What’s in our character? For “Australia Day”, 26 January (part 2)

Today, 27 January, is the day after Australia Day, 26 January. But because that day fell, this year, on a Sunday, all state and territory governments have gazetted today as a public holiday. Because, you know, we neeeeeed that end-of-January long weekend!!

I have previously considered the use of the term “Australia” and thought about the names we use. See 

What’s in a name? For “Australia Day”, 26 January (part 1)

Before 1788, there was no single name for the whole island continent. Some have claimed that the word bandaiyan was a name that referred to the entire continent of Australia. However, this is a Ngarinyin word,  from the Kimberley region. It was not necessarily used by, or known to, any of the speakers of the 250 or more languages that were spoken (in what is now thought to be around 800 dialects) by others living on the continent.

It is estimated that there were 750,000 people living in the 500 or so First Nations located across this large island continent—and on many of the smaller islands associated with the larger continental landmass. Each of these language groups had their own terms for the country where they lived, on the land they had cared for since time immemorial. 

Arthur Philip, in a July 1788 letter to William Petty, wrote: “It has been my determination from the time I landed, never to fire on the Natives, but in a case of absolute necessity, & I have been so fortunate as to have avoided it hitherto. I think they deserve a better Character than what they will receive from Monsr. La Perouse, who was under the disagreable  necessity of firing on them. I think better of them from having been more with them. they do not in my opinion want personal Courage, they very readily place a confidence & are, I believe, strictly honest amongst themselves.  most of the Men wanting the Right front tooth in the Upper Jaw, & most of the Women wanting the first & second joints of the little finger of the left hand, are circumstances not observed in Capt. Cooks Voyage.”

Governor Arthur Philip

It is a tragedy that this irenic form of relationship did not continue through the early years of the Colony; and certainly, the string of massacres that took place throughout the 19th century, and into the 20th century, reflect the arrogant, imperialising mentality of the invading colonisers. “The Natives”, when they stood in the way of land acquisitions, were simply to be disposed of. The project in the University of Newcastle, led by Prof. Lyndal Ryan,  currently identifies 438 seperate massacres of First Peoples, where a massacre involved the death of six or more people who were unable to defend themselves.

Each yellow dot represents the location of a massacre
documented by the University of Newcastle project.

This project currently lists over 10,000 deaths in total, but of course, as the stories of more sites are discovered, that number will grow. In an 1885 letter discovered during this research, a Bob McCracken writes about the Calvert Downs massacre of,earlier that year, stating that “killing odd ones or even twos or threes is no good, they are never missed and nothing but wholesale slaughter will do any good.”

Bob McCracken’s 1885 letter to his sister,
which details the Calvert Downs massacre.

These massacres form a massive collective stain on the consciences of modern white Australians who can trace their ancestors back onto those early decades of the Colony. How much do they signal,what is unfortunately increasingly evident in the Australian on the 2020s: we are less tolerant of “outsiders”, more likely to,turn our attacks (verbal, and physical), on “foreigners”, ready at times to shout “go back to where you came from” to people who look or sound different—even if they happen to have been born on this land! Is that an expression of our national character? I hope not.

We should reflect on these issues deeply this day, and each day, as we enjoy the benefits of our contemporary lifestyle.

I have consulted the following websites for this blog:

https://firstfleetfellowship.org.au/events/letter-from-governor-arthur-phillip/

https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/statistics.php

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/16/attempted-aboriginal-massacres-took-place-as-recently-as-1981-historian-says

https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/detail.php?r=1040

What’s in a name? For “Australia Day”, 26 January (part 1)

Today, 26 January, is Australia Day, by official government decree. It remembers the landfall on the eastern shores of this continent made by the British-appointed Governor Arthur Philip, his troops, and the convicts of what we now call The First Fleet. Prior to his departure from Britain, Phillip had received Instructions (composed by Lord Sydney) from King George III, “with the advice of his Privy Council”. These Instructions included Phillip’s Commission as Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of New South Wales. 

Governor Arthur Philip

Despite extensive searching, these Instructions cannot be located in any library or state records office in Australia, nor in Britain. (Philip obviously had an inefficient PA !!) There is an amended Commission, located with the Public Record Office in London, dated 25 April 1787. This document designated the territory of New South Wales as including “all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean” as well as the mainland mass running westward to the 135th meridian, that is, about mid-way through the continent. Such was the way of British imperialism.

We don’t know exactly what Philip said on 26 January 1788. He subsequently wrote a letter on 3 July that year to William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne and 2nd Earl of Shelburne, in which he explained that “Port Jackson … I have preferd to Botany bay as affording a more eligible Situation for the Colony, & being with out exception the finest Harbour in the World” and notes that “this Country will hereafter be a most Valuable acquisition to Great Brittain from its situation.”

That’s what we remember on Australia Day. This day has, of course, been celebrated on other days in the past. In 1915, it was held on 30 July. The Australian War Memorial notes that it was suggested to the Premier of NSW that “an ‘Australia Day’ [be held] as a way of drawing on the pride of Australians in their soldiers’ recent achievements at Gallipoli”. The next year, the Australia Day committee that had formed in 1915 to organise the war effort fundraising determined that it would be held on 28 July.

In NSW, since the time of Governor Lachlan Macquarie, 26 January had been commemorated as “Anniversary Day” or “Founders Day”. There are records from as early as 1808 of ex-convicts participating in “drinking and merriment” on the evening of 25 January to celebrate their new home. In Tasmania, by contrast, “Hobart Regatta Day” was established on 1 December 1838, to commemorate the anniversary of Abel Tasman’s discovery of the island he named Van Diemen’s Land, in 1642. In 1879 it was moved to be earlier in the year, in January or February.

The name “Australia” was further entrenched in the (un)imaginatively-named Western Australia. Overwest, “Foundation Day” has long been held on the first Monday in June, to commemorate the founding of the Swan River Colony in 1829. In the equally (un)imaginatively-named South Australia, “Proclamation Day” celebrated the date the government was established in South Australia as a British province, on 28 December 1836. It was when South Australia held its “founding day” celebrations for decades, until they unified with other states to celebrate “Australia Day” on 26 January.  But there are still celebrations for “Proclamation Day” each year on 28 December.

By 1935, celebrations were held in all states on 26 January, although it was still known as “Anniversary Day” in NSW, and “Foundation Day” in other areas. The Sesquicentenary (150th anniversary) of British colonisation of Australia was widely celebrated in all state capitals in 1938. A significant protest took place on this day in 1938, when the Australian Natives Association held a “Day of Mourning”. The main celebrations were held in Sydney, but newspapers from others states show that the language of “Anniversary Day” had been adopted there for 26 January, recognising it to be a national date of significance. Its place in national life was, despite Indigenous protests, now settled.

In 1946, the Federal Government and all state governments agreed to unify all the state-based Australia Day celebrations and celebrate on 26 January as a country. The “Australia Day” public holiday was taken on the Monday closest to the 26th, giving the traditional “long weekend” in late January, which for many signalled the end of summer, the return to school and work. 

Questioning of the celebratory status of Australia Day gained impetus during the 1988 Bicentenary, when many protests were staged across Australia, involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. They wanted Australia Day to become a commemoration rather than a celebration of Australia’s history.

However, in 1994 the conservative Federal Government decided that the public holiday would be on the actual day of 26 January itself. And so it has been, for 31 years. (So that’s tomorrow: enjoy!)

For many centuries Europeans believed there must be a vast land in the southern hemisphere, which they called Terra Australis Incognita, a Latin phrase for “the Unknown South Land”. (In Latin, austral means “south”.) A few decades after the 1788 British invasion and colonisation of the lands around Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour), Matthew Flinders circumnavigated the continent in 1803. Flinders used the name “Australia” to describe the continent on a hand drawn map in 1804. That map was published in 1814 and the continent was named “Terra Australis”.

Dutch explorers had been referring to the continent as “New Holland” since the 17th century. On colonising the region, the British had initially named the Colony “New South Wales”, and that name, of course, has continued to be used to apply to various eastern parts of the continent. In 1817, however, Governor Lachlan Macquarie endorsed the name “Australia” to replace “New Holland” in a dispatch to the Colonial Office in London; over time, this name came into common local usage. 

By 1824 the British Admiralty started to officially use the name, and the term “Australia” was first used in British legislation which decreed that British law was to apply to the two colonies of “New South Wales” (named in reminiscence of a region in Britain that the landscape allegedly reflected) and Van Diemen’s Land (named after its Dutch “discoverer”). Other state names that came later managed to reference the main name of “Australia” (South, or Western), as well as Victoria (in the state of the same name), the long-reigning British monarch (reflected in Queensand).

More to come tomorrow (on the public holiday), reflecting further on what it is that we “celebrate” on this day …

What’s in our character? For “Australia Day”, 26 January (part 2)

*****

I have consulted the following websites for this blog:

https://www.library.gov.au/research/research-guides-0/where-name-australia-came

https://www.sbs.com.au/voices/article/the-many-different-dates-weve-celebrated-australia-day/vuhb3ar1c

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-24/australia-day-public-holiday-janaury-26-sunday/104837212

https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-35.html

https://firstfleetfellowship.org.au/events/letter-from-governor-arthur-phillip/

Because of the connection with the arrival of British imperial colonizers and their subsequent expanding “settlement”, do we need to change the date? For a fun discussion of “change the date”, see  

So, change the date—to what?

 

 

Greater honour to the inferior member (1 Cor 12; Epiphany 3C)

We continue this week hearing from a well-known section of the letter that Paul and Sosthenes wrote to the believers in Corinth. In the chapter proposed in the lectionary passages last Sunday and this coming Sunday (1 Cor 12:1–31), Paul and Sosthenes address the nature of the community that has been formed by those who formerly were “pagans … led astray to idols” (12:2). They have now have come to believe that “Jesus is Lord” (v.3) and desire to follow his way in their lives through offering their gifts in service (vv.4–7).

Paul and Sosthenes

In Corinth, however, the gifting of the Spirit has been claimed by some as a basis for unedifying behaviour, which as Paul and Sosthenes say,  tears apart, rather than builds up, the community. This is manifested in various ways, including (as we noted last week) in the worship of the Corinthian community, where, fuelled by their sense of being “the spiritual ones”, some people unleash chaos in the gathering. This is in contrast to the desire of the letter writers that in this gathering “all things should be done decently and in order” (14:40), as befits the God who is “a God not of disorder but of peace” (14:33).

In the passage from 1 Cor 12 proposed as the Epistle for this coming Sunday (1 Cor 12:12–31), Paul and Sosthenes offer a strong affirmation to the Corinthians about the wide reach and inclusive invitation that characterises the work of the spirit: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13).

I rejoice that these words have been taken up in my church, the Uniting Church in Australia, as the basis for fostering a broad community of faith, across multiple social factors which could divide rather than unite (in paragraph 13 of the Basis of Union). Ministry is enabled by the gift of the spirit. To anyone. To everyone. It is a fine ideal.

That paragraph of the Basis affirms that “every member of the Church is engaged to confess the faith of Christ crucified and to be his faithful servant”. It continues with a declaration, grounded in the scriptural witness (1 Cor 12) that “the one Spirit has endowed the members of Christ’s Church with a diversity of gifts”. 

In writing to the Corinthians, Paul and Sosthenes first identified a range of gifts (1 Cor 12:8–10), and then emphasised the claim that “the body does not consist of one member, but of many” (1 Cor 12:14). As a result, each and every member plays an integral role in the whole. From this, they deduce that “the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable … God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member” (1 Cor 12:22–25). The context in Corinth has shaped the direction into which Paul develops this image.

Honour and shame were central features of ancient Mediterranean societies. Possessing much honour reflected a high social status; gathering much shame reflected low social status. Public debate amongst males was a key way in which honour was demonstrated; besting another person in such a debate was a means by which an increase in honour could be attained. Acting in a way that brought shame upon oneself meant that the amount of honour attributed to you would diminish. Women acting in ways that were not in accord with the patriarchal structures of the time would also be considered as shameful. A woman’s place was, literally, in the home.

Jesus did not shy away from the challenge to his honour and authority that public debating posed. He engaged in many debates, responding with confidence to challenges to his honour as various questions were posed to him, as is reported in Mark’s Gospel: “why does this fellow speak in this way? it is blasphemy! who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7); “why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (2:16); “why do your disciples do not fast?” (2:18); “by what authority are you doing these things?” (11:28); “is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” (12:14). According to Mark, he bested his opponents on each of these occasions; he was a public debater of the first order. 

Honour was praised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle as “the greatest of all external goods” (Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 1), whilst Xenophon considered that honour was what differentiated humans from animals (Hiero 7.3). Philo of Alexandria, bridging both Jewish and Hellenistic worlds, affirmed that “fame and honour are a most precarious possession, tossed about on the reckless tempers and flighty words of careless men” (Abraham 264).

The honour—shame culture runs through the Hebrew Scriptures. The ancient Hebrews affirmed that honour belongs primarily to God (1 Chron 16:27), so that God could bestow honour on those who were faithful to his ways (Ps 92:14-15). The same idea is expressed in the version of Isa 28:16 which is cited at 1 Pet 2:6, which  modifies the ending to provide explicit reference to the claim that God will not shame believers. God can thus honour human beings (Ps 8:5), even those regarded as shameful (Zeph 3:19); and conversely, God could shame those accorded honour by humans (Isa 23:9). Paul later reflects this early in his first letter to Corinth (1 Cor 1:27).

And later in that letter, Paul and Sosthenes addressed the hierarchical ranking that is integral to the honour—shame culture, and offered a completely counter—cultural perspective. “The members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable”, he asserts; and so too, “those members of the body that we think less honourable we clothe with greater honour” (1 Cor 12:22–23). Accordingly, he advocates that “our less respectable members” should be “treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this” (12:23:—24). This is how this part of the letter upends the conventions of his time.

Then Paul and Sosthenes provide the theological rational that undergirds this perspective; “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another” (12:24–25). The pastoral conclusion that they draw from this—reinforcing the sense of equality that should mark the community of followers of Jesus—is that “if one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together with it” (12:26). It is the fundamental lesson in standing firm against the culture because of the demands that the Gospel places on believers.

A Reflection for the Day of Mourning (19 January 2025)

Since 2019 the Uniting Church has marked a Day of Mourning on the Sunday before 26 January to reflect on the dispossession and ongoing injustices faced by Australia’s First Peoples, acknowledge our shared history and renew our commitment to justice and healing. The Uniting Church has acknowledged our nation’s history through its Preamble to the Constitution, Covenanting Statements, and at many other times through its covenanting journey.

I will be giving this reflection on Sunday 19 January 2025 at the Dungog Uniting Church.

Artwork by Zoe Belle, Guwa Koa and Kuku Yalanji woman

Prayer of Confession

Merciful God, as Second Peoples of this land, whose ancestors travelled and settled in Australia, we acknowledge with sorrow the injustice and abuse that has so often marked the treatment of the First Peoples of this land.

We acknowledge with sorrow the way in which their land was taken from them; the way their their language, culture and spirituality was suppressed.

We acknowledge with sorrow that the Christian church was so often not only complicit in this process but actively involved in it.

We acknowledge with sorrow that in our own time the injustice and abuse has continued.

We have been indifferent when we should have been outraged, we have been apathetic when we should have been active, we have been silent when we should have spoken out.

Gracious God, forgive us for our failures, past and present. By your Spirit, transform our minds and hearts so that we may boldly speak your truth and courageously do your will. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Reading Isaiah 62:1–5

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,
and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,
until her vindication shines out like the dawn,
and her salvation like a burning torch.
The nations shall see your vindication,
and all the kings your glory;
and you shall be called by a new name
that the mouth of the LORD will give.
You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate;
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your builder marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you.

Reflection

We all know, I expect, what it feels like to be deeply disappointed; let down, betrayed, forsaken, abandoned. The emotions felt at such a time—emotions of despair and desolation—are named in the reading from Isaiah 62 which we have heard today. 

This part of Isaiah comes from the time when the exiles from Israel were returning to their land, leaving behind the difficulties they experienced during their five decades of exile in the foreign land of Babylon. They had returned to a devastated city; it probably looked like the images we have seen on our TVs, from bombed residential areas in Syria and Gaza, to the devastation of mass destruction of buildings from tornadoes in Florida and Louisiana and fires in Los Angeles. 

In just such a setting, as the people laboured day and night to rebuild and restore their beloved city, an unnamed prophet speaks out, bringing a word of hope: “You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate, but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her and your land Married.” The hope that the prophet offers is of a time when desolation is left behind, when the sense of being forsaken has been replaced by loving acceptance and care and belonging; the language of a marriage provides a good analogy.

There are people in our midst, in this town, across this country, who know that sense of desolation and being forsaken. Today we remember them, especially, on a day which the Uniting Church now names as the annual Day of Mourning. On this day, we remember that First Peoples, custodians of this land since time immemorial, caring for creation in their respectful lifestyle and customs, were invaded, colonised, massacred, marginalised, and demonised.

The massacres across the country that took place from the early years of British settlement into the second decade of the 20th century, and the shattering of families by the removal of the stolen children, which lasted well into the 1960s, have given the Gringai, Worimi, Biripi, Wonnarua, and many other peoples cause for ongoing lament and despair. Many still alive today remember what was done to them or to their parents and grandparents. The pain is live.

So on this Day of Mourning, we commit to standing with the First Peoples, acknowledging their pain, sharing their distress (to the extent that we can), treating them respectfully, and committing to work for justice for the First Peoples today. We should know that their pain is still real, present, and powerful. 

The referendum held last year offered a ray of hope across the country; fuelled by a campaign of disinformation that played on fears and prejudices, that hope was shattered. The Uniting Church had joined with many other Christian denominations, and leaders of a number of faith communities, to advocate a Yes vote. We have shared in the disappointment of First Peoples, and the sense that this is yet another hurt that they have to bear.

On Australia Day in 1938, a large group of protestors marched through the streets of Sydney, followed by a congress attended by over a thousand people. One of the first major civil rights gatherings in the world—decades before Martin Luther King Jr led massive rallies in the USA—it was known as the Day of Mourning. Following the congress, a deputation led by William Cooper presented Prime Minister Joseph Lyons with a proposed national policy for Aboriginal people. Unfortunately, this was rejected because the Government did not hold constitutional powers in relation to Aboriginal people. That changed in 1967.

From 1940 until 1955, the Day of Mourning was held annually on the Sunday before Australia Day and was known as Aborigines Day. In 1955 Aborigines Day was shifted to the first Sunday in July after it was decided the day should become not simply a protest day but also a celebration of Aboriginal culture. This led to the formation of the National Aborigines Day Observance Committee (NADOC), which later then became NAIDOC, the week in July focussed on remembering Aboriginal people and their heritage.

In 2018, At the Uniting Church Assembly in Melbourne—which Elizabeth and I attended—it was decided to reinstate an annual Day of Mounring on the Sunday before Australia Day. So we stand in a grand tradition, and we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, people who have cared for this land over millennia—many, many thousands of years. 

This year, President Charissa Suli and Congress chairperson Mark Kickett invite us “to listen deeply and learn humbly, and bear one another’s burdens; to receive the outstretched hand of friendship offered in grace and hope, and to trust in Jesus, whose reconciling love continues to mend the brokenness within and among us.”

They remind us that “the same ancient Spirit of God which has always been present in these lands has given us ‘a destiny together’ as the body of Christ in this time and place”, and so invite us “to celebrate the immense gift we have in each other [as First and Second Peoples], giving thanks for the transformative and boundless love of Christ which holds us.”

Let us pray.

Gracious God, we know that reconciliation between First and Second Peoples is a challenge. We sense that this must begin with reconciling ourselves in truth and humility with you, our God.

We know that is then that we can do the work of being peacemakers and justice seekers.

So help us to act responsibly and respectfully, to care for one another and to support one another. Amen.

We sing The Aboriginal Lord’s Prayer

Artwork by Zoe Belle, Guwa Koa and Kuku Yalanji woman

Prayers adapted from the resources for the Day of Mourning 2025, https://uniting.church/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Day-of-Mourning-2025_Final.pdf

Artwork by Zoe Belle, Guwa Koa and Kuku Yalanji woman. “The artworks depict the story of Christ’s presence being amongst First Peoples of these lands of his creation for generations. His teachings have long been displayed within the stories, songs, dances and ceremony First Peoples have used them to connect with God as great Creator and teacher for our communities.”

All are activated by the same Spirit (1 Cor 12; Epiphany 2C)

This coming Sunday and the following Sunday, the lectionary suggests that we read and hear a well-known section of Paul’s letter to the believers in Corinth. In this chapter (1 Cor 12:1–31), Paul addresses the nature of the community that has been formed by those who formerly were “pagans … led astray to idols” (12:2) and have now have come to believe that “Jesus is Lord” (v.3) and desire to follow his way in their lives through offering their gifts in service (vv.4–7). 

What follows in this chapter—and in the subsequent ones that the lectionary proposes on the Sundays ahead—provides a good basis for considering fundamental matters of faith and discipleship throughout the season of Epiphany. It is, after all, a season focussed on revelation; and Paul’s words are quite revealing!

Actually, they are not just Paul’s words (although that is how we usually refer to them). Paul collaborated in the writing of many of his letters—of the seven agreed authentic letters, only two are written by Paul alone. The others are written in association with Timothy (2 Cor, Phil, 1 Thess and Phlm), Silvanus (1 Thess), and Sosthenes (1 Cor). So it is words from this last letter, co-written with Sosthenes, that the creators of the lectionary are offering us during the season of Epiphany. 

A depiction of Paul and Sosthenes

In opening this letter, Sosthenes and Paul tell the Corinthians that they write to “give thanks” (1:4) and also to “appeal to you” (1:10); and later, to “admonish you as my beloved children” (4:14). The constructive approach that they bring is made clear in the opening prayer of thanksgiving (1:4–9). Writing in chapter four, the author (here, presumably Paul) exhorts the Corinthians: “I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me” (1 Cor 4:16; see also 1 Thess 1:6). The letter contains many points of appeal, exhortation, encouragement—and also challenge, correction, and criticism!

This coming Sunday we focus on verses 1–11 of chapter 12. This is an instance of exhortation and encouragement (in the later part of the chapter, which we read and hear on the following Sunday, challenge and correction will occur). In these verses, Paul considers the diversity of expressions of faith that can be found in the faith community in Corinth—as, indeed, there are in many other communities of faith. He notes the diversity of gifts, the various ways of providing service, and the range of activities undertaken by “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Cor 1:2). 

Each gift, service, or activity, however, has a common origin. It is “the same Spirit” who grants the diversity of gifts evident in the community (12:4), “the same Lord” who is the motivator for the array of offering service by those believers (v.5), and “the same God” who activates all of the activities that is evident in Corinth (v.6).

It is worth noting that an alternative way to translate this might be “the same God who energizes all of the expressions of energy”. The Greek words being translated as “activate” and “activities” relate to the central idea of energy; indeed, the foundational word is ἐνεργήμα, which when transliterated letter-for-letter results in “energēma”, from which we get the English word “energy”. So the Spirit is presented as an active, dynamic force, which is at work in a lively, tireless, and vital fashion. 

In this passage, Paul places a particular emphasis on the unity that is—or at least, should be—a key feature of the group of people who are joined together by the common affirmation, “Jesus is Lord” (v.3). He affirms that the gifts, acts of service, and activities expressed by those people “are activated by one and the same Spirit” (v.11a). It is that Spirit who “allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses” (v.11b).

The irony, however, is that in the eleven chapters preceding this passage, there have been multiple signs of the many ways in which disagreement, conflict, division, and factionalism mark the community of believers in Corinth. There have been ethical breaches, instances of sexual misbehaviour, diverse views regarding marriage and related issues, and mistreatment of fellow members of the community who are seen as “weak” by some who perhaps regard themselves as “strong”. Has the Spirit be so energizing that the disruptions caused by the Spirit’s activity have promulgated all of these problems?

Further, the critical issues which Paul addresses in the chapters immediately following, in the later part of the letter (1 Cor 12–14), arise out of the highly spontaneous, seemingly chaotic situation that characterised worship in Corinth. How the Spirit was active—energizing—those who worship in this gathering! It was anything but a reverent gathering of people unified by their faith; it was a chaotic frenzy of activity and words, if Paul’s severe wording is to be believed.

Such worship had more the nature of a dialogue between conversation partners, rather than a monologue delivered by one person to a group of silent listeners. We can see this in a simple way, with the references to “interpreters” in what Paul writes to the Corinthians. Whilst there are people who contribute words of prophecy, pray in tongues, or speak in tongues (1 Cor 14), in each case there is the need for someone to interpret these phenomena. It seems that many things were happening simultaneously, creating a frenzied cacophony during worship. If we see the energizing of the Spirit as a disruptive force, then much disruption has occurred!

For my reflections on the disruptive work of the Spirit in Corinth, see

The Disruptive, Transforming Spirit (part three): the Spirit in Corinth

So in 1 Cor 12, Paul adapts an image which was extensively used in political discussions about the city state (“the body is one and has many members”, 12:12) as well as what may be a reference to a developing baptismal liturgy within the early church (“we were all baptised into one body”, 12:13) and a very early creedal statement (“Jesus is Lord”, 12:3).

The work of the Spirit was supposed to provide a range of gifts for the mutual benefit of all involved in the community. Paul provides a list of just such gifts in verses 8–10. He notes wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. This should not be taken as an exhaustive list; in other places, Paul refers to other gifts, such as teaching, exhorting, giving,leading, and offering compassion (Rom 12:7–8), as well as power and assistance later in this chapter (1 Cor 12:28). 

He also identifies some offices exercised by people alongside gifts already noted, as he concludes this same discussion of gifts: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” (1 Cor 12:29–30). Similar offices are noted in a later letter written in the name of Paul: “apostles … prophets … evangelists … pastors … teachers”, all,of which are said to be “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph 4:11–12).

Nor should this list of 1 Cor 12:8–10 be regarded as a prioritising of such gifts by the order in which they are listed. In fact, the concluding comment of v.11 specifically places all of the gifts noted on the same level, each equally “activated by the one and the same Spirit” and “allocated … just as the Spirit chooses”. We should affirm that today; all gifts for service come from the same source.

Ominous clouds overshadowing a joyous celebration (John 2; Epiphany 2C)

For the second Sunday in Epiphany, we are offered a passage from early in the book of signs—the work that we know as the Gospel according to John. It is the first sign performed by Jesus, when he was attending a wedding in the town of Cana in Galilee (John 2:1–11).

I call this Gospel the book of signs because it includes seven clearly narrated signs, or miracles, performed by Jesus. Most of them are inserted in the midst of an evolving narrative, in which followers of Jesus grow in their understanding of who he is, whilst at the same time a movement of those opposed to Jesus gains strength. Both of those features are evident in this first sign.

The author of this Gospel makes it clear that there were more signs performed by Jesus than what is narrated (20:30), and that the signs actually narrated are told in order to strengthen the faith of those hearing or reading them (20:31).

The first and second signs take place in Galilee (2:1–11, 4:46–54). Subsequent signs are located in Jerusalem (5:2–9), the Sea of Galilee (6:1–14), on the Sea of Galilee near Capernaum (6:16–21), back in Jerusalem (9:1–7) and then, for the seventh, and final, sign of those narrated, in Bethany, where Lazarus had recently died (11:17–44).

This final sign provides a clear climax to the Book of Signs, the first half of the whole Gospel. This is the miracle supreme—raising a dead person back to life takes some beating! It is told at some length, with many details, leading to the climactic moment of the appearance of the once-dead man, now alive. “The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” (11:44).

In the literary framework of the whole Gospel, however, this building to a climax through the seven signs is paralleled by the growing tension as leaders in the Jewish community marshal forces in plotting against Jesus. Initially, there were positive responses to Jesus (2:23, 4:42, 4:45). Then, an engagement in debate and controversy with “the Jews” (5:13) quickly escalated into persecution (5:16) and indeed an attempt to kill Jesus (5:18).

This early opposition then continues unchecked throughout the narrative. Whilst Jesus remained popular in Galilee (6:14, 34) and amongst some in Jerusalem (7:31, 40-41a, 46: 8:30; 9:17, 38; 10:21, 41) and Bethany (11:27, 45), hostility towards Jesus continued, being expressed both in verbal aggression (6:41, 52; 7:15, 20; 8:48; 9:18-19; 10:20), threats of his arrest (7:32, 44; 11:57), direct physical threats (stoning at 8:49, expulsion from the synagogue at 9:22, and stoning once more at 10:31) and threats against his life (7:1, 25, 32).

Then, at the climactic moment, after Lazarus appears, the Jewish leadership plans a strategy to put Jesus to death (11:45-53). The plot is hatched, the fate of Jesus is sealed. That section of the narrative also includes the famous, yet ironic, comment by Caiaphas: “it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (11:50). And so the inevitable process begins, moving towards the death of Jesus (11:53, 57). 

For the author of the book of signs, affirming the identity of Jesus shapes the whole narrative of this Gospel. Each sign points to the significance of Jesus. The first sign, in Cana of Galilee, manifests his glory (2:12); the next sign, also in Cana, fosters belief in Jesus (4:48, 53). What Jesus does beside the Sea of Galilee identifies him as “the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (6:14), whilst the sign performed in Jerusalem signal that he is  the Son of Man (9:35–38). Later, in Bethany, Jesus raises Lazarus from death, and Martha articulates the faith of others when she confesses Jesus to be Son of God and Messiah (11:27). Alongside these seven signs, the various interpersonal encounters that are narrated illuminate the identity of Jesus.

I read the whole sequence of scenes in this Gospel, from the wedding in Cana, with its implicit criticism of “the Jewish rites of purification” (2:1–11), through the heated debates of chs. 5—8, the high drama of the multi-scene conflict with Jewish leaders and “expulsion from the synagogue” in ch.9, on into the plot of ch.11, as a story that reflects the position of the followers of Jesus who comprised the community in which this book was eventually written. 

This group of people (what Raymond Brown called “the community of the beloved disciple”) had been rejected by their fellows, expelled from their community of faith, because of their views about Jesus. They had become yet another sectarian group in the mixture of late Second Temple Judaism, which then bled into early Rabbinic Judaism. 

It is this “Johannine sectarianism”, as Wayne Meeks called it, which explains the bruising debates in this Gospel; Jesus is being remembered as “standing up for the truth” by a group of people who had been pillaged and persecuted for standing up for what they say as “the truth”. They had become outsiders; some of them had met death for the stand they took. This was what it meant for them to be faithful to Jesus. 

This tragic development is a natural development, at least as the author tells it, from that initial sign, where Jesus is already portrayed as being in tension with others of his own faith. Although it was a wedding—a time of joyous celebration—there were ominous clouds overshadowing what transpired in Cana that day.

Wayne Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism”, JBL 91 (1972) 44–72)

Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist, 1978)