That Law Of Expediency Again
It seems that regardless of how much preaching we do on the subject of expediency there are those who continually attempt to justify what they want to in matters religious by such expressions as: "Haven't you heard about God's law of expediency?", or, "That comes under the law of expediency." Etc, etc.
Obviously what members of the church fail to realize is that for a thing to be expedient it must first be lawful. The Apostle Paul shows this to be true by saying: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." (I Cor. 6:12) "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (I Cor. 10:23).
The word "expedient" is a word used to denote a "way" or "means" of carrying out a command, approved apostolic example, or that which is proved lawful by that which is necessarily implied by the Word of God. A simple illustration or two should clearly reveal what is meant. The Lord commanded that we observe the Lord's Supper in memory of Him (I Cor. 11:23f). The elements of the Lord's supper are the fruit of the vine, and unleavened bread. As the Lord commanded the disciples to partake of the bread, and drink the fruit of the vine, even so must we who are in His kingdom today (Matthew 26:26-29; Lk. 22:29-30). In partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine there must be a "way" for us to serve those elements, or a "means" of carrying out this command. The containers on or in which the elements are served may scripturally be termed "expedients", for they simply "expedite" the carrying out of the command to "do this in memory of me." (Matt. 26:26-29). So far as we have determined there is no wrong way or means to serve those elements to the congregation. But, let us advance a step further. By apostolic example we find that the day we are to observe the Lord's Supper is the "first day of the week" (Acts 20:7). The hour that we are to observe the Lord's Supper, however, is not given by Divine command, apostolic example, or necessary inference. Since then the hour of the first day of the week is not given in the inspired record, any hour that comes within the "first day of the week" could be expedient. Why? Because we have found that it is, (1) Lawful to partake of the Lord's Supper; and (2) That it is lawful to do this on the "first day of the week." Some places the Lord's Supper is observed on Sunday afternoon because it is "expedient" to do so, whereas in most sections it is observed on Sunday morning. This is purely a matter of "expediency." However, it would not be "expedient" to observe the Lord's Supper at any hour on any other day for the simple reason it would be un-lawful, that is, un-authorized. Any attempt to observe the Lord's Supper at any hour, on any other day other than the Lord's Day, could not be justified by the cry — "expedient", for we can all readily see that such an attempt would simply be "going beyond the teachings of Christ." (II Jno. 9).
Men have tried in vain to justify certain practices in matters religious by an appeal to "expediency." For instance, the instrumental music advocates claim that the use of the organ is merely an "expedient." The use of the organ, however, cannot be justified in this manner, for the Word of God does not authorize it. The advocates of the Missionary Society claim that the Missionary Society is merely an "expedient", but not so as has been so ably pointed out so many times before. The Missionary Society is an organization, and not an "expedient."
I'm reminded of a story in the Old Testament which can well be used to illustrate what we need to know concerning "expediencies." The story is recorded in I Kings chapters 12 and 13. King Jeroboam built two calves of gold and set one in Dan and the other in Bethel, and commanded the people not to go to Jerusalem to worship as they had been commanded by the Lord, and he also made priests of those who were not of the tribe of Levi. He also officiated at the altar which he had set up, offering sacrifice and burning incense. Jeroboam, according to many of my brethren today, could have claimed that this was merely an "expedient", and that God's "law of expediency" authorized his doing that, but this was not so, and the Lord condemned him for it. Listen to the reading: "And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense." (I Kings 12:32-33). What was wrong? Hadn't the Lord commanded the offering of sacrifice? Yes! Had not the Lord commanded the burning of incense? Yes! Do you say that the Lord had commanded the Jews to journey to Jerusalem for that purpose? If so, you are right. Do you say that the Lord had not authorized a king to officiate at the altar and burn incense, but had ordained the priests of the tribe of Levi for that purpose? If so, you are once again right! Do you say that for those reasons king Jeroboam could not justify what he was doing by the matter of "expediency?" If so, you are right again! Now, if you can see that what Jeroboam did could not be justified by simply referring to it as an "expediency", even though WHAT he was doing had been authorized, (offering of sacrifice, and burning of incense), because it was not being done by the authorized party, then why can not you see that even though we today do WHAT is commanded (caring for orphans, and preaching the gospel), the commands to do these things do not authorize just any organization to do them? God has authorized but one organization to perform the doing of those commands. That organization is the local church under the oversight of its elders. Any other organization, whether evangelistic or benevolent, cannot be justified by an appeal to "expediency."
Much more could be said on the subject of "expediencies", but perhaps this will suffice for the present. We have only given attention, in this article, to "expediencies" from the viewpoint of their first being authorized, or coming within the scope of that which is authorized. Sometimes, however, even though a thing may come within the scope of that which is authorized it cannot be claimed as an "expedient" because it does not edify etc. (I Cor. 10:23). To "speak where the Bible speaks" is certainly to only call a thing an expedient when it is an expedient!