Resisting Encroachment
Humanity's defection leads to circumstances where actions are needed that would never otherwise have been needed.
For more on such adjustments, see Adjusting to Defection...
This page is about one especially crucial adjustment.
A proper way to respond to violence is to meet force with force. When self or property is threatened by encroachment, and to defend it is expedient, it is right to do so, and wrong to refrain.
The natural principles have not changed; they are being applied in new circumstances. The fact that violence is to be met with force is inherent in the principle of justice.
(Pseudo-Pacifism) ("Non-Violent Resistance") "Directly inflicting bodily injury is never right but damaging property sometimes is, even if it leads indirectly to casualties."
Harm is harm, and the type and degree of harm are just details. Real Pacifism, like the Hypocratic Oath, does no harm.
(Christian Pacifism) "Christ tells me in Matthew 5:39 not to resist one who is evil."
If Christ intended this to be taken literally in all circumstances we think he was wrong, but probably he only intended to provoke thought, and taught not "non-resistance" but seasoned resistance.
There is no record of his elaborating on the point, but he might have explained thus: "Before resisting an evildoer, look for alternatives. Ask yourself what fighting will achieve. Show you want peace and are willing to forgive. Be ready to write off losses. Be creative. Treat resistance as a last resort. And remember, God's spirit is now at work creating new possibilities."
John the Baptist before him had urged soldiers, not to cease soldiering, but to "rob no-one, and be content with your wages". Christ corrected some of John's ideas, but on this topic there is no record of such a correction. Christ certainly had dealings with soldiers, and there is no evidence that he urged them to change jobs. Harlots he urged to repent. Soldiers he did not.
Not that he ever condoned the Roman occupation. He was only warning against the rash use of armed force in general. If he had seen fit to think about and comment on the circumstances in which armed force is proper, he surely would have urged the Roman soldiers to change jobs, not because armed force is inherently wrong but because encroachment, armed or otherwise, is wrong.
Consider his driving the traders from the temple. Maybe you think the whip was just symbolic, and the traders were persuaded to move on by his preaching? Or that he was bluffing? (So using force is wrong but threatening it is right, is it?) I prefer the simple version. A whip is a whip.