As far as I can remember, he dosen’t address the Centurian thing directly, but my best guess is his response would be something like the following: Yes, there are a number of instances where Christ calls people to leave their sin, like with the woman at the well. However, it is problematic to argue that whenever Christ does not call someone to change their ways, that he condones their behavior. For example, just before he dies Jesus has an exchange with the thief on the cross next to him. He acknowledges the man’s faith, and does not say anything negative about him. I don’t think we can then argue that Jesus condones theft.

1) Brimlow says:

“There is no record of a Christian writer approving of participation in warfare until 330 AD, and no record of Christians in the Roman army until 173 AD.”

How does he mesh that with Christ’s interaction with the Centurian, where he doesn’t speak to the profession of ’soldier’ either positively or negatively? We have other examples of Christ specifically calling people away from sin (woman at the well, etc.).

2) Bonhoeffer was a pacifist, but at the same time wasn’t he involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler?

3) It sounds like Brimlow is saying something like:

“he basically concludes that Christians are always called to return good for evil, even if it means we die. Even in the face of something as awful as the Nazis, we should resist violence.”

But that’s not really the question is it? The hitler question goes beyond “bad” being done to “us” or “me”–I would restate it something like “if Hitler is killing millions of people, even if it doesn’t directly affect me, do I have a moral obligation to try and stop it, even if it means using violence?”. Does Brimlow address that question?