SUNDAY COLUMN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 301, 1 October 1938, Page 2

SUNDAY COLUMN

NEWS OF THE CHURCHES. (Conducted by the Ashburton Ministers’ Association). A PRAYER. Heavenly Father grant unto us Thy peace and security. AA’e pray that Thou shalt drive from our land those things that would destroy that peace, and take from us that sense of security. May we surrender ourselves to Thee, that Thy will may bo accomplished through us. Amen. A MEDITATION. The Duty of the Strong. When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for the roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.”—Dent. 22, 8. The Law of Moses not only consisted of the Decalogue in which the fundamental principles of human duty were laid down, but it also entered into the details of life, touching it at every point, in every relationship, and in every type of responsibility. If you read this chapter and other chapters of this Book carefully, you will see that there is full and solemn reference made to what may appear to he the trivialities of life. There are some men who vulgarise high themes with their touch, there are others who enoble the apparent commonplaces of life by lifting them up into relationship with hjgh and sacred principles.

Moses would teach them that in building a house they had to do so, and that God is interested in the way in which a man builds his house. AATiy? Because God looks at it from a social standpoint. The safety of human life is involved in the way in which a man may build his dwelling. AVjhat a wonderful revelation of the sacredness of social life in all its details and teaching as this must have been to the Jews. Social life, after all, is a network of dependencies and responsibilities, becoming all the more complex and beautifully complex, as that social life is being perfected. So that to the nation there comes a law that patriarchs never had, because of the new responsibilities which national life involves; and Moses, in the Name of God, says to each one: “A\ 7: hen thou buildest a new house, then - thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man .fall from thence.” “Buildest a New House.” It is not to be an after thought; the battlements are to be in the original plan. The man is not to wait until an accident occurs and the necessity for the battlements is proved, but he is to take precautionary measures. He has to v do with human life that is too sacred to He experimented with in order to find out the percentage of probalities. But I can imagine the selfish man saying: “Nay, I will notbuild battlements to my house. I can walk the flat roof of my house without danger of falling off, why should I provide for others? I am perfectly safe.” The same argument is used with regard to abstinence. “Erect battlements so that others may not fall over? Nay,” says one, “I am in no danger. I can take a glass of beer or wine and feel perfectly safe; and why should I abstain for the sake of those who know not how to ; control their appetites?” By the law of self-preservation the man would build battlements to prevent danger to himself; as there is no danger for him he will not build those battlements, so that, after all, the highest impulse in that man’s life is just this—self-preservation. It js a universal law, every creature God made has it, but it is not always very enobling. If there is one thing in the Gospel more glorious than another, it is the teaching that the highest law of life is not the law of self-preserva-tion, but that the greatest law of God is the law of self-sacrifice; He is greatest when He denies Himself for the sake of others. That Christ is greatest when it is proved to us that, though rich, yet for our sakes He became poor. If, then, there is any danger to another, and it is in your power, by your example, to erect a barrier which shall permit the fall of that other, then it is your evident duty to do it. But there is the self-assertive man, who says, “I am not going to give up my liberty, it is a limitation to my personal liberty.” That cry is a fallacious as it is selfish. Personal liberty must ever run parallel with the wellbeing of the community. A man lias no right to call by the name of liberty that which in any way conflicts with the well-being of the race or of the community to which he belongs; but, even, supposing that taking a glass of strong drink is a lawful liberty, I ask, whether, sometimes, it is not worth while to give up that which is lawful for the sake of others. You have heard Paul’s argument. It was lawful for him to take meat, he had liberty to do so, but for the sake of those who might be led astray, bo abstained. There is another instance to which I would refer you. A’ou will remember the time when David longed for the waters of the well of Bethleham. There were the serried ranks of the foe between him and the well, but only the expression of the wish kindled an enthusiasm of heroism in the hearts of n. few of his captains, and through the ranks of the enemy they went, got the water, and returned to David with it. What did David do? Drink it? Nay, he pours it out upon the ground as an offering to God. It is too precious a drink for him to take. It was at the risk of human blood that it was obtained, and he cannot drink it. Oh, can you drink that cup of wine? It is at the risk of human blood that you get it. Shall there be a stain by any chance upon your house and upon your home? The God who legislated for house building, to-day, speaks to us as individuals when we build up a new character. Let us see to it that not one of us, by neglect of building palisades that should protect those that are weaker than ourselves, shall

in any way be the means of leading others to ruin.