Parsing the Sermon on the Mount for Loopholes
The Weekly Pulse—May 1, 2026
By Alex Arnold
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Thus says Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV), in what is perhaps His most challenging teaching for people to understand, much less obey.
This teaching showed up unexpectedly in the news this week: The annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner was interrupted by a gunman who tried to breach security and assassinate government officials in attendance. Thankfully, no one was killed; law enforcement quickly disarmed and arrested the gunman. When the New York Post published his manifesto, what struck me was how much space the gunman devoted to distinctively Christian concerns. He even structured it a bit like a piece of scholastic theology, with Objections and Rebuttals—though whether this was intentional on his part I cannot say. The first objection he addresses: As a Christian, shouldn’t you turn the other cheek? The gunman replies that Jesus’s command applies only when you yourself are the one being wronged. When others are oppressed, turning the other cheek becomes “complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”
Let us ponder the gunman’s approach to Jesus’s teaching. The gunman reads the Sermon on the Mount the way a clever lawyer reads a contract, sniffing around for loopholes. But this deeply misunderstands what Jesus is doing in the Sermon on the Mount. He is not delivering a legal code that might involve carveouts and exemptions. Rather, He is describing the character of someone transforming into a citizen of the Kingdom of God. To approach Jesus’s words seeking what minimally viable obedience looks like—that is to strain at gnats and swallow a camel.
Now, Christians have long debated whether and under what conditions violent force in defense of the innocent can ever be justified; the ethical tradition that includes Augustine, Aquinas, Anabaptists, Quakers, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Nigel Biggar takes this debate quite seriously. But before we can even begin that debate, we first should ask: What kind of person is doing the reasoning? For the way one is formed (or deformed) also influences the quality of one’s reasoning on hard matters of ethics. A person who examines the Sermon on the Mount seeking escape clauses is engaged in self-justification, not good moral reasoning.
This most recent episode of political violence raises a big question for all Christians, whatever their politics. The gunman was, by all reports, deeply immersed in Christian community. He was active in a campus fellowship; his father was an elder in a Reformed church. How does someone like this end up handcuffed on the carpet of a DC Hilton after trying to assassinate government officials? One can know the words of the Lord without knowing the Lord. Theological literacy without spiritual formation just yields people capable of more sophisticated rationalization and self-deception. “Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19, ESV).
Quick Beats
Slowing down to see God. John Mark Comer, friend of CCPL and an influential proponent of practicing spiritual disciplines, was profiled in the Atlantic recently. The profile’s focus was on Comer’s efforts to persuade Christians—especially younger Christians frazzled by the pace of a life overflowing with work and technological distractions—to take up ancient practices like silence and solitude, Sabbath rest, fasting, intentional community, and regular prayer. And not because such things will improve one’s “wellness.” Comer is quite clear to distinguish Christian spiritual disciplines from the offerings of modern-day wellness mavens like Andrew Huberman or Peter Attia: “The purpose of a spiritual discipline is ‘not personal fulfillment. It’s not personal expression. It’s not emotional wellness. It’s not to de-stress…The point is to have your character transformed by your attunement to God.’”
The King’s speech. His Majesty King Charles III began a state visit to the US this week with a speech to Congress, which highlighted the importance of Christianity, and of religious faith generally, to the flourishing of the US and UK. The “Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community…I am mindful that we are still in the season of Easter, the season that most strengthens my hope. It is why I believe, with all my heart, that the essence of our two Nations is a generosity of spirit and a duty to foster compassion, to promote peace, to deepen mutual understanding and to value all people, of all faiths, and of none.” Charles is correct to note that compassion, generosity, and Easter hope are among the many civic virtues that Christian faith has to offer our public life.
Casuistry of the five-finger discount. Last week the New York Times published a discussion with progressive pundits Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino on the topic of how petty theft and other sorts of small-time crime might be legitimate forms of political protest. The piece elicited plenty of criticisms of Piker and Tolentino’s moral reasoning. I agree with the critics: “Thou shalt not steal” is a reasonably clear command to follow. A deeper layer to this story, however, concerns what Piker and Tolentino’s attempts at moral casuistry indicate about a large—though not a majority—segment of the public’s moral imagination. A January PRRI poll showed that 7% of Americans, which would be about 24 million people, completely or mostly agree that “damaging or destroying property” is justified as a form of political protest. A YouGov poll from last fall indicates that 19% of Americans between 18-29—about 11 million Americans—think that sometimes violence is justifiable to advance political goals. People who believe in the legitimacy of political violence, like Piker, Tolentino, and the WHCD gunman, are all beholden to an invincible confidence that their political ends are so righteous that norms and rules that otherwise serve our common life don’t apply to them. But this attitude, whatever political side it is to be found, is utterly destructive of civic life. It merely feeds an escalating cycle of reprisal. Better to pursue a politics of meekness instead.
Alex Arnold is director of research at the Center for Christianity and Public Life.
Wow, this quote is heavy: "Theological literacy without spiritual formation just yields people capable of more sophisticated rationalization and self-deception."