Leaving the Table

Galatians 2:11-14

September 1, 2024 • Mount Pleasant UMC

Have you ever sat down at a table with someone you disagreed with? At that table, have you ever had a discussion, maybe even a heated one, about some political topic or maybe even a religious one? Have you ever left the table upset or even angry? Of course you have. Most of us have. Those times are called “family holiday gatherings.” Or maybe you’ve engaged someone on social media about a particular topic and before you know it you’re down the rabbit hole and mad at someone who was a friend. If you’ve ever engaged in discussions like these, if you’ve ever disagreed with someone, if you’ve ever been in the middle of a conflict that left you upset or frustrated, I have a word for you. I have a name for you: human. You are perfectly normal, because as much as we’d like to avoid it, conflict is normal and it can even be healthy. It shows up everywhere, even in the church, dividing people who are all committed to the same Lord and Savior.

We’re going to talk about conflict this morning as we continue our series called “Mended.” We’ve been spending some time this fall talking about the challenges we face in today’s world, a world that is more broken and more fractured than any other time most of us can remember. And while it’s easy to try to point fingers and accuse someone or something for causing the division, that rarely if ever helps. What we are trying to do in this series is to give each of us some tools for moving toward wholeness, for experiencing what the Hebrews call shalom, the kind of wholeness, peace that God desires for all of his creation. So how do we get to shalom in the midst of conflict? How do we find peace when we disagree with people we love?

Peter (who is called Cephas in this passage) and Paul had to learn how to do that when they were both in the city of Antioch. One commentator calls this passage the “Clash of the Titans” because here are two of the biggest names in the early church and they end up having a major public disagreement. But before we get to the conflict, let’s back up for a moment. Peter was one of the original twelve, the designated leader of the disciples. His given name was Simon, but Jesus had changed his name to Peter, which means “the rock.” (Cephas is the Aramaic version of “Peter.”) Paul had a name change, too. He was originally called Saul, probably named after the first king of Israel, and had become a very religious and learned man. He was so zealous for his Jewish faith that he spent a lot of time rounding up and getting rid of Christians, and by “getting rid of” I mean killing. Paul believed they were believing in and preaching a false god and that this Jesus was a false prophet who could not have been raised from the dead. It was all a lie. So the first time we encounter Saul in the Bible he’s overseeing the murder of a man named Stephen (Acts 7:58). Then, while Saul was on a mission to round up more Christians in another town, Saul supernaturally encountered the risen Jesus and his whole world changed. Over the next few years, he took a Greek name, Paul, and became a missionary to the Gentiles, non-Jews. And that is what led to his conflict with Peter.

Antioch was Paul’s home base. It was a significant city, as influential in the early church as Jerusalem, Rome or Corinth. It hd a population of several hundred thousand and a Jewish population of between 20,000 and 40,000. According to the book of Acts, Antioch was also the place where followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26; Gupta, The Story of God Bible Commentary: Galatians, pg. 74). At some point, apparently, Peter heard about the impactful ministry that was happening in Antioch, so he leaves Jerusalem and heads up there to check it out himself. I picture it like this: Peter, one of Jesus’ original twelve disciples, comes to town and so they have a big potluck dinner in the fellowship hall. There’s great food (which must have included fried chicken—right, Rick?), maybe some music, decorations on the table, and a lot of conversation. Peter is going from table to table, chatting people up and learning what’s happening in Antioch. Yes, I’m aware that the churches then didn’t have buildings, but just indulge me here because I want to point out the problem with what is happening. This church is not fully Jewish. It’s a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. It’s a combination of people who have always worshipped the one true God and people who have, until very recently, worshipped the Roman gods. And, more than that, the church has put together people who for centuries have stayed apart. Jews and Gentiles simply did not mix. They had long been separated by things like “race, diet, religion, and custom” (Davis, Come Alive: Galatians and Ephesians, pg. 14). And we’re talking literal separation. In that world, you simply didn’t share space with and you didn’t share the table with people you weren’t like. Table fellowship in particular was both a welcoming activity and a “boundary-reinforcing” activity (Gupta 76). If you sat down with someone, it meant you accepted them as they were (cf. McKnight, James and Galatians, pg. 142). A good Jew in that culture would not share a table with a Gentile. It simply wasn’t done.

But Peter has had an experience, which if you follow this week’s Scripture readings you will read about in Acts 10, where he was challenged by no less than the Holy Spirit, to see Gentiles as equally worthy of God’s love. And so Peter now sitting down at a table with Gentiles is no big deal to him. He got it. He understood what God was doing. Until the law enforcement task force from Jerusalem arrives. Now, this group claims to have the authority of James, the half-brother to Jesus and head of the Jerusalem church, but there was no way in that time and place to check it out. Not like you could call James on his cell phone and ask. But no matter. Peter knows when he sees them walk in that there’s about to be trouble. He’s come from Jerusalem too so he knows that they are a group which believes in a strict separation of Jew and Gentile. It doesn’t seem that they are opposed to Gentiles coming to believe in Jesus; they just think that this wall of separation should be maintained. And they are very firm about this, even believing that if these Gentiles really want to be Jesus followers they should have to be circumcised first and then follow the Jewish law. Yes, Peter knows there’s about to be trouble and so he gets up from the Gentile table and moves to a place where there are only Jews. In other words, he leaves the table in order to try to make these men from Jerusalem happy. He doesn’t seem to think it’s any big deal, and that no one will notice.

However, someone does notice. Paul is on the other side of the room and he sees what Peter does. And let’s just say it clearly: it ticks him off because he knows the kind of life Peter has been living and he knows how Peter has been welcoming to the Gentiles. And Paul watches as others notice Peter’s actions too. He watches as these others move away from the Gentiles, too, including the man who is probably Paul’s best friend at this point, Barnabas (2:13). (Yep, I only really mentioned Barnabas so I could put up a picture of my puppy. Moving on.) We don’t know how long Paul watches this happen, but eventually he’s had enough and he walks across the room to where Peter is. He doesn’t pull Peter off to the side or ask to see him in another room. Right there, in front of God and everybody, Paul confronts Peter and tells him he is wrong. When he writes about it to the Galatians, Paul says Peter “stood condemned” (2:11). He was a hypocrite (2:13).

Those are some strong words, but they’re appropriate because this is a huge conflict. It’s big enough that it could affect the future of the whole church if these two leaders can’t resolve it. Now, it might be worth pointing out at this point that we only have Paul’s account of this confrontation; Peter might have a different understanding of what happened. I don’t know. But regardless, one thing this story reminds us is that no matter how much you pray, no matter how much you read your Bible, regardless of whether you fast or give to the poor or do any of the religious things that are right and good and healthy to do, there is no guarantee you won’t experience conflict. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Conflict will happen and it is normal and healthy. In fact, to never have conflict is actually unhealthy. If someone tells me they have never been in conflict with another person, I assume they are either lying to me or they have no relationships whatsoever. “Being in relationship is to open ourselves up to differences…Throughout our lives, we will face conflicts: conflicts at works and home, at church and in the neighborhood, with our roommates and with our children. The list goes on” (Villodas, Good and Beautiful and Kind, pgs. 139, 143). So the question is not if we will face conflict; the question is what we do with it when it comes.

First, healthy conflict requires confrontation. Paul says when he saw what Peter was doing, he “opposed him to his face” (2:11) because Peter was “not acting in line with the truth of the gospel” (2:14). That’s where the accusation of hypocrisy comes from, because a hypocrite is someone who acts differently from what they say they believe (cf. Gupta 77). Paul says Peter knows that the Gospel is open to Gentiles. And, more than that, he says he pointed out that Peter has been living like a Gentile. We don’t know exactly what he means by that, but personally I think it means Peter discovered how good bacon is. Can you imagine being an adult and tasting bacon for the first time? “Where has this been all my life and why did God tell me I couldn’t have it?” But maybe I’m reading my own life into Peter’s story. Anyway, Paul points out Peter’s inconsistency, his hypocrisy, and then says, “How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (2:14). How, indeed? Peter was creating a “separate but equal” policy in the church, and Paul says that should not be. Everyone is equal; everyone is welcome at the table. But here’s the bigger principle: resolving healthy conflict requires face time, getting face to face with the other person and hashing it out. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew 18, when he is giving specific instructions about handling conflict in the church. He tells his disciples that when someone sins, you go directly to them and try to talk it out (18:15-17). You don’t go to others and talk about them. You don’t post about it on social media in that quasi-vague way that everyone knows is really about this person even though you make it sound like it’s not. And you don’t spiritualize it away and pretend nothing happened. No, healthy conflict requires confrontation. Paul says he opposed Peter to his face, giving him the courtesy of a direct conversation.

Second, good conflict requires healthy speaking. It means being direct without being cruel, and that can admittedly be a difficult balance. Notice what Paul does in verse 14. He goes straight to the point. There’s no beating around the bush, and there’s no waffling. “Peter, here is what the problem is and I need you to get this so I’m going to speak as clearly as I can.” Now, I know in a lot of your Bibles the next several verses are in quotes; they are in mine, as if this is exactly what Paul said to Peter. But there are no punctuation marks in the original text, so scholars are divided as to whether verses 15 through 21 are what Paul actually said or are his later reflections about the incident. Either way, Paul doesn’t go into this conflict just yelling at Peter. He has clear, strong, Gospel reasons for why he is concerned with Peter’s actions. He wants Peter to understand that what he has done gives this message: some are “more worthy of salvation” than others. That’s what the whole Jew/Gentile division had been about; they both believed they were “better than” the other. And the Jews especially believed they would be saved because of who they were and that God’s grace was not available to Gentiles. As one author puts it, “Peter was not merely acting badly or with social insensitivity; he was perverting the faith” (Davis 15). Paul knew he needed to be clear; he needed healthy speaking to make sure this problem didn’t become bigger than just an encounter in Antioch. And we need the same kind of healthy speaking when we face conflicts in our lives: clear, kind and respectful as Paul models in this passage (cf. Villodas 151-154).

The third thing healthy conflict requires is careful listening. We’re not told how Peter responded, but we know from the history of the church that Jews and Gentiles grew together in one church and that was ultimately under Peter’s leadership. So I think it’s safe to assume that this confrontation between Paul and Peter brought Peter back to his senses, back to his Acts 10 encounter, back to a place of God’s grace. So it’s also safe to assume that he listened carefully to what Paul had to say and he understood the damage his actions were doing to the Gospel cause.

It’s hard to listen without wanting to defend ourselves; I know that all too well. It’s hard to listen without wanting to speak; we really don’t do that well in our current culture. Our models in leadership don’t listen; they all speak over each other, rarely stopping to listen to what the other person is actually saying. “But the hallmark of someone who is growing in love is one who can listen non-defensively” (Villodas 155). The next time someone wants to have a hard conversation with you, pay attention to what is happening within you. Do you want to interrupt them, defend yourself, make sure you are the loudest voice? Or are you content to let love be the loudest voice? Are you able to stop and carefully listen?

Confrontation, healthy speaking and careful listening. But there’s one more thing healthy conflict requires, and that’s the table. The sacrament of holy communion should be something that brings all Christians together. Unfortunately, today we often spend a lot of time arguing over how to do communion or when to do it, when Jesus never addressed any of those things. He just said do it. But then we disagree over who is welcome to the table and who is not. In some traditions, there are requirements for who can come to the table and who cannot. In the Methodist tradition, we practice what is called an “open table,” in that everyone is welcome to the table no matter who you are. After all, the same Paul who confronted Peter went on to say in the next chapter, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). Pastor Rich Villodas says, “The table is not a reward for good behavior but a gift for the broken” (157). I like to imagine that after this confrontation, Peter and Paul came to the table and shared the bread and the cup together. I don’t know, but I want to believe that’s what happened because the table brings us together and heals the brokenness.

Several years ago, in another place, I ended up in a conflict with a man who had, at one time, been a really good friend of mine. He and I had been on mission trips together, had been in Rotary together and served on various teams and committees together. I had even officiated at his second wedding after his first wife had died. I wasn’t blameless by any means in this conflict, but I did attempt to reconcile and he wasn’t having it. The conflict got so intense that he went to the superintendent to ask to have me moved to another church. But that didn’t hurt as much as another action he took. He was one of our ushers and part of his job, as it is here, was to direct people down the aisle when we had communion every month. He faithfully did his job, and then when the last people were through the line, he would turn around and walk away from the table. He refused to receive communion from me. This act that has brought Christians together for centuries has the power to break down barriers and to heal wounds between people. Jesus said one time (in the Sermon on the Mount) that if you are at the altar and remember that someone has something against you to get up, leave the altar and go make amends. Be reconciled, then come back to the altar (Matthew 5:23-24). Now, I know he wasn’t talking directly about communion, but I believe the same principle applies. This table is a place of healing, but Jesus can’t use it to heal us if we are resistant, if we are hard-hearted, if we refuse. This bread, this cup—they represent the greatest healing act in the world: the death and resurrection of Jesus. But Jesus will not force his way into our lives. Will we allow these simple tokens to do their work in us? All who are broken can be healed. All who are wounded can be made whole. All who are hurt can be mended at this table. So don’t leave the table until you find everything Jesus has for you here.

Will you pray with me as we prepare our hearts and our souls this morning for holy communion?