Michael and Jesse took a long time to make the decision. They loved First Church. They loved the people. They loved their Sunday school class. Their kids love the youth group. But it was a big decision for them to decide to put their names forward for membership. They knew it would be a controversial issue in the church when they decided to join…because Michael was black and Jesse was white.

They knew it would be controversial at First Church, because their relationship had been controversial at every church that they attended, and in both of their families. So they weren’t surprised when the business meeting turned contentious. Most people were polite in their concern, but some were downright nasty. “It isn’t natural.” “The Church has to stand for what’s right.” “The Bible is clear on this issue.” “If we keep watering down our faith, how are we any different than the rest of the world?” In the end, the family was voted in by a rather wide margin. But for Michael and Jesse, they would always know that there were certain individuals who didn’t want them there.

This homemade parable could have taken place in the unrest of the Civil Rights era of the 60's. Or last week, in some of our churches. When questions of changing cultural expectations hit the church, it gets messy. It is complicated to try and discern how the church is to engage in these cultural debates. What does it mean to be faithful to the message of God, and when are we just raising up a cultural standard, assuming it is God’s Will? When are we watering down the faith, and when are we participating in a faith that is dynamic and ever-changing?

These were the questions that faced the early Church. Today’s Scripture passage tells the story of two of the early church leaders, Paul and Barnabas, and their work wrestling with these questions. They also had faced more than one contentious church meeting, and now found themselves in the middle of a fight between those who felt like the Holy Spirit was dynamic and creating a new way of living the faith…and those who felt like the “newness” was an abandonment of cherished values of the past. While the emotional processes are similar to Michael and Jesse, the issue in Acts is obviously a very different one.

In this case, the issue at stake is circumcision. All the way back, since Genesis 12, when God covenants with Abram, circumcision was a symbol of that covenant. It was the way that God’s people set themselves apart from the Egyptians and the Philistines and the Assyrians and Babylonians and Persians and Greeks and now the Romans. This symbol, alongside of a very specific way of living and eating and worshipping, was central to their faith. It was the way that Abraham and Moses and David and Ezra and Jesus and the disciples had lived their lives. These were symbols of their faith, and they were the signs that one had chosen to follow Yahweh. Like a wedding ring is a symbol of that relationship, or the flag a symbol of citizenship in a country. For generations these were expectations—indeed requirements—to follow the One True God. If someone is to join this community, circumcision is expected.

But now, those long-held traditions are being questioned. After the stoning of Stephen, the Church began to scatter, and reach out to Gentiles…those who had not held to these traditions of Abraham. But these Gentiles were falling in love with Jesus. And early church leaders, like Paul and Barnabus, began to see the Holy Spirit at work in these Gentile believers. These uncircumcised, non-tradition-following Gentiles seemed like they were demonstrating the presence of God. And exhibiting gifts of the Holy Spirit of God. How should the Church respond?

Let me suggest that we are about ready to find ourselves in a similar situation here in 2021. Not only are we wrestling with significant cultural changes and shifts, but the pandemic has caused us to have to ask a new set of significant questions about what it means to be