Church authority
This week's verses are Galatians 2:11-14:
These verses are in the middle of a letter from Paul, talking about the struggle that was going on in the church at the time over whether Christians needed to adopt Jewish customs or not (the verdict was that they did not) and whether or not Gentile believers were a lower class of believer than the Jewish believers (they were not.) But the interesting thing about these verses isn't what they say about that controversy but what they say about healthy church leadership.
Earlier in the letter, Paul describes Peter (Cephas), James, and John as pillars of the church. A lot of people look at Peter as the sort of first senior pastor of the first church growth movement in the early church, or the first pope. But here Paul, not listed as a pillar even in his own letter, opposes Peter to his face, in front of the others! This is a shocking change from how the Jewish priesthood worked, if you remember how the Sanhedrin reacted when the high priest was insulted during a trial elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul, who didn't join the church under the best of terms, and who ran a rather controversial ministry, was allowed to openly rebuke a man who, if not the high priest, was on a list of people who would have filled that sort of role.
Protestants use these verses, among others, to question the notion that a pope should be infallible, as though it were just a Catholic thing. But I've seen enough Protestant pastors, particularly in denominations that are vehemently anti-Catholic, that might as well be mini-popes for how their congregation sees them, and for how they present themselves. No Christian is infallible. If any Christian in history would have been, it probably would have been Saint Peter, and yet he is well known for making mistakes despite being an awesome man.
A lot of churches like to turn to the Old Testament to describe church authority. They use examples like Moses and King David as how church leadership should be viewed. Pastors describe themselves as "God's anointed" and then point to all of the stories where God struck people down for opposing God's anointed leaders in the Old Testament. (I'm serious! Look at some of the books on leadership and spiritual authority out there.) You can't blame them for trying. Any organisation runs more smoothly when nobody questions anything. But this is the leadership model from before Jesus died on the cross, when he needed specialists to manage the law and mediate between his perfection and mankind's unwashed sin. It is the world view of the Pharisees and Sadducees, not the expectation of Jesus for his church.
They say the world changed the day Jesus died on the cross, so it shouldn't be surprising that the way mankind is supposed to relate to each other before God also changed. If things were still the old way, people would have torn their garments when Paul spoke up, and dragged him outside to stone him for blasphemy. "How dare you insult the high priest! You were steeped in sin and a murderer for years so who are you to question Peter's ministry?" If it were the way the Old Testament describes things with Moses, we should have expected fire from heaven to come down and burn Paul in front of everyone, and then the ground would have opened up and swallowed him whole for an express trip to Hell. And yet Paul was allowed to speak up without repercussions.
But what does that mean for us? Does that mean we have to put up with our Sunday sermons being interrupted by dimwitted undergrads fresh out of Philosophy 101? Not at all. Let's look at the context of what Paul did. Paul says he opposed him because he had "clearly done wrong." What Peter did wasn't some minor quibble or a difference in opinion.
Paul also says that Peter, and those who were following him, weren't "behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel." In other words, not only was Peter clearly wrong, but his behaviour was public and was affecting the church. This wasn't something based on hearsay, but an obvious public problem.
And we know that Peter should have known better, because Paul tells us that he used to do the right thing. And we also know that God had given Peter a vision telling him that the Gentiles were also allowed in the church. So Paul knew that what Peter was doing was outside of God's will for the church, because God had actually weighed in on the topic awhile back.
So, for serious things which are clearly wrong and are affecting the church, a public rebuke is fine. But while somewhat cringeworthy, Paul's rebuke wasn't something out of Jerry Springer. It was firm and accusatory, but it was emotionally neutral and done in love both for the church and for Peter, who was actually a pretty decent guy. He's not calling names, or filming it with his cell phone while he calls him out. He addresses it in the gentlest way possible, but publicly enough that those led astray can hear the rebuke too. And when he describes it to us, he makes sure to tell the clear surgical reasons why he did it. As Christians, we shouldn't be afraid to address things like this in their proper context.
And now, because we've used him as an example of hypocrisy, we can look at Peter and his exemplary behaviour in handling the rebuke. Peter is probably the least sanitised of all of the disciples, at least as far as how far the writers have not gone to clean up any of his gaffes. When I read about him, I think of the best CEO I ever worked for, a man who was a human ball of energy, all passion, who would launch himself into every decision, good or bad, at 100% full throttle. If Peter had handled this badly, we would certainly have heard about it.
We don't hear about Peter just waving his hand and ignoring Paul. Nor do we hear Peter's indignation. "Oh so you're judging me? Twenty years ago you were murdering people, so maybe you'd better look at yourself before you decide to come against me!" We don't hear anything about Peter slandering Paul afterwards, telling people he's a heretic or that he's a bitter man who is doing his own thing counter to the church vision.
I don't know how Peter reacted, but my guess is that he took the rebuke with Christian humility and admitted Paul is right. The fruit of the Holy Spirit keeps egos in check. We know that he loved God, so it was a simple question of which he loved more: His public image or God's church. On a deeper level, Paul's rebuke probably addressed the fear of judgement that made him abandon his good behaviour in the first place. As leaders, we should be open to critique, even if it's embarrassing and inconvenient.
Healthy church leadership is siblings looking out for each other. The leadership Jesus models leads from the bottom, not the top. As humans, even humans at their best, we are frequently wrong. The best way to keep things healthy is to be as open about mistakes as we are about success.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
These verses are in the middle of a letter from Paul, talking about the struggle that was going on in the church at the time over whether Christians needed to adopt Jewish customs or not (the verdict was that they did not) and whether or not Gentile believers were a lower class of believer than the Jewish believers (they were not.) But the interesting thing about these verses isn't what they say about that controversy but what they say about healthy church leadership.
Earlier in the letter, Paul describes Peter (Cephas), James, and John as pillars of the church. A lot of people look at Peter as the sort of first senior pastor of the first church growth movement in the early church, or the first pope. But here Paul, not listed as a pillar even in his own letter, opposes Peter to his face, in front of the others! This is a shocking change from how the Jewish priesthood worked, if you remember how the Sanhedrin reacted when the high priest was insulted during a trial elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul, who didn't join the church under the best of terms, and who ran a rather controversial ministry, was allowed to openly rebuke a man who, if not the high priest, was on a list of people who would have filled that sort of role.
Protestants use these verses, among others, to question the notion that a pope should be infallible, as though it were just a Catholic thing. But I've seen enough Protestant pastors, particularly in denominations that are vehemently anti-Catholic, that might as well be mini-popes for how their congregation sees them, and for how they present themselves. No Christian is infallible. If any Christian in history would have been, it probably would have been Saint Peter, and yet he is well known for making mistakes despite being an awesome man.
A lot of churches like to turn to the Old Testament to describe church authority. They use examples like Moses and King David as how church leadership should be viewed. Pastors describe themselves as "God's anointed" and then point to all of the stories where God struck people down for opposing God's anointed leaders in the Old Testament. (I'm serious! Look at some of the books on leadership and spiritual authority out there.) You can't blame them for trying. Any organisation runs more smoothly when nobody questions anything. But this is the leadership model from before Jesus died on the cross, when he needed specialists to manage the law and mediate between his perfection and mankind's unwashed sin. It is the world view of the Pharisees and Sadducees, not the expectation of Jesus for his church.
They say the world changed the day Jesus died on the cross, so it shouldn't be surprising that the way mankind is supposed to relate to each other before God also changed. If things were still the old way, people would have torn their garments when Paul spoke up, and dragged him outside to stone him for blasphemy. "How dare you insult the high priest! You were steeped in sin and a murderer for years so who are you to question Peter's ministry?" If it were the way the Old Testament describes things with Moses, we should have expected fire from heaven to come down and burn Paul in front of everyone, and then the ground would have opened up and swallowed him whole for an express trip to Hell. And yet Paul was allowed to speak up without repercussions.
But what does that mean for us? Does that mean we have to put up with our Sunday sermons being interrupted by dimwitted undergrads fresh out of Philosophy 101? Not at all. Let's look at the context of what Paul did. Paul says he opposed him because he had "clearly done wrong." What Peter did wasn't some minor quibble or a difference in opinion.
Paul also says that Peter, and those who were following him, weren't "behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel." In other words, not only was Peter clearly wrong, but his behaviour was public and was affecting the church. This wasn't something based on hearsay, but an obvious public problem.
And we know that Peter should have known better, because Paul tells us that he used to do the right thing. And we also know that God had given Peter a vision telling him that the Gentiles were also allowed in the church. So Paul knew that what Peter was doing was outside of God's will for the church, because God had actually weighed in on the topic awhile back.
So, for serious things which are clearly wrong and are affecting the church, a public rebuke is fine. But while somewhat cringeworthy, Paul's rebuke wasn't something out of Jerry Springer. It was firm and accusatory, but it was emotionally neutral and done in love both for the church and for Peter, who was actually a pretty decent guy. He's not calling names, or filming it with his cell phone while he calls him out. He addresses it in the gentlest way possible, but publicly enough that those led astray can hear the rebuke too. And when he describes it to us, he makes sure to tell the clear surgical reasons why he did it. As Christians, we shouldn't be afraid to address things like this in their proper context.
And now, because we've used him as an example of hypocrisy, we can look at Peter and his exemplary behaviour in handling the rebuke. Peter is probably the least sanitised of all of the disciples, at least as far as how far the writers have not gone to clean up any of his gaffes. When I read about him, I think of the best CEO I ever worked for, a man who was a human ball of energy, all passion, who would launch himself into every decision, good or bad, at 100% full throttle. If Peter had handled this badly, we would certainly have heard about it.
We don't hear about Peter just waving his hand and ignoring Paul. Nor do we hear Peter's indignation. "Oh so you're judging me? Twenty years ago you were murdering people, so maybe you'd better look at yourself before you decide to come against me!" We don't hear anything about Peter slandering Paul afterwards, telling people he's a heretic or that he's a bitter man who is doing his own thing counter to the church vision.
I don't know how Peter reacted, but my guess is that he took the rebuke with Christian humility and admitted Paul is right. The fruit of the Holy Spirit keeps egos in check. We know that he loved God, so it was a simple question of which he loved more: His public image or God's church. On a deeper level, Paul's rebuke probably addressed the fear of judgement that made him abandon his good behaviour in the first place. As leaders, we should be open to critique, even if it's embarrassing and inconvenient.
Healthy church leadership is siblings looking out for each other. The leadership Jesus models leads from the bottom, not the top. As humans, even humans at their best, we are frequently wrong. The best way to keep things healthy is to be as open about mistakes as we are about success.
Comments
Post a Comment