How Not to Resolve a Church Conflict; Galatians 2:1-14 (21)

Last week I was leading an adult study on Diversity in Early Christianity. Looking into Galatians 2:1-10, a perceptive man wondered at the genius of the solution. Paul and his colleagues continue his mission to the Gentiles, Peter and his continue among other Jews, and to cement the collaboration Paul continues to raise funds for the poor in Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, the solution didn't hold up. In retrospect, the reason is obvious. Things fall apart when Cephas (some have suggested that Peter and Cephas are different men, but I doubt it) visits the church in Antioch. Cephas joins Gentiles at the table, just as Paul and his colleagues do. But when representatives from Jerusalem come up, Cephas withdraws -- he maintains the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, thus breaking table fellowship.

Paul condemns Cephas for his inconsistent -- hyprocritical!, Paul says -- behavior. But the roots of the problem lie in Jerusalem, not Antioch. The Jerusalem solution could hold, but only so long as the Jewish and Gentile believers don't cross paths. What happens when two missions, with two different sets of rules, collide?

The Antioch conflict bears implications for some contemporary church compromises. For example, the ELCA is considering a measure that would allow local bodies to take diverse positions with respect to sexual minorities. One Mennonite group adopted a similar temporary resolution to the matter of ordaining women. Such compromises can work in theory, but they don't resolve the justice and discernment issues at hand. When real people encounter one another across the artificial boundaries that keep them apart, further conflict is inevitable. No halfway compromises, please.