1 Corinthians 10:27-30 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be disposed to go; whatever is set before you, eat… Strictly the form of the expression would be, "Conscience, not only thine own, but of the other as well." The moral significance of life is nowhere more vitally manifest than in what we do or fail to do for the characters of our neighbours. And it is easy enough to agree that we ought not to damage other men's consciences; but to give up the pleasant and otherwise harmless habit which will damage them, is not always easy. Besides, there are some questions of right, how far this ought or is demanded to be done. Now note — I. THAT EVERY MAN SHOULD MAKE HIS RELATIONS TO OTHER MEN'S CHARACTERS, AND THE EFFECTS OF HIS ACTIONS ON OTHER MEN'S ACTIONS, A DIRECT PART OF HIS REGULAR RELIGIOUS CULTURE. 1. On the ground of the nature of the case this can he denied only by the monk on the ground that in solitude, as a higher state of man, the relations do not exist; by the indifferentist on the ground that the result of things is beyond the influence of ethical distinctions; or by the believer in the legitimacy of sheer impulse. 2. Quite as clear is the word of the gospel. The Christian faith is eminently a social principle. The forms it takes on are domestic and associative. It founds a church. It advocates the common weal. Amongst its commandments are, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and "Bear ye one another's burdens." The lives of the apostles were consecrated labours for the souls of their fellow-men. II. NOW, THE HELPS MEN RENDER TO ONE ANOTHER'S VIRTUE ARE FOR THE MOST PART, RENDERED WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS ATTEMPT AT WHAT IS CALLED "SETTING AN EXAMPLE." Excellence is more impressive when it is seen living and acting by a certain independent force from within itself, than when it is put on exhibition for a pattern. In agriculture and mechanics producers do sometimes raise stock, or finish fabrics, merely for a show; but goodness is a more delicate thing. If we undertake to manufacture it for a pattern, we shall spoil it in the making. It will not be genuine, but Pharisaic. III. BUT THIS DOES NOT AT ALL DENY OUR OBLIGATION TO DO OR NOT TO DO SOME THINGS, OUT OF A SIMPLE REGARD TO THEIR SOCIAL EFFECTS. Christian modesty may shrink from the thought of being exemplary; but Christian principle will eagerly renounce what is hurtful. Is it not likely that we are set into society for this very end, that by sacrifices for others we may be disciplined into a more Christlike disinterestedness? The complicated case, undoubtedly, is where some habit is felt to be perfectly safe to yourself, but would probably be unsafe to others who are the more likely to go astray for your practice. 1. The defence set up is: "Rules of meat and drink, amusement and display, are not definite nor absolute. Each must adjust his habit to his constitution and circumstances, and stop there. Everything is likely to be abused. I am to strike out a way of living that seems lawful enough for myself, and expect everybody else to do the same." Now — (1) This language has a sound of hardness and selfishness, and the moral judgment pronounces that it is not the final nor the highest view of duty. It is not the sort of response we expect from the nobler order of men, who live for the good of their race, and not for themselves. (2) This defence is not very likely to be urged where the party endangered by our gratification should be a child or a brother. But Christianity recognises no such limitation of responsibility — it declares all mankind one family; and that, for the purposes of doing God's will, every human being is a mother or a brother or a sister. (3) And when it is said that all things must be abused, remember that this tendency by no means excuses him who so uses, beyond the line of necessity or duty, that the abuse comes in. If "offences must needs come," none the less "woe to him by whom the offence cometh."(4) If you further say that, so long as your act is not in itself wrong, Providence must see that no harm comes of it, the reply is that Providence is quite as likely to see that no harm comes to you when you deny yourself. Besides, when we speak of an act as "right in itself," consider what is included in "itself." For no act can be said to be right in itself which is so done that the spirit of the doer or the situation of its occurrence binds it up inseparably with wrong. (5) And if you still urge that nothing ought to be given up which makes for the happy processes of social life, then let it be fully established that the practice does belong to the best order of life, and is essential to it, and that its advantages are not outweighed by the evils that spring directly out of it. Above all, let it be clear whether the thing is really done from a conscientious regard to the public good, or whether that is only a sophistication to palliate what is actually done only because it is agreeable. 2. Set over against the defence the following words of Paul, and say which seems to ring clearest from the heights of Christian clearsightedness and truth, "None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. Let no man put a stumbling-block in his brother's way. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," etc. IV. THE MORE FREQUENT OBSTACLE TO THIS THOUGHTFUL AND GENEROUS BEHAVIOUR, IS THE ABSENCE OF ANY GLARING EVIDENCE THAT OUR LUXURIES DO TEMPT OUR NEIGHBOURS. What is the delight of a palate, or of an amusement, that any of us would not hurl from him if he saw one fellow-creature plunged into all profligacy by it? But surely, in such a matter, a doubt is grave enough to dictate a Christian's conduct. A very earnest moral nature will not be willing to imperil a fellow-creature's purity on the slender difference between a conjecture and a certainty. And little as they may suspect it, who eat, drink, and are merry, without a religious scruple on their pleasures, all the while, in many a building not far away, the beginnings of vice are taking a terrible warrant and license from their freedom. Conclusion: 1. There is no self-denial deserving the name that is not willing to give up any privilege rather than endanger the least or lowest of God's children. In the estimates of God and eternity, the generosity that shields a human heart from shame will stand above a genial style of hospitality. Not till comfort shall become the creed of Christendom, can free living be the testimony of faith. 2. After all, we must raise our minds before a higher judgment than our own. Again the voice of the Lord God will be heard at the end of the day, asking of you and me, "Where is thy brother?" How little will it avail us then to stammer with the impotent mockery of self-defence, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Bishop Huntington.) Parallel Verses KJV: If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. |
    |