Bishop Jackie McCullough Calls Out Christians Over Tattoos

The Body Is Not Yours: A Sermon About Ownership, Holiness, and Christian Identity

The preacher delivered a forceful message about the Christian understanding of the human body, challenging believers to reconsider the assumption that personal freedom gives them unlimited authority over their physical appearance.

The argument was blunt: the body does not ultimately belong to the individual.

That conviction shaped virtually every part of the sermon.

Tattoos, clothing, fashion, personal presentation, and other forms of self-expression were placed under a larger spiritual question.

If someone claims to belong entirely to Christ, what should that mean for the way that person treats the body?

The preacher used the example of someone wanting to tattoo the name or image of a beloved family member onto an arm.

The emotional significance of such an act might be obvious, but the sermon challenged the premise behind it.

Even that arm, the preacher insisted, belongs to the Lord.

The point was not simply about tattoos.

It was about ownership.

Modern culture often treats the body as the ultimate territory of personal autonomy.

People alter it, decorate it, display it, cover it, or expose it according to individual taste.

Personal expression can become a declaration of identity.

But the preacher argued that Christians have a different declaration to make.

The body itself should communicate: “I am one of His.”

That statement transformed the discussion from fashion into theology.

The preacher acknowledged that Christians naturally have different tastes.

Not everyone will dress alike, and individuality does not disappear simply because someone becomes a believer.

Personal style and unique presentation were not dismissed entirely.

Instead, the sermon drew a boundary around the concept of Christian freedom.

The body, the preacher argued, is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

That biblical image means the Christian body is not merely a private possession.

It is presented as sacred space, carrying a spiritual purpose wherever the believer goes.

The preacher applied that idea to everyday life.

At home, the believer remains a temple.

At the beach, the believer remains a temple.

At a barbecue, in a supermarket, or while getting a haircut, the identity does not change.

There is no location where the responsibility of representing Christ disappears.

That led to one of the sermon’s most emphatic points: holiness cannot simply be switched on inside a church building and switched off everywhere else.

The preacher specifically challenged the idea that modesty and bodily presentation are merely matters of personal preference.

The message insisted that Christian standards cannot always be reduced to individual fashion choices.

The body, in this theological framework, carries a message.

What a person does with it becomes a statement.

That was why the preacher’s criticism of tattoos was connected to a much larger concern.

The issue was not merely whether someone could place a particular name, symbol, or image on their skin.

The deeper question was whether believers have forgotten what Christian belonging means.

The sermon portrayed modern self-expression as potentially dangerous when it becomes detached from spiritual identity.

People can become so focused on expressing themselves that they forget they are supposed to reflect someone greater than themselves.

The preacher argued that this confusion has particularly affected younger Christians.

In an emotional appeal, the message suggested that young people have sometimes been given inadequate or misleading information about what Christian holiness requires.

The challenge was therefore not presented as a rejection of young people, but as a call for the church to correct what the preacher viewed as a failure to teach them clearly.

The central biblical concept was ownership.

The preacher repeatedly returned to the idea that Christians were “bought with a price.”

That phrase transformed the sermon from a list of rules into an argument about value.

The preacher acknowledged that human beings are not inherently worthy of the extraordinary price that Christianity teaches Christ paid for them.

The contrast was intentionally dramatic: humanity could not purchase its own redemption with wealth, status, precious metals, or luxury.

Instead, the price was blood.

The sermon emphasized the significance of that sacrifice by imagining the magnitude of God’s decision to claim human beings as His own.

God did not use gold or silk to purchase them.

He gave Himself.

That, the preacher argued, should fundamentally alter the way Christians view their bodies.

If Christ paid such a price, then the believer cannot casually treat the body as though it were completely detached from Him.

The argument was ultimately less about physical appearance than gratitude.

The preacher described humanity as ungrateful when it forgets the cost of redemption.

A Christian who understands the depth of the sacrifice, the message suggested, should recognize that belonging to God is not a minor religious label.

It is an identity.

That identity also creates boundaries.

The preacher spoke about a “secret place,” describing it as an area reserved exclusively for God.

It was characterized as a place of intimacy, commitment, and transformation.

The imagery suggested that genuine faith requires something deeper than public religious performance.

There must be an inner space where God is not merely one influence among many, but the central presence.

The preacher warned that too many people have allowed others to “touch the treasure,” using intimate language to describe the parts of life that should remain devoted to God.

The body, in this framework, becomes part of that treasure.

It is not simply an instrument for self-expression.

It is something entrusted to the believer for a sacred purpose.

The sermon therefore moved beyond the question of whether Christians can or cannot engage in particular forms of bodily modification.

Its larger concern was the mindset behind those decisions.

Who is in control?

Who receives the final authority?

What does the body communicate?

And what happens when personal autonomy becomes more important than spiritual surrender?

Those questions are at the center of the preacher’s challenge.

The message did not suggest that every Christian has the same appearance or personality.

Instead, it argued that individuality should exist within the framework of belonging to Christ.

The distinction is subtle but important.

The Christian is not told to stop being unique.

The Christian is told to remember whose they are.

That message became increasingly emotional as the preacher moved toward the conclusion.

The congregation was urged to praise God, turning a stern teaching about bodily discipline into an expression of worship.

The contrast was deliberate.

The sermon began by confronting human behavior and ended by emphasizing divine love.

The preacher’s final emphasis was not that God merely owns believers, but that God wanted them.

That distinction carried enormous emotional weight.

Human beings, despite their failures and imperfections, were described as so deeply valued that God Himself provided the price for their redemption.

The preacher’s conclusion therefore returned to the central contradiction: people may desperately want to be their own authority, but Christianity calls them to surrender that claim.

The body becomes a temple.

The body becomes a testimony.

The body becomes a declaration.

And for the preacher, the ultimate declaration is simple: the believer belongs to God.

The sermon’s most provocative challenge was therefore not really about tattoos, clothing, or outward appearance.

It was about whether Christians truly believe what they say when they call Jesus Lord.

If He is Lord, the preacher argued, then His authority cannot stop at the church door.

It reaches the body, the private life, the public image, the decisions, the desires, and the hidden places.

The question is no longer simply, “What does a person have the right to do with the body?”

The sermon insists that the more important question is:

“Who does the body belong to?”