I read with respect and resonance my colleague the Rev. David Lose’s recent commentary explaining why he chose not to sign the petition calling for an assault weapons ban. His reflections on leading a diverse congregation with care and humility capture the pastoral tension many of us feel when moral conviction intersects with political division (“Why, as leader of a faith community, I did not sign this gun petition,” Strib Voices, Oct. 9).
Not because I believe the church should speak for every individual in the pews, but because I believe the Gospel calls us to speak on behalf of those whose voices are too often silenced — especially the children and families shattered by gun violence in our schools, neighborhoods and sanctuaries.
Our mission declares that we are known, challenged and sent. We are known by God and by one another — meaning the faces of victims of violence are not abstractions to us; they are children of God. We are challenged together to understand God more fully — which, in this moment, means grappling with the reality that weapons designed for war continue to take lives in schools and on streets meant for learning and living. And we are sent to be ambassadors of Christ’s peace in the world — peace that requires more than prayer alone.
Our values of radical hospitality, wholehearted worship, Christ-centered relationships, compassionate service and transformational generosity demand that we care not only for the souls of our neighbors but for their safety and flourishing. To advocate for an end to assault weapons is, for me, an act of compassion, hospitality and worship — an expression of faith that refuses to accept violence as inevitable.
Signing the petition was not a partisan act. It was a pastoral one. It was not a demand rooted in contempt, but a plea grounded in hope — that we might yet live as a people Alive Together, where every child of God can learn, play and worship without fear.
Thank you so much to Lose for his commentary on Oct. 9. I am ambivalent about whether banning “assault weapons” will make any difference in the number of murders going forward. But I am positive that the continuing partisan antagonism in this country will increase the amount of political violence. Part of that antagonism is the ongoing beliefs of leaders of many of the pluralistic organizations in the U.S. that they speak for all of their members. I encourage the leaders of other religious organizations, corporations and universities to stand down from public political statements, as if everyone in their organization agreed with their stand. This is even true for leaders of nonprofits, when the political statement is not directly related to the organization. I can’t tell you how many times a nonprofit that I supported has made a statement with which I strongly disagreed.
Lose was equally correct to disagree with the tenor of the petition he declined to sign. Making “demands” is a very aggressive (and militant) manner of expressing one’s opinion. And to state that one’s opinion is the only possible choice for a moral person to take casts the opposition as demons. Talk about increasing the temperature of partisan debate! This is the kind of incendiary statement that results in unhinged folks thinking that they are the good guys when they physically attack the other side. Think Vance Boelter and Luigi Mangione.
As a faith leader serving a “big tent” congregation with political diversity, I did sign this gun petition. It’s not because I judge my congregants based on their voting record. It’s not because I believe politics-as-usual is the only approach people of faith can take. It’s because I believe we can speak moral clarity into a divided moment, unattached to party ideology. It’s because the call to “beat swords into plowshares” and “learn war no more” (Isaiah 2:4) is a prophetic call to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. In my denomination, the United Church of Christ, we have adopted the language of “just peace,” in contrast to “just war,” in which we spend as much time and energy building structures and support for peacemaking as our culture does for warmaking.
I moved to the Northland two years ago from St. Paul. Here in Duluth and the Arrowhead, we house military bases, hunting grounds and much ideological diversity. No matter who they voted for, the parents of my second-grader’s classmates and her Sunday school friends are clear that school shootings are a threat to all of us. Every child, no matter their race, their school district or the political ideology of their parents, deserves safe schools free from gun violence. The notion that proclaiming this is inherently partisan or profane is dangerous. As clergy, we cannot abdicate our responsibility to preach the Gospel, engage in public life and challenge systems of power. Indeed, it’s exactly what Jesus did.
So, here’s a thought: How about we all commit to the social media equivalent of Dry January? Call it Analog October. (Feel free to suggest a better name.) No social media. For the rest of the month. Instead, we’ll focus on doing as St. Francis instructed, “Preach the Gospel at all times. And if necessary, use words.”
The main argument Annette Meeks tries to make against Gov. Tim Walz’s energy policy is based on claims by unnamed “critics of the law” that a transition to cleaner energy will raise costs for Minnesotans (“We cannot afford more years of Walz energy policy,” Strib Voices, Oct. 9). According to widely respected sources on the cost and availability of energy, transitioning to cleaner energy sources will be cheaper for consumers than investing in more oil, coal and gas. Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) top-line assessment of the cost of different energy sources for 2025 states, “On an unsubsidized [dollars per megawatt-hour] basis, renewable energy remains the most cost-competitive form of generation.” The International Energy Agency stated in its 2024 report that “Speeding up the move to clean energy technologies improves the affordability of energy.” These are independent sources that readers can look up for themselves and see how the cost of clean energy has fallen dramatically in recent years and is now the most cost-effective route to powering our future energy needs.