Liberty

 Liberty by Byron Yawn

In 1 Corinthians 1-3, the apostle carpet bombs the Corinthian church with the gospel and the cross of Jesus Christ before he puts boots on the ground and deals with their specific conflicts, objections and protests. The gospel of Jesus Christ clears the way for the apostle’s responses and various calls for obedience.

One of the major issues he deals with is the gospel and Christian liberty. Specifically, “eating meat sacrificed to idols.” Apparently, it was a lightning rod issue in Corinth.  He put sufficient ink to paper in dealing with the subject. He spends three chapters in 1 Corinthians (8-10) cutting the right wire on this particular ethical bomb.

What’s significant is that Paul, unlike us, does not retreat to the “safe ground” of morality or the “high ground” of legalism when dealing with potentially offensive preference issues. That is, he does not make a prohibition where one does not exist. He had spent a lifetime doing this as a Pharisee. Rather, he makes a b-line for the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is Paul’s ethic. Usually, when faced with similar issues in our own context (alcohol, entertainment, art, etc.), our reaction is the exact opposite. Just to be safe, we codify good behavior for the masses even though God may not view it as bad. But, that is a different discussion. On to my main point…

 

 

Basically, in 1 Corinthians 8 Paul steps in front of the Corinthian’s cavalier display of liberty for the sake of the “weaker brother.” The apostle calls for those who are free in eating meat sacrificed to idols to put on a servant’s heart towards those who don’t posses the same freedom. This is exactly where Paul inserts the gospel. What would convince the proud Corinthians to deny themselves a freedom simply because someone else does not possess the same freedom? Answer: the cross of Jesus Christ. The cross makes our self-sacrifice on any issue make perfect sense.

But, are there limits to our yielding on preferential issues? Are we bound to surrender our freedom of conscience to the conscience of any other person who may disagree with us? Are we really to concede our freedom on matters which God does not prohibit simply because another is offended? Should we limit our freedom every time someone has the slightest problem? Are their times when to do so is a compromise? And, before whom should we lay down our preference? More specifically, who is this “weaker” brother Paul has in mind? This last question is crucial in working through all these questions.

Most assume – wrongly – that the “weaker” brother includes any person who disagrees with us or is offended by our freedom. But, this is not whom Paul has in mind when he refers to the weaker brother. Paul’s concern is very specific. The “weaker” brother is that individual who cannot handle the freedom of “eating meat” and not merely a person who disagrees with our position. (1 Cor 8:7) Quite literally, the weaker brother cannot disassociate his previous lifestyle in paganism from the no-moral reality of eating meat. Knowingly eating meat sacrificed to idols could lead him back into the idolatry of his previous life where eating meat was part of pagan ceremonialism.

Paul’s real point is clear- if we carelessly exercise our freedom in front of this category of people we could inadvertently lead them back into sin. (1Cor8:9-12) In living so callously among the body of Christ we may actually “sin against our brother,” possibly cause his “ruination” and ultimately “sin against Christ.” This is wrong and recklessly inconsiderate. This leads Paul to say, “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Cor 8:13). The greatest freedom we possess is the freedom to surrender our rights.

 

 

Ultimately then, the “weaker conscience” is not merely someone who is offended by our freedom, but someone who is unprepared for the experience of freedom. It is someone around whom my exercise of freedom would be destructive. More importantly, the weaker brother has not fully grasped the reality of the doctrine of justification in his experience. (1 Cor 8:8) This does not mean once they do grasp it they will choose to eat meat. Rather, it means they will understand the freedom they have to participate and have the ability to choose according to their conscience. As of now, however, this freedom does not exist.

All of this brings us to this: that which limits our freedom is not another’s conscience, nor a preferred morality. It is love. (1 Cor 10:23-24) On non-moral/non-essential/preferential issues that which regulates our behavior is a love for others–not the opinion of others. We love our weaker brother and act cautiously/sacrificially with our liberty in order to protect his uninformed conscience. Which is why Paul does not tell us to stop, but to “take care with our liberty.”

In no place does Paul tell us we have to change our opinion on a non-essential issue simply because someone does not share it. But, most often when it comes to these matters we act as if this is what Paul means. While we should not flaunt our liberty in the face of those who do not posses the same liberty, we should not have to have to keep it a secret. Quite frankly, if our concern is what others would think of us should they discover our liberty on a non-essential issue, then we are living in fear of men and not in the freedom of the gospel. Paul called this hypocrisy. For certain, we’re nowhere near the principle laid out by Paul in 1 Corinthians or Romans.

The fact is, Paul is not asking us to submit our conscience to the conscience of every person who lands on the opposite side of a non-moral issue. He is asking us to use caution with our liberty when the moment calls for it. For those who might simply disagree on the appropriateness of a given issue of Christian liberty from a matter of personal conscience Paul is also clear. A person who is not free cannot judge those who are free as less than spiritual. A person who is free cannot disdain those who aren’t free as immature. Point being, we cannot have bad attitudes towards those who don’t agree with us. (Romans 14:1-12) Who are we to judge others on matters which God has not judged? In other words, get over it and love your brother.

We should keep in mind that Paul was also opposed to individuals raising non-essential issues to essential levels and forcing others to comply with their convictions. When people did this Paul saw it as a threat to the “truth of the Gospel.” In these instances, he protected Christian liberty from the cynicism of legalism just as fervently as he defended weaker brothers from the carelessness of others. (Col 2:16-17). This is why Paul’s tone is different in Galatians & Colossians than it is in Romans & 1 Corinthians when dealing with similar issues. In the former, the essence of the gospel was at stake. In the latter, it was not.

In fact, there were moments when Paul intentionally disregarded the preferences of some legalists simply because they viewed those preferences as essential to the gospel. He pressed liberty in order to reinforce the truth of the gospel. He allowed Timothy to be circumcised so as to not cause an unnecessary offense to those hearing the gospel (Acts 16:3). He refused to allow Titus to be circumcised before those who saw it as an essential part of the gospel (Gal 2:3).

We should respond to those who raise non-essential issues to the level of essential in the same way Paul did. Defending that liberty which the gospel grants and not backing away from it. This is true even for liberties which we ourselves choose not to participate in. In fact, when we comply with the preferences of those who view these matters as essential to Christianity we may be simply commending their misunderstanding of the gospel.

It was equally offensive to the Apostle to judge as less than moral those who exercise their freedom in an area God has not strictly forbidden (Rom 14:1-12), as it is to inconsiderately exercise our freedom in front of those who cannot handle it (Rom 14:13-23). In both cases Paul saw it as a compromise of the gospel and the ethic of cross.

The gospel makes both the moralists and libertines nervous. When you can offend both extremes you are probably are getting it right. Paul retreats to the gospel while the moralist retreats to rules. Paul retreats to the cross while the libertine retreats to his rights. To the moralist Paul’s ethic sounds irresponsible. To the libertine it sounds oppressive. But, Paul was happy to confront both. Such is the cross.

The libertine defends his choice for liberty sake. The moralist can only sees his choice. The weaker brother can only make one choice. Those freed by the Gospel see two choices and are free to choose that which  is best.