... I will state publicly now, that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Constitutional rights.
Paul was speaking to believers who were either Jewish or were so entrenched in the Jewish culture that they were being inundated by Jewish custom and religious traditions. Basically the Jew was bound by a great many rules—bound to the law in just about every aspect of life. Paul spent much of his ministry speaking about the freedom we have in Christ—freedom not only from sin and death—but, from the law as well. Christ ushered in grace and salvation free of performance or expectation. So, the believer in Christ was discovering freedoms and liberties they had NEVER known prior to Christ!
To the Jewish convert though, this new freedom in Christ was difficult to accept. Jews had spent the better part of centuries codifying the law and living by a very rigid system of rules. The rules served to justify an individual—a perversion of the original intent of the law—and gave a practitioner a sense of self-righteousness based on performance. Faith had been almost completely replaced by blindly following rules, by religion. But, as Isaiah had already proclaimed, “… all our righteous acts are like filthy rags!” Isaiah 64:4 (niv)
Nonetheless, many of the Jewish converts began insisting that believers were not justified by faith alone—that they too needed to follow the prescripts of the law. One big argument was over circumcision. It was such a big stink in the early church, a frustrated Paul finally proclaimed, “… as for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” Gal.5:12 (niv)
And, in Gal.5:1 (msg), Paul states, “Christ has set us free to live a free life. So take your stand! Never again let anyone put a harness of slavery on you.”
So, in 1Cor.10, we find Paul, once again explaining that the law can in no way justify a person before GOD. No matter how good you live your life, one can never live well enough to earn their way into GOD’s good graces! It’s only through the perfect life of JESUS that one discovers forgiveness of sins and restoration of fellowship with a HOLY GOD.
So what was happening in 1Cor.10? There were some who were eating meats that had been used in idol sacrifice. These believers in no way were worshipping the idols—simply, eating meats that had been previously used as sacrifices to idols. To the Jew, this was an act of callous disregard to the law. They were going crazy over this! Paul spoke very clearly in saying, “… use common sense—eat anything sold at the butcher shop, for instance; you don’t have to run an idolatry test on every item. The earth after all, is GOD’s, and everything in it. That everything certainly includes the leg of lamb in the butcher shop.” 1Cor.10:25-28 (msg)
BUT, at the same time, Paul clarified by explaining, “I assume I’m addressing believers now who are mature. Looking at it through the scope of freedom, one could say, anything goes! Because of GOD’s immense generosity and grace, we can do anything! But, the point is not to just get by. We want to live well; our foremost efforts should be to help others live well.” 1Cor.10:15 & 23-24 (msg)
To the believer in Christ, “… everything is permissible—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible—but not everything is constructive.” 1Cor.10:23 (niv)
Paul was saying, you can eat meat. You can drink wine. You can go to dances. But, there might be occasions when doing so might not be constructive or beneficial. One quick example: all things in moderation means I can drink a beer or two and have a clear conscience—it’s totally permissible. But, what if I invite a buddy over who has been an alcoholic for years, clean for a month? Is my expression of freedom by drinking a beer or two any less permissible? Not at all, I am still free to drink and can do so with a clear conscience. BUT, that exercise of my freedom may not be beneficial for my buddy who is addicted to alcohol! I’m totally within my rights to do so—may even want to do so just to exercise my freedom—but, it might not be constructive in the long run for my friend or his desire to abstain from something that has so clearly been destructive in his life. Does that make sense?
The same is true in the discussion going on in this thread. No one is saying kwik doesn’t have the right to carry his gun. They are simply questioning whether it was the most constructive exercise of his freedom. If his desire is to educate the public—he accomplished his goal—BUT, all the media coverage of the incident I saw left a bad taste in my mouth (AND I LOVE GUNS)!
His methods are what are in question. NOT his 1st or 2nd Amendment rights to do what he did. Just the methods. There were probably better ways to make a statement that would have both educated and persuaded others of the rightness of his cause.
I still feel GregAllen's counsel was pretty good advice…
... exercise common sense and good judgment while enjoying your liberties.
