But if “violence” is intrinsically evil how can a just God in his righteous “wrath” judge the world and condemn to the lake of fire the ungodly? And, how could his judgments in the Old Testament upon wrongdoers have been just? And why is a government official in the NT specifically commended as “an avenger who carries out ‘God’s wrath’ on the wrongdoer” via bearing the sword? (Rom. 13). In fact, these officials are specifically called “ministers of God” in Rom. 13 – a principle that is illustrated throughout the Old Testament.

There is no change in this from the Old Testament to the New. Justice is still justice and all of us participate either directly or indirectly in the resistance of evil – even governmentally, if we pay taxes, vote, etc. In fact, God’s new covenant people are specifically commanded to not only render governmental officials respect, but also to pay taxes for the specific support of their God-ordained work.

So, are Christians supposed to pay for unbelievers to “avenge God’s wrath on wrongdoers” because it is somehow intrinsically evil and thus believers can’t participate directly (only indirectly) in it? Or is it not rather true that the work itself is godly and that believers themselves not only can, but should, participate in such actions – directly or indirectly – in participatory democracies (and maybe in others as well) so as to carry out the functions of government as justly as possible in the midst of this present evil age?

If Christ’s statement in the Sermon on the Mount “do not resist evil (an evil person)” was meant to be universalized then it becomes a principle that contradicts many other biblical statements (as above). In fact, we all particularize this statement since we all “resist evil” in our children, in our schools and institutions, and in our adult population at all governmental levels. The use of “violence” is only a matter of degree in the process of resisting evil and Christ never mentions the word nor forbids it. He only speaks of not resisting evil (persons). In fact if taken as a universal statement, Christ’s statement would equally be “disobeyed” by the resistance of evil in “non-violent passive resistance” or any other acts of “civil disobedience” as well.

God’s righteous judgement against evil will ultimately be carried out with complete justice at the final judgment. Until that time the resistance of evil by government officals is not only honorable but also godly work which can be carried out by believer or unbeliever alike. Though Veteran’s day is now past, I salute all – especially fellow-Christians – who have participated in doing so by serving in our Armed Forces.

don’t accept that violence is ever the best way to protect the weak. It may succeed temporarily, but it just feeds more violence. If you attack your thug and chase him off, he won’t give up, he’ll bring a gun next time and escalate the violence.

I frequently hear this claim, but I’m not sure of the basis for it. I would regard violent treatment of a violent person to be quite effective in the right circumstances.

You seem to me to be overgeneralizing this.

We do know that Paul was willing to place himself in the hands of the Roman authorities from time to time, allowing them to protect him when they were willing to do so.

Really? When? The closest to this is I suppose Acts 23:17, but this was when the authorities were already supposed to be protecting Paul. Note that in Philippi and initially in Jerusalem he refused to claim on his Roman citizenship in order to avoid mistreatment. In 25:10-11 he appealed to Caesar to ensure a fair trial.

I don’t accept that violence is ever the best way to protect the weak. It may succeed temporarily, but it just feeds more violence. If you attack your thug and chase him off, he won’t give up, he’ll bring a gun next time and escalate the violence.

We are programmed to be tribal. Once you make the choice to admit the weak into your tribe, your emotional response to their attackers is pure instinct.

Well, not quite. First, the issue isn’t tribal at all. I have concern for both the person who is unable to defend himself and for the attacker. In defending the weak I do not make a value judgment about the two people, I make a value judgment about their current actions.

Because I care about what happens to both, I will use the least lethal form of intervention consistent with defending the weak person, but if that “least lethal” form ends up lethal, I will use it.

There’s no shame in failure. The shame is in rebranding failure and calling it success.

I’m not rebranding anything. In the worst case I listed, I have indeed failed to redeem the thug, but I have succeeded in protecting the weak. It would only be appropriate for me to feel guilty, however, if I had not made my best effort toward redemption.

You appear to have an unrealistic expectation of success. Some people cling to their “badness” such that redemption will not happen. All efforts at their redemption are doomed to failure.

Your distinction between “universal” and “specific” is important. I think that I take Jesus’ complete and absolute non-violence more seriously than many pacifists, but I understand it to be specifically one aspect of Jesus’ saving work in Galilee and Judea. This one shining moment in history informs and judges our lives, but Jesus did not intend his teachings be be abstract, universal ethical principles. How many people think that Jesus intended all believers in all times to walk from town to town begging for food and lodging?

Your distinction between principle and application is also important. To believe in the responsible, lawful use of force does not mean that people will always agree on how and when to use force. The arguments that belong to this discussion, however, are different than we often hear from church leaders. “War is bad” is not a rational argument for or against any particular use of force.

Given your hypothetical about the guy being attacked by thugs, you chose to value protecting the weak over loving your neighbour. That’s a logical decision, it’s a compassionate decision, but is it really Christlike? We are programmed to be tribal. Once you make the choice to admit the weak into your tribe, your emotional response to their attackers is pure instinct. When Jesus said “love your enemies” he didn’t say “love your enemies when it’s convenient”, or “love your enemies, but less than your love your friends”. The question isn’t “when is violence acceptable?”, the question is “at what point do I discard what Jesus said and let instinct take over?” Freely giving up your life for strangers isn’t an evolutionarily sustainable strategy. We aren’t, for the most part, the descendants of those kinds of people.

There’s no shame in failure. The shame is in rebranding failure and calling it success.