The case of the murder of Charlie Kirk is a stark example of the amateur confusion of research presented for research conducted. The most probable explanation for the murder of Charlie Kirk is that it was done by a lone gunman, just as in case of the attempted murder of President Trump. What evidence is there for the theory that Kirk’s murder was the result of a conspiracy involving his associates? They have produced none. Those suggesting this conspiracy theory were not led to it by a careful examination of evidence. They simply asserted, on the basis of an a priori, that his murder must have been the result of a conspiracy. Such a claim is not even worthy of being called a theory because it lacks any explanatory power.1
Why is a lone gunman the most likely explanation? Anyone who has been paying attention since 9/11 knows that one of the possibilities that has worried authorities most is that of a lone gunman or a single actor. We saw that very danger manifested in the attack on Fort Hood (2009) in which a Muslim Army Major murdered thirteen military personnel and wounded thirty others.2 He was successful in his attack precisely because he was a lone actor, but, at the time, many were sure that the attack must have been part of a larger plot. Was there any evidence to suggest that the deadly attack at Fort Hood was part of a larger conspiracy? No, but the conspiracists knew before any evidence had been examined what must be the case. Priors are difficult to dislodge, but we are entitled to ignore those who ignore or disregard evidence.3 The recent leftist terror plot was discovered because it involved multiple people.4 The most likely explanation for the success of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 is that he acted alone. There were other factors—authorities were careless (e.g., they announced the route of the motorcade), and they continued to be careless by allowing Jack Ruby to get close enough to shoot Oswald. Is it possible that the CIA murdered a sitting president, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. claims? It is possible, but is it likely? No, because the lone actor theory best explains the evidence. If the CIA conspired to murder JFK because he wanted out of Vietnam, why did they not murder Nixon for seeking to end the war in Vietnam?5 Why did they not murder those presidents who brought to an end the Global War on Terror?
The Christian knows from God’s Word that conspirators do not reign, Christ does.
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad. (Ps 45:6–8; see also Heb 1:8–9)
Jesus Christ, against whom the Scribes and Pharisees conspired, reigns. He reigns generally over all things and specially over his church. The conspiracy of the scribes and Pharisees failed (Matt 12:14). He was vindicated by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection (1 Tim 3:16). That is why Peter announced to the Jews gathered for the feast of Pentecost, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).
The Lord and his prophet Isaiah were not naive about the existence of conspiracies. Isaiah told God’s enemies, if I may paraphrase Isaiah 8:10, “Go ahead and conspire!” He also said, “but it will come to nothing.” The Lord himself instructed Isaiah not to call conspiracy what people call conspiracy but rather to fear “the Yahweh of Armies” (Isa 8:12).
The conspiracist claims a God’s-eye view of things, a view no mere mortal can ever have. We are but dust and analogues, image-bearers and not God or even gods. We are mortals into whom the Lord blew the breath of life and when we die, we will return to dust. Conspiracism is an alternate, false religion. In the garden, before the fall, the evil one postulated a conspiracy theory to Eve: “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen 3:4b–5). He put it to her that perfectly holy and perfectly just God, who made a good creation was really jealous and fearful of his creation. He insinuated that God was conspiring against his image bearers and that he, Satan, was the one who was really looking out for Adam and Eve.
From the beginning, conspiracism has not been the religion of the Bible but rather a kind of Gnosticism, a religion of ascent by accumulating secret knowledge. Christians do not seek to ascend to God’s place because they know that Christ has already descended. Paul says,
But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:6b–9).
Christian, do not let the conspiracists and their false deductions and false claims trouble you. Rest in the sovereign Savior who defeated all the conspirators at Golgotha, even the greatest of them all, Satan, and who rose from the dead. Christ will settle with the conspirators and conspiracists when he comes again. Until then, “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (1 Thess 4:10).
Notes
- “A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” s.v., “Theory” in the New Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2023).
- “Army Major Kills 13 in Fort Hood Shooting Spree,” History.com June 2, 2011. Accessed December 20, 2025.
- Not every question or claim counts as evidence, which is necessarily something that actually happened (a fact) that can be verified objective evidence or reliable testimony.
- “FBI Disrupts New Year’s Eve Terror Plot Targeting U. S. Companies,” December 16, 2025. Accessed December 20, 2025.
- I have a volume on my shelf that suggests that Nixon was the victim of a conspiracy but not of the sort that JFK, Jr. promotes.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Unfortunately, conspiracy theories around healthcare are all too common now.
Giving the fact that a number of “conspiracy theories” have turned out to be plausible (such as the COVID lab leak theory or the PCA’s National Partnership), and given the fact that the term has been used as a way to discredit conservative or Christian beliefs or causes, could you make a post distinguishing between the different ways this term has been used? I appreciate what you’ve written here and I think I largely agree; but there’s the common counterpoint that many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, and I for one would benefit if you would be willing to address that. In a day and age where critical thinking is in short supply, it seems that if one conspiracy theory turns out to be true, they all must be. I happen to find the so-called conspiracy theories about COVID and the NP quite plausible, but I don’t believe that the Jews assassinated Charlie Kirk or that the moon landings were faked. Why?
JP,
It’s true that people conspire and sometimes those conspiracies are discovered. I think that what we’ve learned about the Covid debacle is less a “conspiracy theory” than a cover up that has been discovered. It looks like those who were not supposed to be doing gain of function research continued to do it with the help of NIH funding. They did it via a lab that was not secure and we all paid for that mistake. Those who did it tried to cover it up. The evidence for a lab leak is fairly strong, the doubts of the National Partnership notwithstanding. The marks of the type of work that was being done seem to experts to be fairly clear.
Yes, those who participated in the cover up tried to paint anyone who raised questions about exactly how Covid was transmitted from bats to humans outside of a lab as “conspiracy theorists.” It was a smear but again, there’s little evidence of a conspiracy per se unless a cover up is a conspiracy.
I understand that things that were said to be “conspiracy theories” turned out to be true, e.g., the attempt to link Trump to Russia. That is closer to a conspiracy since it appears that a number of people did conspire to create the impression that he was a Russia-controlled actor. That was labeled ac conspiracy theory that is now known not to have been a theory. As I think I mentioned in the article, this did not remain secret very long. People talked and more people are likely to talk under oath or on the witness stand or, more likely, in the interview room when they cut a deal with investigators to avoid indictment.
My argument is that conspiracist as a way of reading history or as a way of interpreting current events doesn’t work very well for the reasons I gave.
Obviously, as I noted more than once in the various articles on this topic, there are laws against criminal conspiracies for the simple that there are criminal conspiracies. It’s not reasonable to say that there are no conspiracies and I’m certainly not saying that.
Essentially then, the distinction at play is a distinction between 1) the recognition that some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true or that the term can be used to disparage accurate viewpoints – using tools of critical thinking and analysis to objectively seek out truth and follow it to its conclusions, and 2) the conspiracist way of reading history, which involves a rejection of factuality and an a priori assumption that conspiracy theories are at play – paired with the gnosticism you mentioned. If I’m understanding that correctly, then thank you. That makes a lot of sense and will help as I discuss these things with some of the more conspiracist minds around me.
Thank you for this, Dr. Clark. Your identification of conspiracy theorizing as a quasi-religion is spot-on, and this helps explain its rise in the fallout of Christendom. There is also a related factor that helps to explain its attraction which I think Dorothy Sayers explains perfectly:
“We let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armour was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects.” -Lost Tools of Learning