A Devotional Exposition
By
Sylvan Lashley
University
of the Southern Caribbean
1 Corinthians 10:23. 1 Cor 6:12-15 - All things are lawful
for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all
things edify not
“I can do what I want, when I want,
wherever I want, and whenever I want, because it satisfies and pleases me”,
might well be a post-modern maxim in an age of “don’t worry, be happy”. Yet, no
man lives alone on an island. Context
becomes the clarion call for the good that we would do.
Today we deal with a complex topic to discover
further precepts for Christian living, and propose an ethics driven by the
belief that we are indeed our brother’s keeper.
The phrase, “lawful versus the expedient”, might well relate to the
modern concepts of present day political correctness illustrative of the
importance of the interplay of regulation, subject and context, timing and
balance in relation to the precepts of Christian living. We have an occasion and opportunity to
demonstrate how our theology informs our ethics in a practical way. To be lawful means that the conduct is
regulated as proper, and to be expedient goes to the heart of the act of the
law. In order to enter the apparent controversy of
the lawful and the expedient, one must have a subject, a context, a rule, and
timing. The subject falls within and
becomes colored by the context. Both
subject, which is definite, and context which is indefinite, are enveloped into
the legal framework of the society or organization—the rule. Together this tripod of subject, context and
rule is governed by timing and balance. This
then is our interpretive framework.
If we apply this system to the issues of food, sexuality and dress, we
derive implications for Christian living.
There was nothing wrong with the food per se (the subject). Yet within
the context of Greek custom, if it was offered to idols, the use of the food
might well run against the rules of the Christian society--we do not worship
idols and won’t use food offered to idols if we know that it has been because
of the possibility of lingering doubt in the minds of new believers. Yet, there is no need to pursue the matter of
food’s origin to the nth degree, or who grows it. But, there was everything wrong with
fornication because it ran against the sanctity of the body, and in this case, the
laws governing food and fornication are distinguishable, because one is wrong
and the other is not. Food is “indifferent”
but fornication is not, thus requiring another analytical framework, for while
fornication is wrong, and food is “right”, food can also be “wrong” based on
its context. It is not the good we do
that makes us saintly, but rather the resultant impact our actions have on
other believers, for their own salvation.
When one considers the subject of
hats where Paul calls for covered heads, the application of our tripod becomes
clearer—the subject (heads should be covered), harks back to the accustomed context
of the female prostitutes whose heads were clean-shaven, to the regulation of
clean Christian living juxtaposed against timing—the recent Greek converts could become confused by the
continued bare headedness in church, a situation, not wrong in itself, but one
which could cause confusion to a new believer. The clash-point in both food and dress occurs
when the actor (Paul) has to make a decision—should he eat the food that was
offered to idols (isn’t food, food), or should females wear hats in church to
cover bare, shorn heads?
The implications for us today are real—we
are to be sensitive to the concerns of others in the Christian journey—there
are things which are right for us to do but which become wrong because of their
salvivic impact. Thus, not all things which
are lawful are expedient. Is there then
any room for Christian revolution and change?
How do we move to the next step of Christian progress? It is love for our brother that will guide
our steps in the journey to the Kingdom.
In essence, all things are lawful that are not forbidden by law, but the
present circumstances or context may alter the case. The limiting principle of
our Christian freedom becomes our neighbor’s soul salvation. Our liberty should
not be a hurt to others
No comments:
Post a Comment