Brief synopsis of the readings: Following last week’s reading from Acts we see the beginnings of some dissension in the ranks. Paul and Barnabas had begun to preach to the Gentiles. Some of the Jewish followers of Jesus told the Gentiles they needed to be circumcised or they could not be saved. This created some discussion, with Paul and Barnabas disagreeing, and it was decided that a group would travel to Jerusalem and ask the apostles and elders for a decision. The apostles and elders agreed with Paul and Barnabas that Gentiles who wished to follow Jesus did not need to be circumcised. Their wish was “not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage.” Returning to John’s Gospel, Jesus (in a discourse during the Last Supper) directed his followers to “keep my word.” Jesus then foretells the coming of an “Advocate, the Holy Spirit” who will teach them, then tells them that he will leave but will come back. “And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.”

And they all lived happily ever after. That’s how our first reading was supposed to begin. Remember last week Paul and Barnabas gathered with other believers in Antioch (modern day southern Turkey) with the good news that they successfully evangelized some Gentiles (non Jews) as well as some of the Jews. Today we now see no distinction between these two groups but that was far from obvious then. There were some in Antioch who believed that in order for these Gentiles to become followers of Jesus they would first have to become Jews. This meant several changes, but the most obvious is that the men and boys would have to be circumcised. I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that many of them had no interest in this and it may well have called some of them to rethink their decision.

So why did these Jews make this demand? The text doesn’t say for certain but I think we can suggest some motivations. As we know all of Jesus’ first followers were Jews and some of their practices (e.g. eating only kosher meat) limited their contact with non Jews. The Jews had little connection with and even less understanding of outsiders and they may have assumed “you have to become one of us” to follow Jesus. I also think there may have been other, perhaps more sinister, motives.

The Old Testament books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy make hundreds of demands on the Jews to separate them from non Jews. Some of these demands were difficult and it’s not hard to see how some could take great pride in their willingness to sacrifice for their identity and their faith. The idea that Paul and Barnabas are not issuing these same orders could be seen as unfair. “We had to endure this, so they should too.” I remember talking with someone who graduated from West Point (United States Military Academy). Their first year is a tough one as they are called “plebes” and endure trials often enforced by upperclassmen. He told me that they received the harshest treatment from sophomores who thought it was “their turn.” It was sometimes almost a standardized revenge. As they were treated badly by their upperclassmen it was there turn to dish it out. That’s fine for West Point but I don’t think it has any place in how we evangelize. Discipleship is hard enough without having to prove that you’re “worthy” to join our community. Simply put there is no room for initiation or unnecessary burden.

As you know the Catholic church underwent major changes in the 1960s. The mass was now said in the common language, the priest now faced the congregation, and we no longer told people that only Catholics would get into heaven (among other changes). Some priests had no trouble with these changes but others simply could not stomach them and several “retired early.” I spoke with one of the priests who did well and I asked him about it. He explained that he was never much interested in the trappings of priesthood and kept his eyes focused on his parishioners and what they needed. For all that changed, this didn’t. His parishioners still needed to understand their place in God’s kingdom and how they should treat (and love) each other.

He also suggested that priests who didn’t respond well bemoaned the fact that priests were seen as more human and they felt they were treated with less respect. Under the guise of “this will destroy the church” they argued that making the church more approachable would lead to confusion among the faithful. In reality they feared that they would no longer be seen as the sole speakers in God’s name. Knowing they could no longer convert people by telling them that only Catholics get into heaven took away their best and easiest strategy. And the curriculum of the seminary changed from strict memorization to a deeper understanding of theology and the needs of the faithful. They felt unequipped because they didn’t focus on their parishioners but themselves.

As I said at the beginning we don’t know the motivation of the Jews who demanded the Gentiles become Jews first and it may have been a simple lack of imagination. And frankly I hope it was. But I think we need to keep vigilant in the motives of our beliefs.

There’s a reason we revere Paul and Barnabas after all these years and all these changes. I spoke last week about how Paul was a Pharisee and how much respect and adulation he received in that role. But when he saw Gentiles show interest in following Jesus he put his resume aside and focused on them instead of himself. Even though he followed all the Jewish laws he didn’t demand that others do the same.

As for us, well, I think we all have ideas how our fellow disciples should act and that’s not a bad thing. But if our ideas don’t help them become more loving people and we insist on demanding respect, perhaps we should look at that.