INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SELF-DENIAL.
THERE is such a thing as abuse of liberty. It is sometimes better to exercise self-denial than to insist on personal prerogative. The Christian will have an eye to the good—not merely the good opinion, but the good—of others, even at the sacrifice of his own liberty. Christ had a right to be set at liberty by Pilate, and He had the power to set Himself free, but the welfare of humanity was at stake. Peter and John were set at liberty by the Jewish council on condition that they would cease to preach in the name of Jesus of Nazareth; but the people were in need of the Gospel. Paul, knowing that "in every city" bonds and afflictions awaited him, was not thereby deterred from duty to others. In declaring such to be his purpose, he said: "Neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God." When one urges his liberty as the prime consideration under all circumstances, he simply puts self foremost, which is contrary to all Christian principle. The apostle Paul would forego his right to eat whatever was proper food. In the matter of eating things dedicated to idols he says: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." It would not hurt one thus fortified. The offering of the food in sacrifice to an idol would not affect the food in any way. Many of the heathen devoted every article they ate, drank, or used in any way, to their gods; therefore a Christian could not have eaten with such at all without partaking of food dedicated to an idol. "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge," that is, the knowledge that there is "but one God, the Father," and "one Lord Jesus Christ." So we are instructed that, altho we have such liberty in the matter of food, we should "take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours is become a stumbling-block to them that are weak." There are two classes to whom the exercise of this liberty might be injurious: (1) The heathen, in some instances, seeing the Christian eat that which he knew was offered to an idol, might assume that it was an endorsement of his practise of thus dedicating his food. So Paul would eat without asking any questions on that subject. He would utterly ignore that issue. (2) There might be weak brethren who were over-conscientious in such matters; and they, seeing him exercise his right so freely, might be discouraged, or might become reckless for want of discrimination, and run to the extreme of outright apostasy. As Christ, ready to sacrifice everything but allegiance to the Father’s will in order to save the lives of sinners, did not regard His own life, so the true Christian, while ever solicitous for the rights of his fellow men—believers or unbelievers—will not hinder the progress of the Gospel by always insisting on the exercise of his individual rights. Self-denial is a prime factor in Christian experience, of far more importance than the uninterrupted exercise of individual rights. While we may not sacrifice principle, or ignore the dictates of a good conscience, our acts must be modified by a proper regard for their influence upon others. We must not become stumbling-blocks to the unbeliever by stiffly demanding all that is due, or by roughly riding over their conscientious scruples; nor may we discourage the weak brother by avoidable indulgences that may offend his uneducated sense of right. It is better to instruct him than to trample upon his misunderstanding.