This time two weeks ago, Charlie Kirk was an unfamiliar name to me.
It was a bit like the morning of 9 December 1980, when John Lennon’s death was announced. I’d never heard of him, though I was familiar with Paul McCartney and knew that the Beatles had been a notable pop group in the 1960s. I suppose my defence was that I was only eleven at the time.
I soon knew a lot more about Lennon, and am learning a lot more about Charlie Kirk right now.
The shooting of 10 September 2025
At the very moment the shooting happened I was in a church prayer meeting, oblivious to events in Utah, but I happened to comment that our world and our society seemed to be teetering on the brink of major disorder and unrest. We had just witnessed the Israeli attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and Russian drones in Polish airspace. But with this assassination, disorder and unrest ratcheted up a few notches.
I don’t know enough about Kirk, even now, to attempt anything approaching an expert evaluation. Much of what he stood for, perhaps most of it, is good and true. He was an astonishingly competent human being. He was a clear, compelling and fearless communicator. He was concerned about truth, about family, about life, about nationhood, about free speech. He seems, by all accounts, to have been a genuine Christian believer. His links with Trump and with MAGA - which undoubtedly brought mutual benefits – may well have done him more favours in the USA than in Europe and elsewhere.
Most tragically of all, of course, he leaves behind a grieving widow and two small children who, when they grow up, will not remember their father.
Charlie Kirk was shot dead because of what he said. He was holding a microphone at the time and talking about nothing other than gun violence. The bullet hit him in his throat, the human organ of speech, and silenced that throat forever. Multiple ironies. But Kirk, like Abel the brother of Cain, "being dead yet speaketh" (Hebrews 11v4).
Kirk was a champion of free speech. As the Washington Post recorded: "His trademark was to sit behind a table with a microphone and 'debate anyone.' Students would challenge him on everything from hot-button topics like abortion, transgender policies, and DEI to his support for capitalism, his religion - even which Star Wars sequel was best. In an age of cable news 'debates' in which opposition rarely gets time to make a full point, Kirk stood out. His online videos show him speaking boldly his position but then asking his challengers for their story or giving them the chance for follow-ups or counter-challenges. He’d quiet crowds so that opponents' full points could be heard. He engaged his detractors and frequently seemed to like them." [1]
Defining 'free speech'
I had been thinking a great deal about "free speech" before last Wednesday. I have done more thinking about it since, but there is a whole lot more thinking to do. We cannot understand "free speech" unless we’re pretty clear about both "free" and "speech."
Here is the question: Can anyone say anything they like? Yes they can, and they do, increasingly! As I said in a sermon here at Grove Chapel a few months ago, there is more "speech" flying around today than ever before. The question is, what should we say? Is there even a "should"?
As a Christian, I know that true freedom is not untethered licence. The addict – whether addicted to heroin or to porn – is a slave, not free. Freedom, as Plato and Aristotle taught, is the ability to choose the good. It was John Locke and others in the early Enlightenment era who began to decouple the notion of human freedom from what is intrinsically and objectively good; ultimately from the good law of a good God. Freedom became about the exercise of human power. It was the beginning of the road to Nietzsche, and beyond.
But the Biblical and classical understanding leads us to conclude that we speak most freely when we speak what is true and pleasing in God’s sight. Presumably that’s why Kirk "engaged his detractors and frequently seemed to like them." [He understood - or at least I hope he did, as I myself have discovered] - that a conversation with them, about any subject whatsoever, enabled him to speak the truth, God’s truth, with joy and satisfaction, because only God’s truth liberates and enlightens.
Human rebellion against God may speak the language of freedom – or begin by speaking the language of freedom - but it can never be truly free, because freedom is only found when what we say is consistent with God’s own speech. Jesus told his opponents that although they thought they were free, they were in fact slaves – slaves to sin – and that they hated Jesus and wanted to kill him because his word found no place in them (John 8v36-37). Something like this happened in Utah on 10 September.
That is why people who adhere to an anti-God agenda tie themselves up in knots. They certainly give free rein to their own views and chafe against any attempt to silence them. They believe in the freedom of their own speech. But when contrary views are expressed, they silence the speaker, cancel the speaker and, in extremis, shoot the speaker dead.
"People who adhere to an anti-God agenda... believe in the freedom of their own speech. But when contrary views are expressed, they silence the speaker, cancel the speaker and, in extremis, shoot the speaker dead."
But what exactly is speech? I suggest that we can only say anything true about speech when we begin with the right definition of speech.
Speech comes from God. God the Creator is not only the Creator of Speech but the original Speaker, who spoke creation into being. Jesus Christ is the Divine Logos, the Word, the Speech. God only speaks what is true, and therefore His speech carries full authority. In the presence of God, all contrary speech is silenced.
So when people claim to speak with any kind of authority, the question must be this: Are they speaking in accordance with what God has said? Does God approve of what they say?
Ask yourself if the words are true
Therefore, when we hear words being spoken, the first question we should ask is, are they true? Does God approve of these words? We should ask this question before we look at the speaker, or think about where he/she comes from, or give way to any kind of prejudice about the speaker. And before we open our own mouths, we should ask ourselves the same questions.
Speech is, we must see, uniquely powerful. You don’t entrust a power tool – like a hedge-cutter or a chainsaw – to someone irresponsible or immature. Those who seek to use a public platform to issue pronouncements must appreciate that the right to speak comes with great responsibility.
Does this mean we should all shut up? God forbid! True speech, righteous speech, God-honouring speech, helpful speech, kind speech – all this sort of speech must go on being spoken, without fear of intimidation. This includes courageous speech, challenging speech, penetrative speech which gets to the bottom of things. Our God is the friend of all who undertake serious, radical enquiry into any question.
Above all we speak the word of God; supremely the church must proclaim that word which "is like fire," and "like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces" (Jeremiah 23v29).
God’s Word judges every false and lying word, and will ultimately silence and destroy them all.
But God’s Word, which we must listen to, is also the Word of Christ the Saviour, the word of healing and eternal life, the only such word. "The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple" (Psalm 119v130). It is the Word that gives new birth. As the apostle Peter wrote:
you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for
“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you (1 Peter 1v23-25).
- David Boze, Charlie Kirk and warning signs for free speech, 12 September 2025
This piece of Paul's was originally published on his blog, and can be read here: paulyeulett.substack.com
To read more evangelical responses to the assassination of Charlie Kirk:
Are men our biggest pastoral problem today?
If someone were to pin me down and ask me the question: “What is the most common underlying cause of …