In response to recent incidents of violence, Bishop David Bard writes about the call we have as Christians to speak the truth in love and wrestle with the complexities that doing so means.
BISHOP DAVID ALAN BARD
Michigan Conference
In my August blog, I promised a follow-up to my remarks about the recent Internal Revenue Service ruling regarding the Johnson Amendment that opens the door for churches to endorse political candidates.
In that blog, I discouraged pastors from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit because doing so risks muting our moral voice. Pastors and clergy should address moral issues from the perspective of our theology and wrestle with key biblical texts in our preaching and teaching. What does it mean to love our neighbor as ourselves? What does it require of us that we recognize that all persons are created in the image of God and are loved by God in Jesus Christ?
Moral matters will often have political dimensions, not in the sense of electoral politics but in the sense of making decisions about how we live together in society. We should not ignore such political dimensions. However, when one endorses a candidate, one risks having everything they say filtered through the lens of partisan electoral politics. It dulls our moral voice.
In short, we should speak about the moral dimensions of political issues, not about the electoral dimensions of political issues, except to encourage participation in the electoral process. We will want to, at times, speak politically; we should avoid speaking electorally.
Since offering comments about the updated interpretation of the Johnson Amendment, we have become even more aware of the fragile environment in which we speak. Political violence has again touched our nation with the assassination of political podcaster and organizer Charlie Kirk. Kirk’s death follows closely the shooting death of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband in June. Last summer, there were assassination attempts on President Donald Trump, and in April, the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was set on fire.
Other shocking and horrific incidents of violence have touched our souls — the school shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis on August 27; a school shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado on September 10, which received less attention as it occurred on the same day as the killing of Charlie Kirk; an African American student, Trey Reed, was found hanging from a tree at Delta State University in Mississippi on September 15 and the investigation is ongoing.
Violence, fear, resentment, and anger are always part of our social context, but their current ascendency has made our context a more fraught and fragile one in which to speak about moral issues with political dimensions. Yet, remaining silent is not an option, for we need to find a way forward together, and conversation is essential. We must risk “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15, NRSVUE).
Speaking the truth in love is sharing the good news of God’s love for all in Jesus Christ. Speaking the truth in love is being willing to trace out the moral and political dimensions of the gospel. Speaking the truth in love is to condemn all political violence — the murder of Charlie Kirk, which has garnered so much attention, as well as the murder of Melissa Hortman. Speaking the truth in love entails attending to our words and tone, choosing less incendiary language, and speaking with the intention of shedding light rather than creating heat. I invite you to read again the Council of Bishops’ statement on political violence.
Speaking the truth in love also asks us to speak truthfully, which means attending to complexity. The murder of Charlie Kirk is horrific and repugnant. The violence that caused it should be condemned unequivocally. We mourn the death of a young man who leaves a wife and two children. We acknowledge the ways in which Charlie Kirk promoted dialogue and free speech. He engaged in conversations and debates with those with whom he disagreed. The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein praised Kirk for his willingness to engage in this way.
We also acknowledge that Mr. Kirk’s own free speech was not always edifying or helpful, and it sometimes did harm. Charlie Kirk was a person of this age, where so many things vie for our attention, where the lines between entertainment and political conversation have been blurred. He had a gift for organizing, founding Turning Point USA. He had gifts for oratory. He was good at using social media to garner attention and did not shy away from using heated rhetoric to do so. Debates were only one of his forums. He also did interviews and hosted an influential podcast. On his podcast or in interviews, he said things some find objectionable or offensive.
Speaking about a few prominent Black women on his July 13, 2023, podcast, he said: “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us. . . . You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
At a political rally in December 2023, Kirk said of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “MLK was awful. He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe.”
In January 2024, Kirk offered the following on his podcast: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”
I have an acquaintance in another state, a Native American clergy person, ordained in a mainline denomination, who also teaches. A few years ago, he was added to Turning Point USA’s Professors Watchlist. He recently shared his experience of that online: “The vitriol, the hatred, and the threatened violence that followed from Charlie Kirk’s followers was absolutely terrible.”
I share these not to denigrate Charlie Kirk. The pain of his loss is still fresh. I share this to speak honestly about him using his own words, seeking to speak the truth in love. I share this as a pastoral word to acknowledge those who these words and actions have hurt. I am reflecting on all this to acknowledge the fragile context in which we seek to speak the truth in love.
In love and truth, we mourn for Charlie Kirk’s young family.
In love and truth, we mourn political violence and unequivocally condemn it.
In love and truth, we look honestly at words spoken, and we look honestly at history.
In love and truth, we look with concern at how some may be using the horrific death of Charlie Kirk to limit honest dialogue and conversation.
Ephesians 4:15 invites us to speak the truth in love. James 3 reminds us of our need to take the power of words seriously: “So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire” (vv. 5-6a). As already noted, speaking the truth in love entails attending to our words and tone, choosing less incendiary language, and speaking with the intent to shed light rather than create heat.
In his insightful new book, Anger, Fear, Domination: Dark Passions and the Power of Political Speech, political philosopher William Galston writes: “We must ‘fight fire with fire,’ passionate advocates insist . . . . But in the nonmetaphorical world, it is usually more effective to fight fire with water. Responsible leaders should seek to douse the flames and cool the temperature of our politics. . . . The only counterweight to bad speech is better speech that challenges the darkness within us in the name of our higher aspirations.”
This has been a lengthy essay that has wrestled with important yet sensitive topics within a fragile conversational environment. Thank you for the privilege of your attention, and for your willingness to read thoughtfully.
Update September 29, 2025
Over this past weekend in Michigan, we witnessed another horrific act of violence. Sunday morning, September 28, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the community of Grand Blanc was assaulted by an individual who drove his truck through the entryway, exited the vehicle, and began shooting with an assault-style rifle. He then used incendiary devices to set the church on fire.
Speaking the truth in love asks us to speak words of deep empathy for the people of this congregation and community. We express our tremendous sorrow for their loss and stand with them in their grief. We are mindful of the impact of such violence on every community of faith in Grand Blanc, including our United Methodist congregation there.
Speaking the truth in love, we offer profound prayers, prayers of petition that the wide and wild love of God may be known deeply, prayers for families still awaiting word about their missing loved ones, prayers that, as a nation, we might find ways to move beyond such violence. We offer prayers of lament — filled with sorrow, filled with agony over the current state of our world, and filled with a profound yearning for a more compassionate, caring, just, and loving world.
Sometimes, speaking the truth in love is more about loving than speaking.
Speaking the truth in love finally encourages restraint. In the face of such horrific incidents, misinformation often multiplies, and conspiracy theories run rampant. Speculations about this person’s motives are unhelpful. What we know is that the perpetrator was a 40-year-old white male who lived nearby. He is a military veteran who used his truck, an assault-style rifle, and incendiary devices as weapons. We currently know little of what motivated him to engage in such a terrible act of violence against a gathered worshiping community.
Sometimes speaking the truth in love invites silence.
Last Updated on October 15, 2025