“Being gentle to one another and having forgiveness for one another, if anyone has done wrong to his brother, even as the Lord had forgiveness for you: And more than all, have love; the only way in which you may be completely joined together.” Colossians 3,13-14

 
A severe crisis is borne upon the Christian movement in the early days. James and many followers were supporters of circumcision based on the Mosaic Law, whilst Paul and others defended a complete independence from the Gospel.

Circumcision was an exterior rite, a “sign of pact”, placed on every male descendant of Abraham, as a reminder of the Alliance that Yahweh established with his people. It meant a commitment with the people of Israel, as well as with the God of Israel himself. To reject circumcision meant to be “expelled” from the  people (Gn 17, 10-14). Foreigners who wished to enter communion with the people of Israel and with its God, as well as to celebrate Easter and take part in other blessings , had to be submitted to this rite, the circumcision, no matter what his age was (Gn 34, 14-17, 22; Ex 12,48). Circumcision was made an obligatory pre-requisite of the Mosaic Law. ”And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus, 12-13). It was so important that, if the 8^th day fell on the sacred Sabbath, even then they should perform it (Jo 7, 22-23).. John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul were circumcised on the “eight day” (Lc 1,59; 2,21;Fl 3,5).

Paul comprehended this question with rare depth and kept a fierce observance of the controversies that rose around this subject, as well as the ones about pure and impure foods and the resolution of Christian Jews not to sit at the table with Greek Christians, and not to visit their homes. As he feared, the problem threatened to cause a rift in the Christian community and put the work he had been doing with the gentiles at risk. ⁽¹⁾

The brothers from Jerusalem, who had never been away from their land and did not understand the situation of the gentiles, did not consider the converted gentiles true Christians, stating that that could not be accepted without accepting the Mosaic Law first.

This issue did not worry converted Jews, neither the converted proselytes ⁽²⁾. However, in the community of Antioquia, which was made up, in its majority, of Christians with their origins in paganism ⁽³⁾, their ties with Judaism were weak, creating some serious problems.  

Jesus promised to improve the Law – For those, to be subject to the rite of circumcision or the rituals of the Mosaic Law meant an unacceptable burden, reducing the experience of Christian freedom to the narrowness of the synagogue, denying the universality of the message of salvation of Jesus.

Behind all of that there was a double and more serious problem, one of a religious kind, and another of a social nature. If it continued like that, we’d have first class Christians, or wholesome Christians, and half-Christians, creating in the new-born Christianity two groups: one interior and another exterior. The Jewish view, concentrated in Jerusalem and led by James, stated that Jesus was born under Moses’ Law, and he had not arrived to null it, but to enforce it, as he affirmed that it’d be fulfilled to the last tilde and the last iota⁽⁴⁾ (Mt 5, 17-18).  

They forgot that Jesus had promised to improve the law and that throughout many passages he expressed himself that way: “The ancient used to say…but I’ll tell you now” (Mt 5, 21-22; Jo 8).

Emmanuel brings back and clarifies these moments in his magnificent work Paul and Stephen, presenting on chapter 5 – Struggles throughout the Gospel – the more serious and critical arguments, which brings us excellent food for thought and learning, to us who seek to be prepared for the moments of crisis that happen in our life, and also amidst spiritualistic institutions and among their helpers.

“Spiritualistic gatherings offer great advantage, for they allow for the enlightenment of the ones who take part in them, through the exchange of ideas, by questioning and observing. But for them to bear fruit, some conditions are a must, which we will examine. So, it is a mistake to compare them to ordinary meetings.” (The Book of Mediums – Chap. 29 – item 324.)

The purpose of such appointments is to identify in the clashes of thought between James and Paul, refereed by Simon Peter, the ethics of alterity.

Ethics, according to the dictionary scholar Aurelio Buarque de Holanda, is the group of norms and principles that make up good human conduct; from a of good and evil viewpoint.

The challenge of getting along with the ones who think differently- Alterity is the quality or nature of another, different. We may understand that alterity is to put yourself in the place of the other in an interpersonal relationship, with consideration, identification and dialogue. The exercise of alterity applies to relationships of individuals as well as of ethnical, scientific, religious and cultural groups. Therefore, the establishment the establishment of a relationship of peace with the different, being able to live well with the difference the other bears, that’s the ethics of alterity.

The practice of alterity adds up to the interpersonal relationships between human beings.

Alterity is a word that’s been gaining more and more use the social environments of the 21^st Century, however, the word itself means nothing if it’s not followed by practice.      

“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? (Mt 5, 46-47 – The Gospel According to Spiritualism, Chap 12 – item 1.)

The challenge of getting along with those who think differently, the opposite, and learn to respect them and love them in their diversity is an ethical challenge in spiritualistic centers for their chairmen and collaborators.

For that, we don’t need to give up our vision but defend it, like Paul and Stephen, on page 471, during an argument between Barnabas and Paul:

“The air was charged up. The Gentiles of Antioquia watched the speaker closely with awe and gratitude. The sympathizers of pharisaism, on the contrary, did not hide their resentment, in face of that seemingly audacious courage. Then, overwhelmed by indefinable feelings, Barnabas spoke and considered.

_Paul, I’m one of those who feel sorry for your attitude now. What right do you have to attack the pure life of a Christ’s follower? 

The ex-rabbi’s lecture was terse and frank – This, he’d ask with a hampered voice. Paul and Peter were his dearest friends.

Far from being impressed by the question, the lecturer answered with the same frankness:

_Yes, we do have a right: the right to live with the truth, to abolish hypocrisy, and what is the most sacred - to spare the name of Simon from the Pharisees’ attacks, which I know very well and was able to escape by going towards the clarity and the redemption of the Gospel.  

The ex-rabbi’s lecture continued tersely and frankly. Occasionally, Barnabas would add something, making the argument even more fierce.

However, throughout the discussion, Peter was the most remarkable by his august serenity and peaceful countenance.”

The differences between views shouldn’t be, necessarily labeled flaws or serve as reference in order to cause indifference or separation, only because we fail to understand the choices and the path of others, which can be improved if we acquire the ethics of alterity.

Through the alteritarian relationship it is possible to establish a peaceful and constructive relationship with others, as we identify, understand and learn with the opposites. In order for the process of alterity take place, however, we must be aware of a few aspects of the differences:

a) Identification – in order to do that we must eliminate all prejudice and stick to the real identification of the other person’s views, knowing that stem from their psychological structure, formed throughout the multiple experiences from this life and past ones;

b) Understanding – we try to understand the conscious reasons and, even, the unconscious ones (fears, aspirations and motivations), in order to make superficial evaluations or definite and closed ones, that stop us from widening our understanding of the other’s stance and the identified differences;

c) Learning – this phase allows us a mutual accessibility, receptiveness to the feelings of the other, enabling us the clarification and the maturity through experiences lived throughout the times which brings us wisdom.

Peter had a difficult dilemma before him - We can learn a lot about identifying the differences in this report by Emmanuel about the thoughts of Simon Peter:

“In those brief instances, the apostle Galileo considered the sublimity of his task in the spiritual battlefield, through the victories of the Gospel. On one side there was James, fulfilling a high mission in Judaism; from his conservative attitudes a lot was done for the maintenance of the church of Jerusalem, erected as a landmark for the Chistianization of the world; on the other side there was the powerful figure of Paul, the brave friend of the gentiles, in the execution of a sublime task; from his heroic deeds derived a torrent of enlightenment for the idolater peoples. Which one had received the highest teachings? At that time, the former fisherman begged Jesus to give him the necessary inspiration for the faithful observance of his duties.”

Peter also helps in understanding each other:

“One needed to be fair, impartial; The Master loved everyone, indistinctively. He’d shared the eternal wealth with all creatures. Through his compassionate and magnanimous eyes, gentiles and Jews were brothers. He experienced then, a singular sharpness to consciously examine the circumstances. He should love James for his generous care with the Israelites, as well as Paul of Tarsus for his extraordinary dedication to all who did not know the idea of a fair God.

The former fisherman of Cafarnaum noticed that most of the assembly members had curious eyes towards him. The brethren of Jerusalem had a pale face letting a little bit of anger show off. All seemed to invite him to an argument. Barnabas had red eyes from crying and Paul seemed more and more frank, criticizing hypocrisy with his sudden logic. The Apostle preferred silence, in order not to harm the faith of the ones who have been captured by the light of the Gospel; measured the extension of his responsibility in that unforgettable minute. To be raged would be to deny the values of Christ and lose his work; to lean towards James, would mean to be partial; to give absolute reason to Paul’s arguments would not be fair. He tried to put together in his mind the teachings of the Master and remembered the unforgettable sentence: - To be the greatest server of them all. This precept gave him great consolation and spiritual strength.”

Peter then stood up and requested the floor – The learning of alterity shown by Peter, throughout the years, was determent for the equalization of a fundamental question:

“When the fisherman saw that the divergences lingered on indefinitely, he stood up and asked for the floor, citing what the acts of the Apostles account for:

Peter stood up and addressed them. 'My brothers,' he said, 'you know perfectly well that in the early days God made his choice among you: the gentiles were to learn the good news from me and so become believers. But we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus.' (Chapter 15, vesicles 7 and 15).

The Father, who knows people’s hearts, gave the circumcised and the uncircumcised the word of the Holy Spirit.

The Master exemplified the need for constant harmonization: He lectured with the scholars of the temple; went to homes of publicans’; showed excitement to those who had hope; accepted the ultimate ordeal amongst thieves. Why should we pretend to be isolated from those who experience a greater need? We shouldn’t forget that the Gospel arrived when the Law had already been in place. If The Master brought it, with love, enduring a heavy ordeal, it wouldn’t be fair if we put it in the box of conventional traditions. Wasn’t it Christ who told us to preach the good news throughout the nations? Of course we cannot despise the wealth of the Israelites. What we must love in the children of the Law, who are us, is the expression of elevated experiences that get to our hearts through the many that came before Christ, in the never-ending task of preserving the faith in an only God. 

Alterity teaches us to treat everybody well – To abandon a gentile to his fate would be a cruel prison, instead of practicing the love that erases all sins. And it is why we know so much about the Jewish and treasure divine precepts, that we must establish a better fraternal relationship with the Gentile, converting him in an element of divine fructification. We believe that God purifies the heart through faith and not earthly things. If today we say grace for the glorious triumph of the Gospel, which instituted our freedom, how to impose new disciples a burden we cannot carry ourselves? I suppose that circumcision shouldn’t be obligatory to those who become converted to the love of Jesus Christ, and I believe we can only be saved the divine grace of The Master, extended to ourselves and them also.”

We may learn a lot from those ‘clashes’ between Paul and James in the “War for the Gospel” and, mainly, from the safe leadership of Simon Peter.

“The exhortation of the ex-fisherman gave room to countless interpretations; if it talked about the loving respect for the Jews, it also referred to a burden they cannot bear to carry. Nobody, however, dared to deny him the prudence and common sense. (…) In everything there was, now, a tone of general satisfaction. The observances of Peter rang a deep bell in every brethren.”

Let’s not forget that there’s no merit in treating well the ones who treat us well, but to treat well the ones who don’t treat us well. By the relationship of Alterity it is possible to treat well everyone, regardless of how they treat us. The growth is imminent when we deal with those who think, feel and behave different from us, in a relationship with Alterity.

We can only achieve Alterity if we dispose ourselves, in the face of the different, to stop, see, hear attentively and ponder calmly and, after that, act sensibly and determination, always based on common sense and the rationalized faith under the light of the promised Consoler.

Footnotes: 

⁽¹⁾ Gentiles: non-Israelite peoples or nations.

⁽²⁾ Proselytes: a converted Jew, someone who embraced judaism, circumcised (if a man).

⁽³⁾ Paganism: a general term normally used to refer to plytheist religious traditions.

 ⁽⁴⁾ Iota: it’s the ninth letter of the Greek alphabet.
 

Sources: 

XAVIER, Francisco Cândido. Paulo e Estêvão. By the Spirit Emmanuel.  36.ed. Rio de Janeiro:FEB, 2001. cap. V.

KARDEC, Allan. O Evangelho segundo o Espiritismo. 112. ed. Rio [de Janeiro]:FEB, 1996. cap. III – item 2.

KARDEC, Allan. O Livro dos Médiuns. ed. 112. ed. Rio [de Janeiro]:FEB, cap. XXIX. item 324.