pull down to refresh

How Should Christians Discuss Social and Political Topics?

288 sats \ 15 comments \ @kepford 4h AskSN

Since the murder of Charlie Kirk I have been re-thinking some of my priors on this topic. While the vast majority of Christians I know, even those not political or interested in debates are now positive on Charlie Kirk a significant number are not. I've asked them why. Here are the common strands I have found.

1. He Said Some Hateful Things

I've asked for receipts and have received zero. I have found things that I think people are referring to but none of them are what I would call hate. Unless you consider the Bible or our faith that has stood for over 2000 years hate. What I have found is a very well read Christian that had a lot behind what he believed and stated. You could disagree with what he said on many topics. I disagreed with him (I've found) on a few things. That isn't important though. I've not found a hate. There are plenty of hateful people that call themselves Christians, don't get me wrong. Kirk seemed to stick to the political and spiritual and not the emotional.

2. He Was Antagonistic

This one is the one I can give most people a pass on. I had this impress having only seen a few minutes of his stuff before he died. But honestly, the more of his content I have watched the less true this has been for me. He was debating people in an open forum. The topics are hot and people get very emotional about them. He was speaking truth (at least his opinion of truth) and that offends people. Mostly people are referring to his appearances on college campuses.

Thing is, having a significant amount of experience on college campuses and with the faculty of them I can tell you his positions are in the minority. If you are someone that holds to a more traditional world view. Even a very modest and friendly person... you will be bombarded with radical left wing views. And I'm not referring to a 5% increase in the tax rate for the rich. The discussions are pretty one sided and he went into the lions den to openly debate and talk to people. Not just dumb college students. Professors would sometimes talk to him as well.

Most people that seem to be bothered by his antagonism just don't like conflict. It makes them uncomfortable. I get it. But this is what colleges used to be about. Free and open debate. Kirk seems to have been pretty civil in his discourse from what I have seen. Regardless of the topic. I have heard this from people that disagree with him as well.

3. He Put Politics Before Christ

I'm not a fan of putting anything before our faith. Its idolatry. So in that way I can agree with this. Though, I'm not sure Kirk did this... its more that he was VERY politically motivated. Having read an email he sent to Tom Woods when he started his org at the age of 18, at least at the start he wanted to turn this nation around. Both politically and spiritually.

What I have noticed is that its not so much that people have a problem with voting. Its that they don't what you to vote a certain way, or couch this as "the Christian" way to vote. The common thread I've seen though is that people that don't like the mixing of politics and faith aren't this vocal about the politics that contradicts their faith. It seems that they have much more fervor with their brothers in Christ being so invested in the wrong guy.

How Should Christians Engage in Debate?

If you are a Christian what do you think? Is there any place for Christians in conversations about

Culture
Governance
Economics
Anything spicy?

Or should we only discuss these things among our brothers and sisters in Christ? Should we retreat from the Universities and political discussions? Should we censor our speech and never say anything that might offend someone? Where is the line?

I wrote about my thoughts on this topic on September 11th 2025. My thinking hasn't really changed. There is a right and wrong way to go about this that I discuss in that post but what do you think?

If you didn't like the way Kirk operated, how should he have operated? I will say, the man was human. He wasn't perfect. I'm sure if I looked long and hard enough I'd find something that is worthy of harsh criticism. It just seems that many Christians are insinuating we have no voice on many topics and that doesn't seem right to me.

view all related items

2 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

Bonus:

If you have some good examples of Christians from history that debated issues of faith and culture I'd love to compile a list. I'm not as knowledgeable on Christian History as I should be.

59 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 3h

Acts 15. I love how the bible itself records a theological / cultural disagreement among the apostles that got worked out through honest debate

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

Honestly, the Church today has a lot of work on how we talk to each other let alone how we talk to outsiders. There's so many sinful attitudes I see about our brothers and sisters from different traditions. Little humility or curiosity. Its something I have been working on in myself and trying to encourage others to do as well. We are told by Jesus they will know us by our love.

65 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 3h

Something to keep in mind. Jesus was gentle with the contrite, but he also knew when to walk away from conversations.

"Do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." - Matthew 7:6

Other examples include how he spoke in parables, intending only for a select few to understand; or the rich young man who walked away, and Jesus didn't pursue.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

I think we can also look to Paul and his many examples of speaking to Gentile audiences. I also mentioned quite a bit of good guidance from Scripture in #1217549

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

Great examples.

60 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 1h

Charlie was gifted, so he used god's gifts. Use your gifts, those aren't necessarily debating.

Also don't conflate Christian virtue for weakness, most of the people you would debate aren't interested in a debate... even less are capable. This is discernment.

Politics and culture is not a 3rd rail, the government and society you get is the one you deserve. Weak men create hard times etc.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 36m

Charlie was gifted, so he used god's gifts. Use your gifts, those aren't necessarily debating.

Indeed.

45 sats \ 5 replies \ @Car 3h

The best take I heard from this whole thing. Was how about letting people grieve for 40 days and caring for his children and wife. I think that’s usually what I do when people close to me pass away, not sure why it would be any different.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

Yeah, for sure. But apart from Kirk and his family, how should Christians engage in debate? Or should they just avoid it?

One of my biggest issues with saying that going into a public free speech area at a University and talking to people is wrong is that the Universities themselves were created by the Church. The Church has retreated from them for the most part. This isn't good.

135 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 3h

As I said earlier, I will be very quick to walk away from anyone if I don't think that talking to them will be productive. But with those who I think I can have a productive dialogue with, i'd stay grounded on these principles:

Yes, Kirk said some things that were hurtful to some people
No, that doesn't justify killing him
No, you aren't required to feel sympathy for him
However, guard your heart against any feelings of glee that he was killed. I won't accuse you of it, but God knows your heart and you will have to give an account before Him, not me.
Lastly, regardless of what you think of Kirk's words, he was at least doing politics the right way, with words and persuasion. Maybe he could have said some of those words better, but at least he was trying to engage with those who disagreed with him. Do you disagree?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 3h

100%

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @CliffBadger 2h

I think if Nineveh kills Jonah, don't send anyone else.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 1h

This is not the way.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Signal312 40s

As I've been diving deep into the Charlie Kirk assassination, I found a video clip of him ragging on LGBQ folks being pro-Palestinian. He was saying that they're delusional, because gays were thrown off high-rise buildings in Gaza.

Then he said something like "but I guess it's fine now, because there's no more high-rise building in Gaza". Then he said something like "Is it too soon?"

I'm pretty sure he meant something like "is it too soon to joke about this, because this building was just blown up, and presumably a lot of people were killed".

Anyway, I found that clip some days ago, when going town the rabbit hole on Charlie Kirk's assassination on X. If you're interested, let me know, I could probably dig it up.