Respect, Unity, and Truth-Telling
Words like respect and unity are not synonymous with compliance and silence.
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Galatians 2:11-14
No one would affirm the qualities of respect, peace, unity, and love as essential to life in the body of Christ more than the Apostle Paul. Through his letters to the churches, we have been gifted the great love chapter of I Corinthians 13, the self-giving kenosis passage in Philippians 2, along with multiple admonitions calling the church to a life of love, forbearance, forgiveness, and unity. His apostolic vision for the church was one of genuine community, united by one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, bound together in love for Christ and one another despite their multitude of differences. Paul, in wisdom and grace, repeatedly pointed the church toward a life together that shines in stark contrast to the brokenness and strife of the world around us.
Apparently, though, Paul’s vision for the church did not preclude the often difficult task of truth-telling. In Galatians 2, we’re made privy to a rather awkward, uncomfortable exchange between Paul and Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. It seems that Peter, following the whole Cornelius episode recorded in Acts 10, recognized God’s inclusion of the Gentiles in the body of Christ and was happy to share the table with them despite the laws and rituals that previously prevented him from doing so. Until some hardliners from Jerusalem showed up, that is. Once those guys made an appearance, Peter’s new found freedom and conviction suddenly evaporated. Faced with the possibility of criticism and conflict, he withdrew from the Gentiles in Antioch’s integrated congregation, turning his back on the table of unity and fellowship. And Paul wasn’t having it.
The apostle who gave us “love is patient, love is kind” did not hesitate to call out the hypocrisy and injustice committed by a church leader. Paul not only confronted Peter to his face, but did so publicly in front of the entire group who followed Peter’s bad example. Then, because the story was such a great illustration, he recounts the whole incident - with names included - in a letter to the Galatian church to teach them a lesson. By the definitions some use, one could easily accuse Paul of being disrespectful to a church leader, disrupting the peace, and undermining the unity of the church. We would suggest that he handle matters privately and not recount the issue to others, or better yet, just remain silent about the whole thing, maintain the peace, and trust God to work out the rest. But perhaps the problem here is not Paul’s course of action, but our definition and understanding of words like respect, peace, and unity.
This moment in the Antioch church, with all of its confrontations and challenges, reminds us that true peace and unity are never void of truth-telling. In fact, they cannot exist apart from it. Peter’s public hypocrisy was not free of consequences; his unjust behavior was not victimless. For Paul to remain silent, hiding behind the rationale of respect, would have been an act of neglect and deep disrespect to those who were being marginalized and dishonored. To look the other way in the name of unity would have done violence to true unity, leaving some members of the body unwelcome at the table. While denial and avoidance might have created a veneer of peace, division would have continued to churn beneath the surface, preventing real resolution and reconciliation. So Paul, refusing to be passive or complicit, directly and openly confronts Peter’s hypocrisy. His decision to do so actually made true respect, peace, and unity possible, for these things can only exist when the light of truth-telling reveals the barriers that prevent them.
Sometimes in the vocabulary of the church, words like respect, peace, and unity become drained of their true meaning. It’s particularly easy for those in power and leadership to wield them like a sword, protecting themselves from any criticism or accountability. Respect becomes synonymous with silence, peace with denial, and unity with compliance. But these things are not synonymous. They are, in fact, contradictory. True peace and unity can only be experienced when divisive and harmful realities are named, confronted, and repaired. Any definition of respect that serves the interests of a few while abandoning the care of others, particularly the wounded or marginalized, is a false and destructive imposter. Respect is only genuine when it’s extended to all. The public confrontation between Paul and Peter was passed on to us for a reason. It is an honest, transparent picture of life together, reminding us that healthy community demands more than shallow appearances, avoidance, and compliance. A healthy body requires ongoing healing, and that which is not named cannot be healed.