Charlie Kirk's Brand of Christianity: A Conversation with Matthew Boedy

Charlie Kirk’s death last week has generated a large amount of media coverage, but to go behind the headlines and learn more about Kirk’s theological views and place in the larger context of conservative Christian politics, I turned to a friend and fellow academic student of religion - Matthew Boedy.

I first got to know Matthew when he was president of the Georgia chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and I was chair of the University of West Georgia faculty senate. I came to greatly value Matthew’s perspective and his work defending due process rights, academic freedom, and fair treatment for faculty in the state, at a time when democratic norms in the university system were under threat.

Later, I found out that we also shared some common academic interests. As a professor of English at the University of North Georgia, Matthew studies the rhetoric of religion, including religion in politics. Some of his past scholarship focuses on how we talk about evil, but his latest book, which will be released by Westminster John Knox Press on September 30, is The Seven Mountains Mandate: Exposing the Dangerous Plan to Christianize America and Destroy Democracy. I knew that this book included a section on Charlie Kirk, so after Kirk’s murder last week, I reached out to Matthew for help in situating Kirk in a larger historical and theological context.

Here is an edited transcript of our written conversation:

Dan: When Charlie Kirk began his career as a conservative activist, he did not give a lot of emphasis to religious themes, but religious conservatism became a more prominent part of his message during the last few years of his life. When and why did this shift in emphasis take place? Did he undergo a religious conversion, or did he experience anything that prompted him to begin incorporating conservative Christian themes in his rhetoric?

Matthew: This shift started when he met Rob McCoy, a California megachurch pastor, who persuaded him to embrace Christian Nationalism. Kirk always identified himself as evangelical, so it was not much of a leap for him to emphasize his Christianity more. But McCoy showed Kirk that his not mixing of politics and religion was not what the Bible said. McCoy is an advocate of the Seven Mountains Mandate. He pushed Kirk to adopt that, and he did. This all happened roughly at the end of 2019, as they started speaking together at events in early 2020. So I would say what Kirk experienced was not a religious conversion as much as a political one.

Dan: How would you describe Charlie Kirk's religious beliefs or theology, and how did his particular type of Christian beliefs relate to his larger conservative message and support for Donald Trump?

Matthew: Kirk is fundamentally a socially conservative evangelical—he is anti-abortion in all cases, pro traditional family, two genders, simply life/death/resurrection Jesus narrative. But he also believes the Christian message is not limited to individuals, and this affects his view of salvation. Because of 7MM he sees the salvation of a nation as part of the spread of the gospel. That mandate includes what might be described as secular fiscal conservative components—like free markets, capitalism, even small government. As you know, those have been tied to conservative Christianity in US for decades. He sees Trump certainly as a political figure who offers the right policies, but he also sees him as a spiritual fighter, a person given a divine mission. (Although whether Kirk sees Donald Trump as a Christian is hard to know).

Dan: Your new book on the Seven Mountains Mandate (out September 30^th) includes a substantial section on Charlie Kirk. What is the Seven Mountains Mandate and how did it originate? How popular is it? And how did Charlie Kirk become attracted to it?

Matthew: The entire book is about Kirk though also about others. The 7MM is a strategy of Christian Nationalism to Christianize America and destroy democracy by enforcing a Christian consensus over seven key cultural institutions from government to education to media and more. This list of 7 was created by two leaders of youth or college ministries in the 1970s—Bill Bright of CRU and Loren Cunninghan of Youth with a Mission. Over the years it grew in charismatic circles and was pushed by Peter Wagner, the founder of the new apostolic reformation, and Lance Wallnau, a Wagner devotee who got the list from Cunningham around 2000. Wagner and McCoy helped Kirk see 7MM. Its popularity is staggering. It has taken over the GOP and 30-40 percent of Americans (obviously conservatives) lay claim to it.

Dan: What role did Charlie Kirk play in publicizing the principles of the Seven Mountains Mandate and connecting those principles to the MAGA movement?

Matthew: Kirk has only mentioned the mandate once—at CPAC 2020, where he said Trump was first president to understand the "seven areas of cultural influence." But Kirk has organized TPUSA into seven arms to pursue the mandate.

Do I think Trump is an advocate? Sure. If—a big if—you count him as a Christian. But the MAGA movement is wide ranging and likely many of its voters don't know the 7MM plan but certainly would think "taking back their country/culture" is good. If there is a MAGA doctrine, as Kirk tried to claim in a 2020 book, written BEFORE he went to 7MM, it's unclear to me if that doctrine is coherent enough to accept this other strategy.

Dan: Traditionalist ideas about women's roles played a significant part in Charlie Kirk's message during the last few months of his life. How did his conservative gender ideology relate to his conservative Christian beliefs? Why do you think this conservative gender ideology—which I imagine few people a decade ago thought would have appealed to large numbers of college students—became popular among some conservative women on college campuses?

Matthew: The rise of transgenderism as a subject spurred Kirk on this as much as gay marriage spurred the earlier generation. And he saw trans ideology as a "middle finger" to God. Kirk portrayed conservative gender ideology as popular with campus conservatives because of the exhausting nature of its burden—pronouns, transitions, etc.—either from individuals or administrations. And adding that this was a satanic thing only pushed his antagonism more. I think there is a sizable segment of Gen Z that is just tried of politics, of the constant change, unsure what to say, who to not cancel, etc. And Kirk offers women especially a simple, straight forward way to avoid all that—the MRS degree.

Dan: What do you think might explain the appeal Charlie Kirk's message had among many young people?

Matthew: He engaged them, he encouraged them, he offered them the center of the stage. He didn't go to college and even hated college as much as non-humanities students hate classes outside of their major. But beyond that, he was a wildly successful businessman, affable, and of course he never lost a debate. He was provocative. If the entire project of TPUSA was born out of the era of political correctness, he is the face of "truth telling."

Dan: What do you think Charlie Kirk's legacy will be? What do you think will happen to his message (and to Turning Point USA) now that he is gone?

Matthew: It's hard to know while we are still fresh from his murder. The message of TPUSA won't change. He is a martyr to the culture war, and Erika and his allies will make sure they win in his name. Because we live in such a technological society, with fame fleeting, and so much change at such a fast pace, it's hard to know if we will see Kirk motivating people a decade from now. But I do think many people were—and are—motivated now. That said, as I have tried to say in interviews before, Kirk's legacy is not complete without his rhetorical aggression directed at critics and people like me, his sycophancy, his lies, his conspiracy theories, his race-centered comments, and his assault on democratic institutions. All of this I lay out in my book.

(Photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Wikipedia)