Please pray for the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
Soon after Charlie Kirk’s murder, I heard an Orthodox priest say it would be wise to wait forty days before saying anything about it – time for the tumult and shouting to die, to use an overworked but appropriate phrase, because there has been a lot of of both.
Unfortunately, during those forty days, some have celebrated his death – many of whom have lost their jobs. Others, for example, both the Catholic Vice President and the Cardinal Archbishop of New York, stated that Kirk is now a Martyr for the Faith. They have kept their jobs.
Before we get into that, let’s be clear that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an evil, despicable thing. Nobody should die that way. * Kirk’s murder was particularly gruesome – on stage, in the presence of his wife and many others, immediately available online for people all over the world to watch. (I have not.) A young man, leaving a young family behind. Agree with him or not, anyone who celebrates his murder is also despicable.
- Nor should the thousands of other Americans who die by gunfire each year, but that’s not today’s subject.
However, one transcendently beautiful thing came out of his death. At his funeral his wife said of his murderer: “I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do,” she said. “The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the Gospel is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.” *
- Mr Trump added: “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them.” There is also another Person Mr Trump disagrees with.
What should we make of Charlie Kirk?
It is now well over forty days since Kirk’s death, during which time I hope we all have gained some perspective.
I had scarcely heard of Charlie Kirk. I, who thought I was still somewhat in touch with the world, had no idea the major effect he was having on the younger generation. So in the past weeks I have tried to catch up.
Charlie Kirk’s Religion
Inasmuch as this is a religious Blog, this seems the right place to begin.
Charlie Kirk was raised Presbyterian. In 2020 he became a member of Dream City Church in Scottsdale, Arizona, which appears to be a typical Pentecostal mega-church: extremely informal services – guitar music up front, preacher sometimes in blue jeans, with at the end an emotional appeal to “give your life to Jesus” – the sort of thing that draws large crowds these days. Search for “Dream City Church, 11:15 a.m. Service”.
However, check out their teachings, and we Orthodox will find a lot (certainly not all) to agree with: https://www.dreamcitychurch.us/about-dream-city/our-beliefs/
Kirk said: “I started to come in a much closer relationship with Jesus Christ and reading my Bible more and becoming more, essentially, unapologetic about my Christianity… I was given a choice; I could try to descend more into this kind of secular world, or reaffirm my faith, and that’s exactly what I did.”
Charlie Kirk’s Social Views
In the Protestant world, we know pretty much what to expect. Liberal Christians have liberal politics. Conservative Christians have conservative politics. Kirk fit the pattern: He was opposed to abortion, gun control, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, LGBTQ rights, and affirmative action. He believed in the “replacement theory”, that hidden forces are actively trying to replace white Americans with people of color. He did not believe in climate change/global warming, claiming there was no scientific consensus about it. * He supported Israel’s destruction of Gaza. This may have been connected with the fact that he called Islam a “danger to America”. He supported the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr Trump. There’s more, but this is the gist of it.
- Wrong.
Only a few years ago, some of his beliefs would have been considered extreme right wing. Now they are main-stream Republican. Was Kirk a racist? As I see it, he was a racist in reverse, so to speak: He was pro-white.
Charlie Kirk’s Activities
He was a talented organizer and communicator.
While he was still in his teens, he founded a group called “Turning Point USA”, originally concerned chiefly with promoting limited government and free market, but which then become focused more on social and religious matters. Out of TPUSA came Turning Point USA Faith, whose mission was to “eliminate wokeism from the American pulpit”. TPUSA published “watch lists” of college professors, high school teachers, members of school boards and others who they said taught Marxism or other leftist ideology. TPUSA was funded by a number of conservative organizations and Republican politicians.
He hosted “The Charlie Kirk Show”, livestream and podcast, a daily three-hour talk show. I listened to a little. On some episodes I thought his tone was (what’s the word?) “nasty”. However, on another I saw him interview an Orthodox priest. Kirk was mannerly, showed a considerable knowledge of religion, and seemed genuinely curious.
Charlie Kirk also regularly sponsored a series called “Prove Me Wrong”, where he bravely appeared on college campuses and similar places which he knew would be hostile to him. Here students who disagreed with him would challenge him. He said (I have lost his exact words) that we have to get back to the point where we can disagree without being violent about it.
My evaluation of “Prove Me Wrong”, from what I’ve watched: Kirk clearly enjoyed telling students that a college education was useless! (He had dropped out after one semester.) He had an amazing amount of information (not all of it correct) ready to produce at a moment’s notice. He was a clever debater: Often he turned the debate back onto the questioner, who almost always lost. It was a good way to win a debate, but not always a good way to get at the truth.
In another venue, Governor Gavin Newsome of California interviewed Kirk. All was mannerly. Kirk answered a few questions, but turned almost everything else back on Newsome and, in my opinion, made hash of him.
These were not all his activities. Those I’ve listed leave me out of breath, just writing about it!
Charlie Kirk’s Controversial Comments
Almost immediately after Kirk’s death, his many opponents began to quote him saying rather startling things. His supporters contended that much of this was now being taken out of context.
That made me wonder exactly what he had said, so I did some research. If any of you want documentation for the following, it is not hard to find online, though it does take some time. If you think I have made any errors, please let me know in the Comments below, and I will make corrections.
I have used exact quotations when possible. Sometimes what he said was more complicated than can be reduced to a short quote.
What Charlie Kirk said:
1 “We must ban trans-affirming care — the entire country. Donald Trump needs to run on this issue.”
2 “Some gun deaths are worth it, in order to preserve Second Amendment rights.” (Who could have imagined he would be one of them?)
3 “Feminism has become much more about hating men than empowering women… For a culture to survive we need strong men and women—not strong women and weak men.” He later corrected his comment to say he meant “hyper-feminism” which puts men down.
4 “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled Alzheimer’s, corrupt, tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for crimes against America.” Yes. He did say that.
5 “I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.”
6 ”Martin Luther King was awful. He’s not a good person.” Previously he had said positive things about MLK. When asked about it, he said “I’ve changed my mind.”
7 “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.”
8 He was a strong supporter of Israel. However, on various podcasts Kirk said that “Jewish dollars” were funding Marxist ideas in education and policy and contributing to opening the borders.
9 Referring to Michelle Obama and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, he said: “[Except for affirmative action] you 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.”
- Fact check: Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton University with honors cum laude in 1985. Ketanji Brown Jackson earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1996, graduating cum laude.
Orthodox Teachings on current issues
Before we go further I’ll try to give an Orthodox “take” on some of the matters above. Please correct me if I’m have made any errors in what follows.
The Orthodox Church has social and moral teachings, and has the duty to speak about these both within the Church and in “the public forum”, as some call it.
The first of these moral principles, of course, is “Love your neighbor as yourself”.
How does the Orthodox Church apply our principles? By grace and with love, not as laws. Father Alexander Schmemann wrote: “The forces of the law cannot create anything; they remain without grace, ambiguous and even destructive.”
In our society, the Orthodox Church endorses no political party or organization and does not take contributions from any of them. She does not tell her people how to apply our principles or how to vote. *
- Of course in other situations where there are no political choices, the Orthodox Church has sometimes supported the government (as in Byzantium) or actively opposed it (as under Soviet Communism).
In my opinion, in our free society, Orthodox clergy or parishes should not publicly support political parties or candidates except in the most extraordinary situations.
The Orthodox Church has lived under and survived a great many political systems. The Church opposes any which seek to remove God and religion from society or which do not promote social responsibility.
Here is the Orthodox stance regarding The Taking of Human Life, from the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America – June 19, 2022 “Any deliberate ending of human life is a rejection of its sacredness and inviolability and is unacceptable. This includes the death of the unborn by abortion, murder in peacetime or in war, suicide, and euthanasia. The Church mourns the premature end of a human life, and we seek to minister with compassion and mercy in these situations.”
The Orthodox Church teaches that homosexuality is disordered, not in accordance with God’s will, and that homosexual activity is sinful and destructive of the human person.
So far as I can find, no Orthodox council of Bishops has made a statement regarding trans-gender matters. (Please inform me if I’m wrong.) However, I think the general consensus is that people are born with a God-given gender and any variation from this is disordered. However, in all situations we are commanded by Christ to love persons, not condemn them, to treat them with compassion and gently try to help them to find their true identity..
The same Assembly of Bishops (above) has condemned racism and in particular condemned “the hateful violence and … the loss of life that resulted from the shameful efforts to promote racial bigotry and white supremacist ideology in Charlottesville, Virginia” in 2017. Because of this, one of the organizers of that rally was excommunicated from a parish in the Antiochian Orthodox Diocsese. Sadly he was then welcomed by a parish of a non-canonical church.
When a couple of Greek bishops made anti-Semitic * comments, these were immediately condemned by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and other Orthodox authorities. On November 7, 2023, Orthodox Patriarch Theopholis of Jerusalem stated that the Christians of the Holy Land condemn both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Greek Archbishop Elpidophoros of America said: “Evil has a name…it’s called fascism and Nazism”.
- or rather “anti-Jewish”. Arabs are also semitic peoples.
Various Orthodox hierarchs have expressed Orthodox principles in different ways: Many of our hierarchs have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. I know of none who have supported it. Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos marched with Dr Martin Luther King at Selma. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has led the Church (and in many ways the world) in advocating for environmental protections.
Christian Nationalism
Let’s define terms.
Christian Nationalism is the belief that a nation should be a Christian theocracy, and that the government should take active steps to make it that way.
American Christian Nationalism usually begins with the belief that the United States of America was founded to be a Christian Nation. It was not. Most of the Founders were Christians of one sort of another. Our Founding Documents refer to God and “Providence”, but Jesus Christ and Christianity are mentioned even once.
Charlie Kirk advocated for something even narrower: American conservative Protestant Christian “conservative Republican” * Nationalism. He identified with this very circumscribed kind of Christian Faith with this equally circumscribed kind of politics.
- I put “Conservative Republican” in italics because today it is very different, in some ways the opposite, of what it was fifty years ago. (I was there.) The same can be said for “liberal Democrat”, but that’s another story.
I cannot find anywhere that Charlie Kirk called himself a “Christian Nationalist”. But if he wasn’t, what was he doing hanging around the White House all the time? In many circles, Kirk was credited with winning the youth of “Generation Z” for Trump, thus swinging the 2024 election to him – all the while promoting Jesus Christ. Charlie Kirk’s funeral, presided over by Pentecostal pastors with pop Evangelical music, with speeches by Donald Trump, J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, was the perfect expression of Christian Nationalism, the complete integration of Christianity with politics.
American Christian Republican Nationalists today seek to make their ideology dominant in the United States by taking control (in one way or another) of the following: government (including the military), religion and the churches, family, education, the media, arts and entertainment, and business. That process is well underway, as is easily seen if we keep up with current events.
Here is the First Article of the Constitution of the United States of America: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Christian Nationalism is a big problem for the United States, because it seeks to make this country into what it was never intended to be. Certainly conservative Christians should be free to promote and advocate their political understanding of the Faith. But to control the United States, so that non-Christians have not that right? to control our country and its people, limiting free speech, free press, voting rights? Do these people intend to repeal the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Christian Nationalism presents an far greater problem for Christianity.
Let me quote something from David Brooks’ column in the New York Times, November 13, 2025.
“On the one side are the Christian nationalists *, who practice a debauched form of their faith. Christian nationalism is particular rather than universal. It is about protecting “us” against “them” — the native versus the immigrant. It is about power more than love. It is about threat more than hope. It is rigid and pharisaical rather than personal and merciful.”
- In the article Brooks was equally critical of “the exhausted remains of secular humanism”, but that’s not the topic here. Look it up for yourself.
Charlie Kirk: Here’s what I think.
Kirk was a talented, intelligent, charismatic, principled, well intentioned young man. However, in my opinion, he overstretched himself too early, got in too deep before he was mature enough to handle it, and it looks to me like he fell to the temptations of popularity and power. (And possibly greed? He was worth almost $5 million when he died.)
If he had had a competent spiritual father or mother, he might have been warned against these traps and moved more slowly and more warily. He might have taken time to become better educated and think more deeply and speak more carefully. And who knows what good things he might have done? We’ll never know.
Was Charlie Kirk a Christian martyr? Here’s what I think: No, he was not. His assassin killed him only because of his “anti-trans rhetoric”, which might have come from any conservative. Immediately after, President Trump called for a crackdown on “leftists” in general. Charlie Trump was a martyr for right wing politics.
There is now a well financed attempt to establish branches of Turning Point USA on every American college campus. Will it succeed? Will Charlie Kirk have a permanent influence on his generation or was he only a “flash in the pan”. The latter would be my guess. Media personalities come and go very quickly these days. I don’t see much about him online now, or in the news, but probably I just don’t know where to look.
Pray for the soul of Charlie Kirk. May he rest in peace. He surely can use some. Pray for his wife Erika, their daughter and their son. They saw so little of him while he was alive.
_________________________________
There. I said I’d write about Charlie Kirk, and I’ve done it. I learned a lot and thought a lot and have written too much. I’m glad it’s over with.
If you disagree (or even better, agree!) with anything I’ve said, please Comment below.
Next Friday, the day after Thanksgiving: from my old series on the Seven Deadly Sins – Gluttony
Week after Next: My Adventures with Saint Nicholas
Father, bless.
Father Bill, thank you for taking the time to research this issue and to prepare and deliver a well thought out presentation. You have addressed this issue rather completely and presented a cogent analysis of the Charlie Kirk phenomenon.
There are many issues that came to my mind, as I read through your presentation. One of them is the issue of whether this country was created to be a Christian Nation or not. It could be argued both ways, since the founders were generally Protestant Christians of one denomination or another. In other words, they were talking a common religious language, even though they had their theological differences. 90% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Protestant Christians and the other 10%, from what I understand, where deists, including Franklin and Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence was based on and satisfied their religious worldview. Basically they prepared a document that was based upon that worldview and helped them to put this country together.
So, I believe that the Declaration of Independence would not have been written as it was, by a non-Christian world view. The principles in it are basically Christian. I don’t believe that that same document would have been drafted by Muslims or any other world view.
We have a problem today, in that Protestant Christianity is not the common world view and may least not be the Protestant Christianity of our founders. Today, we can say that Christendom is gone in western civilization. Specifically, in America we have assimilated people from throughout the world who are bringing their religions here and living in accordance with those beliefs. I understand that there are parts of some cities in America where Sharia law is the law and in those areas police do not enter. I hope that I am incorrect, but that is what I have read in the media.
When we consider the current government approved and enforced policies such as same-sex marriage, no fault divorce, abortion, sex changes, euthanasia and lgbtq rights, we have to say these are practices which were not foreseen by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, nor the drafters of our Constitution.
All this said, I can understand why Charlie Kirk was so popular. He struck a tender cord to which so many people responded, in the same way as they responded to Donald Trump. They are looking for Truth in a very confused world.
I do not know where our country is headed, but I have concerns. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that we should take a lesson from Charlie Kirk, in seeing that there is a crying need for true, non-political Christianity. I believe Orthodoxy is the Way, the Truth and the Life, since it is the Living Body of Christ. So, how do we present it, so that people have a chance to experience, evaluate and even accept Orthodoxy. Maybe you can address this issue, in a future post
Thank you, again, Father Bill. And, may you have a blessed and happy Thanksgiving with your bride and family.
Thank you for the kind words and for the criticism. Good questions.
Regarding Sharia neIghborhoods:
I’ve researched the question . There’s not much to be found.
The story about Dearborn MI having Sharia neighborhoods came from Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, who later said he meant it as satire. https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/after-sharia-law-accusations-dearborn-ranked-as-a-no-1-christmas-town/
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/03/ask-politifact-no-sharia-law-does-not-trump-us-law/
Regarding America’s Founding Fathers, who I believe were brilliant men:
Yes, most of them were Christian, of one stripe or another, who came from colonies where Christianity of one kind or another was established. However, the country itself was not founded to be a Christian country. Though the Founding Documents speak of God and Providence, there is not a word about Jesus Christ or Christianity. Yes, there is considerable influence of Jesus’ ethical teachings which were generally admired.
There was also considerable (perhaps major) non-Christian influence from Greek political philosophy. Check out: https://greekreporter.com/2023/09/12/influence-ancient-greece-american-founding-fathers/
Yes, people are desperate for something solid to live by, so they are grabbing onto unstable leaders. David Brooks’ quotation goes on to say that secular humanism has left people entirely bereft.
How can we make Orthodoxy more available? We’re already doing it. The latest polls show that nationally the Orthodox proportion of America’s population is O.5 %. Among the young generation we’re 1.5 %. Not much, but we’re gaining. We now have a great need for more parishes and more clergy who suddenly are being overworked. Why are we growing? Because we’re not doing a thing! We’re just being Orthodox.
Dear Fr. Bill,
A commendable undertaking albeit very apparent where you stand from the opening paragraph. However, the religious-politico-history of Orthodoxy in Byzantine times, throughout the history of Orthodoxy in Russia and other “Orthodox lands, today as well (check Patrirach -Putin-Zelensky-Patriarch connections) nullify the disconnect you claim Orthodoxy has with politics. I shall not comment on Christian Nationalism and the thrust of conservative movements among the Protestants. That is for another discussion. As for the RCs and the recent statement I guess they overlooked the financial implications of their decision on the general public. My main point though is: Can an Orthodox Christian be a “liberal” or “progressive” or a “conservative?” We Orthodox Christian should not rely on platitudes that provide sugar coated answers but no substance. Some of your comments lack historical verification since the settlers fled lands where their faith was persecuted and found refuge in this foreign land albeit at the expense of the native population. With Thanksgiving approaching it would be good to be “thankful” for the voices that call for a return to God rather than judge them from a prism that reflects badly on the one citing line and verse in opposition. Truth told, we all make comments and statements that are misguided and not the best ones to make. As clergy we, in all probability, have been maligned with statements we made hastily and without the benefit of thought. The saying, “The tongue outruns the brain,” is often true for all of us. In Christ, Fr. John Maheras
Dear Fr. Bill,
I do not know where my first comment went in cyberspace and hence I am sending a second. First I read you article, sermon, commentary on Mr. Kirk and in reflecting on the history of Orthodoxy in various lands there has been and still is a connection between Orthodoxy and politics from Byzantine times to Russia and Georgia and other lands to today. Hence, is that not a type of “Orthodox” Nationalism and if so why is that valid. and Christian Nationalism of Protestantism decried? No, I am not an advocate of that for it does lead to “politicized” faith. Also, with Thanksgiving approaching have we forgotten that the settlers came to practice their religious belief in the manner and form which they were not allowed to do in their homelands? Indeed, the founding fathers (and mothers!) had a belief and some of them were deist. Thus, they held some kind of belief in a Higher Being. Whether one considers Kirk a “martyr” that is not for me to judge as it is not my position to judge. Lastly, albeit not that the topic is exhausted, we have all made comments and said things which we later regretted or seemed out of place to others. John Chrysostom allegedly made the comment, ‘Once again the head of John is required. And once again John will sacrificed,” or similar words. As you remember he did not make the empress happy with his observations from the pulpit. We too, clergy, in all likelihood from private conversations, pulpit and public fora mostly have said things we could have phrased otherwise. Mr. Kirk was a person who could be persuasive and convincing and would challenge the thinking and conclusions of college age students. And he sometimes redirected their thinking processes and other times refuted their arguments, and other times silenced them when they realized they could not convince what he held in his mind and heart was wrong. And vice versa. So they too walked away as did the rich man who confronted Christ about getting to heaven. The discussion could go on but I shall end it with gratitude to you for bringing this to the forefront and challenging my own interpretation of what he said and advocated. In Christ, Fr. John
Dear Father John:
I was about to respond to your first Comment, and you’re right: it isn’t here! Probably it was from something I did at this end. If so, please forgive me.
[But now that I look again, BOTH your comments are here. It’s a mad mad mdd mad technological world we live in.]
Which is too bad, because your first remark was that you could see my slant from the first two paragraphs. Indeed you could. I’m concerned that people (especially new converts) confuse political conservatism with The Tradition, and try to turn Orthodoxy into “the Republican Party at Prayer”. (In the 19th Century, the Church of England was described as “the Conservative Party at Prayer”!) I know (but won’t name) some parishes that are flourishing because the pastor preaches conservative politics.
As for the rest, yes, we all make comments we wish we hadn’t. However, I hope we wise up and apologize if, for example, we wish publicly that someone would be executed.
In my case, I should have said that it’s “my opinion” that in a free society where we have a choice, the Church should not endorse particular candidates or be directly involved in government – following the spirit of the old canon law which forbids clergy to hold political office. Which reminds me to add uh…. that I did publicly sort-of endorse (or really oppose) a candidate last summer. I apologize for my hypocrisy in calling out others for doing the same. I should have at least done this more indirectly.
Father Bill
Now that both your comments have arrived: Thank you again. I’ve made some corrections in light of what you said.
Thank you, Fr. Bill. I had never heard of Charlie Kirk until his death. Your article reflects the impressions I’ve had since I’ve figured out who he was.
Father, bless. I think you hit the nail on the head with this. My concern is for the converts we’ve received recently. Most of them echo the same things Charlie Kirk said. I’m curious about your thoughts on Jay Dyer. He seems to be from a similar school of thought. And how, father, should we pray for them?
Jay Dyer? Never heard of him! Now I have someone else to research.
Meanwhile, a blessed Thanksgiving to you.
Father Bill
Maria, thank you for putting me on to this. In between bites of turkey and pie, I checked out Jay Dyer for a while, and here is what I discovered.
Dyer has a doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, and a Ph.D. in philosophy. His approach, therefore, is far more “intellectual” than that of Charlie Kirk, so he doesn’t have the same popular appeal.
His approach to politics is… well, he hangs around with Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, who identifies himself as “anti-semitic”. Also Dyer associated himself with Alex Jones, who claimed that both the 1969 moon landing and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting did not take place, and that our government was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 attacks. For this, Jones was fined over $1.5 billion in damages. You get the picture.
Dyer was Protestant, then Catholic, then became Orthodox in 2010, chrismated in an Antiochian parish, but he left there. His present parish or jurisdiction (if any) are not known. We need to be extremely wary of people who have no clearly identified bishop. (Peter Heers is another example.)
Jay Dyer is now what is called an online “influencer”, with a considerable following among young male Orthodox converts, heading an online sectarian “OrthoBro” movement. Its size and overall influence are hard to calculate. (I mean, I just looked him up. That doesn’t mean I agree with him.) I suspect some new male converts call themselves OrthoBros just because it’s fun, not because they intend to be sectarian.
Dyer has long videos online – and I do mean l o n g, some over 2 hours. I do not have time to watch them. However I watched part of one of his lectures which was direct and positive. He is a strict Traditionalist (some say “fundamentalist”) Orthodox, who appears to believe there is little or no truth outside the Orthodox Church, and perhaps is creating a sect of “genuine, true Orthodoxy”, as opposed to what is taught in seminaries and parish churches. I read that Dyer often can be confrontational, and usually presents Orthodoxy “negatively”, that is, in contrast to his former Protestant and Catholic beliefs.
That’s as far as I got. So:
Is Jay Dyer the “Charlie Kirk of the Orthodox Church”? There are some parallels, but No. Kirk was drawing young people of all sorts to “Jesus” in a general sense, and into the Republican Party as it now is. Dyer is drawing a much more narrow subset of intellectual young men into their idea of what is “genuine Orthodoxy”, not into the actual Orthodox Church, and also into extreme far right wing politics.
If you want to hear any of his videos and have a lot of time, just search online.
Here are a couple of articles which speak of the danger of Dyer’s “OrthoBro” movement.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/influencers-orthobros-challenge-orthodox-christianity
https://wheeljournal.com/2023-5-12-noah-jefferson-from-orthobro-to-orthodox-and-the-danger-of-jay-dyers-church-within-the-church/#:~:text=How%20does%20this%20group%20exercise,on%2020th%20century%20Orthodox%20history.
Good Priest, a matter in mentioning: Our Lord & Savior as well as His Mother are not in the ‘current’ documents which started this great experiment of humanity. But please note ALL the original documents of ALL the states at the time of their foundation called upon both far a successful start. And continued to do so for over a century! Even during the Convention Washington called for public prayer & fasting. The universal principle of US had never been practiced or tried, and still not in most places, all of which are derived from their collective Christian faith. Universal standing of speech, of being worthy & equal before God thus giving rise to our laws, of addressing our government with confidence & safety. These and other universal principles all come from their religious background, being synthesized into a secular mode of governance yet based on the common heritage of a singular religion.
As such my problem with my Orthodoxy faith coming out of regions where those notions are unheard. Charlie was addressing our common American heritage giving voice and reminders that our laws, our social structures, our cultural practices spring from a source that many were never taught. Certainly with foreign millions coming into US quickly, bringing such that is alien if not deadly to our way of life, somebody had to speak the truth! Thank God it was a man who had an expressive heart for Jesus Christ, the only Son of God.
Clearly it will take at least a generation or two for us to have a truly American Orthodoxy as we draw others seeking the Eternal Truths offered by our practices. Now if we an only get the Metropolitan to allow US to eat turkey both tomorrow AND Friday, that would be totally cool with most in US! At least in moderation!
All Glory to Him and His Blessings upon you this Thanksgiving, Fr. Bill.
And a blessed Thanksgiving to you, as well.
What I found missing in Charlie Kirk was not so much his commitment to Christ, but rather (unless I have missed something) the spirit of charity and mercy and humility which are the core of the Christian life. Immigrants? Weren’t the same arguments used against the Irish immigrants, and Italian and even Greeks? America has had a remarkable ability to take people from all over and turn them into Americans!
Father Bill