Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-22

! Personal liberty is a perennial prob
! lem. 1t has appeared in connection
with various problems throughout the
centuries. In the lesson assigned us
we find that it was raised in connec-
! ton with the strife which disturbed the
Corinthian Church over piece OF meat.
This apparently insignificant question
had appeared in connection with Paul
battle for soul liberty at the Council Of
Jerusalem. In connection with the
Corinthian Church the use of meat
took another form tibet touched the
principle of personal liberty
Ai1dng The problems presented by
the delegation from the church in Cor
NTH was request for the apostles adj
vice in regard to the use of meat that
had been offered to idols. The church
was divided into two parties who held
different views concerning the lawful
ness of a Christian eating meat which
had been formally dedicated to idols.
Corinth was inhabited by mixed pop
ulation which worShiped great variety
of deitieS, offered sacrifices in many
temples and at numerous shrines. Idols
were thick in that cosmopolitan city.
When one offered a sacrifice at one of
these pagan affairs he retained part
sell. Consecrated meat was presented
as food at the feasts celebrated in the
temples and at private banquets. Priests
frequently sold the Sacrificial offerings
to the baZaars, whence in turn
it was sold to the people for food. This
resulted in the social life Of the city
being more or less closely related to
the religious life of COrinth.
Some of the converts who had been
won from idolatry could not forget
they once believed that in eating food
once offered to idols they partook of the
very life of the idol itself For them to
cat such food they held was wrong.
They could not separate their old
ideals from their new faith. They OBJ
jected strenuously to any persons who
claimed to be Christians defling their
souls by eating meat that had been Of
fered to idols. The other party claimed
that they had been emancipated from
the slavery of superstition. They claim
ed that they had a right to eat what
they liked if it did not hurt them. They
objected to any attempt to regulate
their Giet. claiming that they had the
personal right to eat or drink what
they wished. In answering the question
of the church concerning the use Of
meat Paul sought to establish a prin-
ciple operating through love rather than
authority, which appears to have been
the reason the passage selected for our
lesson was chosen to teach us the
Christian basis for total abstinence.
Fundamental Principle Involved.
Paul faced the problem presented to
him in bold and tactful manner. He
did not hesitate to agree with the party
insisting upon personal liberty that an
idol was nothing and that food offered
to them was good to eat and could be
eaten freely. Evidently he detected a
dangerous attitude of pride in the mem
h2rs who championed their personal
rights and insisted on their privileges,
for he pointed out to them the fact
some may have an intellectual concep-
ticn of Christianity who lacked the es-
sential element of love. He pointed out
that there were two parties within the
churchs membership. In one case per-
sons may know God and yet not 10 yc
Him, and there may be cases where
some may love the Lord Jesus and yet
be deficient in their understanding OF
Him. Paul insisted that love was more
valuable in the development of Christian
character than knowledge, that "puffed
one up" without being controlled by the
spirit of love. knowledge without love
is dangerous. Love gives us a position
of security. The man who loves God
can depend upon His protection and
guidance.
Having cleared the atmosphere of
discord by his courageous announcement
of his stand in reference to personal
liberty, knowledge and love, the apostle
took up the question of whether a
Christian ought to eat meat that had
been offered to idols. He had acknoWl-
edged that they possessed the right to
eat it. but he proceeded to consider a
higher subject than that Of personal
rights, privileges and liberty. One S
duty is not determined by his freedom
to do thing or by the fact that it is
not evil to do it. Paul insists that one
must consider the moral quality of an
act as well as the intrinsic nature of his
act A Christian is called upon to cCn-
slider the effect of such action on others.
for none of us liveth to himself" Al
though Christian had the right to eat
meat that had been offered to idols, yet
Paul insisted that they had no right to
use their liberty. if by SO doing it would
even indirectly be harmful for some of
the weaker brethren. He urged them
to take heed lest by any means this
liberty of yours becomes a stumbling
block to them that are weak" Under
ouNlA There EXLSIS the
danger that in doing the apparently in
nocent thing, as we see it, we may sin
against the brethren" and therefore
sin against Christ" He places the
weaker brother under the shelter and
protection of the Lord Jesus.
Modern Application.
The Christian basis for total alb
stinence is found in an application
of the general principle laid down by
Paul that service takes precedence
over personal freedom" It is an ap-
| plication of the French saying
''noblesse oblige-rank imposes obliga-
ton" The claims of weakness have
preference over strength according to
the teaching of Christianity. We see
it illustrated in the law of the sea
that says Women first" when the
ship is in danger. The cripple has a
right to slow up the traffic Of the
| street. Sometimes ii is necessary fol-
church to postpone action wher
something desirable is not understood
] by an immature member. The Chris
! tian is called upon to surrender his
rights for the purpose of aiding the
weaker brother and sister. The apostle
practiced that principle. Jesus showed
us by His life that He was guided
| by that principle. While we are free
we ought not to use our liberty II
a way that binders the spiritual de.
yelopment of others.
Our age possesses more freedom thar
any other period of history. Our young
| yDasSoia farm tho yorOhfnY11 IF settling fnI