The stunning assassination of Charlie Kirk today is widely (and correctly) viewed as a disturbing act of political violence. It stands in stark contrast to Kirk’s entire approach to public life. His detractors often asked why he went to talk on college campuses. His customary response was, when people stop talking to each other, they resort to violence.

While a man of firm convictions, Kirk was a man of peace.

Kirk was also a Christian. As I’ve reflected on his murder in the last few hours, I’ve been asking myself if it is right to call him a martyr (in the Christian sense of the term).

Kirk openly confessed Jesus to be the incarnate God, who atoned for the sin of the world, and who is risen from the dead.

Can his civic beliefs—peaceful conversation, protection of all innocent human life, affirmation of rights bestowed upon us by God—be separated from his confession of Jesus? Certainly there are non-Christians who shared many of Kirk’s views. Those who knew Kirk well, or who followed his work more closely than I did, would be in a better position to answer this question.

Yet it seems to me that one cannot separate the man who publicly and unapologetically identified as a disciple of Jesus from the man who affirmed the divine blessing bestowed on America in her founding documents and ideals. And certainly those who hated Kirk and are celebrating his murder are deeply opposed to Christ and His Gospel. When he went to work, he did so as a Christian who loved his country and wanted Christ’s peace to rest on all Americans. He unreservedly bore witness and gave testimony (Greek martyria) to Christ and His resurrection. To him, the Gospel was far more important than politics. So the same word keeps coming to my mind, unconventional though it may seem at first: Charlie Kirk, Martyr.

Requiescat in Pace