Be neither terrorized nor radicalized

Charlie Kirk’s assassination has rocked the conservative world. His death was sudden, violent, and tragic. As we grieve, it is worth considering what his legacy demands of us.

Kirk was a warrior, but a “winsome” one. Confident yet charitable, he made space for debate. His hallmark challenge—“prove me wrong”—wasn’t a taunt but an invitation. He trusted truth to win.

That approach drew an astonishing following. Turning Point USA sprouted thousands of chapters across the country. Campus events overflowed with students hungry for someone who would defend reality with clarity and conviction. Kirk was confident without being cruel, bold without being brash—and this was persuasive to a large and ever-growing portion of students and young adults.

That is also what made him hated. Those waging war on reality loathed his influence. We are still putting the pieces together about the shooter’s motives, but we know this: Many on the left are openly celebrating his death. They gloat that he was gunned down while warning about transgender ideology—that great lie imposed on the West in recent years. They think he had it coming for his bold defense of Biblical and natural truths. For these radicals, the message is simple: Opposition to their project of rewriting reality merits and invites violent elimination.

In this moment, conservatives face at least two important temptations—being terrorized into silence or radicalized unto violence.

The first is obvious. The radical left hopes violence will silence dissent. It is not lost on me the coincidental timing of this tragedy as I write this on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, when terrorists sought to erode American confidence and call into question Western values—many of which Charlie passionately defended. A sizable set of cultural revolutionaries similarly want conservatives and Christians to cower.

But the second is more subtle yet equally dangerous: the temptation to let rage consume us. Already voices on the right are calling for vengeance. Some will be tempted to abandon Christian convictions for raw power, to return violence with violence. That would be to mimic the radical left, not defeat it. Political victory at the cost of one’s soul is no victory at all.

Kirk’s murder is further evidence that winsomeness is no shield. I have written before that many of our contemporaries, especially those in elite positions in media and academia, do not care how kind or reasonable Christians are. Defend classical Christian moral teaching and you will be branded a dangerous bigot. That was Kirk’s fate. His tone did not spare him.

But that doesn’t mean his way failed. On the contrary, it was working. His method of persuasion was winning over thousands of young people. He contributed to the “vibe shift,” showing that the emperor of postmodern ideology has no clothes. That is why his opponents feared him. Abandoning his approach now would hand them the victory.

Witnesses to the truth can never fully evade the possibility of martyrdom. This is one of the ironies of those who identify Charlie as a martyr but demand the powers step in to brutally punish their opponents—not just Kirk’s killer—so that they can eradicate not only the left’s influence but any possibility of sharing Charlie’s fate.

Many seem to want Trump to be Theodosius while ignoring bishop Ambrose’s rebuke. The Christian emperor got caught up in rage when one of his allies and subjects was killed, as a result of which he lashed out with disproportionate wrath, ordering a brutal massacre. Ambrose publicly rebuked him for such action and refused him—the emperor—access to the sacrament, thus excommunicating the vengeful ruler until he repented. To his credit, Theodosius humbled himself, sought forgiveness, and even changed the law to restrain rash punishments. Augustine later praised that moment as a model of Christian rule: justice tempered by faith.

The lesson is clear. Resist evil, yes—but do not become evil. Kirk’s death must not push conservatives into the vengeful, Christ-denying politics he opposed. His way—speaking the truth boldly, with persuasion and charity—was both faithful and fruitful. To discard it now would betray his legacy.

Now is the time to grieve and to pray for justice. It is a time to demand accountability from those who normalize hostility. But it is not the time to forsake the faith Kirk lived and died for. Nor is it the time to discard the strategy that made him so dangerous to the left: confident truth-telling.

Charlie Kirk’s way was working. Those opposed to reality who are celebrating his death hated it. And that is one of the reasons why it must continue.