Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul
One of the oldest temptations the church faces is fragmentation. We are constantly and continuously tempted to walk away from
each other. In university I took a class on Christian history. My professor,
Dr. Robinson, held up a book that listed all the known Christian denominations,
which at that time numbered at somewhere over 20,000. Many of these
denominations consisted of only one church. He then told us his two favorite
churches/denominations. One was “the Church of God on Turtle Hill”, the other
(in the same town) was “The True Church of God on Turtle Hill”. It’s amazing how a whole history can be imagined in the one word “true”. You can imagine there was some sort of a disagreement
that happened. It could have been over something theological- like how faith
and works determine your salvation. But, it might also have been the result of
an argument about the color of the carpet. Whatever it was it caused a division
in the church and there arose “The TRUE Church of God on Turtle Hill”.
Unfortunately, this is a sad reality in the history of the
Church. The largest major split was 1054 when the western church split from the
eastern church. Then, of course, we have the Reformation in the 16th
century as the western church split into Protestant and Roman Catholic churches.
But, this also has happened on a smaller scale more recently as denominations
struggled over issues like women in ministry, divorce, new prayer books, or a
variety of other things.
This has been a temptation since the very beginning. This
doesn’t have anything, in particular, to do with Christianity. Argument and broken
relationships are very human. We find it inside and outside religion. Human
beings don’t need religion to argue. They are very creative and will find all
kinds of things to argue about- politics, money, education, sports,
whatever. We find this kind of division inside all religions if they are made
up of more than one person. When studying Buddhism in university I read about a
group of Buddhist monks that burned down the monastery of another set of
Buddhist monks. To argue and fight is quite human, we don’t need religion to do
that.
Since argument and division are very human they have always
been a temptation in the church. One of the earliest arguments in the church
was about how non-Jewish people became followers of Jesus. Jesus, of course,
was Jewish. All his disciples were Jewish. Christians believed Jesus was the
expected Jewish messiah. It was a
thoroughly Jewish movement. It seemed to make sense that people who wanted to
become Jesus followers should, in some way, become Jewish. There were some who
believed that males had to be circumcised, that they had to eat according to
Jewish food laws, and they also had to live according to the Laws of the Old
Testament.
Others said that this movement was for the entire world,
Jewish and non-Jewish (Gentile). The Jewish dietary laws, purity laws, and circumcision
practices were for the Jewish people, not for non-Jewish people. If
Christianity was for everyone in the world, then Judaism and non-Jewish people
had to come on equal footing even though Jesus came to the world through Judaism.
So the question the church had to deal with was how Jewish do
you have to be to become a Christian? This was a very important question and it
had important consequences. To eat according to Jewish dietary laws meant that
you did not share a table with people who did not. The Church gathered around a
meal of bread and wine. What was at stake was whether Jewish Christians could
sit around the table and share the bread and wine with non-Jewish people who
didn’t keep the Old Testament food laws. It was a huge barrier. From a Jewish
perspective it just made sense that people would become Jewish as they joined
the church.
This question gave rise to a dispute between
St. Paul and St. Peter. Paul tells his side of the story in his letter to the Galatians.
He remembers the conflict saying, “I opposed him to his face” (Gal 2:11-14). At
some point Peter had separated himself from eating with non-Jewish people.
In Acts 10 we read that Peter met with a man named Cornelius who
was a Roman Centurion and not Jewish. Peter spoke to him and his household
about Jesus. As an observant Jew, Peter was not supposed to visit the house of a
non-Jewish person, but a vision made Peter change his mind. We read that,
“while Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:44-48).
The Holy Spirit confirmed that Cornelius and
his household could come directly to the church without having to become Jewish
first.
Based on his experience with the household of Cornelius Peter knew that non-Jewish people could join the church as
they are, without needing to be circumcised, or eating kosher, or following the
purity laws of the Old Testament. At some point Peter pulled away from what he
knew to be right and held back from eating with non-Jewish people, which
contradicted his experience with Cornelius. We don’t exactly know why. It may
have been that some Jewish-Christians convinced him that it was Important (which seems to be Paul's opinion). Or (this is my personal opinion),
it might have been that Peter went along with it in order to not offend the
Jewish households where he was sharing the message of Jesus. For a similar
reason Paul had Timothy circumcised so that they wouldn’t offend the Jewish
community (which seems like a pretty drastic step compared to not eating
together). Whatever the reason, others took notice and a division started. Soon
there was an issue with Jewish-Christians eating with Gentile-Christians. Paul noticed and
when they were together in Antioch Paul called him on it.
I am amazed that there wasn’t a Gentile Church and a separate
Jewish Church. That’s what we would do. We have churches that cater to
particular musical taste- do you like rock music, classical music, no music, or country?
There are churches that cater to liturgical taste- are you high church, or low
church? Do you like incense and kneeling? If you like old fashioned language
you can go to that church, if you like modern language you can do to that one.
There are churches with long sermons or short sermons, or liberal theology, conservative theology, and everywhere-in-between theology. Some will say, well that’s because we are all so
different that each church would have something different to offer different
people. I have no doubt that God uses the different churches to reach people
with a variety of tastes and personalities, but I think our divisions are most
often a thing to repent of, since more often than not it is bowing to the god of consumerism. We often allow ourselves to be separated by musical
or liturgical taste rather than work for the unity Christ commands.
I am amazed that there wasn’t a Gentile-Christian Church and
a separate Jewish-Christian Church. The confrontation between Paul and Peter
might have given rise to this kind of a division. Paul was strong in his
confrontation. He didn’t keep his opinion to himself for the sake of keeping
the peace. This issue was far too important to let it slide. This is a recipe
for division. But, that’s not what happens. A council is called at Jerusalem
(Acts 15) where certain church leaders gathered, including Paul and Peter. They
discussed the issue and come to an understanding as to what needed to be done.
Peter seems to have admitted his error and comes alongside Paul in agreement
that faith in Jesus is central, not the works of the law. Gentile believers
were asked to follow a few simple laws to not offend the Jewish believers in
their churches. They come to an agreement and a unified voice even though Paul
would not back down from what he believed to be true. They all believed that
Jewish and Gentile unity was important and they were willing to work for it.
In some things Paul was very strong and he wouldn’t give an
inch. There were some other things where Paul allowed a person’s conscience to
differ even within the church. One example is eating meat that had been
dedicated to idols. Some said they shouldn’t support the pagan system that
provided the meat, others though it was superstitious to fear idols and didn’t
worry about where the meat came from for the sake of eating with family,
friends, and business associates. Paul left that up to individual consciences,
but with the stipulation not to let your freedom offend someone whose
conscience differed from yours. Paul believed that in most things we should be
willing to give up our freedom to serve one another and to not offend one
another if possible.
For almost 2000 years this confrontation between Peter and
Paul is what comes to many people’s minds when they think of the relationship
between Peter and Paul. I suspect it was a small event in their lives and don’t
think they held any resentment towards one another. When Peter and Paul are
thought of together there is one other thing that comes to mind. Under Nero
they were both imprisoned in Mamertine Prison (if a prison is known by name
2000 years later, you didn’t want to go there).
They were both killed in Rome
around the year 64 AD. As a Roman
citizen, Paul was beheaded. Peter was nailed to a cross upside down because he
told his executioners he wasn’t worthy to die like his Lord.
As Christians we should look to Peter and Paul and the
Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians that were under their care. They
worked for unity against amazing odds. We need to remember them when we have a
disagreement, especially with another Christian. That kind of dispute is bad
for the souls of those involved, but it is also poison for the church. That
doesn’t mean you pretend everything is all okay. You will likely need to get
everything into the air, but unity and forgiveness are worth working for.
Divisions and arguments are easy, unity is hard work, but worthy work.
Amen.
Comments
Post a Comment