There are basically two kinds of lawful action under any system of law – requirements and rights. Divine law is no different. When something is required, we have no choice but to do it, regardless of the consequences. For example, meeting together for worship is demanded by the Scriptures, along with the items of worship. We have no choice but to do them if we are to please the Lord. Likewise a congregation has no choice but to preach the gospel, care for the needy among the saints, and edify the body of Christ according to its ability. There are many other examples of this principle.

Other things are divinely authorized as rights. They are permitted, but not demanded. Some refer to these things as “authorized liberties.” It is such things that Paul had in mind when he said, “all things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” (1 Cor. 10: 23). In this context (1 Cor. 8-10), Paul was instructing the Corinthians concerning the matter of eating meats, particularly meats that had been offered to idols. He assured them in Chapter 8, that it was lawful (permitted) under the law of Christ. He even gave circumstances under which it would be expedient to eat such meats. Likewise, he wrote of circumstances under which it would be inexpedient, even harmful– like times or places when there would be a high probability that the action might cause a brother to stumble. In fact, he teaches that if such caused a brother to stumble, that the one causing it would have to bear some of the responsibility. In other words, the spiritual welfare of brethren is more important than exercising one’s mere rights under the gospel.

In 10:23, Paul adds, “all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” In another passage on a different subject he says “let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26). This makes it important to ask and honestly answer: “Is the exercising of my right under the gospel resulting in edifying (building up) or the tearing down the Cause of Christ?” In Romans 14 he discusses a similar matter concerning eating of meats and concludes that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Verse 17). All of this suggests that the edification, peace and joy in the kingdom of God is more important than exercising one’s mere rights under the law of Christ. In view of this, why would we insist on what we consider to be just a right to the point of disturbing and maybe even destroying the peace and happiness (joy) among the citizens of the kingdom of our Lord? Is the exercising of our particular right so important to the Cause of Christ that it is worth such an impact on a sizeable portion of our brethren in Christ? We need to answer these questions honestly.

In the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul uses himself as an example in the matter of exercising one’s rights under the gospel. He defends the right of a preacher of the gospel, to “lead about a wife,” and to “live of the gospel.” Though he did not bind his practice on others, he voluntarily denied himself of these rights for the general good of the cause of Christ. His point seems to be, that if he was willing to forgo his rights and become “all things to all men” that he might save some, then why could not the Corinthians see fit to forgo their rights in the matter of meats offered to idols?

I have no doubt that Paul would have resisted efforts to force people to forgo their rights as a matter of doctrine. Later in his first epistle to Timothy, he condemned those who would forbid to marry and to command that people abstain from meats. He listed these among other things characteristics of those who would depart from the faith. (1 Tim. 4:3). It is wrong to bind where God has not bound.

However, Paul did encourage folks to voluntarily forgo some rights for the overall good of their brethren and used himself as an example. As much as he cherished his rights under the gospel, he was willing himself and to encourage others to forgo those rights to facilitate the peace and spiritual welfare of the kingdom of God. It is a matter of being charitable toward brethren. We get the idea from reading about Paul’s excising his right to “live of the gospel” that he made his judgment on a case by case basis. In some places it was apparently expedient to exercise this right and at other places it was not. At Thessalonica he choose to not receive support from them (2 Thess. 3:9-10). At the same time he was receiving some support from the church at Philippi (Phil. 4:16).

Paul began his discussion of meat eating with, “knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies.” (1 Cor. 8: 1). Here He condemns the puffed up or arrogant attitude of a knowledgeable brother who may reason “I know my God-given rights under the gospel and if others do not understand that then it is their problem – I am going to exercise my rights come what may.” Knowledge untempered by love can be very destructive to the one who has it and to those with whom he has to do.

Granted, it is not always easy to know when to forgo one’s rights, nor when to exercise or even insist on them. I believe that most reasonable brethren would say that we cannot pacify every crank who may oppose some right that we may have. Also, there may be times we may have to weigh the potential benefits of exercising a right over against any potential harm it could cause. But when insisting on exercising a right begins to alienate good brethren and longtime fellow workers in the Lord’s vineyard, it seems to me, that it is time to ask ourselves if the cost is worth it.

We need to remember that it is always expedient to do what the law demands; it is never expedient to do the unlawful; but it is only sometimes expedient to insist on a mere lawful right.

We freely admit that to give in to objections to some of our rights would not only be unwise but would cause harm to congregations and the cause of Christ in general. For examples, to give in to those who object to located preachers working with and preaching to a congregation and to those who object to congregations conducting Bible classes would be a mistake – even though we admit that neither practice is absolutely essential for a church to be of Christ. Experience has taught us that the benefits to the edification of the churches from exercising these two rights, by far outweighs any benefit that might come from yielding to a few objectors.

However, I would hope that my brethren would not allow some cherished project (which they view as helpful but is admittedly far from being essential) to become the wedge for another split in an already splintered brotherhood – even if (this could be a big “if”) it can be successfully argued that they have a scriptural right to the project. It is not like the church would greatly suffer if the project were abandoned.

Sadly, one of the problems is that brethren often have a tendency to over evaluate their beloved practices and institutions making it hard to give them up even if it would be beneficial to the over all good of the Cause. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was credited with expressing the sentiment that one can criticize the church with little opposition but woe be unto one if he criticizes one of the brethren’s institutions – or something to that effect. My experience through many years of preaching has borne out the truth of that observation. We often are more protective of our inventions that we are of the Lord’s church.

At any rate, “let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another (Rom. 14:19).
edbragwell@gmail.com