Is it ever justified, that is morally right, to use violence?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #252 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Violence is part of living in a spiritually fallen world. Sin exists, and since human beings give themselves over to various sins, violence in the pursuit of sinful interests also exists.
Scripture informs us God established government and lawful authorities to restrain evil. “For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4).
So then, is all violence equivalent, always wrong or bad? What about violence in pursuit of the good?
For example, is the use of violence, say a gun, by a law enforcement officer no different from the use of gun violence by a perpetrator conducting a home invasion?
Is violence in self-defense, resulting in the death of the attacker, no different than violence in murder?
Most would probably distinguish these forms of violence. Historically, the law has done so, which is why there is something called first-degree murder—intent to kill, premeditation, sometimes deliberation, second-degree murder—intentional but not premeditated or extreme recklessness, and something called voluntary manslaughter—unlawful killing without the malice or intent, and involuntary manslaughter—recklessness or criminal negligence. Distinctions are made in terms of intent, premeditation, malice, level of recklessness, provocation, and circumstances. Point being: not all violence is the same, or necessarily wrong or bad.
What about violence on the international or geopolitical level?
Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist group Hamas brutally surprise-attacked, killed, and kidnapped civilians and soldiers in 21 Israeli communities in a day now known as “10/7” and in a manner so heinous the incident is considered the “deadliest for the Jews since the Holocaust.” Seeking return of 251 hostages, Israel’s military response to 10/7 was launched Oct. 27, 2023, resulted in prolonged bombing, urban warfare, and deaths of Hamas operatives and civilians.
When Israel defended itself, many international observers called for an “immediate ceasefire,” argued “violence breeds violence,” and assigned a moral equivalency to what Israel was doing 10/27 with Hamas’s earlier violence 10/7. Israel was criticized worldwide for disproportionality, perceived genocidal killing of civilians, and violations of humanitarian concern.
“When President Barack Obama said after Hamas’ attack upon Israel that both this attack and the Israeli occupation were unjustified, he was condemned by many – including attorney Alan Dershowitz – as refusing to condemn and counter the atrocities of Oct. 7.” In other words, Obama implied moral equivalency, i.e., actions or violence employed by Israel are no different than actions or violence deployed by Hamas.
“Morally equivalent” is a term referencing given arguments or actions that treat morally different actors or situations as if they are equally right or wrong.
More examples. Some American religious leaders have condemned recent U.S. military actions against Iran by framing those actions as morally comparable to the violence endured by civilians and combatants in the region, emphasizing shared human dignity over geopolitical justifications. Some of these arguments place higher moral accountability upon one actor, i.e., U.S., than others, i.e., Iran’s autocratic regime.
What seems to be missing in these comments by religious leaders is a biblical theology of sin, a biblical view of use of violence in a fallen world, or a call for justice based upon righteousness rather than peace at any cost.
Speaking Sunday, March 1, to thousands gathered in the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square, Pope Leo said, “I address to the parties involved a heartfelt appeal to assume the moral responsibility of halting the spiral of violence before it becomes an irreparable abyss…Stability and peace are not built with mutual threats nor with weapons that sow destruction, pain and death, but only through a dialogue that is reasonable, authentic and responsible.”
The U.N. Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, condemned the escalating conflict in a statement to the press, calling for “an immediate cessation of hostilities and de-escalation.”
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released a statement asserting that “bombs do not create democracy, and airstrikes do not build just societies,” urging an immediate cessation of military escalation and a return to sustained diplomacy grounded in international law.
Similarly, Pax Christi International issued a declaration condemning recent U.S. and Israeli military strikes in Iran. Pax Christi framed these actions as part of a broader “cycle of violence,” stressing that “foreign military intervention only deepens human suffering” and calling on the international community to “uphold international law” and return to dialogue — placing the moral weight of U.S. decisions on the same scale as the human toll of the conflict.
Statements collected by faith networks like Sojourners…stated that a U.S.–Iran war would be “morally and religiously indefensible” and would repeat past cycles of destructive conflict that inflicted immense human cost on Middle Eastern populations. They urged policymakers to return to the Iran nuclear deal and pursue negotiations, presenting diplomatic engagement as the morally superior alternative to military intervention.
Stanley Hauerwas argues “The church cannot bless war. A Christianity that affirms the state’s wars is not Christianity. It is idolatry…When we honor soldiers for taking life and expect silence for the toll it takes, we reinforce the lie that violence can be holy and has no individual or corporate spiritual costs. We sin against the Gospel.”
Catholic clergy urged prayers and peace after U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran, insisting that “the dignity of human life must always come first” and warning that any action imperiling civilians carries grave moral weight—implicitly equating collective human suffering from all sides of the conflict.
Some religious leaders in the U.S. and globally frame violence as a tragic cycle à la “violence breeds violence”—blaming all actors—rather than identifying initiating actions, which tends to morally level state military action and non-state militant activity under a general “violence is bad” framing.
Others point to diplomatic engagement and negotiation rather than military escalation as morally responsible. Critics of these positions sometimes argue that such stances improperly equate what they see as military actions taken for defensive/security reasons, and diplomatic or negotiation efforts that might, which in their view fail to adequately address deep issues like human rights abuses, regional aggression, or support for non-state militant groups.
When religious leaders urge restraint upon the U.S. government but do not condemn Iranian leadership they appear to apply moral pressure asymmetrically.
They publicly constrain democratic governments while not equally addressing authoritarian leadership—creating perceived imbalance. This again is a form of false moral equivalence—treating aggressors and victims, or perpetrators and defenders, as if they are morally on equal footing.
But it’s possible to desire peace, to pursue peace, to dislike using violence, while recognizing that human beings are sinful, not trustworthy, capable of all manner of duplicitous statements and behavior, and even disguise evil intent. Yet at times, like Hamas, like Iran’s other terrorist proxies, and like Iran itself, the evil actor acts evilly, barring the way to peace.
On a local level, sad though it is, sometimes the law enforcement officer’s gun is the only thing that will end the violence of a public-school shooter. So, violence does not always breed violence, and not all violence is wrong or bad.
Ceasefires are not, ipso facto, wrong or ineffectual, but they may be. When threatened or harmed states defend themselves with a military response, then people, perhaps with a good heart, call for these states to implement an immediate ceasefire, they are assuming evil actors are working with a morality similar to their own. This assumption is, sadly, often not the case, particularly with religious extremists or simply human beings given to perversity.
While I do not want nor do I promote violence, and I am not trivializing the suffering consequent to violence, nor do I want innocent people to be threatened, including not only Americans but Iranian and Israeli citizens as well. I do not want the US government to be forced to use its military, but I am grateful that it has, as in WWII, and it can, and if required it will, to defend liberty and make peace possible.
And yes, local law enforcement and state leaders can do wrong or make missteps.
So, every law enforcement action or US military action internationally must be held to a high standard of morality. But not all violence is morally equivalent to other violence.
Violence is a consequence of living in a fallen world. The Bible is replete with examples of necessary, right and righteous violence. Even as Scripture commands us to love our enemies, still, violence may be essential and morally appropriate for self-defense against armed attack, in defense of another state under attack, for stopping mass atrocities, and to preserve and to protect liberty and justice for all.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.