Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul
The church has been tempted by fragmentation since the very beginning. 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 assumed 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 colour 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. There are minor splits, like I just mentioned. And then there are major splits, where chunks of the church essentially deny each other. This happened with the council of Chalcedon in 451, which was about the nature of Christ, which led to the breaking off of the oriental churches (like the Coptics). But even more significant was 1054, when the Western church and the Eastern church excommunicated each other. Then, of course, we have the Reformation in the 16th century as the Western church split into Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. … We have seen this fragmentation happen more recently over pretty much any controversial topic.
This has been a temptation since the very beginning. Arguments 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, vaccines, sports, whatever. … We find this kind of division inside all religions if they are made up of more than one person.
For example, Buddhism is usually brought up as an example of a religion that doesn’t have the kind of fighting we are talking about. But that’s mostly because those in the West don’t actually know much about the history of Buddhism. When studying Buddhism in university I read about a group of Buddhist monks that burned down the monastery of another set of Buddhist monks.[1] 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 controversies 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 or non-Jewish. There are many references in the Scriptures about the Nations coming to worship God of Israel. How does that work? The Jewish dietary laws, purity laws, and circumcision practices were (culturally) for the Jewish people, not for non-Jewish people. The nations could keep their own culture, to the degree that it they can and not deny the way of Jesus. If Christianity was for everyone in the world (all the nations), then Jewish and non-Jewish people had to come on equal footing.
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 customs 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.
This was a live question. It 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, and speaking about Peter, writes, “I opposed him to his face” (Gal 2:11-14). At some point Peter had separated himself from eating with non-Jewish people. Paul confronted Peter about this. We don’t know why Peter does this.
Peter could have reacted by saying, “who do you think you are? I walked with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, you came after his resurrection. You are correcting me?” But, that’s not what happened.
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 him 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.
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 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.
Whatever the reason for his change, others took notice and a division started. Soon there was an issue with how Gentiles should be treated in the Church. Paul noticed Peter’s shift, 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, 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 or conservative theology. … Then there are churches based on ethnicity- Scottish churches, Dutch churches, English churches, Pilipino churches, Sudanese churches.
Some will say, well that’s because of the diversity of people. People who are more extroverted and energetic and emotional will be more drawn to Pentecostal churches. Those who are more contemplative and introverted might be drawn to a church like the Anglican Church, or the Quakers. … 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. We often allow ourselves to be separated by musical or liturgical taste, or nationality rather than work for the unity that 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 came 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 Jewish culture.
Gentile believers were asked to follow the commandments that aligned with the expectations placed on God-fearers, who were Gentiles who worshipped the God of Israel without fully converting to Judaism. These expectations were connected to the covenant God made with Noah, which was understood to apply to all humanity. So, the apostles weren’t inventing something new; they were affirming a long-standing biblical framework for how Gentiles could live in covenant with God without becoming Jewish. … The disciples came to an agreement and a unified voice. They all believed that Jewish and Gentile unity was important, and they were willing to find a way to make that work that was faithful to the way of Jesus.
In some things, Paul was very strong, and he wouldn’t give an inch. There were some other things where Paul allowed a people’s conscience to differ. In 1 Cor 10, Paul talks about differing opinions within the church, and acknowledges that people can have these varied opinions, though he cautions that that freedom should not be used in a way to cause offence to others, and therefore divisions.
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 this conflict between them was a relatively small event in their lives. I don’t think they held any lasting resentment towards one another. … Luke, the companion of Paul, writes very positively of Peter in the book of Acts. Paul acknowledges Peter as a key apostolic figure (1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, and 15:5). … And Peter, in his letter, calls Paul his “beloved brother” and speaks positively of Paul’s writings, though, he does say that they can be difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16).
When Peter and Paul are thought of together there is one other thing that comes to mind. Tradition tells us that Under Nero they were both imprisoned in Mamertine Prison (the Tullianum) (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 (64-67AD). 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 I look at Peter and Paul and the Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians that were under their care, I’m amazed that they were able to keep the church from fragmenting at that time in the church’s history. I think it’s important for us to remember them when we have disagreements in the church. This stuff can be very bad for our souls, bad for the church, and it can present a very bad image to the world. Jesus prayed that we would “all be one. … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). … That doesn’t mean we pretend everything is all okay. But, it does mean that unity, forgiveness, and reconciliation, are worth working for. Divisions and arguments are easy; unity is hard work, but it is what we are called to.
Amen.
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 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.
Whatever the reason for his change, others took notice and a division started. Soon there was an issue with how Gentiles should be treated in the Church. Paul noticed Peter’s shift, 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, 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 or conservative theology. … Then there are churches based on ethnicity- Scottish churches, Dutch churches, English churches, Pilipino churches, Sudanese churches.
Some will say, well that’s because of the diversity of people. People who are more extroverted and energetic and emotional will be more drawn to Pentecostal churches. Those who are more contemplative and introverted might be drawn to a church like the Anglican Church, or the Quakers. … 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. We often allow ourselves to be separated by musical or liturgical taste, or nationality rather than work for the unity that 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 came 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 Jewish culture.
Gentile believers were asked to follow the commandments that aligned with the expectations placed on God-fearers, who were Gentiles who worshipped the God of Israel without fully converting to Judaism. These expectations were connected to the covenant God made with Noah, which was understood to apply to all humanity. So, the apostles weren’t inventing something new; they were affirming a long-standing biblical framework for how Gentiles could live in covenant with God without becoming Jewish. … The disciples came to an agreement and a unified voice. They all believed that Jewish and Gentile unity was important, and they were willing to find a way to make that work that was faithful to the way of Jesus.
In some things, Paul was very strong, and he wouldn’t give an inch. There were some other things where Paul allowed a people’s conscience to differ. In 1 Cor 10, Paul talks about differing opinions within the church, and acknowledges that people can have these varied opinions, though he cautions that that freedom should not be used in a way to cause offence to others, and therefore divisions.
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 this conflict between them was a relatively small event in their lives. I don’t think they held any lasting resentment towards one another. … Luke, the companion of Paul, writes very positively of Peter in the book of Acts. Paul acknowledges Peter as a key apostolic figure (1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, and 15:5). … And Peter, in his letter, calls Paul his “beloved brother” and speaks positively of Paul’s writings, though, he does say that they can be difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16).
When Peter and Paul are thought of together there is one other thing that comes to mind. Tradition tells us that Under Nero they were both imprisoned in Mamertine Prison (the Tullianum) (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 (64-67AD). 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 I look at Peter and Paul and the Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians that were under their care, I’m amazed that they were able to keep the church from fragmenting at that time in the church’s history. I think it’s important for us to remember them when we have disagreements in the church. This stuff can be very bad for our souls, bad for the church, and it can present a very bad image to the world. Jesus prayed that we would “all be one. … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). … That doesn’t mean we pretend everything is all okay. But, it does mean that unity, forgiveness, and reconciliation, are worth working for. Divisions and arguments are easy; unity is hard work, but it is what we are called to.
Amen.
[1] For
example, the tension between different Buddhist sects in medieval Japan,
particularly during the Kamakura and Muromachi periods. Some warrior monks,
known as sōhei, were affiliated with powerful temples like Enryaku-ji
and Miidera, and they did engage in violent clashes—including burning rival
monasteries.
Comments
Post a Comment