Recently, I was asked whether I prefer traditional church architecture or modern church architecture.  I responded that, after almost four decades of being a pastor, I prefer church architecture that has the fewest roof leaks, plumbing problems, and equipment failures. 

The enquirer found my response to be a novel perspective on the beloved Catholic pastime of debating the relative merits of things like church architecture, vesture for clergy and religious, and the language of liturgy.  To paraphrase Scripture, where two or three Catholics are gathered, countless conflicting opinions are expressed.  We should find the content of today’s first reading, therefore, to be very familiar. 

The event narrated in the Acts of Apostles occurred in the Jerusalem church congregation in the first few years following Jesus’ resurrection.  The teachings of Jesus were attracting increasing numbers of new disciples.  The Jerusalem congregation began as a gathering of Aramaic speaking Jews, called “Hebrews” in today’s reading.  In short order, Greek speaking Jews, called “Hellenists” in the reading, began to join the congregation. 

The conflict described in this passage of the Acts of the Apostles resulted from an inequity in the “daily distribution,” presumably of food to poor congregation members.  It’s not clear from the text whether the Aramaic speakers discriminated against the Greek speakers or they were simply unaware of the needs of the Greek speaking widows. 

The text is very clear, however, about how the conflict was resolved.  The Aramaic speakers, who seem to have had the political power within the congregation, chose men recognized as leaders by the Greek speakers.  Those trusted community leaders were charged with addressing the needs of the Greek speaking widows.  This solution seems to have been satisfactory to everyone. 

The event is reported in the Acts of the Apostles not merely for historiographic purposes but to reinforce a central aspect of Jesus’ teaching – teaching, not coincidentally, that drew these two groups together in the same congregation.   

Jesus’ teaching included the admonition that one should treat other people in the way that one wishes to be treated by others. (Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31)  Those with greater political power in the Jerusalem congregation took seriously the criticism expressed to them, and they responded in a way that they judged equitable, even in the event that the circumstances were reversed.  They chose leaders acceptable to the Greek speakers; in doing so, the Aramaic speakers acknowledged that had they been the ones complaining, they would have found it acceptable to have some of their own people assigned to address the perceived problem. 

The author of the Acts of the Apostles made a none-too-subtle statement about how all conflicts in a congregation, if not all conflicts, are to be addressed.  When resolving conflict, the solution that satisfies both the demands of the Faith and the demand for practicality is the solution that would be acceptable to oneself if the circumstances were reversed.  In this event in the Acts of the Apostles, a new community structure was developed but the new structure was merely ancillary to the fundamental desire of those with power to treat others the way they themselves wanted to be treated. 

Throughout the history of the Church, there has remained the recurring temptation to edit the Scriptures or Church teaching to accommodate comfortably the opinions of individuals or groups.  In today’s first reading, the congregation leaders made the wise and faithful choice to change their practices rather than to change or ignore the Scriptures and Jesus’ teaching.  The author of the Acts of the Apostles intended his readers to understand that when there is a conflict between the content of the Scriptures and the content of one’s behavior, it is one’s behavior that needs to be edited. 

At some point in your life, you’ve probably listened to a homily that suffered from lack of sufficient editing.  Editing is necessary for a homilist because not all the articles of faith need to be addressed on a single Sunday, and not all parishioners can remain awake and alert for an indefinite period of time.  A good homily addresses both the demands of the Catholic Faith and the demands of human nature. 

A similar dynamic is at work in each person’s life.  It is a great service to others to edit one’s behavior in order to be conformed to the demands of Jesus’ teaching; it is also the faithful choice to do.