The Limitations of the Old Testament Law

I love reading the Old Testament, I deeply appreciate the wisdom of the Old Testament Law, but we should also speak clearly about the limitations of the Old Testament Law. 

The Law simply could not make humans good by itself. Even in the Old Testament, God judges the nation of Israel, and says basically, "Even the ways in which you keep the details of the Law (like sacrifices and offerings) are offensive to me, because at the same time you're taking bribes and mistreating the poor." How are you supposed to have detailed instructions in the Law about protecting the poor? Also in the Old Testament, there are passages like "love your neighbor as yourself", which are clearly trying to give underlying principles for obedience to the Law, but there was still something missing.

So that's why Romans says that the Law in "insufficient" in some fundamental way. Paul points out a bunch of Old Testament people who looked forward in faith to "something better". And then he says that Jesus was that "something better" -- A way of dealing with lawbreaking, AND a way to make people actually understand and follow the principles behind the Law (the combination of Jesus dying in the place of lawbreakers, and the Holy Spirit being part of salvation).

And even the imperfect OT Law couldn't be kept by the Israelites, and they were defeated and carried away in exile. And the New Testament very clearly does NOT look back to the Old Testament Law as the pinnacle of good behavior. The new Gentile converts were clearly not required to know it or follow it. Instead, they were told about the principles like, "love God, love your neighbor," which were expounded on, and also sometimes a letter writer would draw a principle from the Old Testament, but that's it.

Even in the Old Testament, the Law was just a starting point, there was SO MUCH history and teaching after, showing what God considered "good". Literally hundreds of years of accounts of moral or immoral behavior, past where the nation of Israel even exists, through the time of exile. So that's yet another reason we should not "freeze frame" the details of the Old Testament Law and call that the "ultimate standard of Christian morality".

On Trauma

Trauma is often long-lasting, because the victim often (and understandably) feels obligated to revisit it over and over in their memory. If the victim stops thinking about it, who will? Who is going to fix this, if the victim forgets? This makes the victim feel like a witness in some trial that never comes, always ready to give their testimony to the crimes committed against them. This isn't universal in how trauma affects the victims, but it's certainly common.

But GOD can and will remember these wrongs. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" is not about how God is angry, in general. It says that people don't need to seek vengeance or stay angry or look for perfect justice here on earth, because God will remember and judge fully in the end. We can ask God to remember and judge these wrongdoers, so that we can be set free from the obligation. Using the previous analogy, the victim is the witness who presents all of their accusations and testimonies to God, and then God says, in effect, "You have no more responsibility for this trial, I will present all the evidence myself when the trial comes." And in fact, some counselling for PTSD has the person walk carefully through their trauma, undermining the "panic response" by breaking the trauma up into multiple small chronological steps, to deal with them one at a time. For the Christian, we can take this and go even further, listing out each offense at each small step, boldly asking God to remember and to judge.
It's probably unavoidable that when trauma happens, it redefines the life of the victim. In fact, they become "a victim", and this identity often follows them for a long time, personally if not legally. Now, everyone heals in different ways, at different rates. We should not burden trauma victims with our own expectations. However, once God receives the "testimony" of those who have suffered wrong, they certainly have the potential to look forward to a time when they no longer call themselves a "victim" or someone "suffering from trauma". Eventually, just living one's life will fill up the soul with other things, and the trauma will occupy a smaller and smaller area of the heart. Sometimes I think about Jesus saying, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." The painful parts of our lives don't go away, but they get "diluted" by the abundant experience of life -- even Jesus himself -- that the Holy Spirit pours into our souls. 

Now, it is true that we have a couple of verses that say something like, "God, forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." This is WAY beyond merely forgiving someone for wrongs done to us, this is asking GOD to forgive them ENTIRELY, to ask God to forgive them for the wrong against GOD, against his law. I think sometimes we take these verses as burdens on ourselves, "Oh, if I'm not asking God to forgive them in this way, I'm not truly forgiving them at all." I think this is a recipe for despair, and a bad lesson to draw from these passages. We should think of these statements as basically miracles of the Holy Spirit, exceptional acts that mirror the exceptional forgiveness of Jesus on the cross. But God deals with us where we are right now: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory."

Uncoupling Apologetics and Evangelism

Apologetics has an interesting recent history, especially in the US. There have been some trends stretching back to the Second Great Awakening, and then other trends that kicked off in the 20th century (related to but not synonymous with the rise of fundamentalism) where apologetics and evangelism has had a large priority and focus, especially as "the mission of every Christian". Think of all the university-based Christian groups, where students might see themselves as "missionaries" to a secular campus. You can imagine in that context, "apologetics" would be seen as a way to interact with non-Christians.

This might be a majority view, but this is certainly not the only game in town, or how "Christian groups" have always seen their priorities. For example, there are currently some university-based Christian groups that are not "evangelism-focused", but rather "Christian-focused", as it were. That is, they are meant as a place for Christian fellowship, in a place where regular church attendance is difficult. So you can imagine that in THAT context, Christian students might be faced with difficult information, or even outright hostility, concerning their faith. So in that context, "apologetics" would be for Christians themselves, providing support and context for their faith.

So TL;DR: both sides of "apologetics" in the OP are pretty common, though often in different contexts. It's probably obvious from how I presented the information, but I am a strong supporter of the latter view above, that Christian groups are most effective when their priority is supporting Christians, whether apologetics or anything else.

I actually love apologetics, and in my youth I prioritized it, but these days I'm very much in favor of de-emphasizing it, with regards to evangelism. Christians are better evangelists by showing a genuine interest in the lives and cares of their non-Christian neighbors, than by constantly getting into intellectual head-butting with them (or feeling obligated to answer every challenge that others put to them). So I think that apologetics is best-suited to help Christians (especially new ones), many of whom aren't equipped (or taught by their churches) how to answer common challenges to their faith.