Donald Trump recently caused an uproar with another incautious (perhaps joking?) comment, when he hinted at the possibility of violence against Hillary Clinton or her judges, should she be elected. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said. Then he quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know.” Trump and his campaign later said the comment referred to political unity among gun owners.
I was surprised to see many conservatives and Christians on social media contending that this comment was not outrageous, even if construed as a reference to violence. The whole point of the Second Amendment, they say, was to ensure that an armed citizenry would have the power to rise up against tyrannical government.
This right of resistance is certainly implied in the Second Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson made the point more explicit in the Declaration of Independence. “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” This presumes the option of violent uprising, or at least resistance, along the lines of what the Patriots did starting in 1775.
But doesn’t the Bible prohibit violent resistance against the established authorities, in passages like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2? (I have written about whether the Bible should have prohibited the American Revolution in an earlier post.) I would argue, at a minimum, that these passages set a high bar for when violent resistance or revolution might become an acceptable option for Christians.
I would also contend that violent resistance does not equate to assassination. Normally, there is no place for assassination of civil authorities in Christian just war theory, which seeks to limit war to enlisted combatants. (The advent of modern terrorism has complicated the identity of “combatants,” of course.)
You can make a strong moral argument for the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, or the successful assassination of Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich in 1942, because those leaders were directly exercising military powers that were patently immoral, especially as they related to the Holocaust. But the point remains—assassinating civilians is normally a tactic used by terrorists, not participants in a just war.
The best choice for Christians who believe that their government is engaged in immoral or tyrannical acts is either exercising political influence (voting, petitioning, etc.), or engaging in nonviolent resistance. The tactics of the mainstream Civil Rights movement in the 1960s are the pre-eminent example of the latter approach.
But does there come a point where violent resistance is justifiable for Christians? A thought experiment may help, but first let me state that I do not want any of the following events to happen, nor do I think this scenario is likely to happen. But let’s imagine, for the sake of discussion, that a future presidential administration began taking direct action to stop churches from promoting traditional sexuality and marriage. (Baptists and Quakers once received fines and even imprisonment from some of the colonial governments in America, so this kind of treatment is not unprecedented here.) The government might start fining such churches and ministers, revoking their tax-exempt status, or even threatening jail time for pastors who persisted in their offensive teachings.
Such a scenario could precipitate a secession crisis. I could envision, for example, a governor of Texas uniting with surrounding states, offering persecuted Christians sanctuary, and seceding from the American union. The president at the time would presumably not tolerate this secession, and might order the armed forces/National Guard to stop it. The two sides might come to blows over the status of military installations in the seceding states, among other issues.
IF something like this scenario played out, then Christians would have to decide whether they could, in good conscience, promote violence to combat the federal government’s attempt to stop secession. Those who decided that this would be permissible would argue (1) that the government was being patently tyrannical by its violations of conscience and religious liberty, and (2) that all the seceding states were asking for was independence, not war. These Christians would be willing to use defensive force to try to ensure the success of secession.
Readers will have noticed by now that the scenario I am describing is similar to that which occurred in the Civil War. A major difference is that the Confederate cause was fatally compromised by the immorality of chattel slavery. (This is not the time to unpack the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause, but the Southern states’ own explanations of secession made clear that their cause was the right of states to protect the institution of slavery.) We often fail to remember, though, that the American Revolution was also a secessionist movement—secession from the British Empire, that is.
Based on this thought experiment, I suppose I could envision Christians justly participating in a war against their government—one that was defensive, and limited to enlisted combatants—to re-establish a new government based on liberty. But the Bible does not give much wiggle room for such measures. Nor do secessionist or revolutionary movements usually turn out very well. (See the Confederacy, or the French Revolution.) In virtually every case, we should prefer measures that work within the existing system. Or adopt nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience measures as did the courageous foot soldiers of the Civil Rights movement.
But assassination? Let’s have no more talk of that, from any corner of American political life, even as a bad joke. Outside of killing military figures in a time of war, assassination is simply not an option within Christian just war standards. Some might bring up Old Testament passages like Jael killing Sisera in Judges 4. But Sisera was a military leader, and we could cite counter-examples like David’s dogged commitment to not kill King Saul, even when he had the chance.
I hope Mr. Trump was joking, but either way, the topic he raised is exceedingly inappropriate, and not something Christians should defend.
