There's Still More Involved
Brother Fails would do well to explain WHY the issue is not whether a Christian may protect himself and others from intruders. He insists that the only question involved is whether or not a Christian may kill someone whose political beliefs differ from his. I deny it and I offered a basis for my denial in the Dec. 4, 1969 issue of this journal. Our brother should have informed us whether he believes a Christian would have a responsibility to try and help a molested third party. I affirm that he would. I still believe that this is a question worthy of consideration.
Concerning Romans 12:17-21, Paul continued in the thirteenth chapter to describe the agency through which God is executing vengeance. The question here therefore becomes: May a Christian serve either as a civil servant or in a position of civil authority.
The Christian's battle is spiritual (2 Cor. 10:4). But he sustains other relationships as well. One is civil. Another is social.
Regarding the accusation that I have set forth "reasoning reminiscent of 'situation ethics' logic," his definition in parenthesis doesn't quite cover the philosophy. Everyone who admits that circumstances are often determining factors in how we should act is not a situationist. I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't hesitate to hit a human brother over the head with something if he were attacking my wife, child, or another human brother. I would never consider hitting him if he were behaving himself. To wave the hand and say "that's situation ethics logic" is not to meet the issue.
If Catholicism were waging the same kind of battle as the Communists, I would then say that a Christian could go to war against it if his own conscience would permit him to.
— 1224 Ashland Ave., Louisville, Ky. 40215