Over the Christmas break, I had the privilege of reading Charlie Kirk’s final message to the world, Stop, in the Name of God. As much as I was affected by his public murder in September, I wasn’t initially excited about reading his treatise on the Sabbath. I expected it would likely be milk-toast, Evangelical-pop fare. But, as a tribute to his legacy and par for the course for my position as editor of TruthScript, I figured I should probably dive in. Alos, my wife and I had been discussing ways we could be more intentional about honoring the Sabbath, so I thought the book might be a good springboard into more concrete changes in routine.
As a testament to how much the book affected me, we are now planning to go “phone-dark” each Sunday, we’ve purchased a “Brick” device to make our smartphones dumb, and we’ve decided to eschew all work-related activities each Sunday. Stop, in the Name of God didn’t really cause a theological shift in my thinking about the Sabbath, but it did bring the urgency of my family’s and my need for the intentional practice of one. As I told my wife after finishing the book, “If there were one message to leave your country upon your death, this would be it.”
Critiques
Because Charlie Kirk celebrated a weekly Friday-night-to-Saturday-night Sabbath, I expected his ideal for Sabbath practice would be very much influenced by the pharisaical model celebrated by Orthodox/Hassidic Jews. While there is definitely some modern Jewish influence in his thinking (through friends like Dennis Prager, to whom the book is dedicated), Stop, in the Name of God is a thoroughly Protestant argument. In asking the question, “Is the Sabbath mandatory?”, Charlie draws from profound Protestant thinkers like Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther, A.W. Pink, and A.W. Tozer.
In attempting to highlight the benefits of adhering to a purposeful, weekly Sabbath, he does recognize the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But he’s very clear that he has notable theological differences with them, and he’s commenting specifically on the physical/mental benefits that they experience as a group due to their practice of stringent Sabbath rest. Some may find this commendation concerning, but it fits into Charlie’s broader political/cultural project.
Most of my critiques are more stylistic in nature. It seems like Stop, in the Name of God was still being polished when Charlie was murdered. The first third of the book contains some passages that repeat themselves almost verbatim within a few pages. The writing seems to improve as the book goes, both logically and formatively, but there is some redundancy, especially in the beginning chapters.
Whether this was Charlie’s decision or a later choice by editors, the use of “BCE” and “CE” instead of “BC” and “AD” undermines Charlie’s critique of modernity throughout the book. If the argument is being made for a major overhaul and rethinking of how our lives are ordered, purposely aligning them to God’s pattern, our language should reflect that reordering. In the same way, he vigorously refutes atheism and agnosticism, but doesn’t quite touch what drives their modern manifestations: the Theory of Evolution.
The Core of the Argument
Stop, in the Name of God is not a sabbatarian treatise. This will disappoint some and relieve others. He makes a thoroughly positive argument for Sabbath rest, but not one that is theologically rigid. Early in the book, he states:
“The Sabbath is not primarily a legal command–it is a cosmic declaration. It is a weekly, embodied confession that we are created, not accidental. That there is a Creator, and He is not us.” (4)
Later, he says, “As someone who now observes a Saturday Sabbath, I want to be clear: I don’t think the specific day–Saturday or Sunday–is of primary importance. Paul himself says, ‘One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.’ (Romans 14:5). I grant that. The heart behind the day matters more than the day itself. The legalism that traps many Sabbatarians can be as spiritually deadening as the apathy that leads others to neglect rest altogether. This is not about ticking a box on the calendar–it’s about stepping into a rhythm that God designed for our good.” (194)
He spends the first few chapters of the book explaining the origin of the Sabbath, which he roots in the order of Creation week in Genesis 1. He covers the names of God and connects their meaning to the sacredness of the Sabbath. He then traces the history of Sabbath practice from Old Testatment to New, through the Early Church, Medieval Christianity, the Reformers, Puritans, and finally to the American tradition of how “everything used to be closed on Sunday,” lamenting the acid of commercialism and consumerism on what was a cultural norm.
He spends several chapters deconstructing current ideological assaults on the biblical order (atheism, anti-racism, “earth worship,” the worship of self, materialism, statism). The core of his argument is simple: God designed for man to live in a specific, ordered, weekly pattern that includes one day to focus solely on worship and rest. When man rebels against this pattern, he experiences disorder, poor health, and distance from his Creator.
The Best of Stop, in the Name of God
The strongest, most consequential section of the book is the middle, when Charlie makes his argument practical. He considers the benefits of Sabbath rest on health, both mental and physical, and life expectancy. The most poignant argument comes in his consideration of technology’s disastrous personal and cultural consequences:
“…the average American adult now spends over 4.9 hours per day on mobile devices–up from just 3.7 hours in 2019.”
“Smartphones…aren’t just tools. They are pocket-sized dopamine machines.” (124)
“…the scale of the (technology) crisis demands something greater than screen-time tracking or mindfulness apps. What’s needed is a cultural reset–a sacred structure that mandates disconnection, reinstates silence, and teaches young people how to be bored, how to be present, and how to live unplugged for sustained periods of time.” (130)
He goes on to note the overwhelming nature of having our workplaces, social spheres, and the crises of the world always screaming at us in our pockets. In his vision of Sabbath rest, smartphones are most definitely not in the equation.
This was the section of the book I found the most compelling, and the one that instigated the most desire for personal change in my own routine. He gives a lot of practical suggestions, notes the importance of sleep, and makes the case that the “rise and grind” culture of our modern day undermines the adherence to a biblical ordering of life, while also condemning the sloth and laziness that also permeates our society.
“Are Christians Bound to the Sabbath?”
The final section of the book contemplates the question of whether or not the Sabbath is mandated. My first thought after reading through this section was something like, “Wow, if Charlie were a Catholic, he certainly was the most Protestant Catholic there’s ever been.” He presents the two opposing views: that the Sabbath is binding for the new covenant believer, and that it isn’t. He uses the views of John Wesley and A.W. Pink (since Wesley was in the Arminian tradition, and Pink, a Reformed Calvinist) to assess the argument for a mandated Sabbath.
For the argument of an unmandated Sabbath, he looks to Martin Luther and John Calvin, though he notes that Calvin, “rejected the idea that Christians were now free to live without sacred time altogether.” (219)
He makes his position clear towards the end of the section, though, humbly:
“I’ll be honest: I’m not a theologian, a professor, or a pastor. I don’t have letters after my name, nor have I spent decades publishing academic papers on covenant theology or biblical law… But I’ve labored over this question with my Bible open, my conscience stirred, and my heart submitted to God… I do not believe Christians are in sin simply for not keeping the Sabbath in the traditional or Mosaic sense. We are saved by grace, not by keeping holy days. Christ is our righteousness–not our calendars. But I do believe something tragic happens when we treat the Sabbath as irrelevant. We lose a vital part of our witness. We lose access to one of God/s most gracious provisions. We lose a countercultural rhythm that exposes the idolatry of productivity, self-sufficiency, and ceaseless busyness. To live without Sabbath is not neutral – it’s dangerous.” (221)
Conclusion
Coming from a conservative culture warrior, Stop, in the Name of God, presents perhaps the most counterintuitive road map imaginable, at least politically speaking. It’s doubtful you’ll hear the scores of talking heads promoting Charlie’s final, simple message: To do more requires doing less for one day a week. To fight battles requires intentional rest. The book is a stirring testament to a man whom God was clearly preparing for a heavenly promotion—an eternal rest.
Stop, in the Name of God makes it clear that Charlie Kirk had become increasingly convinced in the days before his departure that the only way to restore American greatness was to call her back to Christian piety. What better way to do this than by establishing a personal and social habit that reorders our modern lives into God’s originally intended pattern of living?
Again, the book is not perfect. But his call to reject modernity and rather initiate a holy order to life is a message desperately needed both individually and as a society.
