Sermons

Sun, Jan 17, 2021

But the Bible says...?

Series:Sermons
Duration:13 mins 51 secs

Well, what do we do with a reading like that?

 

Our reading this morning from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is a metaphorical minefield––

for a whole lot of reasons!

There are a number of inconsistencies in what Paul says here––

if not outright contradictions––

and a number of things that are…

when you scratch the surface…

more than a little unpalatable.

 

Paul begins by citing a saying from some in the Corinthian Church:

“all things are lawful for me”––

although the Greek would be better translated as “all things are permissible for me”…

or, “all things are within my power”.

Then, rather than negating it, he simply qualifies it:

“but not all things are beneficial”.

In so doing, Paul is actually elucidating an important…

and, indeed… 

a quite liberating approach to ethical thinking.

Rather than perceiving of morality as a set of black-and-white rules…

which need to be followed, no matter what––

whether that be the Hebrew Law…

or some sort of “Christian Law” into which many of us have been indoctrinated––

he recognises that, as people, we have moral agency.

As rational beings––

and particularly as mature, educated rational beings––

we have the ability to form our own moral judgments.

But, to this end, he suggests…

the best moral judgments are those which enhance the common good.

Effectively, here, Paul advocates a form of utilitarianism––

a sort of situational ethic…

where we seek to do the most-good for the most people.

And, with everything that’s been happening in our world lately…

I couldn’t help but think of this in regards to the whole issue of “freedom of speech”.

“Freedom of speech”, of course, is a fundamental human right––

or, it ought to be.

But’s it’s not an absolute right.

Indeed, the conservative philosopher John Stuart Mill—

one of the great proponents of “free speech”––

proclaimed that it ought to be forfeited if such speech caused harm or violence.

Or, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes–– 

as many do––

free speech doesn’t give us the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.

And, if this morning’s reading had stopped there…

then I could have happily dwelt on such thoughts…

and on how it applies to us, as followers of Christ in the twenty-first century.

But Paul doesn’t stop there.

He immediately repeats the Corinthian slogan…

and offers a very different qualification:

“but I will not be dominated by anything”.

While I am a free moral agent, capable of deciding what is good, and just, and right…

I will not surrender my power or control to anything.

I will not allow my freedom to be enslaved. 

Now, if we reduce that to something quite concrete…

like, for example, a particular addiction…

then it makes perfect sense.

But, as an ethical principle, it’s a bit more fraught.

To slavishly adhere to the ethical principle of choosing what is beneficial to the most…

is still a form of enslavement…

and, conceivably, there are times when it’s wrong.

For example…

there are times when doing what is right will mean choosing what benefits a minority

over and against a majority.

And, pushed to an extreme, the principle that Paul elucidates here can be self-contradictory––

if it’s wrong to slavishly adhere to a principle…

then it’s also wrong to slavishly adhere to the principle that it’s wrong to slavishly adhere to a principle.

 

But it all gets incredibly complicated… 

because Paul introduces these principles in the midst of a discussion about sexual morality.

Apart from the statements that he makes in our reading regarding sexuality…

he makes some pretty strong ones in the immediately preceding verses––

although they’re badly translated and woefully interpreted.

And everything he says here arises from…

and reflects…

a first century worldview.

If we want to make sense of what Paul says here…

then we need to understand how sex and sexuality were understood in his world.

And they understood it in terms of three interconnected ideas:

purity…

property…

and power.

The basic sense of purity is… 

that ‘there is a place for everything, and everything should be in its place’.

If you like, there were lines in time and space that should not be crossed.

Sex with a woman was okay, provided that she was your wife…

or a slave…

and was submissive, as a woman ought to be…

otherwise, it was wrong.

Sex with a man was wrong…

because one of the men would have to assume the role of a woman…

and be submissive, like a woman…

unless, of course, that man was a slave…

then it was okay.

And yet, here we have already begun to bump into the issues of property and power.

Women, in this world, were always considered property––

of their fathers…

their masters…

or their husbands.

Adultery was wrong because it infringed her husband’s property rights.

Pre-marital sex was wrong because it infringed her father’s property rights.

And that’s one of the reasons that prostitutes were so problematic.

They didn’t fit neatly into those sorts of categories––

although, most prostitutes in that world were slaves…

so, they, too, were someone’s property.

Now, I don’t know about you…

but I don’t think that constructing sexual morality on the basis of purity or property rights is appropriate…

certainly not in our culture and time.

 

Of course, Paul goes further and tries to ground it all theologically…

but…

let’s be honest…

what he says is pretty confusing…

and not particularly helpful.

Part of the problem is that a lot is lost in translation.

Whenever Paul says “you” or “your”, here, he’s using the plural form.

And, more often than not he combines the plural “you” with the singular “body”.

So, for example, when he speaks of “your body” as “a temple of the Holy Spirit”

it’s your–plural, body–singular.

So, too, in his final exhortation “therefore glorify God in your body”.

He doesn’t say “your bodies”.

And it’s not a case of a typo or poor grammar.

Rather, it consciously reflects the collectivist worldview of the first century…

where the boundaries between my body…

as an individual…

and our corporate body…

as a community…

were very blurred.

And it’s in that sense that he also speaks of sex with a prostitute as becoming ‘one body’.

It’s grounded in his collectivist anthropology.

 

Just to complicate all that a bit more… 

the imagery upon which so much of this reading is predicated…

is the notion of slavery.

Following the warning about not being “dominated by anything”

he goes on to suggest that sex with a prostitute is, effectively, becoming enslaved to her…

which…

he argues, is wrong because we are, in effect, slaves of God.

Indeed, “you were bought with a price”.

Now, I don’t know about you…

but I don’t think slavery is a particularly helpful metaphor…

for our relationship with God…

let alone any sexual relationships that we might have…

or have had.

Slavery is…

by its very nature…

demeaning, disempowering, and dehumanising.

And it categorically contradicts the principle with which Paul began this whole discussion––

that we are free moral agents!

 

So, what are we to make of this whole mess?

 

Perhaps the most that we can say is...

that making moral decisions is always complicated;

that we need to be aware of the way that our culture constrains us…

into thinking ‘this is how things ought to be’;

and…

perhaps more pointedly…

in forming our moral judgments it’s not simply doing what the Bible says.

Maybe, sometimes, we need to ignore the Bible altogether.

Powered by: truthengaged