Crossroads Podcast: God And The Latest Gunman Who Tried To Attack Trump

Every now and then, a current event comes along that waves a red flag at the mainstream media — warning editors and reporters that there is no way around the religious content in this story.

What kind of red flag?

This week’s “Crossroads” podcast focused on what happened when President Donald Trump (#ShockedShocked) had something provocative to say about Cole Tomas Allen, the man accused of trying to assassinate him during the White House Correspondents dinner. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Trump, speaking on Fox News Sunday Briefing, said Allen had written a “manifesto” before the attack.

“And the guy was a sick guy. When you read his manifesto, he hates Christians,” Trump said. …

In this case, it also helped that The New York Post posted the gunman’s manifesto and, sure enough, the text was packed with anti-Trump material that appeared to have been handed out during a Bible study for politically liberal Christians.

Also, while doing his mechanical engineering degree at Caltech, Allen was active in what the Los Angeles Times described as “the school’s Christian fellowship.” Also, some press reports noted that his father, Thomas Allen, is an elder at Grace United Reformed Church in Torrance, part of the rather conservative United Reformed Churches of North America.

In a message to his family before the attack, the 31-year-old Allen “thanked his church family and invoked Christian theological traditions to justify the violence that was about to occur,” said a Newsweek feature with this headline: “Trump Called Cole Allen Anti-Christian. His Manifesto Suggests the Opposite.”

This must-read feature perfectly illustrates one of the primary subjects that Todd Wilken of Lutheran Public Radio and I discussed in the podcast. Allen’s manifesto text makes it clear — with a barrage of biblical references and theological arguments — that he wanted to convince other Christians that his actions were justified.

However, if it’s easy to state that Allen is (1) a “Christian,” what would it take for journalists to pin down the proper adjective to place before “Christian” in order to let readers know more about the beliefs that shaped the manifesto?

Is he (2) a “liberal” Christian? If so, did he develop his unique theological approach at his family’s church, from some other (at this point unknown) denomination or perhaps in an online forum of believers (federal investigators may know) who shaped his provocative faith?

The key: In the manifesto, Allen discussed scripture while insisting that Christians have a “moral obligation to resist unjust authority through force,” to quote the Newsweek piece.

Many will note that his family’s church can accurately be called “evangelical.” If so, can the gunman be (3) called an “evangelical Christian” or, depending on what factual information emerges through reporting, (4) an “ex-evangelical”?

The Newsweek piece (#DUH) used the president’s remarks about Allen as a starting point. However, it quickly noted that, “from 2013 to 2017, he was an active member of the Caltech Christian Fellowship (CCF), where he served as a large-group coordinator leading discussions on the Apostles’ Creed and forgiveness.”

Is the proper label for this man “anti-Christian”?

Experts consulted by Newsweek disagreed with that characterization. A careful reading of Allen’s manifesto, they said, reveals something far more theologically complicated and far more troubling: Allen was not anti-Christian. He was claiming to be deeply, seriously Christian while committing violence in what he believed were Christian terms.

“I think he abused Christianity,” Christopher Hale, a Catholic theologian and scholar of religious violence, told Newsweek of Allen. “But the abuse he engaged in is something very particular and very dangerous.”

Let’s keep reading. Readers will want to note the quality of the experts consulted in this Newsweek feature:

Allen made two core claims, both drawn from recognizable Christian traditions, and both distorted to justify violence.

His first argument centered on the biblical teaching to “turn the other cheek.” Allen wrote that this principle applies only to personal insults, not to the oppression of others. “Turning the other cheek when someone else is oppressed is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes,” he wrote.

Stanley Hauerwas, the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor Emeritus at Duke Divinity School and America’s most prominent Christian pacifist, directly disputed that reading. “Turning the other cheek is a practice grounded in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus calls Christians to turn the other cheek and not strike back when struck,” Hauerwas told Newsweek. …

“Christian participation in violence, even for seemingly just causes, betrays the Gospel’s fundamental call,” he said.

Allen’s second argument concerned the familiar phrase “render unto Caesar” — the biblical instruction to obey legitimate authorities.

He argued that Christians need not obey unlawful orders. When positive law violates divine law, Christian tradition has held, obedience becomes optional. …

“His argument that unlawful orders need not be obeyed extends back at least to Thomas Aquinas,” Cole, the Drew University ethicist, said, stating that this concept reaches back to medieval Christian philosophy on natural law and even influenced Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil disobedience, with roots deep in Christian thought.

But again, Cole stressed the tradition’s limits. “The resistance had to be orderly, with clearly defined leaders capable of installing and running a more just form of government,” he said. “No private acts of force were seen as morally acceptable.”

Readers seeking more information, and links to additional coverage, can turn to this round-up at Christianity Today.

Meanwhile, at The Forward, reporter Mira Fox offered this political analysis of why the president used the language that he did.

Trump signed a national security directive in September last year, stating that “anti-Christianity” as well as “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality” are common threads driving domestic terrorism. The directive outlined a new strategy including investigating any person or organization who might fall under this new, sweeping set of domestic terrorism priorities in order to “intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.” …

Directing attention toward a sense of persecution functions to unite an increasingly splintered MAGA base, some of whom are feuding over how their Christianity dictates their response to Israel and the war in Iran.

Yes, that pathway leads into the world of talking heads such as Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes and former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

For reporters who take religion seriously, I believe the journalistic road forward can be found in three questions that I asked many times at GetReligion.org and now at Rational Sheep. When thinking about the meaning of “Christian discipleship,” it helps to ask: How do you spend your time? How do you spend your money? How do you make your decisions?

Journalists frequently follow this mantra, “Follow the money.”

That’s a good question, in this case. But when seeking the roots of the beliefs that led to Allen’s attack, reporters will need to dig into the time he has spent with other believers — online or in pews. That could lead to valid information about the origins of his manifesto and, thus, the doctrines that shaped his decisions.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.