Charlie Kirk--Whose Martyr?

Following the tragic killing of organizer and activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, an intense debate among Christians in the United States began: Was Charlie Kirk a martyr of the Christian faith?

Kirk as Martyr for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod?

On July 23, 2026, the biggest "conservative" Lutheran denomination in the United States, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS), concluded its triennial convention where it discussed and decided doctrinal matters and governance issues of church-wide importance.

When the convention began on July 19, 2026, three separate overtures--proposals for discussion and decision--were before the LCMS's pastoral and lay delegates that centered around the idea of enshrining Charlie Kirk as Christian martyr.

Overture 4-53 asked the delegates "to acknowledge the witness of Charlie Kirk and establish September 10 as day of prayer for faithful witness in our time." While noting that Lutherans have traditionally commemorated and given thanks for those who have "confessed Christ unto death," the overture also asserted that Kirk was "a public Christian and outspoken defender of biblical truths on life, marriage, and religious liberty" and that his "public efforts and final witness were inseparably tied to his confession of Christ, and his death occurred in the context of cultural hostility toward the Gospel."

Overture 4-54 asked the delegates "to recognize Charles James Kirk as a Christian martyr." This overture noted in its preamble that Kirk was shot "moments after giving a defense for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ and confessing the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ" and asserted that he was "one of the most outspoken Christians of his generation" who "encouraged young people to go to a Bible-believing church and frequently gave a defense for the reason for the hope that was in him with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15b)." The preamble also asserted that "many young people were led to go to church and confess their Christian faith on account of Charlie Kirk's confession."

This overture then went on to laud Kirk's work on college campuses "where so many young people abandon the Christian faith;" Kirk's encouragement "to lead a chaste and decent life," "to get married and have children," "and to raise children to be Christians;" but also Kirk's "defense of the unborn against the murder of abortion," his speaking "against transgender ideology," and his defense of "biblical marriage as the lifelong union between one man and one woman." Importantly, the overture asserted that Kirk "was murdered publicly before the world because of his Christian witness."

Overture 4-55, finally, featured the same preamble and opening whereases as the previous overture. While it recognized that the LCMS was "not in full doctrinal agreement with Charlie Kirk"--as if Kirk were some type of normative doctrinal standard--it affirmed that it was "nonetheless . . . a Bible-believing church body."

According to this overture, the broad definition of "Christian martyr" applicable to Kirk was "any Christian who . . . is killed for his public profession of the Christian faith."

None of these overtures became a resolution the 2026 convention adopted. Instead, the convention adopted by a wide margin something a floor committee put together based on these overtures, namely, a resolution (4-07) condemning political violence and encouraging participation in public life and, by a narrow margin, rejected a proposed amendment that sought to insert Charlie Kirk's name in that resolution.

On the last day of the convention, however, a delegate proposed a new resolution "to address modern day martyrdom" that softened the certainty of the earlier overtures regarding the motive of Charlie Kirk's killer by claiming that "the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and suspicions that Kirk's faith played a large role in the attacker's motive have brought concerns for many parishioners about growing violence against Christians in America."

At the same time, the proposed resolution placed Kirk's death in a sweeping narrative about thousands of Christians being "killed for their faith in 2025" in America, Syria, and Nigeria, according to a Catholic prelate. An amendment was proposed by a delegate to strike the paragraph mentioning Kirk by name because no clear motive for the assailant had been identified as of the date of the vote. Yet this amendment was defeated by a narrow margin. After a mere 12 minutes of debate--without any meaningful instruction (or "catechesis") on the resolution's key term "martyrdom"--the resolution as originally proposed was adopted by a wide margin.

Who Was Charlie Kirk?

Evidently, a person with a big public profile like Kirk was many things to many people. To be sure, there will be things to "like" about him from a Lutheran perspective, such as his straightforward affirmation of Christ's resurrection and divinity referenced in one of the overtures above. At the same time, his doctrinal record as a whole is uneven, as also generally acknowledged in the overtures discussed above.

Yet Kirk's doctrinal unevenness--to put it charitably--is more concerning than to be "covered" by a general reference. A couple examples of this problematic record must suffice here.

When asked what he would tell people if they had only 30 seconds to live, Kirk stated that he would say they should repent and ask Jesus to "come in as your Lord and Savior," because in God's judgment, the only thing that matters is "whether or not you have Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior." Importantly, Kirk added that when meeting God's judgment, it's not "all the good things you did or the moral scorecard" that mattered.

In general Evangelical parlance--growing out of the "Lordship salvation" concept advanced by John MacArthur (more on him below) and others especially in the 1980s--"accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior" means to underscore that one cannot accept Jesus as Savior without also accepting him as Lord over one's life.

While this phrase can be understood correctly (as explained by Luther in his catechisms), it will almost certainly be misunderstood in a legalistic, works righteous manner in the short-hand version presented by Kirk to a dying person (despite the clarifications he added in the clip linked above) because, as Lutherans confess, the "opinion of the law" inheres in fallen human nature. As a result of this ingrained legalism,

Human reason naturally admires [good works], and because it sees only works, and does not understand or consider faith, it dreams accordingly that these works merit remission of sins and justify.

When asked elsewhere how to get closer to God, Kirk emphasized that "you have to choose and decide to want to get close to God" but also noted that there are different ways of getting closer to God, such as prayer, bible study, and worship music, implying that Christians are free to choose what works best for them (Kirk noted that "rational" bible study worked best for him). When asked what he would recommend to a new Christian to learn more about the bible, Kirk recommended, among other things, reading the bible, C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, Baptist minister Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, the commentaries by Calvinist John MacArthur, and the "Rational Bible" commentary by Dennis Prager, the Jewish founder of PragerU who recently defended the use of pornography.

Kirk did not recommend any Lutheran study materials. Nor did he urge the new Christian, or the dying person, to focus on, and believe in, the gospel of Christ crucified above all else and let go of the "opinion of the law" regarding Christ's lordship. Nor did he recommend the means of grace to grow closer to God in the power of the Holy Spirit.

An equally concerning series of Kirk's serious doctrinal errors is directly related to the theme of this website--the relationship between "church and state." According to Kirk, Matthew 16:18--where Christ responds to Peter's confession of him as the Christ by stating that "on this rock I will build my church (ekklesia)"--means that "my government structure" will be built on "this rock." Proper government, therefore, requires government structures to be built on Christ, according to Kirk, and must prominently involve Christians.

In a related clip, he made a similar point about "ekklesia" in Matth. 16 meaning "government structure" and also claimed that "the type of government that is talked about in the word of God" has been realized in the United States, i.e., a "constitutional republic" with "checks and balances" and the sovereignty of a Christian people.

Students of the 16th century will be familiar with this type of confusion regarding the Old Testament's moral and judicial laws among Luther's opponents, such as Thomas Müntzer and Andreas von Bodenstein, aka Karlstadt. Luther reminded those who would listen to distinguish between what God in Scripture said to others (e.g., the people of Israel) and what he said to them. See, e.g., Am. Ed. 35:169-172; 40:96-98.

Accordingly, Kirk's view of "politics as an on-ramp to Jesus," of "rowing in the streams of [political] liberty" to Christ as its source, should be problematic for Lutherans, to say the least, given Luther's constant battles to distinguish Christian liberty--faith as the freedom from the condemnation of the law in the heart--from political freedom. Luther also constantly underscored that the gospel is the only "on-ramp to Jesus" there is.

Lutherans should see as another of Kirk's "misses" on "church and state" his insistence that churches--not governments--should provide material welfare assistance to the poor. The fact that some Lutheran church bodies seem to have embraced this division of labor does not make it any more Lutheran.

As an aside, the first clip on "ekklesia" linked above also gives a good example of Kirk's evasive, aggressive, and "gotcha" debating style that seeks to make "his" points instead of responding to (a fellow Christian's) good questions and that is then carefully curated before being publicized online for maximum effect. While this clip could be a good example to use in Sunday school to show congregants how not to debate, the overtures referenced above presented Kirk as a model for how Christians should debate.

Another concerning doctrinal point is Kirk's thinking on Israel. On the one hand, Kirk described himself as a Christian Zionist, that is, as a Christian who believed "in the scriptural land rights given to Israel" and "the fulfillment of prophecy." This is certainly not what Lutherans (including Palestinian Lutherans) believe. Yet, as Kirk saw it, this gave him a "bulletproof resume" defending Israel on campuses and social media. Kirk also saw Israel's struggle against "Islamo-fascist barbarians" as a fight for "civilization" and "the West." Palestinians, including Palestinian Christians, would strongly disagree with Kirk's characterization of the state of Israel as a civilizational force for good.

On the other hand, Kirk wondered out loud why the October 2023 attacks against Israel could succeed as much as they did and speculated about a stand-down order issued by the Israeli government to allow the attacks and provide a reason to conduct ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Kirk hoped Israel's counteroffensive would be targeted against the perpetrators. As time went on, however, Kirk expressed frustration with Jewish donors to his organization who appeared intent on stifling debate of Israel's conduct in Gaza. A few days before his death, Kirk even went so far as as to state that he had "no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause."

After these doctrinal points, let's consider a couple moral issues as well to assess Kirk, given that so much of Kirk's appeal consisted in his moral arguments against abortion, gay marriage, and transgender rights, as highlighted in the LCMS overtures summarized above. But morality is, evidently, not limited to "doing the right thing" when it comes to these three narrow issues. (See Prager's defense of pornography mentioned above.) And morality is certainly not limited to denouncing others of "doing the wrong thing" when it comes to these narrow issues, even though that has a long tradition in American political Evangelicalism.

As for Kirk, he was among those who continued to maintain that there were "very good questions" about the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections that saw President Trump defeated, and he did so well after it was clear that there simply was no evidence of substantial election fraud against President Trump.

Before the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. capitol by supporters of President Trump, Kirk had promised that his Turning Point organization would send "80+ buses full of patriots to D.C. to fight for this president." In the lead-up to the event, Kirk stated, he "was getting 500 emails a minute calling for civil war."

After the event, Kirk argued that, while there were some criminals involved in the storming, "many others in the area [were] not criminals" but were "simply peace loving, supporters of the president." Still, when testifying before the bipartisan U.S. House select committee on the January 6 attack, Kirk invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination when asked about a $1.5 million donation in exchange for sending protesters to D.C. for that event.

This conduct--undermining the peaceful transfer of power after a lawful election without legitimate evidence supporting this conduct--is inconsistent with Kirk's constant pointing to the U.S. Constitution and his assertion of holding the moral high ground on contested social issues. While Kirk was focused on some individual aspects of the Fifth and Sixth Commandments (marriage, transgender, abortion), his claim to be a moral leader of the American youth would have been more persuasive, if he had spoken truth to power--including to Pres. Trump--also in this matter, consistent with the Eighth Commandment.

The same applies to Kirk's divisive, derisive, sweeping, and untruthful comments imposing on Black professionals, especially female Black professionals, the burden to prove that they are more than "affirmative action picks." In 2023, Kirk claimed (at about minute 53 of this clip) that former First Lady Michelle Obama (a graduate of Harvard Law School), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (also a graduate of Harvard Law), and other prominent African American women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a White person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."

Relatedly, Kirk stated in 2024 (context starting here): "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" In the "Thoughtcrime" segment of his show, from which this quote is taken, Kirk and his young male associates reacted to an interview with the CEO of United Airlines where the CEO stated that United's goal was to have 50% of women and people of color in their Aviate academy. Kirk and friends skipped this important detail and proceeded to react as if United was trying to draw 50% of their active pilots from women and people of color which, for Kirk and friends, meant that United inevitably would have to lower their hiring standards.

In a subsequent interview with Megyn Kelly, Kirk defended his statement about Black pilots. In that interview, Kelly claimed that "the left" had created "the world" to which Kirk was reacting--a world in which, allegedly, "somebody's skin color [is] the sole criterion for hiring." Kirk alleged that "DEI" invited or even caused "unwholesome thinking" of the type he had expressed in the quote about Black pilots, while claiming that he--not being a bigot--believed that "anybody, of any skin color can become a qualified pilot."

In this interview, Kirk did not see anything wrong with the fact that 81% of United's pilots were White and only 3-4% Black, because "those pesky safe flights" he and everybody enjoys apparently resulted from this ratio. Kirk then sought to support his claims about Black pilots as a presumptive safety liability by pointing to "similar quota based action programs." Without giving any additional details, Kirk alleged that such "action programs" invariably lowered the standards whenever used and therefore would inevitably lower the standards for pilots. (A similar argument from Kirk is found here.)

Yet while essentially claiming that "DEI made me commit a thought crime," Kirk failed to mention that it's the Federal Aviation Administration--not individual airlines--that sets the minimum standards all pilots must meet, regardless of the color of their skin. And he again did not mention that United's CEO was specifically talking about a quota for admission to their flight academy, not their active piloting staff.

Is Kirk's way of discussing Black pilots and female professionals modeling for America's youth what it means to "defend our neighbor, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything," as Luther taught in the Small Catechism? Is it conducive to social peace which, in turn, provides space for the proclamation of the gospel (1 Tim. 2:1-7)? Or is it a strategy any "debater of this age" (1 Cor. 1:20) would employ to generate clicks, visibility, income, and political power as an outrage entrepreneur? Kirk's approach to these open wounds of American history is certainly one reason why African American ministers have rejected demands to declare Kirk a Christian martyr.

Relatedly, what seems strikingly absent from Kirk's constant media presence was any discussion of love that serves, but does not harm, the neighbor as the fulfillment of the law, as done by Luther, e.g., in a sermon on Rom. 13:8-10. Also absent was any discussion of the Christian virtue of equity (e.g., Phil. 4:5), which Luther explained (along Aristotelian lines) as setting one's rights aside to overlook sins of the neighbor and preserve peace in society and as adjusting the law's general demands to what is possible for the individual and beneficial in a given situation.

Instead, Kirk simply equated love and truth in the sense of calling the neighbor to repentance, as in the case of the woman at the well in John 8. There is certainly a place and time for calling sinners repentance, and it was that place and time in John 8. But Luther's approach was much more nuanced in keeping with his distinction of the two kingdoms. While the law is used to rebuke sin in any and all of its forms in the kingdom of God's grace to prepare the way for the gospel of Christ's gracious forgiveness of all sins, the law needs to be moderated by love and equity in the kingdom of the world--which includes overlooking sins and prudently recognizing what is possible at a given time and place--lest it jeopardize external peace.

Thus, love is simply not the same as truth. Luther understood that too much truth can have counterproductive effects among sinners in this world (as opposed to the church), namely, social division that leads to civil strife that does the devil's work of killing or permanently driving away people before they can hear the gospel that alone saves them from their sin. But, as seen in the discussion of ekklesia above, Kirk did not really recognize a distinction of the two kingdoms and simply argued that the Christians' spiritual power entitles them--and only them--to rule on earth (at least in the United States).

Kirk also drew on the "order of love" from the Catholic tradition to establish that one must first love Christ, then family, then community, then nation, etc. Thus, he argued that one must love one's own country before one can love anybody else. Pope Francis criticized Vice President Vance for making a similar argument that reduces Christian love to a wooden, inflexible human construct (which is patently not what Aquinas taught). Indeed, the command to love the neighbor--in fact, to become a neighbor to those who are close by and in need--is demonstrated by the good Samaritan. For this Samaritan, it did not matter that the injured Jew was not part of his national group. As a result, the good Samaritan became a channel of God's gifts to the Jew to meet his needs. And Christ commended what the Samaritan did.

There is a reason why Christ, in Matthew 25, puts us on notice that he will specifically inquire about our works of physical mercy on the Last Day, including to the prisoner, the hungry, and the stranger. Christianity, after all, is not a college campus debating club where "winning" and "owning the libs" is the point. It is the body of Christ, joined together by saving faith in Christ, that is ever active in love of the neighbor in our daily lives according to the Ten Commandments.

As for equity, Kirk equated it with "equality of outcomes" and branded it as "evil," as something that had to be opposed at all costs for the sake of the kind of liberty that leads to different, unequal outcomes. A positive definition of equity--consistent with the longstanding philosophical and biblical tradition shared by Luther (and Thomas Aquinas)--was apparently beyond Kirk.

I've discussed these important aspects of Luther's teachings on how to lead a Christian life in this world in my book on God's masks. Sadly, these aspects are often overlooked and omitted from teaching how Christians should live in this world according to Luther. This omission lends itself to portraying, or rather caricaturing, Luther as if he were some rigid law-and-order type or tough-talking social media "bro" who tries to impose "the truth" on others without concern for their actual wellbeing or for social peace.

Based on the above points, my take on Kirk is that he clearly was an Evangelical, although some claim he was very close to converting to Catholicism (his wife Erika's religion) prior to his death (despite prior misgivings about Mary and despite posthumous affirmations of Kirk's Protestant bona fides). Or maybe he was just "very close to" his Catholic pastor. Regardless of his precise denominational affiliation, Kirk was confused about key doctrines, including the distinction of the two kingdoms, the distinction of law and gospel, and love as the summary of God's moral law. Yet despite of, or because of, this confusion, he excelled at welding parts of Christianity or Protestantism to key parts of a political project that seeks to prepare America's "comeback" as a Christian or Protestant nation.

As others have observed, Kirk had articulated his standard-issue conservative political views--"free markets," "fiscal responsibility," etc.--in an expressly secular manner before he began undergirding them with Christian/religious rhetoric only a few years before his death. It appears, Kirk began to do so after a meeting with California pastor Roy McCoy in 2019. McCoy co-founded Turning Point Faith with Kirk and is a leader in the "Seven Mountains" movement, which Kirk embraced as well.

Despite his confidence in articulating his theological positions, Kirk--who had never attended seminary--was in actuality a novice when it came to communicating Christian theology. To be sure, Kirk was intelligent and eloquent. Many found him likable and persuasive. But there's a serious risk when popular novices take it upon themselves to teach Christian doctrine to others, especially large audiences, especially in complex, nuanced matters such as the proper relationship between the two kingdoms. See James 3:1.

Luther emphatically warned about the dire spiritual and physical consequences that follow when young, inexperienced leaders are put in charge. As Luther observed, such people are all about strictly following laws and rules but know nothing about the need to moderate these rules by love and equity to make it possible for sinners to live together in outward peace:

A government and ruler, it is said, is a living law. But the theologians say that the law is the counsel of a wise man. For although a law is prescribed and enacted, understanding and reason are a necessary part of the law so that it is properly guided and used in all sorts of cases. For it is impossible for a government enacting law to foresee and consider in advance all cases that may occur in general and in particular; for these cases are countless.

This is why the theologians hold that, whenever a law is considered, it necessarily includes consideration of the counsel of a devout man. This man guides and rules the law in all cases that occur once the law is enacted, lest it become harmful [Rom. 13:10], and so preserves the true purposes of the law, namely, to be beneficial and preserve social peace. For if a law militates against love, it is no law. For love is a mistress of the law. And if anyone wishes to follow the law without moderation, love commands the law to be silent, lest the law teach injustice, not justice, in some cases.

This is why the German proverb says that a young physician needs a new cemetery; that a young and inexperienced jurist throws everything into strife and war; and that a young theologian fills hell with souls. For all these--because they lack experience which alone makes prudent--judge and do everything according to their laws and rules. This is why they stumble and err, greatly damaging the bodies and possessions of many people.

Learn therefore that love and peace master and govern all virtues and laws, as Aristotle nicely discusses the moderation of the laws and equity. And Augustine . . . says [in his Rule] that, in a group of people, not all individuals are to be clothed, fed, and ruled in the same way. For not all can be equal in strength and ability. This puts it wisely and well. (St. L. Ed. 1:846-847; see Am. Ed. 2:340.)

I do remember a time when Lutherans like those gathered at the LCMS convention would have taken every opportunity to warn their members against the type of serious doctrinal confusion espoused by Kirk. Those who would respond by stating "but he gets the gospel right, doesn't he?" would be identified as "gospel reductionists." Indeed, Lutheran pastors once warned their flock against listening to Evangelical radio stations and perusing other non-Lutheran religious materials.

That caution seems to be a matter of the past, at least for the majority of the LCMS delegates who gathered and voted at the 2026 convention. What seemed to matter to them was that a person affirms Christ's resurrection and divinity and then shares a political commitment to "the pro-life agenda," i.e., affirmation of marriage and children as well as the condemnation of abortion and transgender individuals. Kirk's heterodoxy on key doctrines, it seems, is hidden under a political overlay. Put differently, (his) heterodoxy is nothing to worry about (or call out) so long as moral or political goals align.

As shown in a discussion of Luther's theology of martyrdom presented presented elsewhere, this doctrinally indifferent, politicized attitude was certainly not what Luther detected in the great martyrs of God's Word or in the martyrs of his own age. It was also not the attitude Luther took when confronted with the heterodoxy of the great martyrs of church history, such as Cyprian of Carthage. It's therefore not the attitude we should embrace today.

Whose Martyr Was Charlie Kirk?

At Kirk's memorial service, Vice President Vance called Kirk "a hero to the United States of America" and "a martyr for the Christian faith." President Trump called him "a martyr for truth and freedom."

Based on the above analysis, Charlie Kirk certainly was many things. But he was not a martyr for the Christian faith. Now, attention here, I'm not saying that he was not a Christian. I'm also not saying that he was not an engaging public speaker who made some valid points (in addition to many invalid points) when it comes to some Christian doctrines and some aspects the moral law.

But for a Lutheran church body to elevate Kirk to the status of Christian martyr (implicitly or explicitly), more should be required than being a popular speaker who regularly and boldly mentioned his faith in Christ but whose presumably sincere faith did not result in an accurate presentation of God's Word with a proper distinction of law and gospel and the two kingdoms. In fact, Kirk's faith did not even result in an accurate presentation of the moral law, because Kirk was laser-focused on the usual "sins of others" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and apparently had nothing meaningful to say about love as the summary of the law, thereby missing the forest for the trees.

Lutherans should not outsource faithful and winsome campus ministry to the likes of Charlie Kirk. While they can and should appreciate when God seems to grant or preserve saving faith in Christ in the midst of confusion and error, they should be careful not to put their stamp of approval on the lives (or teaching) of others--by declaring them martyrs or even saints--which may well destroy saving faith in our children or grandchildren or lead them to embrace beliefs that will undermine peace in society.

As Luther knew from God's Word (2 Cor. 11:14) and his own times and experience, the devil always uses truth to deceive:

A heretic does not speak only lies; he has one principal [lie] on which he is intent, and in order to establish it, he cites many passages of Scripture, wanting to turn the truth into a lie [Rom. 1:25]. . . . This is why a teacher is not to be praised for [teaching] a great deal of truth, for if one article is wrong, all are wrong, as the fathers said. . . . Therefore, if you are telling lies, then even when you say what is true, you are lying. (Am. Ed. 73:221).

Moreover, it's not yet clear why Kirk was killed. Was it because of his testimony concerning Christ? Because of his errors in the distinction of the two kingdoms? Because of his repeated attacks on (or "truth-telling" regarding) transgender individuals? Because of his changing stance on U.S. foreign policy? Or because of some other reason that is not yet known and may never be known?

So, whose martyr was Kirk? In my view (shared by Pres. Trump), Kirk was a prophet and martyr of a political movement. This movement presents a distinctly American and Reformed synthesis of Christian and political elements.

While there are individual points of agreement between Kirk and Lutheran doctrine, their overall vision for the Christian life--and the church's role--in this world is simply incompatible: As outlined in my post on Luther's theology of martyrdom (as well as my book on God's masks), Luther taught Christians to follow their crucified Savior by leading a life of service, love, and humility out of faith in the gospel. This life necessarily involves constant suffering and hardship until the Last Day, not primarily because the world clings to some crass sins, but because it clings to its own righteousness and finds the church's worldly weakness highly offensive and unreasonable. The Christian life on earth therefore follows the pattern of Christ's earthly life and lives in the certain hope of heavenly glory.

By contrast, Kirk and others like him see the Christian life as one that's called to rule the world for Christ as his ekklesia or political community. Accordingly, enemies of Christ or the church are to be crushed or kept in check by legal, political, or even military means, even if outward peace is destroyed. The Christian life for Kirk is one that seeks to make visible on earth Christ's glorious rule in heaven by political means.

For Luther, by contrast, the spiritual dimension of Christ's glorious rule over sin, death, and the devil is made visible in the means of grace and the fruits of faith, while the political dimension of Christ's omnipotent kingship remains invisible and inscrutable, although Christ exercises it for the good of the believers in the midst of their suffering and weakness. As a result, Christians as such participate in Christ's universal kingship by faith in the gospel, not by wielding governmental power.

Kirk's message is therefore ultimately a type of political prosperity gospel, while Luther proclaimed the antithesis of this anti-Christian propaganda. That's why Kirk, while apparently a Christian, simply is not a martyr of Christ.