What does Pope Leo XIV want? 10 takeaways from his first interviews

(RNS) — In his first in-depth interviews since his election, Pope Leo XIV set out his vision for the Catholic Church: open to dialogue yet firm on doctrine.

Pope Leo XIV leaves at the end of his audience for operators of justice in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Sept. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Claire Giangravé
September 24, 2025

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — In two wide-ranging interviews with Crux Vatican reporter Elise Ann Allen, Pope Leo XIV addressed some of the most pressing questions facing his pontificate and the Catholic Church, including the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the welcoming of LGBTQ people in the church and how he plans to address the Trump presidency in his native United Sates.

What emerged from the interviews is a portrait of a pope who is cautious and favors listening, while still willing to draw a firm line on doctrine and priorities. “I am not trying to continue promoting polarization in the Church” is a phrase he repeats often and in different contexts, befitting the ancient Latin papal moniker pontifex: bridge-builder.

RELATED: In first interview, Pope Leo XIV takes on billionaires, polarization and war

Leo XIV is not naive about the Holy See’s limited power to intervene, especially in war, nor does he undersell the acute difficulties of the church’s finances or its internal divisions. He offers as an antidote a true missionary spirit, honed in his many years ministering in Peru, coupled with Pope Francis’ appeal to build a poor church for the poor

“I don’t see my main role as trying to be the problem-solver of the world,” Leo told Crux, “although I do believe the Church has a voice, a message that needs to continue to be preached, to be spoken and spoken loudly.”

So far, the silent and smiling pope has been like a Rorschach test, a blurry image where anyone can see or imagine whatever they hope in this new pontificate. But these first interviews offer a premiere look behind the veil and a glimpse into what Pope Leo XIV is really about.

Excerpts from the interviews were first published on Sept. 14 on the Catholic news site Crux. The full interviews are available in Spanish in Allen’s new book, “Leo XIV: Citizen of the World, Missionary of the XXI Century,” which will be published in English and Portuguese in 2026.

On the U.S. bishops: Under Francis, the Vatican relationship with U.S. bishops was often described as tense. Leo, who was born and raised in Chicago, made clear in his interview that he expects fewer misunderstandings. “The fact that I’m American means, among other things, that people can’t say, as they did with Francis, ‘he doesn’t understand the United States, he just doesn’t see what’s happening,’” Leo said, showing that he is keenly aware of the issues that existed in the past. As the former head of the Vatican department overseeing bishops, Leo also has insider knowledge of the American bishops’ priorities and concerns.

The pope said he would speak to the bishops directly and pointed to Francis’ letter, sent in late February encouraging the U.S. episcopate to advocate for migrants and refugees.




Official portrait of Pope Leo XIV. (Photo © Vatican Media)

On President Donald Trump: The pope stressed that he has no intention of being sucked into partisan politics and will leave it to bishops to engage with the Trump administration, but said, “I’m not afraid to raise issues that I believe are true issues of the Gospel, which I hope people on both sides of the aisle, as we say, can hear.”

It’s up to the U.S. bishops, Leo said, to engage with the Trump presidency “very seriously.” While he noted that some of the things that are happening in the United States “are a cause of concern,” Leo also said that he is willing to work with Trump “especially on questions of human dignity, of promoting peace in the world.”

Gaza and Israel: Addressing the violence and war in Gaza, Leo voiced concern for the lack of effective solutions to help innocent civilians. He recognized that the lasting effects of famine, especially for young people, cannot be quickly resolved by delivering aid, but require medical attention and rehabilitation.

“It’s so horrible to see the images on television, I wish something would change this situation,” he said, adding that he hopes the world will not become desensitized by the sight of so much pain. As Christians, he added, people have a responsibility to continue working to bring about change in the region.

Leo recognized that the term “genocide” is being used “more and more” about the civilian deaths in Gaza, but he said the Holy See cannot make an official statement until the status is determined by the international community. Acknowledging that a growing number of human rights groups and individual are raising the issue, he said, “there is a very technical definition of what a genocide might be.”

This position is aligned with Francis, who in 2024 deferred the question to an international inquiry about whether the term “genocide” can be used to describe the plight of the Palestinian people.

But Leo called rekindling relations with the Jewish community a priority, saying that they have already “improved a little” in the first months of his pontificate. “It is important to make some distinctions that they themselves make between what the Government of Israel is doing and who the members of the Jewish community are,” he said.

Women deacons: Leo confirmed his intention to promote women leaders in the church but drew a clear line at the ordination of women to the diaconate, a question that had been raised at recent summits of bishops at the Vatican. Deacons can preach from the pulpit and perform some sacraments but can’t celebrate the Eucharist, hear confessions or anoint the sick.

“I think it will continue to be a problem. I, for the moment, do not intend to change the teaching of the Church on the matter. I think there are some previous questions that need to be asked,” he said.

Pope Leo XIV poses with women at the end of his first weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, May 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Echoing his immediate predecessors, Leo framed women’s ordination as a question of clericalism — it risks treating members of the clergy, male or female, as more important than lay Catholics. He said that before women could occupy the role of deacon, the church would need to establish in church culture a better understanding of the permanent diaconate — as opposed to a way station before priesthood, as it currently is in the church.

LGBTQ+ inclusion: Leo used the interview to put himself in line with Francis’ call that the church be open to all Catholics, while not budging on doctrine. “I think we have to change attitudes, before even thinking about changing what the Church says about any given question,” he said. “It seems very unlikely to me, certainly in the near future, that the Church’s doctrine will change in terms of what it teaches about sexuality and marriage.”

Families, he said, are made up of a man, a woman and children. He pushed back against those who said the Vatican’s 2023 doctrinal document on the blessing of people with same-sex attractions, “Fiducia Supplicans” (Supplicating Trust), was tantamount to blessing gay couples’ relationships. “The teaching of the Church will continue as it is, and that is what I have to say about it for now,” he said.

China: Catholic conservatives were disturbed by Francis’ signing of a 2018 agreement between China and the Holy See. While the document’s content remains secret, it has been described as allowing Beijing to have a significant say in the appointment of bishops, normally the prerogative of the pope.

Leo said that for the short term he plans on observing the agreement as is but that he has already had conversations with members of the officially recognized church in China and of the so-called underground church that operates illegally in the country with recognition from Rome.

Latin Mass: Conservatives widely resent the restrictions placed by Francis on the Old Rite, known as the Tridentine Mass, in his 2021 apostolic letter “Traditiones Custodes” (Guardians of the Tradition). Leo said he has already received many requests on the issue since becoming pope, and he said the issue is “very complicated.”

Leo blames polarization in the church for the tensions surrounding liturgy, adding that the Tridentine Mass has become for some “a political tool.” He recognized that the “abuse” of the liturgy after the Second Vatican Council, which sought to reconcile the church with the society of the 1960s, may have left some seeking “a deeper experience of prayer, of contact with the mystery of faith.”

But the pope said those who advocate for the Tridentine Rite have refused to engage in dialogue with the Vatican on this issue. “It means that we are now in ideology, we are no longer in the experience of the communion of the Church,” he said, adding that the topic is being studied by a group of experts and theologians at the Vatican.

Building a better church: Francis ushered in a wave of reform of the Roman curia, the Vatican bureaucracy. Leo said he plans to continue the reform effort enshrined in the 2022 apostolic constitution “Praedicate Evangelium” (Preach the Gospel) and will also make some changes.

Among them is promoting better systems of communications among the Vatican departments, which often work as monoliths with rare instances of collaboration. He claimed that the Vatican’s famously troubled finances are not as bad as some have stated, adding that “it doesn’t keep me up at night.”

Pope Leo XIV tours St. Peter’s Square on his popemobile prior to the inaugural Mass of his pontificate, May 18, 2025, at the Vatican. (AP Photo/Domenico Stinellis)

In his papacy, Francis increasingly emphasized synodality, an approach to church governance based in dialogue, inclusion and the promotion of laypeople in the church. Leo supports the concept, telling Crux, “A leader who walks alone is not leading anyone, but if a leader is capable of bringing people together and moving forward together, that is much more effective.”

A better church for Leo also includes outreach to other denominations. He intends to invite many leaders of religions and Christian denomination to meet him in Nicaea, Turkey, in late November, where he will mark the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and the formulation of the Nicene Creed.

He also said he plans to build bridges with the Orthodox Church in Russia, with the hope of promoting dialogue between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow, who have been at odds in light of the war in Ukraine and friction within the Orthodox faiths. Leo said “some steps” have been taken toward finding a common date for Easter among all Christian denominations.

Clergy sexual abuse: The pope said the church’s abuse crisis is one of the main concerns of his papacy. He is pushing for faster trials while preserving the presumption of innocence for accused priests. Most of all, he vowed that victims and survivors would be heard and treated with respect and dignity.

Artificial intelligence: In his short tenure, Leo has already discussed artificial intelligence several times and it promises to be a matter of great interest in his pontificate. He advocates for caution about the technology’s rapid development and offered the church’s long history of considering the human condition to the world’s discussion about its limits and uses.

“The Church is not against the advances of technology, at all, but losing the relationship between faith and scientific reason, I think leaves science as an empty, cold shell, that will do great harm to humanity,” he said.

He also spoke about AI’s role in advancing fake news and conspiracy theories. “There is a truth, authentic truth,” that cannot be bent to alternative visions or perspectives, he told Crux. On the other hand, Leo said, are AI-generated videos that show him falling, and those asking to create an AI avatar of Leo that can offer spiritual answers. “If there’s anyone who shouldn’t be represented by an avatar, it seems to me, it’s the pope,” he said.

Throughout the interview, Leo described himself as charged with the main purpose of guiding the attention of the lost and lonely humanity toward God and the heavens. He said that as the church celebrates the Jubilee of Hope this year, he finds himself “full of hope” despite the challenges, “because that is really what the Church represents, we have so much to offer the world.”

RELATED: Most US Catholics approve of Pope Leo but know little about him, Pew survey finds

Eastern Orthodox leader meets with Trump, advocates for Ukraine on US visit

(RNS) — During his visit, Bartholomew I is set to accept the 2025 Templeton Prize in recognition of his environmental advocacy that's earned him the moniker 'green patriarch.'

President Donald Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, second right, Monday, Sept. 15, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

David I. Klein
September 19, 2025


(RNS) — Bartholomew I, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople and one of Orthodox Christianity’s most influential leaders, has begun a nearly two-week apostolic visit to the United States that included a meeting with President Donald Trump.

The trip, which began Monday (Sept. 15), is the first in four years for the Istanbul-based church hierarch and his eighth since he was installed in 1991. In addition to meetings with Greek Orthodox Americans, the patriarch spoke before the State Department and with Vice President JD Vance and congressional leaders. Bartholomew will also accept an award for his environmental activism next week.

Under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which is an arm of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the church has some 1.5 million faithful in the U.S., and more than 500 parishes and 20 monasteries.

Trump is the sixth U.S. president he has met. During their hourlong meeting, the two broached many topics, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Orthodox-Catholic relations and Turkey’s Christian minority. The patriarch also addressed Trump’s efforts to broker a truce in the Russia-Ukraine war, thanking him for his work toward ending the war.

Bartholomew has been a strong backer of the Ukrainian Orthodox church’s independence from Russia for many years. In 2018, he used his authority as ecumenical patriarch — a role that has historically served as a mediator between the Orthodox world and many independent churches — to formalize Ukrainian Orthodox Christians’ separation from the Russian Orthodox Church and its Moscow-based, and aligned, patriarch. The move sparked a schism between the Moscow Patriarchate, the world’s largest Orthodox church body, and Constantinople.

President Donald Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Monday, Sept. 15, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The independence of the Ukrainian church from the Moscow Patriarchate, and the suppression of churches still tied to Moscow, has been a sore point not just for the Russian church but for Russia itself. Several of Russia’s peace proposals call for protecting Russian-aligned churches and banning an independent Ukrainian church.

In an interview with a French television station last week, Bartholomew reiterated his support for the Ukrainian church’s independence.

“The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not intend to revoke its decision to grant autocephaly to Ukraine. I want to clearly state this,” Bartholomew said.

“Our goal is to unite all the Orthodox churches of Ukraine, both those of Metropolitan Onufriy and those of Metropolitan Epiphanius, so that they unite at the theoretical level and in everyday life, become a single local church and be recognized by other sister Orthodox churches,” he continued. “I think that sooner or later, it will happen. We should not expect it to happen overnight. Let us recall that the autocephaly of other churches was also not recognized immediately. It took other Orthodox churches time to realize the autocephaly of the new church. I believe that with God’s grace and the goodwill of the Orthodox sister churches this will happen in the coming years or decades.”

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations on Friday (Sept. 19), he doubled down on his criticism of the Russian church, specifically mentioning Russkiy mir, or Russian world, ideology, used to justify the war in Ukraine.

“The Orthodox Church of Russia has given its ringing endorsement to the invasion of Ukraine and the murder of fellow Orthodox Christians by the Putin regime,” he said. “It has done so in service to the outdated and outlandish imperial philosophy of Russkiy mir, which has been growing since the fall of the Soviet Union.”

FILE – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, stands next to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, at the Patriarchal Church of St. George in Istanbul, Turkey, Saturday, July 8, 2023. Zelenskyy attended a memorial ceremony for the victims of the war in Ukraine led by Patriarch Bartholomew I. (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)

The patriarch also rejected the intertwining of church, state and nationalism at a dinner hosted by the State Department.

“In times past, religion was used to consolidate peoples around specific governments, giving coherence to earthly empires, kingdoms and nation-states,” he said. “… Has not the human family arrived at a point when such rigid forms of conformity no longer serve the interests of the people? As the ecumenical patriarchate, we seek to foster interreligious dialogue, mutual respect and an understanding of coexistence that often eludes the nations of the world.”

During his meetings with U.S. leaders, Bartholomew also brought attention to Turkey’s Greek-speaking and other Christian minorities. Once home to millions of Christians of various denominations, today, Christians account for less than 1% of Turkey’s population — a result of a turbulent 20th century, which included acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing at the close of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

While the patriarch was before Congress, Florida Republican Congressman Gus Bilirakis, who is of Greek descent, called on the U.S. to pressure Ankara to reopen the Halki Seminary. A Greek Orthodox theological school on an island off the coast of Istanbul, Halki was the last school to train Christian priests in Turkey before it was closed by the Turkish government in 1971. Since then, its fate has been an important issue for Turkey’s Orthodox Christian minority and a sticking point in Greek-Turkish relations.

RELATED: On anniversary of the first Council of Nicaea, Christian leaders seek to return to ecumenism

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, welcomes the leader of the Orthodox Christian Church, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, left, for a meeting in the speaker’s office at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Next week, Bartholomew is set to accept the 2025 Templeton Prize, awarded by the U.S.-based John Templeton Foundation, in recognition of his environmental advocacy that has earned him the moniker “green patriarch.” Since his enthronement in 1991, Bartholomew has avidly proclaimed that church leaders have a responsibility to take a stance on environmental issues. He brought scientists and other environmental scholars to Istanbul and other properties of the church for seminars on the subject, stretching back decades.

“For over 30 years, Bartholomew has articulated a compelling moral and theological vision of humanity’s responsibility to care for the Earth and to uphold harmony, unity and mutual love within and across religious communities,” The Templeton Foundation said in April when naming him the recipient of the prize. “He has consistently exhorted people of faith to view their relationship to creation as a sacred duty, arguing that making a false historical divide between the material and spiritual can deny the significance of environmental degradation.”

MAGA'S HORST WESSEL

Charlie Kirk's AI resurrection ushers in a new era of digital grief

“I’m Charlie. My faith cost me my life, but now I stand forever in glory,” the AI-generated Kirk says.

(RNS) — AI-generated versions of the conservative Christian activist are popping up online after his killing — as well as in church services.

Recent AI-generated content of Charlie Kirk found on social media. (RNS illustration)

Jack Jenkins
September 17, 2025

(RNS) — Megachurch pastor Jack Graham was in the middle of his Sunday message to Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, this past weekend when he paused to cue up an unusual sermon illustration. After encouraging people to respond to the killing of conservative Christian activist Charlie Kirk by turning to God, he instructed the congregation to listen to a roughly minute-long audio clip of what sounded like Kirk delivering a short speech.

“Hear what Charlie is saying regarding what happened to him this past week,” Graham said.

As the clip, which encouraged listeners to “pick up your cross, and get back in the fight,” ended, the congregation burst into applause. A few seconds later, they rose to their feet in a standing ovation.

But the clip they listened to was not, in fact, Charlie Kirk from beyond the grave. As Graham made clear when he introduced the segment, the congregation was listening to a production generated entirely by artificial intelligence: The clip, which has gone viral online, was a cloned version of Kirk’s voice delivering what appeared to be an AI-generated response from a chatbot asked what Kirk would say in the wake of his own death.

It’s unclear where the video originated, but at least two other large evangelical Protestant churches — Dream City Church in Arizona and Awaken Church, San Marcos in California — also played it during their services that day. Pastors at both churches made clear the clips were AI; even so, the segment triggered applause each time.

The message was part of a wave of AI-generated content that flooded social media in the wake of Kirk’s killing, with supporters and even Kirk’s former colleagues sharing images, videos and audio messages that featured the felled activist and that were made by artificial intelligence. Amid outrage over Kirk’s killing and debate about his legacy, the surge, which has been most visible on social media platforms, showcased a new form of public mourning and remembrance, one in which the dead are grieved with hyperreal but entirely fictional reconstructions crafted in seconds by AI services.

Congregants listen to AI-generated audio of Charlie Kirk, Sept. 13, 2025, at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas. (Video screen grab)

AI-generated images and videos of Kirk appeared within hours of his death, some growing in popularity over the next few days. Many featured religious themes, a byproduct of Kirk’s own personal and political shift toward evangelical Christianity near the end of his life.

Imagining Kirk in heaven was a common theme. In one clip, which has racked up hundreds of thousands of views on Facebook and X, Kirk stares into a camera as soft piano music plays.

“I’m Charlie. My faith cost me my life, but now I stand forever in glory,” the AI-generated Kirk says.

The fictional Kirk then introduces four historical Christian martyrs and saints — Paul, Stephen, Andrew and Peter. These, also AI-generated characters, briefly recount their own stories of martyrdom before the AI Kirk urges listeners to root themselves in a “Bible-believing church,” join in a “spiritual” battle and “overwhelm the world with Jesus.”

Other clips are shorter, but more direct. One depicts an AI-generated Kirk taking selfies in heaven with prominent Americans who were assassinated, such as Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy as well as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. As the digital Kirk poses with the historical icons in a cloudy vista, “Knocking on Heaven’s Door” plays in the background.

Many AI-generated clips depict Kirk with Jesus Christ. One shows Kirk sitting in the same tent where he was shot and killed, but then suddenly leaping out of his chair and running up a staircase to a smiling Jesus. Another features an AI-generated Kirk praying on a park bench as Scripture is flashed across the screen and “Come Jesus Come” by CeCe Winans plays in the background. Eventually, a radiant Jesus arrives, and the two embrace.

Yet another shows Jesus and Kirk, holding a Make America Great Again hat, walking toward the camera among the clouds.

”Welcome, my son,” Jesus says, embracing the AI Kirk. “Your work is done. Come rest.”

Apparent AI-generated images have even been used by Kirk’s former co-workers. Andrew Kolvet, who produced “The Charlie Kirk Show” and has hosted the program multiple times since Kirk’s killing, posted what appears to be an AI-generated image of Kirk alongside other assassinated Americans from U.S. history such as King and Lincoln, as well as Jesus Christ. (The image sparked criticism, with detractors noting that the real-life Kirk criticized King. The Rev. Bernice King, one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughters, said of the image, “there are so many things wrong with this.”)


(Screen grab)

Depictions of famous figures in heaven, or even in relationship with Jesus, are hardly unusual. But the particular utilization of AI to commemorate Kirk — with content flooding the internet within hours of his death — may be an outgrowth of the technology’s wide use among devotees of President Donald Trump. That includes the Trump administration itself: On several occasions, AI-generated images and memes have appeared on official government accounts.

As Charlie Warzel, who writes on technology and media, observed in The Atlantic in August, the “high-resolution, low-budget look of generative-AI images appears to be fusing with the meme-loving aesthetic of the MAGA movement.”

Warzel added: “At least in the fever swamps of social media, AI art is becoming MAGA-coded. The GOP is becoming the party of AI slop.”

Kirk, of course, was an avid Trump supporter who played a significant role in helping the president return to power, and some of the AI-generated content that proliferated after the activist’s death has been tied to conservative causes. Many images, for instance, linked Kirk’s death to the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee whose slaying on a bus in Charlotte, North Carolina, became a source of outrage for Kirk and other conservatives shortly before Kirk’s own assassination. One widely shared image shows an AI-generated Kirk comforting Zarutska as she sits on the bus where she was killed, bleeding. At least one person created a video version of the image that features the hymn “How Great Thou Art.” A similar AI-generated video shows Kirk embracing Zarutska on the bus as they both flap newly grown angel wings.

Another AI-generated video pushed a pro-Israel message — a topic that has sparked division among conservatives, and which Kirk was reportedly trying to mitigate shortly before his death. In the video, an AI-generated Kirk, adorned with angel wings and a white robe, speaks from heaven as he declares: “I’m in a better place now, but America and Israel will never be the same.” The AI Kirk insists that the U.S. and Israel are both based on “faith, on freedom, on family,” shortly before a bald eagle is shown landing on his head as he stands in front of Israeli and U.S. flags.

Despite their viral nature, it’s unclear precisely what role these virtually enhanced remembrances play in the lives of those who mourn Kirk’s death. But social media boosters of the creations often frame them as a form of catharsis: On TikTok, influencer Taylor Diazmercado posted a short video of herself last week reacting to the AI-generated audio clip of Kirk — which she clearly labeled as such — that would later be used in churches. As an entirely fabricated voice speaks lines Kirk never said in life, Diazmercado can be seen visibly weeping, frequently wiping away tears as she nods along in-between sobs.

Beneath the video, which had 123,000 likes as of Wednesday (Sept. 17), she added a short caption: “What a man.”

At Charlie Kirk's memorial, religion, politics and antagonism toward liberals combine

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them,” Trump said. 

(RNS) — A who’s who of right-wing figures, conservative dignitaries, Trump administration officials and Trump himself regaled a sprawling crowd of tens of thousands with speeches that mixed religious appeals with personal remembrances of Kirk.

President Donald Trump embraces Erika Kirk at a memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Sept. 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Jack Jenkins
September 22, 2025
RNS


(RNS) — Shortly before the speaking program began at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on Sunday (Sept. 21) to kick off the massive memorial service honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a group of prominent Christian musicians onstage sang a rendition of the hymn “It Is Well With My Soul.”

As the first notes of song filled the space, thousands of attendees silently began to raise four different signs. Two referenced Scripture, and others referenced Turning Point USA, the political organization Kirk founded. The placards were emblazoned with contrasting colors and assigned to different sections of the crowd, with the ultimate effect of transforming the stadium into precise stripes of red, white and blue — the colors of the American flag, two of which hung on either side of the gargantuan stage.

It was the beginning of what quickly became an unapologetic fusion of conservative Christianity — particularly evangelicalism, Kirk’s chosen religious tradition — and President Donald Trump’s style of conservative politics, sometimes delivered by prominent representatives of the United States government. Over the course of roughly five hours, a who’s who of right-wing figures, conservative dignitaries, Trump administration officials and Trump himself regaled a sprawling crowd of tens of thousands with speeches that mixed religious appeals with personal remembrances of Kirk. In many cases, the speeches also included criticism of liberals and progressives, whom some blamed for Kirk’s death even as investigators have yet to determine an explicitly political motive for the shooter.

The event’s religious and political subtext was ubiquitous from the jump, when the Rev. Rob McCoy — the only clergy member to address the crowd from the podium — opened the program. Explaining that Kirk viewed McCoy, the recently retired pastor of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, California, as his personal pastor, McCoy argued Kirk would have wanted Christianity to be a focus of his memorial.

“Charlie wanted his savior to be the guest of honor,” McCoy said. “He wanted all of you to receive this gift from him.”

After adding that Kirk “saw politics as an on-ramp to Jesus,” McCoy shifted into a kind of altar call, urging people in the crowd to stand if they wanted “to receive Jesus as their savior.” The pastor then directed those standing to use a QR code projected on the screen above him to access resources from TPUSA Faith, a project McCoy helped co-found with Kirk, that would “give you everything you need to walk this walk with Christ,” he said.


The Rev. Rob McCoy speaks at a memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/John Locher)

During the first section of the program, several of Kirk’s former TPUSA co-workers celebrated people they said embraced Christianity as a result of Kirk’s death — a common claim repeated by Kirk’s supporters over the past week.

“Charlie Kirk was a prophet — not the fortunetelling kind that could predict the future, but the biblical kind,” said TPUSA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet, who produced “The Charlie Kirk Show” and regularly appeared on the program alongside Kirk. Kolvet said he now thinks of Kirk’s appearances on college campuses, such as the event in Utah where he was killed, as “tent revivals.”


Faith was also at the center of the address delivered by Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow and the newly appointed head of TPUSA. Her emotional address did not avoid politics but contrasted with other speeches by focusing primarily on her relationship with Kirk and pausing to make a powerful point about forgiveness. As tears rolled down her face, Erika, who is Catholic, publicly forgave the man who has been accused of killing her husband earlier this month.

“On the cross, our savior said, ‘Father, forgive them for they not know what they do,’” said Erika Kirk, who wore a cross necklace. “That man, that young man: I forgive him.”

People listen as Erika Kirk, seen on a stadium screen, speaks at a memorial for her late husband conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Her tone was a departure from speeches that filled other sections of the program, in which references to Christianity were directed outward at ideological enemies on the left or speakers openly encouraged the crowd to go after political opponents.

Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, said Kirk knew “it is better to be persecuted for your faith than to deny the kingship of Christ,” and Vance suggested that the felled activist — who was known for debating political opponents and casting aspersions on those he disagreed with in ways that have been condemned by some faith leaders in other traditions in recent days — would want his political work to continue.

“I think (Kirk) would encourage me to be honest that evil still walks among us — not to ignore it for the sake of a fake kumbaya moment, but to address it head-on,” said Vance, who has credited Kirk with helping him become Trump’s running mate in 2024, and ultimately vice president

Vance was also one of at least five speakers who declared Kirk to be a Christian martyr.

“For Charlie, we must remember that he is a hero to the United States of America and he is a martyr for the Christian faith,” Vance said.

Another speaker, conservative activist Benny Johnson, also called Kirk a martyr and compared him to Stephen, the first Christian martyr described in the Bible. Johnson then encouraged political figures in the crowd to go after their political opponents.

“Rulers wield the sword for the protection of good men and for the terror of evil men,” Johnson said, referencing a passage from the biblical Book of Romans. “May we pray that our rulers here, rightfully instituted and given power by our God, wield the sword for the terror for evil men in our nation in Charlie’s memory.”

Jack Posobiec holds up a rosary as he speaks at a memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Jack Posobiec, a far-right activist and conspiracy theorist who regularly appeared on Kirk’s podcast, began his speech by walking onstage holding a rosary — something he has done in the past while making controversial comments. He likened Kirk to Moses, saying the activist “brought us to the promised land,” and argued Kirk’s killing will save “Western civilization” by “returning the people to Almighty God.”

Posobiec concluded his message by shouting at the crowd, urging them to engage in “spiritual warfare” on Kirk’s behalf and “put on the full armor of God.”

Posobiec was echoed by Pete Hegseth, the U.S. secretary of war who belongs to a denomination co-founded by Pastor Doug Wilson, a self-described Christian nationalist. Hegseth described Kirk as “a citizen who had the biblical heart of a soldier of the faith, who put on, every single day, the full armor of God with a smile as the Scriptures tell all Christ followers to do.”

Hegseth then said that, in the wake of Kirk’s death, “it’s our turn,” and urged the crowd to “live worthy of Charlie Kirk’s sacrifice, and put Christ at the center of your life, as he advocated for giving his.”

Other speakers included conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, an Episcopalian, who said Kirk was “ultimately a Christian evangelist”; Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Catholic, who argued Kirk would want attendees at the service to be inspired to embrace Christianity and who then recited a lengthy, paraphrased version of the Apostles’ Creed; and White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, a Jewish man who railed against Trump’s ideological opponents, using a series of conflict metaphors, before declaring “God is on our side.”

Arguably the least religious speech of the day was delivered by Trump, a self-described nondenominational Christian. After walking out to pyrotechnics — a common feature at TPUSA events — while recording artist Lee Greenwood sang “God Bless the U.S.A.,” Trump described Kirk not as a Christian martyr but a martyr for “American freedom.”

Amid the ensuing 45-minute speech, during which Trump appeared to repeatedly deviate from his prepared remarks to discuss topics unrelated to Kirk or his death, the president joked that he struggles with the kind of Christian principles Kirk would want him to embrace, such loving one’s enemies.

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them,” Trump said. He then turned to Erika Kirk, saying, “I’m sorry, Erika.”

Trump said he agreed with Kirk that the U.S. needed a “spiritual reawakening.” Like many of the speakers, the president envisioned a specific kind of religious revival sparked by Kirk’s killing. Trump — whose administration has been criticized and sued by a broad spectrum of religious groups — appeared to tie a surge of faith to support for his administration’s core policy objectives, namely, its widespread crackdown on immigration and deployment of federal agents and troops into U.S. cities in response to disputed claims of surging crime.

“We have to bring back religion to America because without borders, law and order, and religion, you really don’t have a country anymore,” Trump said, sparking applause. “We want religion brought back to America. We want to bring God back into our beautiful USA like never before.”

Opinion

At Charlie Kirk's memorial, Christian artists play a role as GOP's political messengers

(RNS) — Political activists have recruited Christian musicians to sell policy, and Christian musicians have used their concerts to condemn abortion and support sexual abstinence campaigns.

Women listen during a worship song before the start of a memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Sept. 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Leah Payne
September 22, 2025

(RNS) — On Sunday (Sept. 21), as conservative activist Charlie Kirk was eulogized in Glendale, Arizona, by luminaries of the American right, Christian music superstars Chris Tomlin, Brandon Lake, Phil Wickham, Kari Jobe Carnes and Cody Carnes led the mourners in singing contemporary worship songs as well as old standbys. In the days since his Sept. 10 assassination, other prominent Christian musicians such as Michael W. Smith and Matthew West have memorialized Kirk as a “true patriot” doing “the work of the Lord,” a martyr inspiring future generations of Christians to “carry the banner of Christ.”

This outpouring will not surprise anyone familiar with the business of contemporary Christian music — known familiarly as CCM — the predominantly white evangelical Christian devotional pop music that has often gone hand in hand with conservative activism.

Since its birth in the late 1970s, CCM has encouraged conservative political activism, and it has thrived on marketing a religiously inspired American patriotism. (Black gospel music, on the other hand, has not followed these patterns.) It took a while for CCM to find its political niche: In the early days of the industry, CCM artists participated in a broad array of political and social activism, from ending nuclear armament to Farm Aid, and raised money for AIDS patients.

As CCM grew as a business, however, the most successful political and social efforts were those aligned with the GOP platform.

Through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, top-selling Christian music reliably repeated top priorities of the Republican National Committee. Christian music promoted the pro-life movement, abstinence-only education in public schools and — especially after 9/11 — enthusiastically articulated American exceptionalism. Christian artists often framed their support for these causes apocalyptically; Jesus was coming soon, the logic went, and therefore, the time for mincing words about abortion or sex ed was over. Direct pleas for Christian causes were what was needed at the end of time.

Savvy evangelical political activists came to see in CCM a critical “soft power” that could be used to shape American foreign and domestic policy, and Christian musicians were recruited to use their concerts to collect purity pledges in support of True Love Waits’ abstinence-only sex education, as well as donations to support charities like World Vision and Compassion International.

In the early aughts, Mark D. Rodgers, staff director for the Senate Republican Conference and former chief of staff to then-Sen. Rick Santorum, recognized that CCM stars offered a powerful gateway into a vast network of evangelical activists and media producers. A longtime Capitol Hill insider, Rodgers drew upon the evangelical strategist James Davison Hunter’s argument that Christians should be a “faithful presence” in “elite levels of sectors that shape worldview.”

In an interview for “God Gave Rock & Roll to You: A History of Contemporary Christian Music,” Rodgers explained how CCM artists fit into activist efforts. “Who are the elites of our day?” he reasoned. “If we are talking about strategically engaging sectors that shape worldview, it felt to me like art and entertainment was a sector that should be a priority.”

Beginning in 2001, Rodgers pursued connections with both mainstream entertainers and CCM artists, attending the GMA Dove Awards (the Christian music scene’s Grammys), conversing with leading figures and hosting political briefings. For Rodgers, this strategy was grounded in a conviction: “Politics is downstream of culture,” he said. “Christian artists play a role with their craft in shaping world view, moral imagination, what we love, and what we hate.”

When U2’s Bono began lobbying American politicians for African debt relief, Rodgers instead mobilized evangelicals through their own cultural icons, arguing that “the strategic way to reach evangelicals is to recruit evangelicals,” specifically by mobilizing Christian music artists. Rodgers was among those who encouraged Bono to promote his nonprofit DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) by meeting with a cross-section of CCM stars in December 2002.

When CCM stars spoke about DATA at their concerts and lobbied Congress to forgive African debt, officials assumed they spoke for their festival audiences. Their advocacy helped generate bipartisan support for President George W. Bush’s PEPFAR initiative in 2003, which launched billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Africa.

Republican partnerships with Christian artists have continued in the intervening years, and the Trump administration has actively courted well-known CCM artists along with Christian artists who write and perform music used in evangelical liturgy, known as “worship music,” such as Tomlin and the Carneses. By inviting them to the White House, and now including them at Kirk’s memorial service, conservative activists are capitalizing on the very effective power of Christian music to be the soundtrack of the religious right.

The soft power of Christian musicians like the Carneses has arguably grown over the years because, in many ways, Christian musicians in the 2020s have an even more direct access to their fans than they did in the aughts. They no longer need fans to come to concerts: Through social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok, their access to the faithful has grown exponentially, increasing their value to conservative political organizations.

For their part, Christian musicians like megastar Forrest Frank seem determined not to view their support for Kirk or their place in the conservative media-verse as “political.” Instead, Frank frames Kirk’s death through the lens of the end times. The day after the assassination, Frank shared a video of himself weeping as he watched Kirk praise his music and declared “Jesus is Lord.”

The following day, Frank reported a loss of 30,000 Instagram followers. Unfazed by the exodus, he reflected on Kirk’s death through his own anticipation of the Second Coming. The loss of followers, Frank reckoned, was nothing compared with saving souls at the end of time, and Frank, along with many other Christian artists, recognized Kirk as a fellow witness. “Today is the day,” the singer told his remaining 6 million followers. “The hour is at hand.” On Wednesday, Frank debuted a new song about the ordeal: “JESUS IS COMING BACK SOON.”

(Leah Payne is author of “God Gave Rock and Roll to You: a History of Contemporary Christian Music” and director of Candler School of Theology’s Summer Institute for Global Charismatic-Pentecostal Studies. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Kirk Assassination Puts the U.S. Left in Danger

Tuesday 16 September 2025, by Dan La Botz


The assassination of Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old leader of the far-right youth organization Turning Point USA has intensified the political polarization in the United States and has led to calls by Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement to call for the elimination of the left from American political life.


Kirk was assassinated by a single rifle shot while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Within two days, Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old student, turned himself in to the police and was charged with the murder.

Following Kirk’s killing, President Donald Trump in a national address stated, “For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.” Laura Loomer, who influences Trump, wrote, “We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all. The Left is a national security threat.”

Kirk was a devoted follower and friend of President Donald Trump who saw his organization Turning Point USA as the youth group of the MAGA movement. In 2024, the group mobilized young people to vote for Trump, helping him to win the presidential election.

Kirk was a white Christian nationalist who routinely suggested that Black people, especially Black women, were intellectually inferior. He argued that Jews were responsible for the Great Replacement of white Americans by people of color. He said that women should reject feminism and submit to their husbands. He believed that LGBT people violated God’s Biblical law. While claiming to be an advocate of free speech, Kirk’s Turning Point USA maintained a “professor watchlist” aimed at driving progressive professors out of academia. He stated that Muslims would kill every Jew on earth. He said that Palestine did not exist and asserted that claims of starvation of children in Gaza were fake news. He dismissed climate change, falsely claiming there was no scientific consensus on its cause.

Tyler Robinson, grew up in a Christian, Republican family in Utah. He was an excellent student, like video games, and had become interested in politics, but was apparently not a member of any organization. He reportedly confessed to the murder, but if he is the murderer, we don’t know why he killed Kirk.

But we have some clues. Some unfired cartridges found near the rifle used in the shooting had been engraved: One read, “Hey fascist! Catch.” Another read, “Bella ciao,” a lyric from a song of the Italian anti-fascist resistance of World War II. So, perhaps Robinson had become an anti-fascist who wanted to kill the leading youth organizer of an American fascist movement. If so, we think he made a terrible mistake.

We socialists have always rejected individual acts of terror, such as assassinations. First, large organizations or social movements are not likely to change direction or to be stopped by the killing of one person. On the contrary, the murder of a charismatic and popular leader like Kirk could create a martyr around whom people will organize.

Second, assassination leads to repression such as we are witnessing now, as rightwing agitators, politicians, and the government take advantage of the murder to call for a purge of leftists in America.

We on the left, as well as progressives and liberals, are in danger. Even before Kirk’s killing, Trump was sending troops to American cities. Several right-wingers on social media now call for a civil war. Leaders of armed, violent groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys have called upon their members to mobilize. We will have to be vigilant and to organize to defend our organizations and our rights, while continuing to oppose Trump, the Republicans, and the far-right.

14 September 2025

Attached documentskirk-assassination-puts-the-left-in-danger_a9176.pdf (PDF - 905.2 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9176]


Dan La Botz was a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (1991). He is also a co-editor of New Politics and editor of Mexican Labor News and Analysis.

International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

Articles of Faith

Changing how your faith is portrayed by media takes a movement

(RNS) — Our democracy will be stronger when we ensure positive depictions of minority communities especially.

WE HAVE VISION TV ON BASIC CABLE IN CANADA

(Image by Pikurā/Pixabay/Creative Commons)

Simran Jeet Singh
September 18, 2025


(RNS) — For years, scholars have been identifying the negative stereotypes about various faith groups that are commonly perpetuated through our media. A 2021 report on how film and TV portray Muslim communities found that while Muslims make up nearly a quarter of the world’s population, they only represent about 1% of the characters in popular TV shows. And in those relatively few cases, Muslims were typically portrayed as foreign and violent.

But a new study from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding on the effects of these stereotypes revealed a surprising connection between media portrayals of Muslims and our politics. First, a no-brainer: Those who viewed positive portrayals of Muslims in the media are more likely to oppose anti-Muslim policies, according to the ISPU’s study. But it also found that showing Muslims in a positive light made viewers more likely to oppose anti-democratic policies in general.

RELATED: To understand a faith, first understand the people who practice it

In other words, our democracy is and will be stronger when we ensure positive depictions of minority communities.

This idea feels intuitive to me, perhaps because of my own experiences of belonging to the Sikh community, which itself has been overlooked and misrepresented by media. I’ve long argued that the best way to combat dehumanization is to humanize people, and that storytelling is a powerful tool for building that empathy.

Understanding the stakes is important. But given the overwhelming dominance of stereotyped Muslims on our screens, the question remains: How do we take on such a gargantuan task?

This question came up repeatedly throughout a recent retreat I attended with my cohort from the Faith and Media Initiative at Oxford University. The fellows and guests discussed a variety of topics, from artificial intelligence and influencer economies to propaganda and religious persecution, but kept coming back to media.

What I came away with is this: The media landscape is variegated, complex and multifaceted, and our solutions must be equally so. There is no single solution, and the work demands a broad movement, not a silver bullet. To borrow a metaphor from my friend Jonathan, we can imagine our intervention as a flotilla, one that not only invites collaboration but actually demands it.

Over the past few years, I have seen a number of incredible thinkers and leaders investing their time and treasures to this area of faith and media. I have done so too, with the understanding that media shapes our culture, that this was a way to make the world a better place.

I’ve also realized that this is not a solo exercise, that no single individual, no matter how smart or powerful, can do this work on their own. All the social movements in human history have been just that, social movements, meaning that they relied on human collaboration.

RELATED: A 500-year-old Sikh tradition returns to Capitol Hill to resist bigotry in politics

This doesn’t mean that everyone agrees on everything, even on the end goal of the effort. What it does mean, though, is that we recognize people’s dissatisfaction with the status quo and harness it to inspire positive change, which makes our world stronger and our societies healthier.

I realized this again this weekend in Oxford, as a I sat alongside brilliant leaders with tons to offer. There’s so much each of them brought to the table, and our power increased exponentially when we began to connect and collaborate. Imagine what might happen when we expand beyond that small group and turn this initiative into a movement.

Opinion
Trump administration student debt rule change is a stealth attack on First Amendment

(RNS) — A proposed rule governing which nonprofits can benefit from a loan forgiveness program gives the Trump administration the power to crack down on left-leaning groups.

TRUMP ONLY BELIEVES IN ONE AMENDMENT 

THE SECOND 

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters after departing the United Kingdom, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025, aboard Air Force One. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Jim Wallis
September 19, 2025


(RNS) — Free speech in America is being throttled, not with open bans, but with threats and intimidation. After Jimmy Kimmel spoke in his opening monologue Monday (Sept. 15) about Charlie Kirk’s murder, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr warned ABC that its broadcast license was at risk if Kimmel stayed on air, claiming he “misled” the public.

ABC pulled the plug on the show overnight, becoming complicit in the death of our First Amendment.

While this silencing has dominated the news, equally significant usurpations of freedom are going unnoticed. Trump is quietly targeting nonprofits by weaponizing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The program, begun in 2007, is designed to promote participation in nonprofit service organizations by forgiving the student debt of anyone who works for a public sector or nonprofit job for 10 years.

RELATED: At public hearing of White House religion panel, Trump rails against anti-Christian bias

The White House has proposed a rule change to the PSLF program, based on a March 2025 executive order, that would give the secretary of education sweeping power to determine if an organization has engaged in activities with “substantial illegal purpose” and exclude it as eligible to benefit from the program.

That means nonprofits and their employees could be punished for carrying out their mission simply because it doesn’t align with the current administration’s. All of this would be carried out not by courts or juries, but by partisan officials with unchecked authority.

Everyone has a stake in stopping this blatantly illegal, dangerous and anti-democratic rule, but for faith communities in particular, this is not an abstract concern: If the government can decide which nonprofits are legitimate and which are not, it can just as easily target churches, faith-based charities and religious institutions whose teachings or missions conflict with those in power.

What may look like a narrow change to student loan forgiveness is part of a broader assault on the rule of law. It is an attempt by the current administration to shrink public debate, attack opponents, punish those who resist and undermine the independence of nonprofits, specifically nonprofits that focus on immigration, gender and health rights, racial and social justice — all causes the Trump administration opposes.

A judicial process to determine whether an organization is actually engaged in illegal activity already exists. The IRS also already has a set process for revoking tax-exempt status that protects due process. By shifting authority from judges to partisan appointees, this administration seeks to strip away constitutional checks and leave nonprofits, including faith groups, vulnerable to political harassment.

The implications are profound, and the precedent is dangerous. And like all things, this proposal cannot be viewed in isolation. This week, in the wake of new threats toward civil society organizations, more than 100 nonprofit organizations and philanthropic institutions issued an open letter warning against efforts to “crack down” on left-leaning funding. They stressed that silencing speech, restricting charitable giving and criminalizing nonprofit missions are direct assaults on democracy.

RELATED: Why faiths must lead on climate

These threats are just another way authoritarian regimes abuse moments of national crisis or tragedy to expand government power and attack their political opponents. As Brendan Carr said in 2023, before he was appointed by Trump as chairman of the FCC: “Free speech is the counterweight—it is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.”

Protecting nonprofits means protecting the freedom of conscience and the ability of faith groups to live out their values without fear of government reprisal. If we let anyone have the power to decide whose voices matter, the First Amendment becomes a privilege, not a right. If nonprofits can be silenced, so can churches, community groups, immigrant advocates and anyone else who dares to speak truth to power.

(The Rev. Jim Wallis is Archbishop Desmond Tutu chair and director of Georgetown University’s Center on Faith and Justice and the author, most recently, of New York Times bestseller “The False White Gospel: Rejecting Christian Nationalism, Reclaiming True Faith, and Refounding Democracy.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)

Longtime Muslim community leader placed in ICE detention in Dallas after green card is denied

(RNS) — A Muslim American Society board member, Marwan Marouf was a well-known figure in Dallas’ Muslim community for his involvement in social and educational work.

Marwan Marouf. (Photo courtesy of the Muslim American Society of Dallas Fort Worth)

Fiona André
September 24, 2025

(RNS) — A Muslim community leader was taken into custody on Monday (Sept. 22) by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Dallas after ICE agents presented him with a letter denying his application for a green card.

Marwan Marouf, a leader of the Dallas chapter of the Muslim American Society, was arrested as he made his way to work after dropping his son off at school, according to a statement from the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which is handling his immigration case. The statement has now been removed from MLFA’s website.

Marouf, who was born in Kuwait and is a Jordanian citizen, is being detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, approximately 200 miles west of Dallas. He was able to communicate with his family on Wednesday morning, according to his 27-year-old son, Mohammed Marouf.

A board member of the Muslim American Society, Marwan Marouf also serves as the organization’s public relations and fundraising director and is a well-known figure among Muslims in and around Dallas for his involvement in social and educational work. News of his arrest shocked the community.

“It came out of nowhere. … After the initial shock, my first thought was in regards to my youngest brother …,” said Mohammed. “We didn’t have too much time to really absorb what just happened, but more like ‘All right, what’s next? What’s the next step we have to take?’ Not just for dad, but for our little brother, for him not to be affected.”

The Department of Homeland Security, under which USCIS operates, didn’t respond to Religion News Service’s request for comments in time for publication.

Many community members started posting on social media on Tuesday morning as news of Marouf’s arrest became known, using the hashtag #BecauseOfMarwan to raise awareness about his detention.

Marouf, who is 54, came to the U.S. 30 years ago on a student visa to pursue his master’s degree before obtaining an H-1B visa, according to his son. Around 2012, he began the process of applying for permanent resident status. In 2020, the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service issued a notice regarding his pending application, the latest update he received on his case before Monday.

In the retracted statement, MLFA claimed Marouf is being unjustly discriminated against on the grounds of his Muslim faith. “His employer sponsored his temporary work and permanent residence applications for 15 years before USCIS started throwing up roadblocks by mischaracterizing his charitable efforts,” the statement read.

“MLFA is standing by our client, alongside the community he served, to protect his legal rights, including his right to religious freedom, as we fight against the U.S. government’s discrimination and targeting of Muslims in America.”

According to MLFA, the recent denial letter cited reasons invoked by USCIS “from over a decade ago” and “ignored the facts and legal arguments that support Brother Marwan’s eligibility for a green card.”

Mohammed Marouf said his father’s work with organizations under federal scrutiny through MAS likely drew suspicion.

“Unfortunately, some of those organizations were targeted by the government and by others for different aspects,” said Mohammed. “By mischaracterizing, they’ve associated some of the negative claims on some of these other organizations to his name.”

Shaimaa Zayan, director of the Austin chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounced “narratives pushed by hate-driven and fear-mongering groups that lack credibility.” In a statement also released on Tuesday, CAIR-TX executive director Mustafaa Carroll called on the Trump administration to release Marouf.

“Both CAIR and CAIR-Texas are deeply concerned about the case of Mr. Marouf, given his respected standing within both Muslim and non-Muslim communities across Texas… We call for transparency and accountability. What specific illegal actions is Mr. Marouf being accused of? Why has he been denied due process?” reads Zayan’s statement.

Noor Wadi, a Dallas-based attorney and a MAS member since 2012, said she didn’t expect Marouf to face deportation while his green card application was still pending.

“He was involved in pretty much anywhere you could see someone needing help, whether that was meal trains for people who needed food, whether that was helping during times of crisis with COVID,” she said. “So it made the news on Monday just even more devastating.”

A mission field at home: How Christian America welcomed its first Chinese immigrants

(RNS) — In Michael Luo's ‘Strangers in the Land,’ Chinese immigrants encounter a Christian culture that is unyielding even as it is welcoming.

"Strangers in the Land" and author Michael Luo. (Photo © Elinor Carucci)

Elizabeth E. Evans
September 19, 2025


(RNS) — “Strangers in the Land,” the recently published book by New Yorker Editor Michael Luo, chronicles the journey of Chinese immigrants to the American West, and then eastward across the country. Perhaps inevitably, it is also an account of the violence and bigotry directed against them, which only became more intense as the boom years of the Western Gold Rush gave way to the economic downturn that followed the Civil War.

Christian clergy cast their own shadow over Luo’s narrative. Faith leaders — almost all of them white Protestants — were instrumental in shaping, not only the experience of the immigrant, but also the communities that sometimes welcomed, sometimes attacked them.

Asian American history is not, in general, part of the standard public school curriculum, nor have American historians paid much attention. “Until recently, U.S. historians largely ignored Asian immigrants and their U.S.-born descendants,” said Harvard University historian Erika Lee in her essay, “The Necessity of Teaching Asian American History.” “When they did appear in scholarly monographs or textbooks, they were little more than footnotes and dismissed as tangential to the making of the United States.”

RELATED: Why Europeans think they are the ones who save ‘heathens’ from their bad behavior.

Luo’s book, with its meticulously detailed cast of characters, makes a spirited argument that it is time to redress that imbalance, not only out of fairness to a minority group, but in order to reveal the central role Chinese immigrants played in the life of the nation. “The Chinese in America were not simply the victims of barbarous violence and repression; they were protagonists in the story of America,” Luo writes in the book’s introduction.

Passed in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first U.S. law approved on the basis of race, was not fully repealed until 1965, when a new immigration regime set aside quotas based on national origins, allowing large numbers of Chinese immigrants to settle in the United States. The earlier, mostly male pioneers who braved the unsanitary and often dangerous journey across the Pacific to find work were both defended and demeaned by Christian leaders, according to Luo.

Tim Tseng. (Photo courtesy of Fuller Theological Seminary)

Christian clergy and missionaries of the time “really modeled how to support and defend the most unlikable people,” said Tim Tseng, director of the Asian American Christian History Institute at Fuller Theological Seminary. “The Chinese were classified as the least likable.”

But many white pastors who show up in Luo’s book “had ugly views of the Chinese because they were, as they put it, heathens,” he writes. “You see this duality again and again.”

Both types of clergy were driven by the sense that the immigrants were not equal to the white population, suggested Cornell University historian Derek Chang, who directs the university’s Asian American Studies program. “You don’t need to uplift or convert or transform a population, unless you think that somehow they are lacking something,” said Chang, author of “Citizens of a Christian Nation: Evangelical Missions and the Problem of Race in the Nineteenth Century.”

“This is very much a civilizing mission,” said Jennifer Taylor, a professor of public history at Duquesne University. Besides conversion to the faith, those who ministered to the Chinese community provided food and English lessons. Catechism was a facet of this larger assimilation.

The Rev. William Speer, who had spent four years in Guangzhou as a missionary, was recruited by Chinese residents of San Francisco in 1853 to advocate for them in the face of frequent violent attacks. While Speer praised Chinese civilization and history, Luo says, he believed it was America’s divine privilege to educate these “heathens,” as they had done with Africans before them.

In 1870, the Rev. Otis Gibson, another former missionary in China, founded the Women’s Missionary Society of the Pacific Coast with his wife. According to its constitution, its mission was “to elevate and save heathen women on these shores.” The mission’s third floor was set aside for Chinese women who had escaped prostitution or abusive situations as servants in the home, or who were prospective brides for the Chinese men who lodged them there, according to Luo.

Derek Chang. (Photo courtesy of Cornell University)

While Gibson was a vocal advocate for the Chinese immigrants, becoming one of the few Americans who spoke out against the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, he was “obsessed with Chinese women, viewing Chinese female prostitutes as a threat to White families,” writes Luo. In California, missionaries bent on stopping the sex trade joined forces with immigration opponents in barring entrance to many Chinese women. (Many, Luo argues, were wives coming to join their husbands.)

White women, meanwhile, were fixtures in mission work. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, said Chang, Donaldina Cameron, a Presbyterian, ran a missionary society in San Francisco committed to helping Chinese women who had been caught up in the sex trade or otherwise badly treated after immigrating. Under Cameron’s watch, they were also expected to pray, entertain guests and attend classes.

Luo, who spent a lot of time digging through the archives of Philadelphia’s Presbyterian Historical Society, found that some of the Chinese were already Christians. Though the voices of Chinese appear only rarely in the historical records, when they do, Luo says, it’s often because they spoke English and because they are Christian converts.

Yung Wing, who converted to Christianity at a missionary school in Macau before sailing to New York, became the first Chinese immigrant to attend Yale University, starting as a freshman in 1850.

Four years later, he boarded another ship in New York and returned home, determined to help others come to China to be educated. Leveraging his connections in China and the United States, he established the Chinese Education Mission in Hartford, Connecticut. Per an agreement with the Qing government, families who housed the mission’s students were forbidden to proselytize, but, Luo writes, “there is little doubt that the opportunity to model Christian living for the students motivated many of them.”

Yung and others mentioned in Luo’s book illustrate the dynamic connection between Chinese immigrants and their country of origin, with many choosing to make the challenging, long trip home after working on the railroad or in American factories, and some returning to America before the passage of the Exclusion Act made it impossible.

“The missionaries didn’t do a good job of spreading Christianity in China, but they did do a good job of bringing a Western style of learning to China,” said John Haddad, a professor of American studies at Penn State Harrisburg, who has written several books on the American relationship with China. Tseng pointed out that when the Qing dynasty fell, the Chinese educational system was rebuilt on Protestant missionary networks.

Hints of the faith practices Chinese immigrants brought with them show up now and then in the archives. In the wake of an 1871 massacre in which at least 18 Chinese Los Angeles residents were lynched and shot, Luo writes, Daoist priests traveled from San Francisco to participate in Daoist and Buddhist ceremonies to honor the dead.

The missionary zeal of the mainline Protestant organizations began to fade toward the end of the 19th century, and many who had spoken up on behalf of Chinese immigrants retreated, “becoming less invested in turning back the tide of exclusion,” said Chang.

The racism directed at Asian Americans, a constant for more than a century and a half, may be why we don’t hear more about Chinese immigration. “Because it doesn’t fit neatly into the American narrative of progress, I think sometimes it’s forgotten, or left out,” Chang said.

It also has been obscured by Chinese immigration, a flow fractured by years of exclusion. Chinese-American churches of today are frequently more theologically conservative and less concerned with politics than those experienced by 19-century immigrants. “It’s very much an indigenous movement of Chinese-style denominations, if you can really call it that,” said Tseng, who noted that some younger Chinese Christians were more liberal.

But as the Chinese experience of Christianity in America continues to evolve, Luo, Tseng, Haddad and other writers have laid down markers — potent reminders of the way faith, race, bigotry and politics molded immigrants, leaving an indelible mark on America.