Our second topical sermon on the sermon series on Law will focus on Rights. This somewhat overlaps with the first sermon topic of Authority.[i] Both rights and authority derive their power from laws. But the difference between them is, those in authority is given power so that responsibilities can be executed, whereas those with rights is given power to preserve something inherent to the person’s status. For example, as a church member, you have membership rights; as a citizen, you have civil rights; and as a human, you should have human rights; and so on.
Since this is a sermon series on law, we first focus on the legalization of rights. The law’s basic role is to ensure that rights in securing essential needs are protected. However, since different people will define essential needs differently, the topic of rights is hence never without controversy. For example, not all citizens of every country have voting rights, and each country also limits the freedom of religion in its own way. While I will not delve into every controversy surrounding rights, as that would be beyond the scope of this sermon, my aim today is to help us think theologically about the subject and how it applies to our lives as Christians.
Let us start by analyzing the world today. It has been about two centuries of civil and human rights movements; we can observe how these developments have transformed society. For those countries where the citizens are successful in gaining such rights, the positives are evident: democratic countries allow people to choose their governments, who in turn create laws that represent the interests of the people. In Singapore, we pledge to be united regardless of race, language, or religion. While not everyone can be equal in terms of standard of living, we aspire to be equal in the eyes of the law in our pursuit of happiness.
As Christians, we should be supportive of such transformation. Our Christian faith is rather aligned with the fight for civil and human rights. This alignment is based on two key theological principles. First, we believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, which means that we are inherently of worth regardless of race and gender. Hence, we believe that maintaining human dignity is a justifiable need. Secondly, we believe that our God is just, and a defender of the powerless. In Luke 10, when an expert in the law asked Jesus, “who is my neighbour?”, Jesus concluded the parable of the good Samaritan with the answer that it is about ‘to whom are you a neighbour’. This teaches us that the value of a person is not bound by nationality, language, or even religion. Anybody can be our neighbour in their moment of need, and our response should be one of neighbourly compassion and assistance. So I would say that anything that promotes preserving human dignity and justice for all should have our Christian support.
However, we should also be aware of the potential negatives associated with rights language: escalating conflict over power. I think the most obvious example of such negatives is America. If I may quote from Stanford Encyclopaedia, “It seems no accident that America, “the land of rights,” is also the land of litigation.”[ii] Your rights to guns will infringe my rights to public safety; your rights to free speech will infringe on my rights to be harassment-free. When rights-claims conflict, the result is often a politicized, zero-sum game. For the legalization of rights to be done in favour of your side, it would mean that you need political power to win.
To understand why this is so, we need to understand the inherent nature of rights: it is always a matter of contention. You cannot gain a right without a fight. When we trace the legalisation process of rights in history, you will see that this has always been the case. The first establishment of rights started with the Magna Carta which protected individual freedoms. That was drafted to protect the noble families from the king, and the royal family only relented in order to stay in power. Although the Magna Carta laid some groundwork eight centuries ago, it was only six centuries later, that the concept of rights gained significant momentum, particularly in France. The French monarchy was overthrown in an extremely violent French revolution, and then the Americans followed in gaining their independence. The American Bill of Rights was designed to appease the anti-federalists, so that the American states can continue to stay in union. In all three cases in Britain, France and America, centralized power had to be conceded for rights to be accorded to the individuals.
I repeat this key idea about rights: rights are often a matter of contention. “The notion of rights is linked with notions of exchange. The language of rights has a commercial ring… (this exchange of power) must rely on force.”[iii] I agree with those who believe that rights become rights only when it can be claimed. Unfortunately, any right is quite meaningless if it is only justified in your mind, and you lack the power to enforce the claim. However, when one gains a right, it also means that another must lose their right. For example, when women had the right to vote, it means that the voting rights of men were correspondingly diluted. It explains why it was only legalized in America in 1920 with the 19th Amendment, because after WWI women gained political power.
Just to be clear, I’m not against women voting rights. But I also want to be clear about the negative side of the nature of rights: it is inevitably a matter of contention. Imagine if I want take a right away from you. I’m sure you will fight tooth and nail with me over it. Hence, two centuries of arguing over rights have perpetuated individualism, NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) mentality, and other forms of self-centred behaviour. I find it ironic that in the American presidential election ongoing right now, both sides are now claiming to be the defenders of freedom. I now miss the spirit of “ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.” The next line from Kennedy is equally impactful: “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
After seeing the positives and negatives of rights clearly, I want to use a story from the bible on how we as Christians can help to preserve the positive and yet resolve some of the negatives over rights. This story comes from Paul speaking to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 9: 3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.
15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.
23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Let me give you some quick background to the passage before we dive deeper into the idea of rights. In Paul’s time, missionaries often relied on the hospitality of local churches as they traveled to spread the gospel (you can see an example of this in 3 John 8). It was common for them to expect support from these communities, and one could argue that it was their right to receive such material help as they did the Lord’s work. However, in this case, Paul chose not to use his right when he was in Corinth. He believed that by offering the gospel “free of charge,” the message would be received more openly, without any hindrances.
Now, why did Paul bring this up in his letter to the Corinthians? He wasn’t just making a point about missionary support; he was using his own example to encourage some of the Corinthians to also consider giving up their “right” to eat meat. 1 Corinthians 11: 1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. The issue was that insisting on their right to eat meat could cause others, who were weaker in their faith, to stumble. Imagine if Paul is now asking you to give up the right to eat meat. I think some of you might crucify him. So Paul was using his own example to teach these Corinthians something about how Christians should think about rights.
This leads us to a key takeaway about rights: We should not always seek our own good but the good of others. In 1 Corinthians 10:23-24, Paul reminds us, “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. (I repeat) No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
Paul’s message is relevant in our own conversations about rights today. There’s often a tension between those who focus on individual rights—what we call libertarians—and those who prioritize the collective good, often called communitarians. I believe Paul’s message about considering the good of others would often leans towards the communitarian perspective. We must ask: is insisting on a right truly beneficial to the community?
At the same time, Paul didn’t dismiss the idea of rights altogether. In fact, he goes out of his way to affirm the necessity of certain rights, quoting the laws of Moses to make his case (1 Cor. 9:9). In doing so, he essentially upholds the value of rights, especially for those who are vulnerable and lack power. For example, Paul’s argument about fair compensation could easily be applied to support workers’ rights today.
This might seem like a contradiction: how can Paul both uphold rights and suggest we give them up? But these two ideas actually work together. Rights are important for protecting individuals from oppression, but insisting on those rights isn’t always the best course of action. There are times when we should voluntarily let go of our rights if it serves a greater good, benefits others, or advances the gospel. Paul’s example shows us that while it’s important to have rights, wisdom lies in knowing when to use them—and when to set them aside for the sake of others.
Lastly, I want to say that a conflict over rights should always be a last resort for Christians. In Paul’s case, he went on to talk about love in 1 Corinthians 13. This makes sense because when we argue over rights, it often leads to a situation where both a dominant majority and an overly vocal minority can oppress the losing party. As Christians, we should recognize that everyone loses in a needless fight—especially when constructive conversation is a better alternative. Instead of focusing solely on rights, the Christian perspective should emphasize virtues like love, peace, and gentleness. Whenever there is a disagreement, we should come together to work out a win-win situation for all.
So, what can we do as a church? We can start by reframing our conversations, focusing less on what rights we are entitled to and more on what responsibilities we have to each other. We can seek to understand different perspectives and find common ground, rather than immediately asserting our own rights. Finally, we can remember Paul’s example: sometimes the greatest impact comes not from asserting our rights, but from voluntarily relinquishing them for the greater good of the community and the glory of God.
