A Critical Examination of Modern Christian Nationalism's Martyrology
Helpful feedback has been coming in about our timeline's scoring system, causing us to take a deeper dive into what exactly goes into this metric. The thoughtful challenges to our initial assessments have led to this more thorough analysis.
Our Timeline's Specific Metric: "When disciples of Christ witness societal corruption and departure from Gospel values, do they mobilize governmental power—seeking laws, leaders, and legislation to restructure society toward Christian ethics? Or do they follow Christ's example: refusing the crown even to advance God's purposes, choosing instead the way of service, suffering, and spiritual transformation?"
This metric measures ONLY the willingness to use political/state power to advance Christianity. It does NOT evaluate personal holiness, theological accuracy, evangelistic zeal, or any other Christian virtue.
A thoughtful reader challenged the original 2.5 score for Charlie Kirk, arguing he should score higher (4-6 range) because:
This approach would score higher (6-7) as he explicitly avoided using state power for religious ends
When we factor in the scale and intensity of political mobilization explicitly driven by Gospel vision, Kirk's score becomes more concerning:
Kirk's message increasingly became:
This represents a systematic redirection of Gospel resources (churches, pastors, biblical authority) toward political ends.
The Critical Principle: The more Gospel resources mobilized for political ends, the LOWER the score should be on our metric.
Kirk didn't merely participate in politics as a Christian. He systematically:
This approach is arguably MORE problematic than crude power-seeking because it spiritualizes the political process itself. It represents not just accepting political power, but actively teaching that:
Consider William Wilberforce (not on the timeline):
Kirk's approach most closely parallels the Constantinian shift, not in terms of power possessed, but in terms of fundamental redirection:
Top-down imperial fusion of church and state
Bottom-up democratic fusion through church mobilization
Both represent moments when the church redirected its core mission toward political ends, just through different mechanisms.
Given the mobilization factor, Charlie Kirk warrants a score of 2.0-2.5 because:
The tragedy is that Kirk's genuine faith and desire to serve God became the very vehicle through which the Third Temptation operated. The more sincere the Gospel motivation for seeking political power, the more complete the capitulation to Satan's offer: "All these kingdoms I will give you..."
This demonstrates why Christ's example matters so profoundly. When offered all earthly kingdoms, Jesus said "Away with you, Satan!" Kirk, like many before him, said "This is how we advance the Gospel."
The mobilization factor doesn't mitigate Kirk's score—it actually confirms or even lowers it. By transforming Gospel institutions into political machinery and teaching that political power is necessary for Kingdom advancement, Kirk's movement represents one of the most systematic modern capitulations to the Third Temptation.
The question isn't whether Christians should engage in public life (they should), but whether they should redirect Gospel resources, authority, and institutions toward securing political power. On this specific metric, Kirk's massive mobilization of church resources for political ends places him firmly in the 2.0-2.5 range, making him indeed second only to Constantine in the systematic fusion of Gospel mission with political power.
From Secular Conservative to Christian Nationalist Mobilizer (2012-2025)
Kirk built one of the most effective church-to-political-capital pipelines in American history:
Kirk achieved something even Jerry Falwell didn't: the complete integration of church infrastructure with political machinery. While Falwell kept some distinction between church and campaign, Kirk eliminated it entirely, making him potentially second only to Constantine in systematically redirecting church resources toward political power.
Score: 2.0-2.5 (Aligned with Constantine)
The evolution from secular political activism to explicit church mobilization demonstrates a complete capitulation to the Third Temptation. The more Gospel resources Kirk mobilized for political ends, the more he departed from Christ's example of rejecting earthly kingdoms. His transformation of churches into political machinery represents one of history's most systematic fusions of spiritual and political power.
The word translated as "worship" in Matthew 4:9 is proskuneō (προσκυνέω), which carries a much broader meaning than our modern English word suggests. Composed of "pros" (toward) and "kuneō" (to kiss), it literally means "to kiss toward" or "to bow down before."
Crucially, proskuneō doesn't only mean religious worship. In ancient texts, it describes:
This broader meaning is crucial: Satan was asking Jesus to acknowledge his authority over the kingdoms of the world. But here's the key insight—to accept Satan's authority over these kingdoms would mean accepting how he rules them. Satan governs through force, coercion, and political power. To bow to him as ruler of these kingdoms would be to accept that his methods are legitimate tools for establishing even God's purposes on earth.
Jesus' refusal wasn't just rejecting Satan personally, but rejecting the entire system by which earthly kingdoms operate—choosing instead the way of the servant, the cross, and transformation through love rather than law.
First, notice that Jesus doesn't dispute Satan's claim to authority over these kingdoms. Satan rules them through a specific method: coercion, force, and top-down power. This is the fundamental operating system of earthly government—it maintains order through law, punishment, and ultimately, the sword.
Consider what accepting Satan's offer would mean practically. How would the kingdoms under Satan's rule transfer to Christ? Only by Christ adopting Satan's methods of governance.
The "worship" Satan sought wasn't liturgical but philosophical. Every time the church has reached for political power to advance the Gospel, it has effectively "bowed" to Satan's philosophy that coercion can produce righteousness.
When Christians say "we need political power to advance God's kingdom," they're accepting Satan's fundamental premise—that his tools (governmental force, legal coercion, state enforcement) are necessary for God's purposes. This is precisely what Jesus rejected.
The Third Temptation wasn't a one-time event. Throughout his ministry, Jesus repeatedly faced pressure to mobilize earthly power—and consistently refused:
When Peter rebuked Jesus about the cross (Matthew 16:23), Jesus responded with the exact same words used in the wilderness: "Get behind me, Satan!" He recognized the same temptation—avoid suffering for an easier path to victory.
After feeding the multitude (John 6:15), the crowd wanted to make Jesus king by force. At the height of his popularity, with political power within grasp, Jesus withdrew alone to the mountain.
When a Samaritan village rejected them (Luke 9:54), the disciples asked: "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven?" Jesus rebuked them for not knowing "what manner of spirit" they were of.
When Peter drew his sword (Matthew 26:52), Jesus declared: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal twelve legions of angels?" He had ultimate power available but chose the cross.
When Pilate asked about his kingdom (John 18:36), Jesus gave the clearest statement: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight." Even facing death, he rejected earthly power.
This makes modern capitulations to political power even more troubling. When movements claim political power is necessary for Gospel advancement, they're accepting what Jesus rejected not once, but repeatedly throughout his entire ministry.
Throughout history, this "bowing" has taken many forms:
Each believed they were serving God while adopting Satan's methodology. They weren't consciously worshipping Satan—they were unconsciously worshipping his philosophy of power.
Satan's temptation was subtle: "Use my methods—they're more effective. Trade foot-washing for political capital. Trade the servant's towel for the ruler's scepter. You can accomplish so much good with this power!"
But Jesus saw through it: You cannot use Satan's methods to build God's kingdom. You cannot enforce the Gospel through government. You cannot legislate the fruit of the Spirit. The kingdom of heaven operates on an entirely different philosophy—one that looks like weakness to the world but is actually God's power.
The "kneeling" happens whenever the church accepts that earthly governmental power—which fundamentally operates through coercion—is a legitimate or necessary tool for advancing the Gospel. Christ's response was unequivocal: "Away with you, Satan!" He chose the cross over the crown, service over sovereignty, transformation over legislation.
Created by Eugene Ulrich
I welcome your feedback on this analysis, especially regarding how fairly and accurately it represents Charlie Kirk's evolution and relationship to Christ's rejection of earthly power.
Does this fairly represent the mobilization factor and scoring methodology? Let me know:
Your perspectives, corrections, and insights are valued—especially from those who support or critique this assessment.