who-is-charlie-kirk-s-wife-catholic-faith
Shubal Stearns, “Sandy Creek Baptist Church,” North Carolina History Project, accessed September 22, 2025, https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/shubal-stearns-1706-1771/.
Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, Against the Oppressions of the Present Day (Boston: John Boyle, 1773), accessed September 22, 2025, https://name.umdl.umich.edu/n09952.0001.001.
John Leland, “Letter to James Madison,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed September 22, 2025, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0322.
John Gillies, Historical Collections of Great Awakenings (Edinburgh: William Oliphant, 1820), 112–135; George Whitefield, Journals, ed. John Gillies (London: 1741), 45–60; Richard T. Hughes, Revivalism and Separatism in Colonial New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 98–110.
TPUSA Faith Pastor's Summit - San Diego, September 13, 2023-September 15, 2023 - Accesssed September 23, 2025, https://lancewallnau.com/event/tpusa-faith-pastors-summit-san-diego-ca/
Rob McCoy, Accesed September 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Comments