BREAKING NEWS: Trump Under Fire—The Media Spins and Evangelicals Stay Silent

How a Failed Assassination Attempt Reveals the Dangers of Christian Neutrality

Former President and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump surrounded by U.S. Secret Service following an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, PA.

A quiet Sunday afternoon on the golf course could have turned tragic for President Donald Trump when a concealed would-be gunman was discovered by a Secret Service agent on Trump's advance team. The agent quickly engaged the threat with gunfire. President Trump was unharmed, and the gunman was taken into custody shortly afterward.

Media hypocrisy was swift and obvious. The Associated Press, CNN, NBC, CBS, and NPR all dutifully regurgitated the FBI’s talking points, saying the incident “appeared” to be an assassination attempt. I’m not sure what else it could have looked like to professional federal investigators? Perhaps an afternoon picnic in the bushes? Or maybe, like in Butler, PA, the FBI figured the shooter’s rifle scope was just a handy tool for getting a closer look at Trump’s golf swing? Never mind that the device he was peering through is specifically designed to put a target in someone’s crosshairs.

It’s not just the mainstream media misleading us with their obvious bias and condescending word choice, like “appears,” when it’s clearly an assassination attempt, not a picnic. Evangelicals are guilty of silence in the face of dangerous lies and grievous wickedness as well. As religious freedom and free speech in America are increasingly squeezed, the religious establishment calls for Christians to be peacemakers, tolerant, and intermediaries between wickedness and righteousness.

I touched on this issue in my article, “Faith Under Fire.” This idea was also sharply illustrated by

Simple Man

, who rightly posted: “Tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Some things are right, and some things are wrong. Christianity draws a moral line and demands you uphold it.”

Recently, I’ve noticed a growing trend: some Christians seem to view conflict as something to be avoided at all costs, while peace is treated as the ultimate goal. The common sentiment is that believers should never be the source of conflict because they’re supposed to be peacemakers. But this line of thinking is flawed. It creates a false dichotomy—one that political pundit Greg Gutfeld aptly calls “the prison of two ideas.”

In this prison, no room is left for additional options. You’re either for peace or you want conflict. There’s no middle ground, no in-between. This mindset forces Christians to choose between passive peace or a confrontational attitude, with no consideration of balance.

Those who are stuck in the prison of two theological ideas fail to understand that the cross of Christ is a symbol of violent peace. This peace wasn’t achieved by a passive man; it was won through confrontation, sacrifice, and suffering. Christianity is not a pacifist religion. A.W. Tozer exposes this fallacy, calling it “timidity” and noting, “Religion may be very precious to some but never important enough to cause division or risk hurting anyone’s feelings.”¹ His words serve as a relevant critique of the passive approach some take toward faith.

Yes, being at peace with God and fellow believers is fully supported by Scripture, and all Christians should strive to live this way. However, this doesn’t imply we are to be “passively peaceful,”² abandoning qualities like confrontation, conflict, and division when necessary. Jesus himself said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34, NASB–95). This is not a teaching about the passive comforts of Christianity.

In Luke 12:35, Jesus instructs, “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning.” The imagery here is reminiscent of military personnel on watch: alert, ready, and prepared. But prepared for what? Our vigilance is against any threats to our people, churches, and doctrine. When a threat arises, the Christian watchman is responsible for identifying, announcing, and responding to it. He cannot remain silent in hopes of a peaceful resolution, as that would be a dereliction of duty, a betrayal of his congregation, and, ultimately, of Christ.

We are indeed called to be at peace with God and fellow believers. But we are not called to be at peace with the enemies of the cross or with a corrupt culture. We must not be at peace with false teachers who spread false doctrine, with wolves in sheep’s clothing, or with unrepentant sin and flawed philosophies about God and the Bible.

I reject the false dichotomy that forces us to choose between being for peace or for conflict. The truth of Calvary is that peace is often achieved through division. The division Jesus speaks of in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51 refers to the difficult decisions Christians will inevitably face—not maybe, probably, or might have to make, but will have to make. We must choose a side. Either we are with Jesus, or we are with the world. Either we stand for the kingdom of God or the kingdom of this world. We must oppose sin, wickedness, and worldliness—both inside and outside the church—or we become accomplices and partners with that which is an enemy of God.

Jesus makes this clear with His emphatic words: “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). Christ does not accept neutrality. We must fully submit to his rule, authority, and Word, adjusting our lives, opinions, and attitudes accordingly. Otherwise, we stand as his enemies.

1. A.W. Tozer, Man: The Dwelling Place of God: What it Means to Have Christ Living in You, compiled by Anita M. Bailey (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2018), 125.

2. David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 152, ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ggbts-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3117026.