Redefining Freedom: A Sermon for 2 Epiphany

We Americans not only love freedom, we expect it. Many, if not most, citizens of the United States would say that freedom is the most essential value of our culture. As our nation celebrates Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthday tomorrow, we will hear a lot about freedom. In his most famous speech, the line we remember most is “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty I’m free at last.”

Much of the recent debates and conflict in our nation – whether it is related to wearing a mask, voting by mail, or posting on social media – has been, at the core, related to our understanding of freedom. Today’s epistle from Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians is also about freedom. In many ways, the freedoms that the Corinthians Christians were claiming for themselves were like the contested freedoms we are reading about in the news. At the end of the day, whether we are a 1st-century Corinthian or a 21st-century American, we not only value our freedom, we expect it, and we even demand it.

New Testament Theologian Richard Hays’ commentary[1] on today’s reading from 1st Corinthians has shone a new “Epiphany” light on this passage for me. He points out that one thing to note when looking at this passage is that Paul is using the diatribe technique, where he starts with an argument that has been made – which we see in quotes – and then he responds. It’s like when Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said, “You have heard it said…but I say…”

In the NRSV translation that we read, the opening sentence is what the Christians in Corinth have reportedly been saying - “All things are lawful to me” – to which Paul responds, “But not all things are beneficial.” Hays points out that the New English Bible translation is more accurate and useful. It translates the passage as, “I am free to do anything.” And this translation gets at the heart of what Paul was dealing with in his Corinthian congregation.

The newly converted Christians in Corinth were basking in the joy of their newfound “freedom in Christ.” The only problem is, they were basking in a flawed understanding of that freedom. Indeed, whether it was to his churches in Corinth, Galatia, or Rome, Paul preached and wrote a lot about our freedom in Christ. To the Galatians, Paul wrote “For freedom, Christ has set us free.” (Gal. 5:1) But the Christians in Corinth who had converted from Judaism, particularly the men, had come to take this teaching to mean that they were no longer under the rigid, oppressive rules of the Jewish law. Such teaching was common in the Greek philosophical schools that were prevalent – especially the dualistic wisdom tradition of sophoi. “They taught that the physical body was merely transient and trivial, thus concluding that it makes no difference what we do with our bodies. If we are hungry, we should eat; if we desire sexual gratification, we should seek it. None of this matters, they say, because it concerns only external physical matters, which are of no lasting significance.”[2]

Of course, Paul himself was trained in the Greek philosophical tradition, so he was up for the debate. His first response was, “Yes, all things may be lawful for you, but not all things are beneficial.” Paul understood that these newly converted Christian men were mistakenly interpreting what their newfound freedom in Christ meant for them as individuals as well as for their community. So much of what goes astray in Christian communities simply has to do with a combination of poor interpretation of our scriptures and tradition and poor teaching and leadership from those who are called to be in those positions. So as their teacher, preacher, and pastor, Paul was emphatic about correcting this dangerous strand of thought that was infecting the Corinthian Christian community.

The primary misunderstanding that Paul was seeking to correct was their understanding of what “freedom in Christ” really meant. And it certainly didn’t mean that “I am free to do anything I want.” Isn’t it interesting that 2000 years ago, in a land and culture far removed from ours today, Christian communities were struggling with the same sort of issues? Of course, in our context today, most of us tend to frame our understanding of freedom within the framework of the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible.

Whether we are liberal or conservative, the last thing we want somebody to do is tread on our freedom. Gay couples want the freedom to go to any bakery of their choosing and have a wedding cake made for them, no questions asked. Bakery owners want the freedom to decide whether they bake such a cake. They own their own business after all. Shouldn’t they be able to decide who they serve, and let the free market determine whether that is a good business decision or not?

In the spirit of free speech, folks want the freedom to write or post whatever they want on social media, regardless of the consequences. Owners of social media companies want the freedom to decide what is acceptable on their platform, and, like the bakery owner, they want the freedom to let the free market determine whether their decision to block certain content is a good business decision or not.   

In all of these cases, each side is arguing for their rights and their freedoms. In 21st-century post-modernism, I think that it can be argued that the god that is most worshipped by both liberals and conservatives is the God of “me and my rights.” In 1st-century Corinth, since prostitution was not only legal, but also a widely accepted practice, the Corinthian Christian men were claiming their “right” to participate in it. After all, this new religion of theirs – Christianity – was great because it wasn’t rigid or legalistic! Didn’t Paul himself love to talk about our newfound “freedom in Christ?”

Richard Hays asserts that Corinthian Christians who were unrestrained in their sexual activity were each asserting their freedom under the misguided belief that their own bodies, as well as the bodies of the prostitutes, belonged to them. Hays understands Paul’s teaching as being grounded in the fundamental Christian belief that The Body is the Lord’s. And Hays believes that Paul’s point is what contemporary Christians in our context struggle with most today. He concludes that “In Western culture today, most discourse about issues of sexual and reproductive ethics is dominated by post-Enlightenment categories that sound eerily like a reprise of the Corinthian slogans: ‘rights,’ ‘freedom of choice,’ ‘self-determination,’ [and] ‘autonomy.’… How might our contemporary debates change if we would stop shouting such slogans for a while and listen to Paul? Do you not know that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. Such an approach would of course not settle questions about legislation in the secular world, but it might change the texture of the debate within the church.”[3]

What might it look like for us as Christians if we truly believed that through our baptisms, where we are grafted into Christ’s very own body, and that our physical body is no longer ours, but part of Someone and Something much larger than we are? What if our vision for life together as a Christian community recognized that when we devalue our bodies and those of others – even if the secular law says we are free to do so, and even if we chose to do so – we are devaluing our Christian community, the very own Body of Christ? It goes without saying that these principles apply to scenarios far beyond sexual ethics.

I recognize that it can be very dangerous for man to stand up and start talking about bodies, and who they belong to. The reason is, throughout history, men in positions of power have oftentimes abused that power, with women and children oftentimes being the victims of such abuse. No secular or religious law should permit such abuse of power. That should go without saying.

But from a Christian standpoint, the primary corrective to such abuse is not in what is rightfully mine vs. what is rightfully yours. As Christians, we believe that none of what we have or what others have – including our very own physical bodies – belong to us. Paul says, “[Our] bodies are members of Christ” and that our “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within [us], which [we] have from God, and that [we] are not [our] own. [We] were bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in [our] body.”

This is unsettling, even radical language that Paul is using. Lest we be reminded that Paul wrote in a particular place and a particular time, Paul employs slavery language to further illustrate his point. Today, most recognize the idea that one person can own another person’s body is abhorrent. But that is exactly the tragedy of slavery – the fact that someone’s very own body could be purchased for a price by another person. And in that system, the slave’s own body would thus belong not to the slave, but to the owner. Corinthian Christians would have understood that illustration because slavery was a part of their culture.

But the corrective metaphor that Paul is offering is that as Christians, we are to understand ourselves as slaves. We don’t own our own bodies. Nor does any other human being. Our bodies were “bought with a price” – and that price was Christ’s very own crucified body on the Cross. As such, and through our baptisms into Christ’s death, we are no longer in full possession of our bodies, and we can no longer claim possession of someone else’s body. We are all a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Christian Church.

But not only are we baptized into Christ’s death. We are also baptized into his resurrection. So, our bodies belong to Christ in both our lives here on earth as well as our resurrected, eternal lives. As such, our bodies being possessed by Christ is a now thing and a forever thing. And for that, I will gladly hand over “me and my rights” to Christ.

I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to have such a huge impact on the Civil Rights Movement because for him, he understood the difference between freedom granted by the State and freedom in Christ. Ultimately, King wasn’t going to let himself be defined by the freedom that the U.S. Government was or was not going to grant him. While being critically important for the very soul of our nation, King knew that how other people saw him was a temporal matter. King’s ultimate freedom was defined by his freedom in Jesus Christ. And that is how and why he was such a remarkable person. His grounding, wisdom, courage, and power were coming from Someone and Something much bigger than the U.S. Government. He truly understood freedom from a Christian perspective.

As such, when we as Christians can embrace our freedom in Christ we will be better able to see our bodies as Christ’s Body, and thus Christ’s possession. When we are able to make the move from “free to do anything I want with my body” to, as Paul says, glorify[ing] God in our bodies,” we will truly live as an Epiphany people “shin[ing] with the radiance of Christ’s glory."

[1] Hays. Richard B. “First Corinthians” in Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Westminster John Knox Press. 1997.

[2] Hays, p. 103.

[3] Hays, p. 109