I heartily approve of this thought. Now If I could just reconcile my own tensions with regards to these questions.

In other words, the issue, at least from Roeder’s point of view is that murder is happening, and seemingly the only way for him to stop it is to use violence. Much as if there were a person just haphazardly shooting people in a crowd. One would not think that this is a juridical matter that can only be touched by the state. One would think that innocents are being murdered and all people of good will bear an obligation to stop this action, by the use of violence if necessary.

I think we both agree on the ultimate inadequacy of violence. If the US did execute Tiller, that wouldn’t set all things to right. If that’s the extent of your application, I have no disagreement. But it seems to me that you’re taking this one step more. You seem to be suggesting that because the US gov’t has itself used its violent power for evil, we should not simultaneously look to it to actually punish evildoers like Tiller. Correct me if I’m mis-reading you.

If that’s true, my question remains: if Paul could consider Nero’s authority as legitimate enough to punish evildoers (which is a far cry from “setting things right”), then how can we not hope for the US gov’t to do the same?

The whole Romans 13 thing would be a massive discussion it itself. But the main point I’m pushing in regard to the discussion right now is that appeals to legitimate authority don’t really work in mitigating the moral question of violence in defense of the innocent.

Isn’t there a way to deny the ultimate legitimacy of the State while still acknowledging a certain provisional legitimacy to its just actions? What exactly is the power of the sword? How can Paul in the same breath, so to speak, tell us 1) that vengeance is God’s alone and 2) that we should be grateful for the civil (pre-final judgment) punishment of evil?

I suppose I’m willing to grant that most, if not every, civil institution exercises its power illegitimately, in the sense that it exists during a new dispensation of grace and non-violence. But is this ultimate “illegitimacy” a reason to disregard the temporary role of civil authority? Paul grants even Neronic Rome some sort of ad hoc grounds for authority.

Is it possible that the “practical” pacifist must exercise even more patience than the “true” pacifist? The latter can completely disown and disregard the exercise of civil or personal violence. The former doesn’t have it quite so easy. When Nero uses tax revenue to burn Christians, we — unlike Yoder — keep paying the full tax (Rom 13:6).

I’m still somewhat in flux concerning all this, so I’m glad you’re raising the question, particularly in the midst of a very real, difficult situation.

If pro-life patriots support the right of a people to violently overthrow a government because of excessive taxes and a lack of parliamentary representation, how much more should they support the violent overthrow of a government due to legally sanctioned genocide?

I think Tolstoy’s concept of “public opinion” addresses this situation very well: the (vast?) majority of Americans embrace a heritage of violent revolution, but very few would support such violence today. That is because the public opinion has changed. Moreover, the majority in the US is in favor of abortion, so the political (and hypothetical violent) actions of pro-lifers have a very small chance at success while the status quo of public opinion remains. I hate to sound like President Bush, but: “hearts and minds.”