DC Shooting Suspect Twists Christian Teachings to Justify Violence

The man accused of attempting to assassinate the president, Cole Tomas Allen, left behind a brief manifesto that attempts to justify his violent intentions through a warped interpretation of Christian scripture. Contrary to claims from the Trump administration that Allen hates Christians, his writings show a deep engagement with Christian theology — but one that dangerously misreads its core teachings.

Allen’s manifesto rejects the well-known Christian principle of “turning the other cheek,” arguing that this command applies only when one is personally oppressed. Since he is not the direct victim of the administration’s abuses, Allen claims that turning the other cheek in the face of others’ suffering is actually complicity in their oppression. This logic flips the message of nonviolence into a call for violent resistance.

Malcolm Foley, a Texas pastor and theologian who has studied the Sermon on the Mount extensively, explains why this interpretation is flawed. For Foley, Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount are not optional ideals or impossible standards but a clear charter for Christian life. The call to nonviolence and love is meant to shape not just individuals but entire communities committed to resisting evil without replicating its brutality.

Foley traces the command to “turn the other cheek” back to its Old Testament roots in the lex talionis, or “eye for an eye” law, which was designed to limit revenge, not encourage it. Jesus’ radical teaching goes beyond that, urging his followers to reject retaliation altogether and respond to harm with grace and generosity.

Reading the Sermon on the Mount as a call to nonviolence is not about passivity or weakness, Foley stresses. Rather, it points to a source of true power and peace — a life lived by the Spirit that refuses to replicate cycles of violence. To distort this into a justification for violent resistance, as Allen does, is to misunderstand the heart of Christian ethics.

Allen’s misuse of faith to rationalize violence is part of a broader pattern of extremist thinking that weaponizes religion to justify authoritarian or violent actions. This case underscores the urgent need to hold accountable those who twist spiritual teachings to serve dangerous political ends.

At a moment when faith is often invoked to defend or oppose political violence, Foley’s reflections remind us that Christian teachings call for love, peace, and justice without resorting to the violence they condemn. Misreading scripture to justify violence only deepens the fractures threatening democracy and civil society.