Christian assassins?

“Amidst assassination, massacre, and confiscation, perpetrated or mediated, they are forming plans for the good order of future society.” Edmund Burke wrote those words about the French Revolution’s radical wing, the Jacobins. One can appropriately apply these same words to certain members of today’s left—including some claiming the appellation “Christian.”

Cole Allen, the alleged would-be assassin of the April 25 attempt on President Trump’s life, left a manifesto detailing his motivation. It includes multiple references to biblical passages.

The manifesto begins with a sophomoric “Hello everybody!” After that unserious introduction, Allen then proceeds to apologize to various innocent people impacted by his choice to pursue murder. He next rebuts objections to his planned assassination. Objections one and five explicitly relate to God’s word.

Unfortunately, some supposed Christians who embrace left-wing politics accept the logic of Allen’s argument. But, rightly understood, his alleged assassination attempt is influenced by poor exegesis and unbiblical cultural analysis. Allen’s manifesto provides a timely opportunity for rebutting a dangerous perversion of Christian teaching.

The first objection to assassination in Allen’s manifesto states: “As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.” The reference is to Christ’s words in Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. Jesus exhorts His audience to love their enemies.

In his response to this objection, Allen asserts that “Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. … Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

The example of Hitler is often presented when Christians justify violence against oppressive regimes. Men such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer are appropriately applauded for their resistance to evil government. Allen repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler on X, according to CNN.

However, Trump is not Hitler, regardless of how much Allen or left-wing commentators bloviate to the contrary. According to the manifesto, some of the “oppressive” crimes to which Trump must be held accountable include a person raped in a detention camp, a fisherman executed without trial, and a school kid blown up.

It is helpful to focus on the first assertion. Assuming the detention camp refers to the confinement of illegal immigrants, enforcing immigration law is not inherently unbiblical. Everyone must vehemently condemn and punish rape in any context and for any person. But, to my knowledge, this administration does not ignore such horrible crimes. No systemic and egregious violation of rights is occurring in today’s America.

Allen and his ilk are not the ideological descendants of Bonhoeffer or Thielicke they present themselves to be. Their “righteous cause” is nothing but political radicalism founded upon an exaggerated conception of oppression. Even if one accepts that Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29 focus upon individual ethics, these verses do not justify seeking violence in our context.

The second objection addressed in the manifesto is “Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Clearly, Allen refers to Matthew 22:21. In this passage, Jesus addresses paying taxes to Caesar. However, he does more. He clarifies that the Christian has a duty both to the state and God.

Allen seems to imply that some people use this verse to promote submission to governing authorities regardless of the morality or immorality of state action. Christians should clearly obey Scripture in any direct conflict between God and the government (as echoed in Acts 5:29). Is such tension present in our political circumstances?

Allen’s rebuttal addresses the relationship between the citizen and state in our constitutional republic. He writes, “The United States of America are ruled by law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.”

The basic assertion that we are under the rule of law is accurate. However, Allen’s alleged action based on this idea is way off the mark. The government of the United States may indeed deviate significantly from constitutional strictures. Yet that does not justify violence. The key issue is that fully democratic and constitutional correctives still exist, and so long as they exist they must be respected.

It’s fine to mount a peaceful protest, and many avenues for peaceful political change still exist. Indeed, based on current polls, the president’s party is likely to lose congressional seats in the 2026 midterms. Embracing violence against President Trump prematurely sets aside peaceful options and embarks upon illegitimate and unjustified criminal activity.

Edmund Burke wrote that “criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. They present a shorter cut to the object than through the highway of the moral virtues.” The Bible provides the map to this moral highway. Included in these virtues is peaceful, gospel-centered social engagement.

Allen failed to rebut more substantive biblical objections to his alleged plans. These include Paul’s exhortation to pursue peace (Romans 12:18). They include God’s desire that Christians submit to governing authorities unless the state clearly abuses its authority (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17). The recipients of these messages lived in significantly more oppressive times. Yet they did not violently rebel.

When Christians embrace the exaggerated definition of “oppression” that today’s left bandies about, they abandon both observed reality and scriptural truth. They promote unjust resistance and revolution. The God-ordained punishment for such revolution is clear and disturbing (Romans 13:4). I pray that any would-be assassin of our president meets the God-approved, state-mediated punishment for his or her evil act. We must all pray that our nation is characterized by righteousness and justice.