The thing that isn’t clear to me is why the people of God living in a secular state need to adopt the same mindset as the secular leadership on this issue. I obviously say this not to condemn secular leaders in any way, or that worldview, just to point out that their worldview is clearly different.

I wouldn’t say that the believer has to adopt the same mindset as the secular leadership. My point is only that we cannot automatically assume that a policy of non-violence developed for the particular context of first-century Israel provides a universal paradigm. If the American government were to oppress the church in America, then the church should pursue the same course that Jesus urged for Israel under Roman oppression. The militant, insurrectionist response, whether in self-defence or out of ‘zeal’ for the Lord, is not an option for the church under these circumstances. But it would be a very different situation if, say, America was threatened by a violent internal force or invaded by a foreign power. Under such conditions it would seem to me to be illogical to appeal to the example of Jesus in support of a political stance of non-violence. If violence is the only way for a civil or national power to ensure justice (whether internally or externally), I don’t see any biblical objection - indeed, I see biblical precedent (eg. Rom.13:1-5).

The difficult question, of course, is what constitutes justice in any particular situation. Because governments get things wrong and often behave unjustly, we always have to balance cooperation as citizens with prophetic challenge and critique as God’s people. The church benefits from the security and prosperity afforded by the society in which it is embedded - we live in two worlds - and it would be hypocritical to refuse to participate in the means by which that security and prosperity is assured. But this certainly does not mean that we have to share our society’s moral and political values. If the government chooses to pursue a clearly unjust cause through violent means (or through any other means), then I would have thought the responsibility of the church is to object and not cooperate.

Jonathan Bartley in his book The Subversive Manifesto, 22-23, offers a curious reinterpretation of the parable of the talents (Lk.19:11-27), partly on the grounds that at the end the king orders his enemies to be killed (19:27). Bartley argues that the traditional identification of the king with Jesus cannot possibly be right because the king acts so unfairly, and he suggests instead that the hero is the servant who challenges the king’s authority. The parable is a warning against power and its abuse.

This interpretation cannot be sustained. If the disciples are curious to know when the kingdom of God will come and Jesus immediately tells them a story about a nobleman who goes into a far country to receive a kingdom (19:11-12), the actions of the king must in some way tell us about the rule of God. Also in Luke the word ‘faithful’ (the first servant who does what the king asks is described as faithful) is always used in a positive sense, to describe those who do what is right. We cannot, therefore, escape the fact that the king acts violently. But the destruction of the enemies is the destruction of Jerusalem - God’s judgment on Israel through the extremely violent instrumentality of Rome. This does not mean that Rome was morally right to behave the way it did (and later Rome itself is judged - Habbakuk is very relevant here), but it must surely have some bearing on how we evaluate war from a Christian perspective. America and its allies may have pursued war against Iraq for all the wrong reasons, but biblically we may still want to regard the destruction of the regime as an act of divine judgment.