Charlie Kirk Wasn’t a Christian Martyr

Probably a political one…

When news spread that Charlie Kirk had died, the internet lit up. Some people grieved, others rejoiced, and many quickly called him a martyr for the faith. Within hours his name was being spoken with reverence, as though he had fallen in defence of Christianity itself.

But as I watched the commentaries roll across my feed, something in me felt unsettled. It was not about politics or even about Charlie Kirk as a person. It was about the word people kept using. Martyr.

That word means something sacred. And when it is used to crown someone who lived and died for political ideals, something in the heart of our faith begins to thin out.

—

What a Christian Martyr Really Is

In the earliest days of the Church, a martyr, from the Greek word martys, was not someone who died for an idea. A martyr was a witness. Someone who refused to stop proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, even when it cost them their life.

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was stoned to death because he would not renounce the gospel. His last words were not words of rage. They were words of forgiveness. “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”

The early Christians understood that martyrdom was not about defending a system or a worldview. It was about bearing witness to a love that even death could not silence.

Tertullian once wrote, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” He did not mean that violence or victory would build the kingdom. He meant that forgiveness and mercy would.

True martyrdom looks like Jesus. It is not about conquering. It is about giving. It is not about being right. It is about being faithful. When we call someone a Christian martyr, we are saying that their death revealed Christ’s love, that somehow in their dying, heaven’s light broke through the world’s darkness.

When Politics Demands What Religion Once Did

Modern politics is a jealous god. It borrows the language of faith such as devotion, sacrifice and loyalty, and twists them into tools for power.

And like all gods, it demands offerings. It demands martyrs.

When we drape the cross in the flag, we start to confuse the kingdom of God with the ambitions of nations. We start to name enemies where Christ has called us to name neighbours. We turn a symbol of love into a banner for war.

Charlie Kirk’s voice was bold. He stood for what he believed, and many saw that as courage. But faithfulness is not measured by volume or defiance. It is measured by love.

Jesus never told us to take up our rights and follow him. He said, “Take up your cross.”

The gospel does not spread through outrage or dominance. It moves quietly through mercy. The Church does not grow through victory. It grows through love that refuses to die.

A Political Martyr

If Charlie Kirk was a martyr, then he was a political one, a man who gave himself fully to a cause he believed in. There is something deeply human in that. We all long to stand for something bigger than ourselves.

But dying for a cause is not the same as dying for Christ.

To die for a cause is to defend an idea of what is good. To die for Christ is to surrender to the One who is good.

The difference might sound small, but it changes everything.

A political martyr dies fighting enemies. A Christian martyr dies loving them.

A political martyr defends power. A Christian martyr lays it down.

A political martyr hopes their death proves they were right. A Christian martyr hopes it proves that love is real.

When the language of politics takes over the Church, these differences fade. The gospel starts to sound like another campaign, another tribe trying to win. But the story of Jesus is not about winning. It is about dying and rising again. It is about the power of love that does not need to win to transform the world.

And that is what troubles me most. Not that Charlie Kirk died, but that so many Christians can no longer tell the difference between his death and Stephen’s.

The Hunger for Heroes

Maybe it is because we are desperate for heroes.

We scroll through chaos and want someone to believe in. Politicians turn into saviours. Preachers turn into politicians. And people crave clarity in a world that feels uncertain and divided.

It is easier to anoint a martyr for our side than to become a witness of Christ’s love.

But the call of Christ has never been about winning the culture war. It is about loving the world that crucifies us. It is about carrying the cross through the noise and trusting that resurrection still happens in small, hidden ways.

When we forget that, we turn the gospel into a slogan. We trade the mystery of grace for the certainty of outrage.

And maybe that is the deeper sorrow behind Charlie Kirk’s story. Not that one man lived or died in vain, but that so many have mistaken zeal for discipleship and anger for faithfulness.

A Better Witness

To say Charlie Kirk was not a Christian martyr is not to dishonour him. It is to remember what martyrdom truly means. It is to keep sacred what belongs to God and not give it to Caesar.

I grieve his death. I grieve the confusion that made it so easy to sanctify politics in the language of faith. I grieve that we have forgotten how to die without hating those who stand against us.

Perhaps his story can still lead us somewhere better, not toward more division but toward deeper reflection.

Because the world does not need more martyrs for movements. It needs witnesses to love.

It needs people who, when faced with darkness, choose forgiveness instead of fury. People who refuse to mistake power for holiness. People who, like the martyrs of old, live and die bearing the likeness of Christ.

The only martyrdom worth claiming is the one that looks like Jesus, the one that whispers mercy even as it bleeds.

If we can remember that, maybe we will stop crowning our politicians as saints and start learning again what holiness really looks like.

Why Christians Should Celebrate Halloween

Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead. So why are we so worried about plastic skeletons?

Editor’s note | October 2026

I originally published this article in October 2025. Returning to it a year later, I’ve revisited the historical research, particularly my earlier assumptions about Samhain and Celtic spirituality. I’ve also developed the theological argument a little further. My position hasn’t changed much, although my understanding of the subject has.

When I was younger, my mum bought me a leather ankle bracelet from a market. I liked it, so I wore it. At the time, I belonged to a Christian community with a rather intense understanding of spiritual warfare. There seemed to be demons lurking behind almost everything. Certain books, music and even clothing were considered spiritually dangerous. Eventually, someone informed me that my ankle bracelet had a curse attached to it, something apparently discernible only to particular people within the group. I was told to cut it off, so I did.

I’ve written more about that experience in What Is Religious Trauma?, but I mention it because every October I’m reminded of that same way of thinking. Halloween arrives, and suddenly Christians are warning one another about pumpkins, costumes, ghosts and whatever else might invite demonic influence into our homes. Having spent part of my early Christian life worrying that ordinary objects could be spiritually dangerous, I find these conversations rather familiar. I understand that not everyone who avoids Halloween comes from that sort of background. Some have thoughtful theological objections, while others simply don’t enjoy it. Fair enough. But I can’t help finding it strange that Christians, who profess belief in the resurrection of Jesus and the ultimate defeat of death, can become so anxious about plastic skeletons hanging from someone’s veranda.

Halloween’s Complicated History

When I originally wrote this article, I was fascinated by Halloween’s connection to Samhain, the ancient Gaelic festival associated with the transition from summer into winter. You’ve probably heard the familiar story. Ancient Celts supposedly believed that the boundary between the living and the dead became thin at Samhain, allowing spirits to cross into our world. Eventually, the Church arrived, appropriated the festival and transformed it into All Hallows’ Eve. It’s a fascinating account, and I certainly found it appealing, particularly the idea of ancient communities gathering around fires, remembering their dead and reflecting on the changing seasons. Unfortunately, the historical evidence is considerably less straightforward.

Historian Ronald Hutton examines these claims in his 2024 article, The Celtic New Year and Feast of the Dead. Hutton traces much of our popular understanding of Samhain to nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholarship, particularly the work of John Rhys and James Frazer. While Samhain was certainly an important seasonal festival, the evidence that ancient Celts regarded it as their New Year is inconclusive. The claim that it was primarily a festival dedicated to the dead is even less well supported. This doesn’t mean there were no supernatural traditions associated with Samhain. Medieval Irish literature certainly contains them, and some customs may preserve much older practices. But reconstructing what pre-Christian communities believed from material written down centuries later is notoriously difficult.

Nicholas Rogers offers a broader account in Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night, tracing Halloween’s development through Gaelic traditions, Christian observances, European folklore and eventually North American popular culture. The Christian history is worth exploring in its own right. Halloween takes its name from All Hallows’ Eve, the evening preceding All Saints’ Day on 1 November. All Souls’ Day follows on 2 November. These observances developed within Western Christianity as occasions for remembering the saints and the departed, although their particular histories and theological meanings differ.

I find this interesting because Christians can be remarkably selective about which cultural influences concern us. We participate in customs with complicated religious and secular histories all the time, regularly adopting and reinterpreting traditions without assuming their earliest associations determine their meaning forever. Yet when Halloween comes around, some Christians speak as though dressing up as a ghost is participating in an ancient spiritual practice. I’m not persuaded the connection is nearly that simple. Even if we could trace every Halloween custom back to its earliest beginnings, we’d still need to ask what people actually mean by participating in it today.

Death, Resurrection and Those Awful Skeletons

Paul describes death as the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). I’ve always found that description striking, particularly because Christians sometimes speak about death as though it isn’t really an enemy at all. When somebody dies, we often reach for familiar words of comfort. They’re in a better place. We’ll see them again. God has a plan. I understand the desire to reassure people, but I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with the way resurrection hope can sometimes be used to hurry people through grief.

Jesus doesn’t seem to do that. When he encounters Mary and Martha following the death of Lazarus, he weeps (John 11:35). He knows he’s about to raise Lazarus, yet he still enters the grief of those around him. Jesus knows death will not have the final word, but that knowledge doesn’t make their suffering insignificant. The Christian hope of resurrection has never required us to pretend death is anything other than terrible. It tears through relationships, families and communities, leaving absences that don’t simply disappear because somebody believes in eternal life.

In Easter Sunday: The Defeat of Death and the Birth of New Creation, I explored the Christian understanding of salvation as Christ’s victory over sin, death and the powers that hold creation captive. This understanding, often called Christus Victor, has become increasingly important to my theology. Hebrews 2:14–15 speaks of Christ liberating those who were enslaved by the fear of death. Through the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, God enters the reality of human mortality and confronts death from within. The God who created all things has entered the grave, and the grave could not hold him.

Now, I’m not suggesting that a cheap skeleton from Kmart should become a profound theological symbol. Sometimes a plastic skeleton is just a plastic skeleton. But Halloween does offer an opportunity to think about mortality in ways we otherwise tend to avoid. Ghost stories, graveyards and the various frightening things associated with the festival all draw, in different ways, on our fascination with death and the unknown. Modern Western culture can be strangely uncomfortable with death. We often keep it out of sight until it intrudes into our lives, then struggle to find language for what we’re experiencing. Christianity has spent centuries wrestling with mortality, suffering and resurrection. It seems rather unfortunate that our contribution to the conversation occasionally amounts to telling people not to put skeletons in their front gardens.

God Is Not Afraid of the Dark

Another part of my original article explored the Celtic Christian idea of thin places, those moments or locations where heaven and earth seem particularly close. I still like the expression, although its widespread use in contemporary Celtic spirituality shouldn’t be projected uncritically onto ancient Celtic Christianity. It captures something of my understanding of God’s relationship with creation. I don’t imagine God as distant from the physical world, occasionally reaching into it from somewhere else. Creation exists through God’s sustaining presence, and the ordinary material world can become a place where we encounter divine beauty and grace.

Psalm 139 speaks of a God for whom even darkness is not dark. Of course, darkness is also used metaphorically throughout Scripture to describe evil, ignorance and alienation from God. John’s Gospel makes considerable use of that imagery, but darkness itself isn’t evil. Night is part of the world God created. There’s also something amusing about Australians borrowing so much northern hemisphere autumn imagery for Halloween. While people in Britain are preparing for winter, we’re heading towards summer. Our own seasonal experience doesn’t quite match the symbolism, which is another reminder that cultural images can acquire different meanings as they travel.

The Christian story itself takes us into places far more unsettling than anything we’re likely to find in the Halloween aisle. Jesus is betrayed, arrested, tortured and crucified. His disciples are left with the apparent collapse of everything they had believed about him. I’ve become particularly interested in Holy Saturday, that uncomfortable period between crucifixion and resurrection when the disciples don’t yet know what Sunday will bring. I suspect Christians sometimes need to recover the ability to sit in that uncertainty. We can be so eager to announce the victory of resurrection that we forget how to accompany people who are still grieving on Saturday.

What Are We Actually Afraid Of?

I don’t think Christians should participate indiscriminately in everything associated with Halloween. Scripture takes idolatry and divination seriously. Attempting to summon spirits or seek supernatural power apart from God raises genuine theological concerns, and Christians have good reasons to approach such practices cautiously. But surely we can distinguish between participating in a religious ritual and dressing up as a fictional character. A child wearing a vampire costume isn’t necessarily engaging in the occult, watching a horror film isn’t the same activity as attempting to communicate with the dead, and handing out lollies doesn’t constitute an act of pagan worship.

Paul’s discussion of food associated with idols in 1 Corinthians 8–10 provides an interesting comparison. The early Christians lived in a world where pagan worship was thoroughly woven into ordinary social life. Meat might have been associated with temple sacrifice, and believers disagreed about whether eating it was acceptable. Paul’s response is more nuanced than simply declaring everything permissible or forbidden. He distinguishes between food that can be eaten without religious significance and participation in actual idolatrous worship. He also reminds believers that their freedom should be exercised with consideration for other people’s consciences. Romans 14 offers similar guidance concerning disputed practices and the observance of particular days. Neither passage is directly about Halloween, of course, but the principles seem relevant.

If you believe participating in Halloween would compromise your conscience, then don’t participate. I have no interest in pressuring people to celebrate something they believe they should avoid. What troubles me is when personal conviction becomes a declaration that everybody else is inviting demonic influence into their homes. I’ve lived with that sort of thinking. It gradually teaches you to become suspicious of the ordinary world, particularly of things you don’t understand. Eventually, almost anything can become a spiritual threat.

And while we’re discussing spiritual danger, I think the Church needs to be rather more discerning about where it directs its concern. I’ve encountered far more convincing evidence of spiritual harm in churches that manipulate, silence or abuse people than I ever have in children wearing Halloween costumes. Churches have sometimes been remarkably vocal about fictional witches while remaining disturbingly quiet about the misuse of spiritual authority within their own communities. That deserves considerably more attention than the decorations at Kmart.

Perhaps We Could Just Open the Door

One of the things I enjoy about Halloween is how ordinary it can be. Children wandering around in ridiculous costumes, families spending time together, and neighbours who might otherwise never speak having a conversation at the front door. I know some churches prefer to organise alternative events, and I’m not opposed to that. A well-organised community gathering can be a wonderful thing. I just wonder why our response to the wider culture so often involves creating somewhere separate for Christians to go.

We spend plenty of time talking about reaching our communities and building relationships with people outside the Church. Halloween brings those people to our doorsteps, and sometimes we seem determined to be somewhere else when they arrive. I don’t think we need a complicated strategy. Buy some chocolates, open the door, have a laugh with the kids about their costumes and get to know the neighbours. Perhaps resist the temptation to turn every interaction into an evangelistic opportunity. Jesus seemed quite comfortable spending time with people who didn’t share the religious convictions of those around him. His presence among them didn’t mean he approved of everything they believed or practised, but he wasn’t frightened of being around them. I’d like to think Christians could develop that same confidence.

There’s another dimension to Halloween worth considering. All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day provide Christians with opportunities to remember those who have died. Different traditions understand these occasions differently, particularly regarding prayer for the departed, but remembrance itself is an important part of Christian life. The Apostles’ Creed speaks of the communion of saints, a confession that reminds us the Church is much larger than the people gathered on any given Sunday. We belong to a history shaped by countless people whose lives, faith and love have influenced those who came after them. Some are people whose absence we still feel deeply.

Perhaps Halloween, considered alongside the Christian calendar, could become an occasion for remembering them. Lighting a candle, sharing a story, visiting a grave or simply allowing ourselves to miss someone without feeling that grief contradicts our faith. I wrote about something similar in Faith and Mental Health, Part Two: The Tenderness of Hope. Christian hope doesn’t require suffering to disappear before we can speak honestly about God’s goodness. I rather like the idea of Christians being able to enjoy the silliness of Halloween while also making room for the deeper questions about mortality sitting somewhere behind it.

Why I Still Think Christians Should Celebrate

Returning to this article a year later, I’m less interested in arguing that Halloween is an ancient Celtic Christian tradition. The evidence simply doesn’t warrant that conclusion. I’m also less concerned with making everything associated with Halloween secretly Christian. We don’t need to find theological meaning in every pumpkin or costume. What interests me is how we respond to a cultural celebration that brings death, fear, imagination and community into public view.

We believe that Christ has entered death and risen again. We believe the world belongs to God, that creation is being renewed and that death itself will eventually be destroyed. I struggle to understand why a faith with convictions like these should find Halloween so threatening. For some Christians, celebrating might mean remembering loved ones, attending an All Saints service or reflecting on the resurrection. For others, it might simply mean enjoying an evening with family and neighbours. I don’t see why those things need to compete, and if someone chooses not to participate, Christian freedom ought to make room for that too.

As for me, I think there’s something worth recovering in a Christianity that can take death seriously, live without being consumed by fear and still have enough room for a bit of fun. So if a child dressed as a skeleton comes knocking this Halloween, I’m rather inclined to give them some lollies. I don’t think there’s anything particularly demonic about that.


Further Reading

The Ache of Beginnings: Reading Genesis 1–11 with Open Hands

Two abstract silhouettes, male and female, stand together at twilight between a flourishing garden glowing with golden light and a barren wilderness of dry soil and thorns. The scene symbolises humanity east of Eden, caught between exile and communion with God.

Reading Genesis

Genesis does not begin with a courtroom but with a garden. It does not give us a manual of origins but a story of longing, freedom, and fracture. These early chapters are less about when and more about why. They are not fossils of a world long gone but mirrors of our own. They speak of desire that bends, of Exile that begins, of God who keeps walking into the story anyway.

“In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1). Before the ache, before the questions, there was only God. All that exists flows out of this life. Gregory of Nyssa said that only God truly has being in Himself, while all else exists only by participation. Creation is not necessary, but a gift. The beginning is not a moment in time but the eternal One whose presence holds everything in existence.

The Fall, Sin, and Wisdom

The tree was not poisonous. It was a possibility. Wisdom was always meant to be humanity’s inheritance, but in God’s time, not ours. In Genesis 3, the grasping of fruit is less about appetite and more about autonomy. To seize before its time is to make wisdom collapse into folly.

Paul would later write, “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1 Corinthians 3:19). The mystics often spoke of a wisdom that comes not by grasping but by surrender. True wisdom is received, not snatched. It ripens only in the soil of trust. To forget that all wisdom is participation in God is to fall back into Exile.

Grace in the Garden of Eden

When Adam and Eve hide, God does not thunder judgment first. He asks a question: “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). It is the first question God asks in Scripture, and it has never stopped echoing. It is less a demand for location than a call to self-awareness. Where are you? Not just in the garden, but in your soul, in your wandering, in your ache.

The desert fathers and mothers taught that prayer begins not with words but with awareness. To stand before God is to hear that question again and again. Where are you? The psalmist answers, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” (Psalm 139:7). Even in hiding, God is near. Even in Exile, our being still participates in Him.

Shame, Blame, and the Covering of God

We cover ourselves with fig leaves, then point fingers to deflect the weight of our shame. The first man blames the first woman. The first woman blames the serpent. This is the rhythm of fallen humanity: hiding, deflecting, excusing. But even here, grace intrudes. God does not leave them naked. “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21).

The covering is both tender and terrible. Tender, because it restores dignity. Terrible, because it hints at the cost of covering. Life surrendered for life preserved. The cross is already flickering in the shadows of Eden. To be clothed by God is to be reminded that even when we try to cover ourselves in fear, our true being remains grounded in Him.

The Curse and the Serpent

The serpent is not annihilated but transformed. Dust becomes its food, enmity its destiny. The curse is not a spell but a new pattern of existence. Relationships fracture. Creation distorts. Struggle is woven into soil and womb alike.

Yet even here, hope is stitched in. “He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15). A wound will remain, but victory will come. The first gospel is spoken over the dust. The Eastern fathers often called this the “protoevangelium”, the first glimmer of redemption. Even in curse, God remains the source of being, and from Him redemption begins to unfold.

Exile and the Ache of Humanity

To be human is to be east of Eden. To till soil that resists. To live under a curse and yet still carry promise. Adam names Eve “mother of all living,” even as death has entered the story (Genesis 3:20). Exile is unavoidable, but so is God’s relentless pursuit.

And yet, to be truly human is more than east of Eden. It is to walk in the cool of the day with God. It is to flourish in the garden, unashamed, at peace with creation, with self, and with one another. Exile names our condition. Communion names our calling.

Julian of Norwich once wrote, “Our soul is made of God and in God it is grounded.” To be human is to ache for that grounding. We evolve, not merely biologically but spiritually, socially, and theologically. From garden to city, from scattering to gathering, from Babel’s confusion to Pentecost’s tongues of fire. Humanity is still in process, but its being remains anchored in the One who was there in the beginning.

New Creation

Genesis 1-11 is not just about what went wrong but about what God will set right. These are the seed-stories, and they lean forward. From the waters of the flood to the scattering at Babel, creation keeps unravelling. And yet the Spirit hovers still, waiting to call forth a new beginning.

Paul names Jesus the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), and John sees a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1). The garden at the beginning becomes the city at the end, the Tree of Life reappearing, its leaves “for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2).

Gregory of Nyssa’s words echo here, too. Only God has being in Himself, and at the end, all creation will be drawn into that fullness. “In the beginning, God” will one day be heard again as “God all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). The end is a return to the beginning, to the One who called us into life.

We read these stories not as distant myths but as mirrors. They are the patterns we still live in: hiding, blaming, longing, wandering. But they are also the patterns of God: seeking, covering, promising, recreating.

Perhaps the most profound truth of Genesis 1 to 11 is not simply how the world began, but that God refuses to let the story end in Exile. The God who walks in the twilight of Eden still walks among us, still asks the old question, still whispers us toward new creation.