Each year…

as “Australia Day” approaches…

we are inundated with opinion pieces in newspapers…

about “what does it mean to be Australian”.

And…

in more recent years it seems…

there have been more and more pieces addressing the issue of the date of our national celebration.

And yet…

that’s not a recent phenomenon.

In fact, back in nineteen thirty-eight––

coinciding with the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the First Fleet’s arrival––

a large number of Aboriginal people gathered on the twenty-sixth of January…

to protest the “degrading and humiliating treatment” of indigenous people.

That was the beginning of the “Invasion Day” or “Survival Day” tradition––

a tradition that has been going, now, for eighty-four years.

And those marches and celebrations now draw tens of thousands across the country…

with both indigenous and non-indigenous attending.

As one journalist described it…

the twenty-sixth of January has “become one of the nation’s most divisive days”.

At a time when some are telling us to celebrate who we are…

and all of the good things that we have achieved…

many still feel alienated…

disenfranchised…

and their history, experiences, and feelings discounted.

As one Aboriginal elder put it, “We need to heal and we can only do this together”.

While another said, “We want you to listen to our voice”.

And, in that regard, it’s interesting that…

according to the “Australia Talks” national survey…

which was held last year…

fifty-five percent of Australians do not think that our national day should be celebrated on the twenty-sixth of January.

That percentage is higher among women…

and especially among those under the age of thirty…

where more than two-thirds support a change.

According to Shelley Reys––

the inaugural co-chair of Reconciliation Australia––

the changing attitudes towards Australia Day are a sign that…

we are “growing and maturing as a reconciled nation”.

We still have some way to go.

But, she admits, “part of a maturing nation…is the willingness to listen and learn from someone else’s view, and to keep a dialogue open”.

How do we honour different histories, perceptions, and experiences?

How do we foster genuine unity?

Being prepared to listen is, of course, an important first step.

But there needs to be decisive and meaningful action as well.

And that will involve negotiation;

and it will involve compromise.

Conflict resolution always does.

 

Now, in a sense…

that’s what is happening in our reading this morning from First Corinthians.

The church at Corinth was experiencing serious internal conflict.

It was a very large community that comprised a number of house groups… 

each of which had its own leader. 

Each of those leaders appears to have been wealthy and well-to-do…

and they used the church as an arena for their battles with each other…

in an effort to secure greater prestige and power and control.

The majority of the church members…

however…

were not wealthy and well-to-do.

There were slaves––

who were regarded as little better than livestock…

and simply expected to do as they were told;

and there were ordinary working-class folk––

who were dependent on the benefaction and support of the wealthy and well-to-do leaders.

In other words… 

the conflict within the church at Corinth was a result of rivalry between the powerful…

who used the powerless as pawns.

They manipulated…

they controlled…

they dominated…

and they repressed––

perfectly replicating the manner and means of their wider society.

Throughout this letter, Paul endeavours to confront this…

but it all comes to a head––

so to speak––

in our reading this morning…

where Paul employs a metaphor of the church as a ‘Body’.

And he uses this Body-metaphor as a means to affirm unity––

and especially unity in diversity.

As most New Testament scholars point out…

Paul’s argument is that only by recognising and accepting their diversity––

and working together––

can unity be fostered. 

But that’s not the whole story.

You see… 

this particular metaphor was one that was commonly used in the wider Graeco-Roman world. 

Ancient orators frequently spoke of ‘the state’ as a ‘body’––

especially when they were arguing against factionalism.

In so doing, they sought to use the image of the state as a body…

in an effort to get ordinary folk to toe the line…

by trying to convince them that sedition was harmful to the state;

and that the unity and harmony of the state depended upon each of them fulfilling their allotted role.

In other words… 

in that culture, ‘the Body’ metaphor was used to foster unity and harmony… 

by reinforcing the traditional social hierarchy––

and everything that went with that.

Paul… 

however… 

takes this stock metaphor and turns it on its head.

Here, in our reading he addresses it…

not to ordinary folk… 

but to the privileged and the powerful in the community.

And he completely inverts the normal social dynamics.

Those who are without honour in their society are to be treated with honour within the church.

Those whom their society regards as weak…

powerless…

marginal…

and ‘other’…

are to be regarded as central;

and their needs, their concerns, and their welfare are to be paramount.

Unity–– 

Paul argues–– 

is only possible when there is mutual respect and an equality of care:

one that transcends attitudes and perceptions;

one that transcends social boundaries;

one that transcends structures and patterns of power and domination.

Unity and harmony––

for Paul––

do not come through the powerless meekly accepting their lot in life;

but through the powerful relinquishing control and sharing their power.

Unity and harmony can only be achieved…

when those with power are ready to forgo their sense of privilege…

and the assumption that they occupy the dominant or the normative position.

Rather… 

as a church… 

their attitudes and values…

their corporate way of life…

ought to be shaped by the needs… 

the concerns…

and the welfare… 

of those who are otherwise treated as ‘other’.

They cannot simply replicate–– 

or import–– 

the attitudes and values of their society into the church.

 

And that is a message that the church…

today…

still needs to hear.

What Paul is telling us, is that our attitudes and our values…

and, indeed, our practices…

ought to be shaped by the needs of those who are weak, powerless, marginal, and ‘other’.

What Paul is telling us, is that…

as church…

we cannot but be a champion of those who suffer…

those who are demeaned or dehumanised…

those who are marginalised…

or those whose hurts and injustices are otherwise ignored.

As such, we only truly exist as the ‘Body of Christ’…

when we listen to, and speak out for, the Aboriginal peoples…

those who are poor, uneducated, and living on welfare…

those with mental illness or a disability…

those who come seeking asylum…

and those who are discriminated against because of their gender or sexuality.

 

And… 

to be perfectly honest…

should we expect it any other way?

 

After all, at the heart of our faith is a despised, marginal, vulnerable, totally ‘other’ figure…

who was executed by those in power…

by means of a symbol of utter powerlessness.

 

How can we claim to be “the Body of Christ”…

if we do not reflect his physical…

bodily…

nature and experience?