Is Charlie Kirk a Martyr? A Biblical Look Through Stephen’s Story In Acts

Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and almost immediately his grieving wife and others began calling him a martyr. If you are like me, you may not fully understand what that word means or why it matters. In this first weekly devotional, I want to look at the meaning of martyrdom, trace it back to the story of Stephen in Acts, and then ask whether Charlie’s life and death fit that description. My goal is not to argue politics but to search the scriptures, examine the evidence, and see if I agree with those who used that word to describe him.

What is a martyr?

The word martyr comes from the Greek word, martys, which means witness. In history a martyr has been someone who suffers death or great pain because of their beliefs, convictions, or cause, especially for their faith.

Before Christians were murdered for their testimony about Jesus Christ, martyr simply meant a person who testified about something they had heard or seen. Over time, as Christians began facing persecution by Jewish leaders as well as Romans who saw their refusal to worship the emperer as disloyal, the word took on a much deeper meaning— someone who bears witness to their faith by suffering or even dying for it.

The first Christian martyr was Stephen, “a man full of faith and the holy spirit” (Acts 6:5). Stephen was one of the seven men chosen by the apostles to serve the early church, making sure food and resources were fairly distributed among widows (Acts 6:1-6). He quickly became known not only for service but also for his bold preaching and the miraculous signs God worked through him.

“Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8)

We don’t know exactly what was meant by “wonders and signs” but we can use contextual clues to guess. That phrase is used earlier in Acts to describe the miracles of the apostles. Things like healings, casting out evil spirits and other acts that pointed towards the power of God (see Acts 5:12-16).

We don’t know much else about Stephens life before he became a Christian but we do know that he boldly preached on the love of Jesus Christ to all who would listen. His preaching about Jesus being the Messiah, upset Jewish leaders from the Synagogue of Freedmen. They eventually accused him of blasphemy against Moses and God and to trigger an uprising amonst the Jews, they twisted his words to make it sound like he was dishonoring the Law of the temple (Acts 6:11-14).

So the Jewish leaders dragged him before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling council) expecting and hoping he would denounce Christ and admit that he made it all up. Scripture is silent here, but I picture the room overflowing with people, both Jews and Christians alike straining to listen if Stephen would admit that he made it all up.

In the speech that followed, Stephen traced the history of Israel from Abraham to Moses to Solomon, showing that God had always been at work beyond the temple walls. Meaning that God’s work was not only meant for Jews and Jewish leaders to experience.

Then he turned the tables on them. He accused the Jewish leaders of being just like their ancestors who also resisted God’s prophets. Then he boldly declared that they had betrayed and murdered the Righteous One, Jesus.

I imagine after he said that, there was a lot of shouting and crying and angry words hurled towards Stephen. I am sure people were calling for his death when Stephen looked up and saw a vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56). He proclaimed what he was seeing, probably with tears in his eyes and emotion dripping off of his words. I can only imagine how he felt in that moment.

Then “all hell broke loose”. The crowds couldn’t take it any longer. They grabbed Stephen and dragged him out into the streets and stoned him to death. As those fully in on their faith and similar to how Jesus treated his accusers, Stephen prayed for Jesus to receive his spirit and to forgive this sin against him. And with that, Stephen would forever be known as the first Christian Martyr.

Initial Thoughts

As a fellow Christian I often wonder how I would deal in my final moments. I don’t envision myself getting stoned to death for my faith or shot like Charlie was, but even as I am facing death hopefully later on in my years. Will Jesus present himself to me knowning that I am about to come be with him in heaven? Even in the absence of a holy vision, would I be able to feel peace in my final moments, knowing that I would soon get to meet my hero? Or would I be scared to leave my kids and husband behind?

I can imagine that it might have been easier for someone who saw Jesus raised from the dead or saw visions of him to feel peace in those final moments to pray first and ask to forgive.

I am not the kind of Christian that upsets the power structures of religion and empire, like Stephen was but as I reflect on Stephen’s story I can only wonder about Charlie Kirk. Did he see visions of Jesus that made him faithful to Christianity? Was it the divine hand of God that allowed him to quote scripture so eloquently at every turn, even when the debate got heated? Was it scripture that kept him from wavering even when it meant he might lose a debate?

Examining the Evidence

The central themes in Stephen’s story that highlight his martyrdom upon his death will serve as the basis for our investigation into whether or not Charlie Kirk should be considered a martyr.

• Did Charlie live with genuine faith in Christ and evidence of the Spirit at work in him?
• Was he living out his faith in action, serving others and showing Christ’s love?
• Did he clearly confess Jesus, even when threatened, opposed, or pressured to stop?
• Did his hope remain centered on Christ and eternity, rather than just earthly gain or recognition?
• Did Charlie’s response to persecution reflect the heart of Jesus (mercy, love, and trust in God) rather than hatred or revenge?

Faith and Spirit

The bible describes faith as trusting God fully. Said another way it is believing His promises, relying on His character and putting that belief into action. Hebrews 11:1 defines it as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith is not simply agreeing that God exist. Its living like you believe Him, even when circumstances are hard. For stephen, faith meant standing firm in the trust of Jesus as Messiah, no matter what it cost.

When Acts describes Stephen as “full of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5), it means God’s Spirit lived in him, guiding, empowering and transforming him. The Holy Spirit gives believers wisdom, courage, comfort and gifts to serve. In Stephen’s case, the Spirit enabled him to perform wonders, speak with boldness, forgive his enemies and even see the vision of Jesus in heaven.

Putting those together, Faith is our trust in God and the Holy Spirit is God’s presence within us that strengthens and sustains that trust. Stephen believed God’s promises and was empowered by the Spirit to live and die as a witness to Christ. But does Charlie Kirk embody that same Faith and Spirit?

Charlie Kirk gave repeated testimony of his faith in Jesus through his own words. He consistently declared, “I believe in the Bible, and I believe that Christ rose from the dead on the third day. This is the foundation of my faith and guides my actions.¹” He also described himself humbly, saying, “I’m nothing without Jesus. I’m a sinner. I fall incredibly short of the glory of God… I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, and it’s the most important decision I’ve ever made.”

In the final days of his life, he continued to proclaim the gospel publicly, writing “Jesus defeated death so you can live.²” He also affirmed the heart of Christian belief, stating, “Jesus Christ was a real person. He lived a perfect life, he was crucified, died and rose on the third day, and he is Lord and God over all.³” These consistent statements confirm that Charlie Kirk not only professed faith in Jesus but viewed it as the central truth shaping his life.

So I think we can agree that Charlie had faith in Christ. But was he being led by the Holy Spirit or was he simply a well researched man, telling people what he believes. Let’s look back at Stephen’s story to decide.

With at least the information we know about his life, it wasn’t Stephen himself who said, “I’m full of the Spirit.” Luke, writing in Acts, described him that way: “They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5). Later, others noticed his wisdom and power (Acts 6:10), and even his face shining like an angel (Acts 6:15). So it was outsiders who decided he was a worthy man “full of Spirit.”

That means the evidence that someone is “full of the Holy Spirit” often comes from how their life appears to others:

• Do they act with unusual courage, wisdom, and love?
• Do others recognize God’s presence in them?
• Do people describe them as Spirit-led or Spirit-empowered, even if not in those exact words?

Shortly before he died, Charlie said he wanted to be remembered for his “courage for his faith.⁴” One of the things that I found fascinating listening to Charlie’s debates over the years was how respectful he was when someone who disagreed with him came up to the mic. Especially when it was a topic that was uncomfortable to discuss like racism, gender identity and abortion rights. He would often praise the person for having the courage to stand up at a microphone surrounded by Charlie’s supporters and voice their dissenting opinions. He had a knack for calming tension that I myself have not been blessed with. Then he would testify.

Russell Brand once referred to Charlie as a “Right-Wing Rainman⁵,” and the description fit in an unexpected way. I would call him a Christian “Rainman,” because he could speak about scripture with the same precision that he spoke about current events. It often seemed as though he had the entire Bible memorized. In debates, he linked passages together seamlessly, even under pressure, and he never seemed to waver. That consistency and clarity led me to believe he was being guided by the Holy Spirit, which supports the idea that he was truly full of the Spirit.

So did Charlie Kirk have faith and was he full of the Holy Spirit? He openly professed faith in Jesus, calling Him Lord and Savior and declaring that belief as the foundation of his life. His own words, along with the testimony of his wife and others, show that he lived with courage, conviction, and wisdom that many recognized as Spirit-led. Taken together, the evidence supports that he was a man full of faith and Spirit.

Service and Compassion

Like Stephen, Charlie Kirk lived out his faith through service. Stephen was chosen to help distribute food to widows in the early church, showing compassion through practical care for the vulnerable. Even in his death, he demonstrated mercy by praying for forgiveness for those who stoned him. Charlie’s service looked different but still reflected action shaped by faith.

Testimonies describe how he mentored young people, offered guidance that changed lives, and invested in the next generation by encouraging them to live with conviction. Christian leaders and students alike said he “lived his faith in action,” and many remembered his influence as both courageous and compassionate. While Stephen’s service was local and hands-on and Charlie’s was broader and tied to public mentorship and activism, both men showed that genuine faith expresses itself in serving others and demonstrating love beyond oneself.

Even those who opposed Charlie Kirk’s political views admitted his faith moved him to invest in people. California Governor Gavin Newsom praised Kirk’s outreach, noting Kirk’s influence in how many “young men and boys heard the bell and answered the bell in terms of organizing on campuses and supporting the dialogue.⁶” While not agreeing with all of Kirk’s views, Newsom recognized that Kirk stepped into a gap of isolation and gave many young people a sense of community and purpose — evidence that his investment in others was more than political theater, but driven by something deeply relational and spiritual.

Similarly, writer Elwood Watson, who disagreed with much of Kirk’s ideology, noted that Kirk was “revered by numerous conservative college students,⁷” pointing to the respect and influence he earned through mentorship. These acknowledgments, even from those who challenged him, show that his service and compassion were not merely political but flowed from his faith in Christ and were expressed in how he mentored and shepherded the next generation. So how did Stephen’s critics respond to him?

Stephen’s critics in Acts did not recognize his service or compassion at all. The members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen argued with him but “could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him” (Acts 6:10). Instead of admitting his Spirit-led wisdom, they secretly persuaded others to bring false charges of blasphemy (Acts 6:11–14).

When Stephen gave his long speech before the Sanhedrin, instead of acknowledging his boldness or compassion, they were “furious” and gnashed their teeth at him (Acts 7:54). Even as Stephen prayed for their forgiveness while being stoned, they did not stop or reflect on his mercy. His critics rejected him completely and saw no good in him, even though his actions were shaped by service, truth, and love.

In Acts, Stephen’s bold witness to Christ stirred his critics to fury. They gnashed their teeth, dragged him out, and stoned him rather than accept the Spirit speaking through him. Charlie Kirk faced a parallel kind of rejection in our time. Prosecutors say Tyler Robinson, the man charged with killing Charlie, told others that Charlie ‘spreads too much hate,’ and they cite those statements as his motive. Even after his death, some critics mocked Charlie online⁸ and wrote they had “zero sympathy⁹,” showing the same hardness of heart that met Stephen. While the circumstances differ, the pattern is the same. Both men declared their faith openly, and both were met with violent opposition and contempt from those who refused to recognize the Spirit at work in them.

Bold Witness

Just as Stephen’s proclamation of Christ challenged a system where religion and government were deeply intertwined, Charlie’s public witness sometimes collided with modern political and cultural systems that also claim moral authority.

Stephen was accused by the religious leaders of speaking wrongly about Moses and the temple. And Charlie Kirk was often told by critics that his version of Christianity was not biblical. When he spoke out about abortion, racism, and gender issues, many religious voices argued that he distorted the gospel or mixed politics with faith. Yet like Stephen, who did not soften his message before the Sanhedrin, Charlie continued to proclaim Christian principles on controversial topics even when they drew sharp opposition. His boldness lay not only in confessing Jesus publicly, but in doing so on issues that guaranteed criticism from both secular audiences and fellow Christians.

Stephen and Charlie Kirk both chose to confess their faith publicly even when danger surrounded them. Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin, the most powerful religious and political council of his day, and gave one of the longest speeches in the New Testament. He walked through Israel’s history, declared that Jesus was the Righteous One, and accused the leaders themselves of resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51–52). He knew that such a message would enrage them, yet he did not soften his words. His boldness was not only in speaking truth but in doing so to an audience with the power to take his life and they did.

Charlie faced a different but parallel kind of risk. Pastor Rob McCoy testified that Kirk “had no fear of death and was not afraid¹⁰” to stand before crowds, even with death threats against him. Much like Stephen in Jerusalem, Charlie chose open, public spaces such as university campuses and outdoor venues, where opposition was common and security was limited. His final appearance at Utah Valley University was covered as an outdoor campus event by multiple newsrooms, who noted the vulnerability of the setup. Still, he proclaimed Jesus and Christian truth before thousands, even though the setting left him exposed.

Both men illustrate the theme of bold witness. Stephen proclaimed Christ before hostile leaders who responded with violence. Charlie did the same in modern settings, pressing forward in his public confession of Jesus despite threats that eventually cost him his life.

Heavenly Vision

Charlie Kirk often spoke in ways that revealed a vision beyond this life. He declared his belief in the resurrection of Jesus and told audiences that those who follow Christ have eternal life. In one statement, he said, “We as Christians have hope that we are going to see our loved ones again and that we will be in heaven and that we will be in perfect peace and that this is not it. In fact, there’s something even better awaiting us.¹¹” Testimonies from those close to him echoed this focus, with friends and leaders affirming that his hope was grounded in Jesus and the promise of eternity rather than the temporary rewards of this world.

Stephen’s vision in Acts was extraordinary. As he was testifying before the Sanhedrin he looked up and saw heaven open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. His faith was not tied to earthly success or recognition but to the reality of Christ’s kingdom and eternal glory. Charlie’s words and witness point in the same direction, though not under the same immediate threat.

While the evidence is not as dramatic or as explicitly tied to impending death as Stephen’s, it is still strong. Charlie Kirk’s words and testimony show that his hope was not rooted in earthly gain or recognition but was centered on Christ and eternity. Even if he never claimed that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, Charlie believed it, which may mean his faith was just as strong as Stephens.

Christlike Forgiveness

Stephen’s life and death are remembered for his extraordinary Christlike forgiveness. As he was being stoned, he prayed, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). He followed Jesus’ own example on the cross, choosing mercy over hatred even in his final breath. Stephen knew his persecutors were wrong, yet he entrusted justice to God and extended love to those who were killing him. His response reflected a heart completely centered on Christ rather than revenge.

Charlie Kirk’s story shows a similar pattern, though in a different context. He openly admitted, “I’m nothing without Jesus. I’m a sinner. I fall incredibly short of the glory of God,” pointing to God’s grace as the source of his strength. He recognized that unlike Jesus, who was perfect, he sometimes fell short and his words did not always come across as intended. Yet he devoted his life to becoming clearer and more consistent in speaking truth with grace. He often quoted, “Jesus stood for 100% Grace and Truth¹²,” and sought to embody that balance by engaging opponents firmly but without hatred, allowing room for disagreement while pointing back to Christ’s love. His goal was persuasion shaped by grace rather than retaliation.

Both men demonstrated forgiveness not as weakness but as strength flowing from their faith. Stephen forgave his executioners in the ultimate act of mercy, while Charlie devoted his life to proclaiming truth with compassion, resisting hatred and revenge as he faced criticism and threats.

I don’t know what Charlie thought when he took his last breathe. I can only speculate that he was thinking of his beautiful wife Erica and his two little girls in that moment. And wasn’t focused on asking Jesus to forgive his shooter. There wasn’t time to such a thing as that, so I can’t speculate but I can speak to what I noticed in his debates.

Charlie Kirk could be sharp and forceful in debates, but the weight of his criticism fell on ideas rather than on the people presenting them. He pushed back strongly against arguments he believed were harmful or unbiblical, yet he did not resort to personal insults or demeaning language about the individuals themselves. He often reminded audiences that it was “okay to disagree,” emphasizing that disagreement did not erase someone’s dignity. This distinction matters because it shows that while Charlie was unafraid to speak truth boldly, he sought to separate the person from the argument. His approach reflects the balance he admired in Jesus, standing firmly for truth while still showing grace to people even when he opposed their views. This suggests forgiveness of the person speaking the ideas even if there was no statements of “I forgive you.”

Was Charlie Kirk a Martyr?

The question at the heart of my investigation is whether Charlie Kirk fits the description of a martyr, measured against the example of Stephen, the first Christian martyr. Stephen was full of faith and the Holy Spirit, served with compassion, bore bold witness to Christ even under threat, fixed his hope on eternity through a heavenly vision, and forgave his persecutors as they took his life.

In Charlie’s case, the evidence shows many of the same themes. He openly confessed his faith in Jesus and said it was the foundation of his life. He served through mentoring and investing in young people, showing compassion in his own way. He continued to speak publicly about Christ even when he faced threats, a boldness that eventually cost him his life. His words reflected a vision fixed on eternity, not only on earthly recognition. While not perfect, he strove to balance truth with grace, seeking persuasion rather than revenge, which reflects Christlike forgiveness.

While Stephen’s vision of Christ and his prayer of forgiveness were unique moments of Spirit-filled witness, Charlie’s life and death show strong parallels. Both men declared their faith openly, stood firm in the face of opposition, and pointed others toward Christ even when it cost them everything.

You are free to draw your own conclusions. You may call this a biased take on Charlie Kirk’s life or even tell me that I am wrong. But disagreement with Charlie’s politics or theology does not erase the evidence that his life and death fit the biblical themes of martyrdom. You cannot use the fact that you disliked him or thought he was wrong to dismiss the conclusion that he died as a witness to Christ.

Back in Stephen’s day, both religious leaders and secular voices insisted that he was wrong too. They called him a blasphemer, twisted his words, and condemned him for speaking boldly about Jesus. Yet scripture still records him as the first Christian martyr. In the same way, Charlie spoke many of the same truths—about sin, grace, and the lordship of Christ—and faced hostility from critics on every side. His courage to confess Jesus publicly, even when it ultimately cost him his life, places him in the same stream of witness that began with Stephen. Whether you agree with him or not, the testimony of his faith, his service, his boldness, his heavenly vision, and his effort at Christlike forgiveness mark him as a modern martyr.

Personal Reflections

Studying the lives of Stephen and Charlie Kirk has reminded me that martyrdom is not only about the final moment of death but also about the daily choice to live as a witness for Christ. Both men show us what it looks like to hold fast to faith, to serve with compassion, to speak truth with boldness, to keep our eyes fixed on eternity, and to forgive when wronged. I may never stand before a council like Stephen or face the public stage like Charlie, but I still encounter moments every day where I can choose to reflect the same Spirit.

Living this out does not require being a polarizing figure or drawing thousands to a speech. It may look like showing grace in a disagreement with a friend, speaking truth kindly when it is easier to stay silent, or forgiving someone who hurt me even when I would rather hold a grudge. Heavenly vision reminds me that this world is not the end, and faith reminds me that God is enough when I fall short. From Stephen I learn courage to face opposition, and from Charlie I learn that even in imperfection, a life devoted to Christ can leave a lasting witness.

Citations:

1. Quoted by Randy Alcorn at Eternal Perspective Ministries, September 12, 2025. ↩︎
2. X post by Charlie Kirk, September 6, 2025. ↩︎
3. “Charlie Kirk’s last 24 hours before his Utah assassination: messages of faith, justice.” Fox News, September 12, 2025. ↩︎
4. “An Unfiltered Conversation With Charlie Kirk | Fake News, Corruption, & Greed.” The Iced Coffee Hour, June 29, 2025. ↩︎
5. Post on X, Russell Brand, September 10, 2025. ↩︎
6. “Gavin Newsom praises Charlie Kirk’s outreach to young men, suggests Dems do more of their own.” Politico, September 16, 2025. ↩︎
7. Charlie Kirk’s Assassination, American Violence, Unhinged, Right Wing Rhetoric and the Ovewhelmingly Compassionate and Conciliatory Response From Black America! Medium, September 15, 2025. ↩︎
8. “Pilots, Teachers, Professors Face Losing Jobs Over Charlie Kirk Posts.” Newsweek, September 14, 2025. ↩︎
9. T“Tennessee university fires dean over ‘zero sympathy’ post after Charlie Kirk killing.” USA Today, September 11, 2025. ↩︎
10. “Charlie Kirk leaves behind powerful Christian faith legacy after tragic shooting.” Fox News, September 10, 2025. ↩︎
11. Charlie Kirk was proud champion of Christianity on campuses nationwide: ‘I’m nothing without Jesus’ Fox News, September 11, 2025. ↩︎
12. Instagram Reel. Instagram, September 10, 2025. Recording date unknown. ↩︎