Years ago Roy Cogdill wrote, 'Men have sought to justify a multitude
of things by the claim that they can be practiced as expediencies.
The common conception seems to be that the end justifies the means
and anything that will accomplish what WE SEEM to think to be
good whether it is authorized or not is permissible.' (Walking
By Faith. p. 18) This study is important because many divisions
in the church have happened over what someone claimed as an expedient
and which another saw as an addition to the Word of God. For example,
it is often argued that instrumental music in the worship services
is simply an "aid" or expedient to the singing.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:12 'ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL FOR ME, BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE PROFITABLE'
'PROFITABLE'-From this word we get the idea of 'expediency', i.e.
something that is advantageous, useful, good and worthwhile. 'Signifies
contributing to someone's benefit' (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 818) Vine
says, 'lit., to bring together..to be an advantage, profitable,
expedient (not merely "convenient")' (p. 62)
II. An Expedient Must First Be Lawful:
When Paul said, 'all things are lawful for me', he wasn't saying
that he could engage in sinful activity (see the context 6:9-10,13).
Rather, he was saying that in the realm of 'lawful' things some
choices, rights, or liberties were profitable and some weren't.
The same point is made in 1 Corinthians 10:23 and Romans 14:14-20.
POINTS TO NOTE: (1) Thus for something to be claimed as an expedient,
i.e. an option or an aid, that realm or category that it would
fall into must first be authorized. Or, in other words, expedients
are simply the profitable options of generic authority. (2) An
expedient isn't something that merely 'gets the job done' or gets
the 'results'. And neither is an expedient the same as 'the end
justifies the means.' In 2 Samuel 6:3-7, when the oxen stumbled,
Uzzah surely thought it was expedient to reach out and steady
the ark. However, his touching the ark violated a command of God
(Numbers 4:15). Hence, what man in his wisdom thinks is 'profitable'
and 'good' is not necessarily what God views as 'good'. (3) Something
must first be lawful, before it can be said that it truly edifies.
Saul and the people thought that saving the animals (which God
had commanded them to destroy) for a huge sacrifice would create
quite a wonderful worship experience (1 Samuel 15:20-21). So,
how something makes people feel doesn't establish when something
is expedient. (4) People will argue, 'Well I have this talent,
skill or ability, therefore that gives me the right to incorporate
it into the worship of God.' This is the argument being made for
women elders and preachers and instrumental music in worship.
I am reminded that King Uzziah could have made the same argument.
He wanted to burn incense in the house of God, even though God
had specified the Levites concerning this duty (2 Chron. 26:16-23).
He could have argued, 'But I can also do that. And if I can do
it just as well as any Levite, then why can't I?' (5) An expedient
isn't something that is merely more profitable for us. It was
probably easier for Cain to offer the sacrifice of his choice,
but that didn't make it expedient (Genesis 4:3-7). (6) An expedient
isn't merely something that makes people say 'wow'. When Moses
struck the rock, instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20:8-11),
that probably made more of an immediate impression upon the people,
but it wasn't what God had commanded (20:12). (7) Expediency isn't
the argument that extenuating circumstances turns the unlawful
into the lawful. Unfortunately, some have thought that this is
the point that Jesus was making in Matthew 12:1-8. When one carefully
examines that text of Scripture one finds: (a) Jesus isn't trying
to defend the sinful actions of His disciples, for He makes it
clear that they haven't violated the will of God (12:7 'you would
not have condemned the INNOCENT'). (b) Thus the Pharisees were
wrong in accusing His disciples of working on the Sabbath, when
they were simply eating (12:1-2). (c) Thus verses 12:3-5, are
Jesus' attempt to teach the Pharisees the truth on this matter.
(1) He points out their inconsistency. On the one hand their traditional
view of David's action (12:3-4), had excused his behaviour. And
yet such behavior had been a clear violation of what God had said
(12:4 'which is not lawful'). And now they were condemning his
disciples for doing something totally innocent. (2) Their definition
of what constituted 'work' on the Sabbath was wrong. For if their
definition was right, then they must condemn their own priests
(12:5). Again, for something to be an expedient, aid or option
then it first must fall into a category that is already authorized,
for we can only walk by faith in those things which are found
or permitted in Scripture (2 Corinthians 5:7; Romans 10:17).
III. An Expedient Isn't Specified:
For example, 'singing' in worship isn't an expedient, i.e. it
isn't an option or a choice, rather it is commanded (Ephesians
5:19). 'When God specifies there is no choice but to obey or disobey.'
Remember, when God gets specific, that means that our options
are being limited. Sprinkling and pouring
are not expedients for baptism, because the mode of baptism is
specific, i.e. the Greek word rendered 'baptism/baptize' means
immersion. On the other hand a baptistry would be an expedient,
because: (a) The category of immersion is authorized. (b) It aids
in one being immersed (Romans 6:3-4). POINTS TO NOTE: (1) An expedient
isn't a substitute. Arguing that we can fulfill the command to
baptize someone by pouring, because they have a physical infirmity,
is nothing more than arguing 'situation ethics'. (2) Keep this
truths in mind when people argue (a) What about the person who
wants to be baptized, but no water is available--can we substitute
something else (i.e. prayer) for the command to be baptized? (b)
What if Christians are located where the 'fruit of the vine' isn't
available, can they substitute something else, i.e. water? But
it seems that no one makes the obvious argument, what if people
live where a bible isn't available--can they substitute another
book for the Word of God?
IV. An Expedient Is Simply An Option:
1 CORINTHIANS 6:12 'ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL FOR ME, BUT I WILL NOT
BE MASTERED BY ANYTHING'-i.e. Paul refused to allow even a 'lawful'
thing to be his master. Paul here gives us a fresh view of 'our
rights'. A liberty isn't something that you worship. McGuiggan
writes, 'he insists that freedom in these areas (of things lawful)
will not become his Lord. Yes, he has the right to eat meats offered
to idols but meats are not that important to him. Freedom in the
matter of food laws is not the big issue with him. Meats don't
control him, he controls meat-eating..Paul claimed he too kept
lawful things under control..He could always say no to them.'
(p. 75) Hence if something is truly just an 'aid', then it would
be wrong to allow that 'aid' to divide the church. We must not
be so dedicated to an option of generic authority that we would
press it to the point of dividing brethren. In other words, if
something is truly just an 'expedient', then we cannot be bound
to it at all costs, i.e. even to the point of division.
V. An Expedient Is Profitable:
That is, an expedient (something is that useful, GOOD, ADVANTAGEOUS),
is an option of generic authority that is useful in the church.
Hence it is more than option, it is a useful and beneficial choice.
POINTS TO NOTE: (1) Even if one could get such subjects as smoking,
social drinking, gambling (playing the lottery, etc..), and dancing
into the category of lawful things (and that is one big "if"
in view of other passages), it would be a very tough sell to then
argue: (a) Such things are PROFITABLE, useful. (b) Such things
do not 'master' the person engaging in them, i.e. I don't have
to do it. In fact, right here smoking runs into a big problem.
For it does make a slave of the user. (c) Such things EDIFY (1
Corinthians 10:23). (d) Such things don't cause others to stumble
(1 Cor. 10:31-33).
VI. An Expedient Must Edify:
1 CORINTHIANS 10:23 'ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL, BUT NOT ALL THINGS EDIFY'.
Remember, if something is truly an option, then: (a) We can do
without it and still please God. (b) There are other options that
might be more accepted to the congregation. (c) It is a sin to
press an option to the point where it divides brethren. Unnecessary
and selfish division is something that God hates (Proverbs 6:19;
1 Corinthians 1:10; Titus 3:10; Galatians 5:20). If God commands
something, then that is what we must do, even if it causes division
(Acts 5:29; Matthew 10:34-36). But is something is just an aid
or an option, then it is wrong to force it upon brethren and let
it lead to a break in fellowship.
VII. An Expedient Must Not Offend:
1 CORINTHIANS 10:32 'GIVE NO OFFENSE..' The word 'offense' means to cause another to stumble or violate their conscience. NOTE: This rule only governs our options or personal rights (1 Corinthians 8:9 'lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.'). POINTS TO NOTE: (1) The person with the conscience problem certainly has the obligation to explain exactly why something offends him or her. The church isn't to be held hostage by the ignorant. Remember, binding where God hasn't bound is a sin (2John 9). (2) Such a person also has an obligation to mature (2 Peter 3:18). (3) Paul didn't make the argument that in order for the church to grow we must be allowed to use all our options. The mature member has an obligation to respect the tender consciences of members young in the faith (Romans 15:1-3). (4) OPTIONS OF GENERIC AUTHORITY ARE NOT THE KEY TO CHURCH GROWTH. Rather, our attitude toward each other will go farther in influencing the lost, then some option (Romans 14:13-20; 1 Corinthians 10:32-33).
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS:
Sadly these principles were forgotten in many of the divisions that have happened in the past. If the instrument in worship was merely an aid (as it was argued by those wanting to introduce it), then forcing it to the point of division was sinful. In addition, it wasn't lawful in the first place. The same is true of using church funds for social events and recreation (scripture?), the sponsoring church arrangement (scripture?), and if it was merely an option of generic authority, then why press something that divided brethren? We could also include church supported colleges and other social institutions. If the will of God can be carried out in a way that doesn't divide brethren, then why press for a claimed option that did divide?
Mark Dunagan/ Beaverton Church of Christ/ 644-9017