Liberty and Expediency
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 137] |
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Cor. 6:12).
This controversial passage does not imply that one is free to do anything he wishes, regardless of its nature. The context shows that the "all things" relate to those things which God has made. The point is that God did nothing useless. There is a lawful purpose for all that he created.
The next verse illustrates the point. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them." The digestive organs serve a useful design, and so does food. Both are neutral in so far as moral significance is concerned, and belong to our transitory physical existence. God has ordained that they cease with our death. But they may be employed in such fashion by an act of will that their use may be detrimental to our eternal welfare. One may become a slave of appetite until he no longer rules his belly but it governs him. Or, he may destroy one for whom Christ died by insisting upon his "rights" with regard to eating meat (Romans 14:15).
Thus even that which was created with a lawful purpose may be inexpedient. What is meant by expedient? Our word is from the Latin, which means, "to free one caught by the foot," that is, to get the foot out of a trap, or out of quicksand or mire. The Greek is sumphero, to bring together. It is used in Acts 19:19 where those who practiced the black arts, brought their books together, and made a bonfire of these volumes on magic. The word always relates to that which is profitable.
In Matthew 5:29, 30, it is translated, "it is profitable." In Hebrews 12:10 it refers to the chastisement administered by the Father as "for our profit." In 1 Corinthians 12:7, where the subject is spiritual gifts, the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for profitable use. The best definition we can furnish for the term is "apt and suitable for the end in view, advantageous."
The divine purpose is not the selfish gratification of one, but the salvation of all. Even that which is harmless or negative in itself, cannot be indulged it such indulgence operates against the greater and universal design of the edification of all. This lays upon each of us the grave responsibility of examining his freedom and rights, to assure that in the enjoyment of the first, and the exercise of the second, he does not violate the moral restraints imposed by God. Man is a social being, and as such must share with others his inalienable rights. As a guideline for consideration of our interpersonal relationships we submit the following propositions.
1. There are values which are superior to individual rights.
This being true, in order to secure the benefits and blessings of such superior values, one may need to forfeit or forego his rights. That which builds up, or edifies all, at the expense of one, is to be preferred over that which builds up one at the expense of all. "I try to please all men in everything that I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved" (1 Cor. 10:33). There are some blessings which accrue only from union with others and a disruption of such union by the selfish action of one destroys all hope of sharing in such beneficence.
2. No individual can insist upon his own rights to the destruction of the rights of others.
There can be no such thing as absolute personal freedom in a universe founded upon moral obligation. Our liberty must always be limited by the nature of the relationship which we sustain to others. The means which we devise to disregard and overthrow the rights of others when we are in position to enforce them will some day be used to overthrow our rights by those who gain the ascendancy. The insistence upon our own freedom regard-
[Page 138] |
3. The strong individual in Christ is the one who is willing to forego his personal rights for the common good.
He is the one who has learned that the greater right is the "right not to." This is brought out in the wonderful dissertation on strong and weak brethren in Romans 14. "It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" (verse 21). One had a right to eat meat or drink wine. "Everything is indeed clean (that is kosher, verse 20) but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats."
In establishments which argue for congregational autonomy, the body of elders or presbyters often decide upon the official interpretation on any controverted issue, and upon their statement such interpretation becomes dogma. Any dissenter is henceforth regarded as a heretic, and those who cannot violate conscience and void their own intelligence are hounded out. Yet, but a little thought will prove that there is nothing about appointment to office which provides either inerrancy of judgment or infallibility of understanding.
There are certain freedoms which belong to one as a child of God and these should not be infringed upon by either pope or prelate, for neither of these is God. They have no right to thrust themselves between God and his children. The revelation has been given to all. It is not a prerogative of an exalted few to be dispensed at their will. For that reason, and in order that our faith may rest in the power of God, and not in the wisdom of men, I shall define the liberty which inheres in being a child of God and which is not subject to the authoritarian structures. These freedoms belong to all. They should be cherished and defended for all.
1. The liberty to examine and search the scriptures personally.
This includes the right to make use of any aids which help to clarify, explain and enlighten, and to employ any translation or version which may serve to better uncover the will of God. There can be no "authorized version" in our language, for the simple reason that no one is authorized to authorize one.
2. The liberty to form conclusions and render judgments upon the basis of personal understanding.
It is a burlesque upon honesty to urge every person to study the word of God for himself, if he must reach a foregone conclusion. Because the human mind is fallible and subject to limitation, all knowledge must be relative. The imposition of bounds and restraints by "the powers that be" in any sectarian establishment represents an attempt to play at being God.
3. The liberty to implement one's understanding in his own life.
One must be true to himself. He dare not violate his own conscience. His understanding may be faulty but he must work in harmony with it until he learns better. If he reaches a conclusion which becomes a personal conviction about the method of caring for orphans or the aged, or of training and preparing himself for more effective service, or of dispensing his money upon mission fields, or of expressing his praise to God, I dare not pass legislation to make him conform to my divergent views. To do so would make his liberty subject to my will. I must be tolerant of him while I implement my
[Page 139] |
4. The liberty to be judged by conscience and Christ, to stand or fall to one's own master.
The faculty of the heart which condemns is called the conscience. It is not infallible for it can act only upon the facts apprehended by the intellect. The ultimate judge is God and he is able to consider all weaknesses, motivations and mitigating factors. "By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything" (1 John 3:19, 20).
"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls" (Romans 14:4). "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God" (verse 10).
5. The liberty to serve in a congregational capacity with those whose joint service appears most compatible to one's understanding.
No one should be compelled or forced, under threat of expulsion or duress, to serve in a congregation where the policies run counter to his conscience and understanding. One cannot choose his brothers in the Lord, but he should be free to select the particular community of the saints where he can best grow in grace and knowledge, and he should be lovingly commended unto them.
If a brother believes, from his own study of the Word, that praise to God can be acceptably rendered where instrumental music is employed, he should be free to directly associate with others who share the view, without being accused of departing from the faith. If one believes in mutual ministry, or a certain method of caring for orphans and widows, or if he is opposed to classes or individual cups, he should be permitted the liberty of assembling with other saints with whom he feels at home. But he must not be regarded as any less a brother by those who do not share his ideas, nor should he regard them as disloyal or unfaithful for standing or falling to their own master.
Meeting in different places is not "division." Meeting in the same place is not necessarily unity. To gather with brethren who share your views about certain things, as a preference based upon personal understanding, is not factional. It becomes so only when those who do it make such preference and understanding a test of fellowship, or of union and communion with God. If those who gather for such preferences or understanding can never meet with the whole body of saints in the community to share in praise and witness of the common faith, they are factional and sectarian, regardless of their claims to be otherwise.
1. Bind his deductions upon others as terms of communion further than they are able to understand and concur in them.
For example, whatever conclusion one may reach with reference to the millennium, he cannot formally bind upon another, for the other has the same right to study God's word and to form conclusions based upon his deductions. This is not to say both will be right, for both may be wrong. But if one is right in his deductions he is wrong in making a creed out of them which must be accepted as a term of fellowship contrary to one's personal belief, or in ignorance of the whole subject. No one should be made to subscribe to something of which he is igno-
[Page 140] |
2. Make personal interpretation a test of fellowship.
The word of God must be studied by all of God's children, as brothers one of another. But those who are brothers dare not destroy the family relationship over the increasing knowledge of one or the relative slowness of perception of others. If one arrives at an interpretation of a passage after thirty years he cannot demand that others see it in thirty minutes or be ejected from the family and the father's house for his slowness.
3. Form a party around his deductions on either the pro or con of some point of teaching among those in Christ.
The party spirit is sectarian. It is a work of the flesh. It is a symptom of immaturity and carnality. There is no room on earth for a pro-instrument party or an anti-instrument party, but there is room in God's family for brethren who differ about the validity of the instrument. There is no room on earth for a pre-millenial party, or an amillennial party, but there is room enough in the Father's house for children who have divergent views about the millennium. There is no room on earth for a one-cup party or a multiple-cups party, but God's wonderful saving grace is wide enough to shelter all of his children who differ on such matters. A pro-instrument party is a sect. An anti-instrument party is a sect. A one-cup party is a sect. A multiple-cups party is a sect. All sects result from those who walk not after the Spirit, but after the flesh. The first fruit of the Spirit is love.
4. Place a stumbling-block in the way of any brother.
"Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of a brother" (Romans 14:13). "It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" (verse 21).
Because the word for "stumbling-block" is also translated "offence," it is sometimes thought that a Christian must never do anything which will cause others to get their feelings hurt, or to murmur or complain. But the word "offend" is not so used. It is from skandalon, which originally referred to the trigger of a trap or snare, literally, the part to which the bait was fastened. It then came to refer to the trap itself. Now one does not walk into a snare deliberately. He does not stumble over that which he clearly sees. In the exercise of our liberty we are not to do those things which may cause a brother who observes us to practice them to the detriment of his personal conduct or conscience.
If an unbeliever invited a Christian to attend a feast, he was free to go and eat without asking any questions about the food. But if someone volunteered the information that the food had been consecrated to a pagan deity, the Christian had to desist from eating it, not because his own conscience condemned him, but out of consideration for the conscience of the informer. Too, there were often those in the congregation of saints who had not learned that idols were nothing. They had left their immorality but retained their superstitions. "There are some who have been so accustomed to idolatry that even now they eat this food with a sense of its heathen consecration" (1 Cor. 8:9).
When such brethren were liable to be present, although it was perfectly legitimate for the man of spiritual maturity to eat such food, he was to voluntarily abstain rather than to set an example for one whose motivation in eating might be different. "If a weak character sees you sitting down to a meal in a heathen temple--you, who have knowledge--will not his conscience be emboldened to eat food consecrated to the heathen deity?" There is a great deal of difference in eating food in spite of the fact it may have been consecrated to a heathen deity, and eating it because it has been so consecrated. While we are on the subject we should note that the scriptures do not teach that "it is not right to eat meat or to drink wine." The teaching is that "it is
[Page 141] |
5. Impose his thinking upon a congregation of saints as a condition of recognition as brethren in the Lord.
The congregation of redeemed ones is subject to the Lord, and not to men outside of its number. No man can dismember the body of those whom the Lord has accepted. No man can establish fellowship for another in the Spirit, no man can sever another from that fellowship. He only cuts himself off with the knife with which he seeks to cut others off. Whether or not one recognizes a congregation has not one thing to do with their relationship to God.
If a congregation has Bible classes by unanimous consent, and one moves into the community whose conscience does not allow him to condone such a practice he has no right to make a proposition that if the congregation will bow to his will and thinking in the matter, he will regard them as brethren and "worship" with them. Our relationship to God is covenantal and prepositional, but the only proposition which must be believed for entrance into the fellowship is that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink" (Romans 14:17). Neither is it cups, classes, colleges, orphan homes, music, or the millennium. It is now, as it ever has been, "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."
A congregation of saints may alter a practice out of deference to the views of one because he is a brother, but they should never do so to meet the arbitrary demands of such a one as a condition of brotherhood. The first would be done out of recognition for the Lordship of Christ which makes us all brothers, but the second would be bowing to the lordship of another over God's heritage. Even the apostle who planted the congregation at Corinth wrote, "Do not think we are dictating the terms of your faith" (2 Cor. 1:24).
6. Assist any congregation in excluding any other congregation from fellowship, or violate the autonomy of another congregation.
It is absurd and ridiculous to talk about "congregational autonomy" in one breath, and about "excluding a congregation" in the next. No group of men on earth has any jurisdiction outside of the congregation which elected and appointed them. Every congregation of brethren in the world must be left to the Lordship of Jesus and is not subject to a self-appointed tribunal of preachers and editors. There is no place in God's system for a brotherhood jury composed of peripatetic proclaimers and paper popes.
He who grinds a party axe will some day feel its keen blade and cold steel upon the flesh of his own neck. When the factional chickens come home to roost they always turn out to be chicken-hawks! Only by granting freedom in Christ can we be free in Christ ourselves.
(Editor's Note: At the close of this year all of the issues of the paper for 1967 will be bound in cloth, to constitute a 192-page fully-indexed volume under the title "Apples of Gold." The pre-publication price is $2.49; the regular price will be $2.95 per copy. You may order in advance as many copies as you wish at the pre-publication price and these will be billed to you upon delivery of the books. Send your order for "Apples of Gold" to MISSION MESSENGER, 139 Signal Hill Drive, Saint Louis, Missouri 63121).