Charlie Kirk’s Winsome Engagement
The life and work of Charlie Kirk served as a defining moment in the national discussion of how we engage each other in a politically divided country. During his time of work with Turning Point USA (TPUSA), he established himself as an individual who addressed highly controversial subjects, yet he did so with an approach that was intentionally winsome or, at the very least, consistently respectful. We want to explore Charlie Kirk’s intentional focus on respectful dialogue, how this approach aligned with biblical principles, and why this commitment was vital to his larger mission.
For someone who spent a long life learning how to engage people on deeply controversial issues, such as the moral evil of abortion, Charlie Kirk’s example provides crucial takeaways. He was, in particular, a very strong and vocal supporter of pro-life ideologies and theology, unafraid to tackle the subject.
Yet, the picture sometimes painted of Charlie Kirk by certain extreme critics suggests he intentionally stirred up controversy, that he was an intentionally controversial person, and that he even “peddled hate”. Some extreme people who seemed satisfied or felt justified by the news of his assassination claimed that this outcome was “what happens when you speak with this hate and vitriol as Charlie Kirk spoke with”.
We take strong exception to this characterization. As observers and followers of his work, particularly his efforts as a pro-life evangelist and a speaker to young people on college campuses, Kirk’s actions consistently demonstrated a far different spirit and attitude.
Charlie Kirk went out of his way to defend two things: number one, the right to free speech under the First Amendment, for which he was zealous, and number two, prioritizing respectfully engaging people in dialogue. While he was imperfect, he always made a concerted effort to uphold this priority. He often opened his events on college campuses by setting clear expectations: if someone who disagreed with him or the conservative agenda came up to the microphone, the conservatives in the audience were explicitly instructed not to boo them, heckle them, or cut them off. Kirk insisted that opposing voices be heard and listened to respectfully, acknowledging that this was the same treatment he often did not receive on liberal college campuses.
This commitment to respect stems from a powerful concept familiar to believers: we are called to be winsome as much as possible in our engagement with other people. His approach was not harsh; rather, it reflected a maturity learned over time in addressing highly controversial issues.
The Disarming Power of Winsomeness
The motivation behind Kirk’s efforts to remain respectful, even when addressing difficult topics controversial on both the political and social spectrums, was twofold. First, it was important to be patient, kind, and gentle in tone and approach, even when speaking hard, clear, and pointed truths, because this is biblical. Secondly, and most importantly to Kirk, this approach allowed him to present the gospel in the most attractive way possible. The goal was not merely to argue the truth but to make “the teaching of God our savior attractive”. This required a commitment to stay in control, keep emotions clear, and focus on not just winning an argument but winning the person to the truth.
If we cannot win the person to the truth, they will not be prepared to hear a gospel proclamation. In many ways, the gospel was the most important element of Charlie Kirk’s entire life and ministry, and his respectful approach was a direct effort to protect his ability to share it.
This practice of winsomeness is vital because it protects the integrity of what we argue for. If we are arguing for the human dignity of the unborn, we must match that conviction by extending human dignity to the person we are speaking with. If we resort to belittling, yelling at, or shouting down people, we fail to treat them as valuable individuals made in the image of God.
Case Studies in Bold, Respectful Engagement
Charlie Kirk provided several powerful examples of how he navigated difficult dialogue while prioritizing respect and truth.
1. The Pursuit of Fact at the Oxford Union
In one instance at the Oxford Union, a renowned debate club, Kirk encountered a factual error. An individual argued that the Trump administration was illegally deporting American citizens, claiming the situation was going to worsen. Kirk boldly and forthrightly stated, “that is a lie”. He then offered $1,000 to anyone who could name a US citizen deported under that administration. When someone named Kilmer Garcia, Kirk immediately stated that Kilmer Garcia was an Salvadorian citizen, not a US citizen.
While some might debate if he had to use such a “brash” or “bold” tone, the fact remains that what was being argued at that moment was demonstrably a misinformation point. This example shows that winsomeness does not mean avoiding hard truths; rather, it means pointing out facts clearly and directly, even if it requires boldness.
2. Dignity and Dialogue with a Transgender Student
A clip of Charlie Kirk engaging a transgender student at a college event is particularly disarming. The student approached the microphone to ask about the appropriate age for hormone therapy. Kirk’s approach demonstrated his commitment to treating the person with dignity as a human being, rather than dismissing them as “crazy” or their ideology as “out of whack”.
Kirk respectfully invited the student to share their story. After listening, he offered an opinion few would share, urging the student to be “very cautious putting drugs into your system in the pursuit of changing your body”. He encouraged the student to work on what was going on in their brain first and seek a diagnosis, suggesting someone who would listen to what they had gone through. He ended with a powerful, compassionate statement: “My prayer for you, this, and again, very few will say this, I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born… I think that with the right team and the right people, you don’t have to wage war on your body. You can learn to love your body”. This response demonstrates Kirk’s ability to engage someone who specifically disagrees with him without demeaning, embarrassing, or belittling them, carrying dialogue forward into the future.
3. Wielding Truth in the Face of Skepticism
In another instance, Kirk engaged a man wearing a shirt that appeared to be satanic, who called the Bible “mythology” and asked Kirk why he believed in such “silly stuff”. Kirk affirmed his Christian faith, stating: “Jesus saved my life. I’m a sinner. Gave my life to Christ. Most important decision I ever made”.
When asked why he believed the Bible was true, Kirk provided a comprehensive, fact-based response, citing the lack of archaeological discoveries contradicting the Bible, the wisdom found within its truths, and the historically robust account of Jesus. He pinpointed the resurrection as the central element of his belief. When the man called Christianity “mythology,” Kirk corrected him: “that is not mythology, but that is theology”.
Kirk then used logic and historical reasoning to defend the resurrection, questioning where else in history so many people willingly died a brutal death for a lie. He highlighted that the apostles had everything to lose yet faced death affirming Jesus as Lord. Furthermore, he noted that if the story were faked, the writers would never have used female witnesses in the ancient world as the first to see the risen Christ.
In this exchange, Kirk engaged the man with truth, information, confidence, and directness, yet he avoided belittling him or calling out the inconsistencies of prioritizing or glorifying evil. He protected his ability to share the gospel by being winsome.
The Biblical Mandate for Care in Communication
Charlie Kirk’s effectiveness stemmed from an adherence to sound principles regarding communication, principles beautifully encapsulated in the Book of Proverbs. As witnesses in the culture, we must learn to wield the truth with care and remember the ways in which we are commanded to speak.
The Proverbs teach us that the way we deliver a message is critically important. Consider these powerful statements:
- “With patience a ruler may be persuaded and a soft tongue will break a bone”. This suggests that patience and forbearance allow the work of persuasion to take effect, powerfully impacting hearts and minds. A soft word can have a hard point of impact.
- “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger”.
- “A gentle tongue is a tree of life”.
These teachings emphasize that if the temperature of the conversation rises and the words become sharp, defenses go up, anger increases, and people simply stop communicating. As one church member wisely suggested, “If you shine a flashlight in somebody’s eye, they’re going to look away. But if you shine it down the path in the in the darkness, people will draw in to see”. This metaphor underscores the importance of using language and tone to draw people in, rather than pushing them away.
We must aim to speak in a way that allows things to soak in, perhaps not at the moment, but over time, like a soft rain instead of a hard downpour. As Titus 2:10 urges, we conduct ourselves so that we “make the teaching of God our savior attractive”. Not merely true, but beautifully so.
A Legacy of Winsomeness in Action
The effectiveness of this approach is not just theoretical; it is confirmed by decades of engagement on the most difficult topics. When engaging someone who disagrees, speaking with respect and being patient wins great favor and opens the heart to listen. While respect alone doesn’t carry the day, dismissed tones can lose the day before your case has ever even been heard, and the damage is lasting. People remember the disrespect and project it onto the next person who engages them. As the saying goes, “The aroma of life is attractive. Don’t stink up the room”. One can be factually correct but deliver the message in a way that turns people off, puts them on the defensive, and results in losing the argument.
For example, engaging the director of Planned Parenthood in Boston, one speaker recalls reaching a different level simply by asking her out for coffee and a Danish after a formal debate. The director was stunned by the gesture, and the subsequent conversation about families and personal journeys accomplished the goal of demonstrating that those who stand for life are winsome and attractive people. We want to ensure that we are not a poor reflection of the winsome gospel that we are arguing for.
Similarly, during a trip to Romania, a conversation with an abortion doctor demonstrated this transformative power. The doctor walked in assuming our group would immediately jump all over him and argue. He came in on the defensive, talking nonstop to fill the space. By simply listening first and then engaging him respectfully, logically, and with deference, a transformation was visible. By the end of the conversation, he was trying to figure out ways that he could help our mission.
In light of Charlie Kirk’s tragic death, there is a renewed zeal to continue his work and promote the “gospel of life” among America’s youth. Passion Life has recently entered into a partnership with TPUSA to help teach high school students across the country biblical pro-life ethics, providing the foundation for apologetics. This effort aligns perfectly with Kirk’s own focus on engaging young people on political and social topics. Resources like the book Stand for Life, co-authored by John Ensor and Scott Clusendorf, are highly relevant today, especially the chapter “Winning with Winsomeness,” which embodies all that Charlie Kirk tried to put forth in his public rhetoric.
We praise God for the life of Charlie Kirk and what he accomplished with it. His commitment to truth delivered with care and confidence serves as a powerful model. He demonstrated that to speak difficult things effectively, we must lead with love and ensure that our conduct makes the teaching of our Savior attractive. May we all make use of the time the Lord gives us to do the same.
This article is adapted from the episode transcript.