Now Peter Did It
Galatians 2:11
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Back when I was in college (no, my philosophy prof was not Aristotle...I am not that old), a foursome of Christian Fundies of the self-righteous sort came to campus to preach against the young drunken and fornicatin' collegiate heathen.
The lead preacher's name was Brother Jed. There was one other guy and two women with no affect (the women had about the responsiveness of dolls, with strings to pull in their back, who would reply in pre-recorded one sentence answers).
The evangelical "Gang of Four" set up stage and preached, seeing themselves as prophets inveighing against wickedness. It turned into a circus; the preachers were laughingstocks. It is one thing to be a fool for Christ. It is another thing to be a plain old idiot. It seemed even Brother Jed was getting a kick amusement-wise out of it all...for all of his invective, I could see him smile at times through his harsh words.
If we are to preach judgment, we should do so through tears...not guffaws.
Brother Jed's male sidekick, the Robin to Brother Jed's Batman, was a dude who held that once a person became a true Christian that this converted individual would not sin any more. Being a new Christian and relatively unlearned in the Scriptures, I mentioned Peter's betrayal of Christ as evidence that Christians...the Apostle Peter no less...could still sin. Robin said that Peter had not been converted at that point. Theologically, I think he was wrong--even now that I know the Bible better--but I could have selected a stronger verse, way after Jesus had ascended, that would show Peter as far than perfect and sinful.
John Wesley wrote, "Perhaps the general prejudice against Christian perfection may chiefly arise from a misapprehension of the nature of it. We willingly allow, and continually declare, there is no such perfection in this life, as implies either a dispensation from doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God, or a freedom from ignorance, mistake, temptation, and a thousand infirmities necessarily connected with flesh and blood."
Presbyterians like me have no problem with acknowledging our simultaneous "Saint and Sinner" status. It probably comes too easy to types like us...like it gives us an escape clause from the practice of repentance and confession.
This event in Antioch (mentioned in Chapter 2 of Galatians) where Peter stopped eating with non-Jewish believers when the Judaizers came to town (like Brother Jed & Co Traveling Self-Righteous Show) would have split the early Church when she was an infant. If Paul had not publicly performed radical surgery on Peter's cowardice, the threat of early schism would have been deadly. It is doubtful I would be writing these words now if Peter's sin had not been absolutely confronted and killed.
Like a chain reaction in a nuclear explosion, the uranium of divisiveness would have split the house in two. And, and Jesus said, "A house divided cannot stand."
As Christians, we need to stand on our unity rather than our differences. I see our differences as a mixed bag of both good and bad. Ecclesiastical separation, like our government's "checks and balances" can keep the reigns of power out of the hands of a few. Yet, our differences on theology, eschatology, etc. can become divisive.
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Back when I was in college (no, my philosophy prof was not Aristotle...I am not that old), a foursome of Christian Fundies of the self-righteous sort came to campus to preach against the young drunken and fornicatin' collegiate heathen.
The lead preacher's name was Brother Jed. There was one other guy and two women with no affect (the women had about the responsiveness of dolls, with strings to pull in their back, who would reply in pre-recorded one sentence answers).
The evangelical "Gang of Four" set up stage and preached, seeing themselves as prophets inveighing against wickedness. It turned into a circus; the preachers were laughingstocks. It is one thing to be a fool for Christ. It is another thing to be a plain old idiot. It seemed even Brother Jed was getting a kick amusement-wise out of it all...for all of his invective, I could see him smile at times through his harsh words.
If we are to preach judgment, we should do so through tears...not guffaws.
Brother Jed's male sidekick, the Robin to Brother Jed's Batman, was a dude who held that once a person became a true Christian that this converted individual would not sin any more. Being a new Christian and relatively unlearned in the Scriptures, I mentioned Peter's betrayal of Christ as evidence that Christians...the Apostle Peter no less...could still sin. Robin said that Peter had not been converted at that point. Theologically, I think he was wrong--even now that I know the Bible better--but I could have selected a stronger verse, way after Jesus had ascended, that would show Peter as far than perfect and sinful.
John Wesley wrote, "Perhaps the general prejudice against Christian perfection may chiefly arise from a misapprehension of the nature of it. We willingly allow, and continually declare, there is no such perfection in this life, as implies either a dispensation from doing good, and attending all the ordinances of God, or a freedom from ignorance, mistake, temptation, and a thousand infirmities necessarily connected with flesh and blood."
Presbyterians like me have no problem with acknowledging our simultaneous "Saint and Sinner" status. It probably comes too easy to types like us...like it gives us an escape clause from the practice of repentance and confession.
This event in Antioch (mentioned in Chapter 2 of Galatians) where Peter stopped eating with non-Jewish believers when the Judaizers came to town (like Brother Jed & Co Traveling Self-Righteous Show) would have split the early Church when she was an infant. If Paul had not publicly performed radical surgery on Peter's cowardice, the threat of early schism would have been deadly. It is doubtful I would be writing these words now if Peter's sin had not been absolutely confronted and killed.
Like a chain reaction in a nuclear explosion, the uranium of divisiveness would have split the house in two. And, and Jesus said, "A house divided cannot stand."
As Christians, we need to stand on our unity rather than our differences. I see our differences as a mixed bag of both good and bad. Ecclesiastical separation, like our government's "checks and balances" can keep the reigns of power out of the hands of a few. Yet, our differences on theology, eschatology, etc. can become divisive.
Comments