Brief synopsis of the readings: In the Acts of the Apostles some men came down from Judea and told the brothers that unless they are circumcised they cannot be saved. Paul and Barnabas objected and it was agreed that a delegation would go to Antioch to meet with the elders who will rule on this. The group met with the elders who responded these “men from Judea” acted without authority and that nobody should be forced into circumcision: “It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to saddle you with any burden beyond these essentials: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from fornication.” John’s Gospel continues his theme from Jesus that anyone who loves him will keep his word, and God will also love them. Also expect the Holy Spirit who will teach what needs to be known. Jesus also reminds them that while he will leave, he will return.

Whenever circumcision becomes the issue I feel a pang of empathy for parents. We want them to learn Scripture and to pay attention to the readings in church but no children’s book on the bible will touch this issue and I can imagine a 10 year old child asking what that word means.

And frankly, it’s worth us reviewing it too. In Genesis, as part of the covenant between God and Abram (Abraham), all males from that point forward will be circumcised. As a child I assumed that this was the first instance of circumcision in the world, but it wasn’t. We don’t know precisely when or why but it predated Abraham. And while Muslims encourage it, to this day circumcision holds an important religious place only in the life of a jewish male.

As you might have guessed, this issue in our first reading isn’t fully about circumcision, but about adherence to the law. I’ve spoke about this before but the first generation of believers after Jesus had some important decisions to make and perhaps this was the most important: if a gentile (non jew) wants to follow Jesus must he undergo a two part initiation? Must he first become a jew by circumcision and then a disciple of Jesus through baptism? Or does baptism suffice?

That sets the scene for our first reading. All of Jesus’ followers at the time of his Resurrection were observant Jews who had been circumcised and so were Paul and Barnabas. But Paul and Barnabas were clear that baptism would suffice and there was no need to be circumcised. But the men from Judea, operating without any mandate or instruction, claimed otherwise and this created what could have caused a major conflict and even a split in the early church.

They resolved this fairly quickly by seeking a ruling from the elders in Antioch. It’s easy to miss this but it’s an important point. Even this early in our history we had a hierarchy that both sides would respect. When the delegation left both sides agreed to their ruling and they did. Any organization, from a two person law firm to a government, must pledge this loyalty or it will not survive. When a priest is ordained he pledges obedience because of this. In his life as a priest many things will change and the goalposts will likely move a few times. But a group of freelancers will destroy what they claim to join.

This discussion on circumcision was one of the first conflicts in our history, but far from the last. I don’t think either side had bad intentions but instead assumed theirs was not the correct decision but the only one.

In my long career as a hospice chaplain I worked at several organizations. At one point my current agency closed down and we were absorbed into another agency. Both place required that the teams meet weekly and the first organization had us meet in a conference room at a local church (with nobody else in the room). It felt this integrated us into the community and raised our profile. The second organization expressed horror at this, believing that any meeting not on company property violated patient privacy. There was no objective right or wrong, just a clash of cultures.

But, alas, there are times when the motives are not so sincere. Time and again when I was in full time ministry I listened to someone insisting that it was not their but God’s they were advocating for. This included everything from where to place the choir to what time to celebrate midnight mass.

A few years ago I was in my yard speaking with my neighbor when I saw his wife going to another neighbor next door with a large bottle of wine in tow. Chuckling, he explained to me that his wife recently took a job at their synagogue and was exposed, for the first time, to the “politics of faith.” She went to the neighbor to commiserate and figure out how to maintain her values while keeping her sanity.

I’ve talked about this in the realm of faith, but truthfully I see it more often with parenting. When I used to do marriage prep I would often attempt to discuss how they expected to parent their children. After reminding me that I was celibate sometimes they told me they expected no problems with this and were at times a little annoyed with me. But when I began to discuss hypothetical situations I got their attention and convinced them that the needed to discuss this at length. And to the children of those couples, you’re welcome.

Somebody asked Abraham Lincoln if he thought God was on his side. This was his response: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Let us remember that.