Debunking Charlie Kirk on the End Times
On May 5, 2022 I published Twitter thread concerning Charlie Kirk’s false teaching about how Christians should conduct themselves politically. That thread pointed out Kirk’s teaching implied a particular view of the end of the world aka the “end times” known as postmillennialism.
I want to expand on that thread. Obviously this post won’t “debunk” Kirk’s opinion about the “end times” as one can’t know much about that era. But one can debunk his theology and its possibilities for politics.
The thread noted that Kirk was promoting a form of Christian Dominionism — “the belief that God has called conservative Christians to exercise authority over all of us by taking control of cultural and political institutions” aka the seven mountains or dominions. As the Outline notes the “Seven Mountain Mandate” is “powered by the belief that in fulfilling the criteria for God’s return to earth, the religious right can justify walling themselves off from the demographic shift that is pushing them further into the minority.”
In other words, Kirk and his fellow Dominionists want not merely to put more Christians into more elected positions or cultural dominions or in general to make US better or into a theocracy as an end in itself. Kirk and his fellow believers in this theology promote this kind of “victory” as a sign that a purified US is ready for the second coming of Jesus. The US church must prepare itself and the world for that coming by creating the kingdom on earth, so the thinking goes.
This postmillennialism is sharply different than the two other umbrella concepts in Protestant eschatology: amillennialism and premillennialism.
These three theories, if you will, share something: millennial, the reign of Christ for 1,000 years. This specific number can be traced back to Revelations 20:2-3 which reads: “He [Jesus] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years and threw him into the pit and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended.”
Summary of End Times Thinking
Avoiding the theological weeds, let me summarize the views on that verse this way:
Amillennials see the 1,000 years as symbolic, as some sort of general joy of Christians for Christ’s reign.
Premillennialist believe in the literal, earthly reign of Jesus before that period of years.
There is some debate under this concept on when Christians will leave the earth, either before or after a “great tribulation” preceding this 1,000 years. In this view, Christians will either suffer badly during this tribulation or be saved from it as a minority. In short, Jesus could return at any time and the preparation for such only belongs in the church, not the world.
The third option where Kirk has landed — postmillennialism — opposes that second option sharply. In this view, “increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ’s return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations. After an extensive era of such conditions Jesus Christ will return visibly, bodily, and gloriously, to end history with the general resurrection and the final judgment after which the eternal order follows.” [I use Wikipedia here to save time.] In short, the powerful taking of dominion of Christians will usher in the 1,000 years.
Premillennialists are also known as dispensationalists for various reasons. According to Baptist News “during the 1980s, a silent war emerged” between dispensationalism and the group who now promotes dominion thinking, the New Apostolic Reformation: “Rooted in the idea that civilization must inevitably erode prior to the rapture, dispensationalists were disinclined to engage politically. What was the point? But if the dominionists were right, it was possible to fight and win a culture war.”
The war is not always cultural. Baptist News adds: “NAR-generated conspiracy theory merges easily with Christian nationalism, the militia movement and QAnon. It would be a gross oversimplification to blame the Jan. 6 insurrection on NAR, but their hyper-partisan brand of Manichean dominionism clearly contributed to the insurrectionist mindset.”
Kirk’s Thinking on the End Times
Kirk has mocked premillenialists. Speaking to a pastor on the latter’s church video, Kirk blames one set of pastors for being apolitical due to their view of the “end times.” He says: “They use the eschatology as an excuse for disengagement. Like Jesus is coming next Friday, the house is on… you know… the house is on fire, let’s just get the kids out.” [11:53]
It seems the “house is on fire” refers to the bad political and cultural situation for Christians as we get closer to the “end times.” The “get the kids out” seems to refer to the individual salvation experience or for the church to save as many as it can before the “end times” start.
The pastor on this video uses a fire metaphor to argue his position shared with Kirk [13:10]. While the pastor believes Jesus could return any day, he wants Christians to “turn up the heat” [politically he implies] as to prepare for that return. In short, that is postmillennialism because the victory of Christians in the dominion of politics among others will usher in the return of Christ.
In his retort to the premillennialists, Kirk says “Jesus says ‘occupy til I come.’”
This is a misleading quote of Luke 19:13 which is in the middle of the “Parable of the Ten Minas.”
The parable is about a ruler who gives his servants money and leaves. When he returns he praises those who had invested or worked well to expand the original money. He judges the one who did not risk that initial gift.
Kirk is misleading because he does not mention this line comes from a parable and also he seems to focus on “occupy,” the word used by the King James Version. Kirk misleads because he uses the word in a militaristic or sovereign manner.
In the context of the parable, the overall question is how to be faithful as a Christian as you await the return of Jesus. And so then how to understand “occupy” fits in that debate.
The first retort to Kirk’s militant interpretation of “occupy” is the NIV translation of verse 13: “Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’” The New Revised Standard edition, another respected translation, says it this way: “He summoned ten of his slaves and gave them ten pounds and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’”
The second retort to Kirk is he is misreading the “occupy” from the KJV. It has no relation to the “occupy” of the Dominionists who want Christians to “take over” and act as rulers or sovereigns in these dominions.
The Greek word pragmateúomai connects with our English word pragmatic and often means to be about one’s business. It has no ruling sense — no way to read it as ruling over others. It means “to be occupied with” or to “carry out” some form of business that will have success as defined by God.
The last retort to Kirk’s thinking is what I mentioned in the original Twitter thread. In his reading of Jeremiah 29:7 he omits the word “exile” to describe the group of believers he refers to.
This exile is a key element in a proper understanding of the role of politics in Christian living. Christians are not the literal servants in the parable, as Jesus as king has not merely gone away. Christians too have been put in an exile location. In that exile, yes, as Jeremiah notes, Christians are to be about the success or prosperity of their nation. But that does not, again, imply a sovereign role. In short, Kirk’s theology is being formed by his politics. This is why his thinking on the “end times” has serious issues for democracy and the church.
