Church politics
We elders should be a little worried about this one. It certainly worries me —
(Gal 2:11 ESV) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
(Gal 2:11 NASB) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
(Gal 2:11 NIV) When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Increasingly, modern translations find that Peter (Cephas) stood in a condemned situation before Paul rebuked him. Why?
(Gal 2:12 ESV) 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Peter, an elder and an apostle, for fear of the circumcision party — the legalists in the church — acted as though he agreed with them, refusing to actively engage in fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles. He was not in fact in doctrinal error, but he pretended to agree with those who refused to fellowship the Gentiles for the most tempting of reasons: church politics. And he stood condemned. Not for doctrinal error but for living contrary to the gospel. He taught error by his actions.
(Gal 2:13 ESV) 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
As a result, his error spread because he was a leader.
Now, not all translators consider Peter to have been condemned for his hypocrisy —
(Gal 2:11 NAB) And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
(Gal 2:11 NET) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.
(Gal 2:11 NKJ) Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
The word translated “condemned” can mean “judged to be in the wrong.” Either way, no one should choose to be in Peter’s place!
Because of Peter’s silence, the sin of division spread. You see, by not actively bringing the Gentiles into the same fellowship as the Jews, Peter divided the church. And he knew it was wrong, but evidently seeking to avoid a confrontation, he acted as though the legalists were right.
Paul rebuked him to his face, and Peter repented. And had Paul not done so, the history of Christianity may have gone in a very different direction. But Paul labored intensely throughout his career to keep Jews and Gentiles together in the same church, in the same congregations, despite how incredibly difficult it was — and how unpopular it was among many of Paul’s countrymen.
Therefore, fellow elders, it’s not good enough to believe in grace as the Bible really teaches it. You have to live it, you have to teach it, and you have to work for your congregation to accept it. Because your silence will likely be taken as agreement with a wicked status quo where we treat the vast majority of our brothers and sisters in Christ as damned because they joined the wrong church. It’s wrong — and God will call his leaders to account in no uncertain terms.
Ouch! This truth hurts – but is needed.
And this points to the fact that there are times when we should confront members who are in the wrong. Simply nodding heads and shaking hands at church is not enough for leaders. There are times where taking a stand in love is required. Sometimes church leaders don’t have the stomach for what Paul did to Peter but they should
Think of this happening today.
We would simply take this as “meddling in the affairs of an autonomous congregation” and PAUL would be the one getting the condemnation as a busybody. When someone in Protestantism declared this doctrine of congregational autonomy (boy, would I like to find the fellow who infected us with that virus), it released us from recognizing any authority outside what we have appointed for ourselves. If this event took place in our day, Peter would have gone uncorrected, and that group either led back into quasi-Judaism or the church split between Jews and Gentiles.
I think one of the reasons for the initial appointment of elders by extra-local authority was to save the church from the very dynamic we have embraced– a church whose leadership looks like us and who answers to no one but each other.
Jay, do you think if Peter had chosen to eat with the gentiles instead of the Jews, that would have brought the two closer together.
This is another factoid Paul seemed to feel was important , but it could have only been important to his standing in that community. (factoid, something we believe only because it was in print) I don’t recollect any others as confirming this by witness. I might be the only one here who thinks so but it seems to me that Paul was continually trying to prove he was a selected apostle of the spirit of Jesus. I know I will be accused of saying Paul is lying, not so, this could very well have happened, what I do question is why, and why do we need to know this happened? And this is why people are surprised to read that an apostle we know possessed the HG/comforter, had to be confronted by another who claimed the indwelling as well.
Charles where is the proof that Paul followed protocol when confronting a fellow Christian. ?
Or did that not apply among “apostles”?
Charles assumes much in his tirade, Charles if this happened Peter was right, and Paul was wrong. Paul was right to confront Peter for his shortcomings, Peter was right for repenting, Paul was wrong when he continued to talk about it. He was spreading something that could only hurt Peter in his work. And I am sure it did no good for Paul, even at the time.
And I would really like to thank Jay here for bringing up the problem of silence as assent. He identified well Peter’s motive for not speaking up… that he didn’t want to offend a sizable chunk of the church membership, even though they were wrong. And Peter knew this better than anyone.
I continue to hear and read the traditional CoC doctrine of “We are the only ones going to heaven.” Most CoC preachers whom I know say, “Well, I don’t teach that and never have.” I believe them. But this is not enough. I can count on the fingers of one hand the preachers I know who have strongly debunked this doctrine and call it error from their home pulpits. Oh, there are few who meekly offer the “stray Christian” principle, which admits that, sure, there have to be a few true Christians scattered around in the Baptist church or other denominational churches, who have done everything just as we do, but who merely wound up under the wrong sign. But by the exception, they really prove the rule.
This is not enough. It’s not even close.
I appreciate men like Jay coming out in print against this old doctrine. But until CoC preachers rise up in their own pulpits against this deadly exclusivist doctrine, it will continue to hold its place in CoC belief and culture. Until elders insist that the pulpit be used to kill this doctrine, they will continue to feed it by their silence. We have watered this toxic tree by our exclusionary practices for so long that it has a tap root a mile deep. Your congregation will make a decision like Peter had to make: either dig it up and kill it or keep it alive by silence and subtlety. And as with Peter, to not make such a decision IS a decision, in and of itself.
Laymond, I don’t think James would be troubled by Paul’s action. He said, “My brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers, because we know that we teachers will be judged more strictly.” A fellow elder once explained this to me more succinctly, in relation to something I had done wrong: “Other people may be able to get away with that; you can’t.”
And what Paul did is not inconsistent with what he told Timothy to do: “But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.”
And in your continuing campaign to convince us that we do NOT have the Holy Spirit, you are now calling into question whether even Peter or Paul had such an indwelling, as clearly neither was perfect. We’ve heard it ad nauseaum, and we’ve rejected it.
Sorry, brother, but either Paul or Peter was in the wrong in this situation. Paul says it was Peter. No reason to doubt him, unless you want to doubt everything else he said.
There is nothing wrong with Paul reporting his encounter with Peter. For a public teacher, much less an apostle, simple acknowledgement of wrong is not always enough, when that wrong has been affecting the church. Paul was neither trying to support Peter nor harm him. He was uprooting a dangerous heresy which Peter had gotten entangled in by his actions. You are correct in suggesting that this confrontation did Paul no good. But that’s not why Paul did what he did. In fact, it makes the action all the more admirable for the risk it implies.
As an elder, God once called me to repent from the pulpit for speaking harshly to my wife in a public situation. I had already repented to her and received her forgiveness. But my public repentance was for the benefit of the congregation I led, for failing in my responsibility to them as a shepherd and as an example. I didn’t enjoy that experience very much. But when you have more responsibility, sometimes the weight is heavier.
“And what Paul did is not inconsistent with what he told Timothy to do: “But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.”
Charles was this advice given before or after the incident with Peter.? I agree that those who perceive they are qualified to teach, should make sure, Hey! that agrees with what I said in a different post here not long ago , and was ridiculed for saying so. I think you were one of the “naysayers”. so what do you “really” believe Charles?
Paul, being a well educated man and one with a gift from God knew the best way to get the others to listen and believe in his sincerity was to smack around the Jews of his birth and go to the Gentiles. The more he smacked, the more they accepted him, even Peter. How I look forward to talking personally to the other jewish by birth Apostles in private someday. Want to know how they REALLY felt about Paul.
A lesson taught today in seperating the ones in the church of Christ from the denominations. Only us, the few, is taught and believed all around here in all but one church of Christ.
Charles said; “And in your continuing campaign to convince us that we do NOT have the Holy Spirit, you are now calling into question whether even Peter or Paul had such an indwelling, as clearly neither was perfect. We’ve heard it ad nauseaum, and we’ve rejected it. ”
That is not the message I intended but like so many others that is the message you chose to hear. I don’t believe I have ever said Christians do not have The Holy Spirit/ God as a guide.
What I have said is each and every baptized Christian does not receive or require the same Comforter/spirit of truth/HG the twelve who were gathered was given by Jesus. What I said was no one can deny that Peter was present at the giving of The comforter, to ease the pain of loss the apostles were sure to suffer when Jesus left them. And I just don’t recall Paul as being there.
As Jay said we don’t know what would have happened if Paul had not confronted him, and we will never know now. Did Jesus tell Paul you have to watch out for Old Peter , I had to correct him many times. I really doubt that. since he left the keys to his church with him. Or do you believe that?
AJ said,
“Only us, the few, is taught and believed all around here in all but one church of Christ.”
And sadly, only a few of the few, is taught in most conservative CofC’s. So many believe they are the few of the few. They and their kind alone walk that strait and narrow road.
Jay write well, as always. And is correct many times. Paul did exactly what was correct in making public the error committed by his fellow apostle. But we do not do well to assume that means we should say those who are teaching falsely are really all right. The apostles taught nothing about a pulpit or about a church officer such as our preachers. Churches were to be taught by their elders, it seems rather than by any hired teacher.
And Peter, quick to warn the Samaritan seeker after apostolic powers, should have been equally quick to remind himself and everyone involved of the vision given to Peter making clear that non-Jews were as welcome in the kingdom as were descendants of Israel. Did Peter forget? Paul says Peter feared those who were teaching falsely concerning Gentiles and the Way of Christ. Shall we say Paul was wrong? Jay says we should learn from the right thing that Paul did, and I agree.
But Paul did not then or ever teach that false teaching was as good as teaching truth. We need to teach truth and condemn false teaching no less than did the apostles. So while we welcome as fellow BELIEVERS those who practice wrongly, we do no one any favor by ignoring that what is wrong is wrong. It’s our prejudices rather than truth that needs to be put aside. Baptist doctrine is not acceptable in the name of loving others, and we’d better speak up against false teaching just as Paul did and as Peter should have done.
Some teachings of us in the reformation early led by Campbell and Stone are totally based on human wisdom rather than on Bible truths. Those teachings and opinions we do well to be silent about. But we do not do well to pretend that unscriptural or anti-scriptural teachings are just as good as apostolic doctrines and practices. Most doctrines which separate Church of Christ congregations from other Christians and from one another are human opinions. The Bible doesn’t call for only one cup in a communion ritual ceremony. How we eat is less important than that we do eat and drink in honor of the Master. What musical instruments are used when we sing praises to God is not spoken about by Jesus or His apostles. So we surely will be judged if we make use or non-use of musical instruments a matter of faith.
But we are not privileged to decide whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. Jesus commands it. We have no right to say it doesn’t matter. On anything taught by the apostles, we should be faithful. On any other matter, we should be loving and not judgmental.
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he
was to be blamed.
When was this supposed to have happened before Peter’s vision in act 10 .
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision
contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Act 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order
unto them, saying,
And he told them the story of the vision in Joppa. What he didn’t say was Paul said it was
OK.
Is this the same man who blew his cork when Peter decided to eat with the non-Christian Jews.
1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I
might gain the more.
1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that
are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but
under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 9:23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
NLT
When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak
to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save
some.
By the way this is an event that has been questioned since the days of Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome.
At my Church, doctrine is never mentioned or discussed from the pulpit or by the elders. I have been attending this church for 10 years and I still have to guess what doctrines we really practice. I guess we believe in singing without instruments, communion every Sunday and baptism by immersion because that is what we practice but the reasons for these and other practices is never discussed in the assembly. We are viewed by some as a “Liberal” church because we don’t discuss our doctrines but never-the-less, I believe we do have a practiced doctrine because when I criticzed the doctrine of CENI-S in the presence of an Elder, I received significant criticism myself. It puts a person in a dilemma when there is a doctrine practiced by your church but you don’t know what that doctrine is. I feel like I am walking on eggshells all the time and never know when I am going to step over the line. I think this no-doctrine-discussion practice is intentional as there are different factions in my church and not discussing doctrine is just a way to maintain and uneasy truce between these factions. I guess this practice is working somewhat as we are the beneficiary of other churches who do discuss their various doctrines and their members are transferring to our church. But it seems to me that this is just a temporary situation that is currently going in our favor and eventually the bubble will burst. Is my church an enigma or is this the general practice in “Liberal” Churches of Christ? What should our practice be regarding identifying the doctrines we practice? Jay, from your writings, I think you don’t wholly accept the practice of CENI-S. Is this discussed in your church of is this just your private conviction?
Unwritten rules are rules, nonetheless. I think what Doug describes is becoming more and more common among the CoC. Let us act like we are not divided by not mentioning what we divide over. That way, everybody gets along. Until somebody pushes the button. You know… someone speaks in tongues, or schedules a woman to do a scripture reading, or suggests we attend a Baptist revival meeting, or shows up with a guitar at church, or nominates a woman as a deacon, or suggests we contribute to a local charity run by Catholics, or any number of other things. It’s like an old WWII movie where you see the explosive mines anchored right under the surface of the water, just floating quietly, awaiting an unsuspecting ship.
The waters are calm until somebody hits a mine. Most of us know where the mines are, so we avoid them. Pity the poor soul who takes this for actual safety.
Charles, I was thinking more along the lines of “Pity the poor soul who knows that the mines are there but keeps his ship moving through them anyway”. If there was a church within 40 miles of my location that practiced mostly sound doctrine, I’d jump ship. But, I can’t identify a ship to jump on that’s within a reasonable distance of me. So, even though I know some of the doctrines practiced by the Church of Christ are deeply flawed, some of the doctrines are sound and I have remained on the Ship. I was on an Episcopalian ship for over 12 years that had even more flawed doctrine but I chose to jump that ship when the first openly gay bishop was installed so that ship has already sailed. Besides, I am getting too old to do much jumping anyway.
Jay, as a Non-Denominational Christian (Raised in a Congregational Church) and married to a member of one of the VERY conservative Churches of Christ, I so enjoy reading your writings. It does my heart good to know that there are those in the Churches of Christ that do consider me a brother in Christ. I feel that if the hard line members could get past some of their issues with other denominations and if other denominations could get past some of the issues they have with the COC their would be no telling the amount of work done to spread the Gospel.
AMEN, brother Grant!
This was the dream of Barton W. Stone along with Thomas & Alexander Campbell, the founders of the Stone-Campbell movement of which the Church of Christ is the most conservative wing (Disciples of Christ and Independent Christian Churches being the “Liberal” and “Middle” wings respectively).
Our problem is that we are so committed to our “identifying marks” we are unable to engage in meaningful dialogue with others because we are sure we have “The Truth” on our unique positions.
Jay is refreshing because he is unafraid of taking fresh looks at some of these things to find what God has actually said about them.
IF we would honestly do what many preachers SAID we should do in study with others, we could establish common ground with many others.
Yet too many are like one leader in a congregation where I once regularly worshiped and served as a leader said when I suggested we do a continuous public reading of the Bible in cooperation with other denominations in our neighborhood, “But what if someone got someone off to the side and tried to get him to say the ‘sinner’s prayer’?”
Too many have this attitude, which even extends to working with others in soup kitchens, caring for the homeless, etc. Of course, there are those in other groups that have similar attitudes.
All of us need to consider carefully what Jesus said when John told him, “We found one who was casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not one of us.”
If we could all get that one lesson, we could quit building our own congregation/denomination and work with Jesus in building his kingdom!