The Gospel Helps Us Fight Fairly

Introduction

One thing that you have probably said or heard a preacher say is that, “there are no perfect churches.”

You can have the best liturgy

You can be biblically discerning

You can have the best governance

You can have the most skilled preacher

You can have the most talented body of members

It doesn’t matter.

As long as you have sinners gathering as the church, there will be sin in the church.

And what that means is that at times, we will:

Hurt each other

Offend each other

Have disagreements with each other

Have unfair thoughts about each other

Speak unfairly of each other

These things happen—not just around us, but to us.

These things are not just done by others—sometimes they are done by us.

So how do we deal with it as those who are living the Gospel-Centered Life?

This is our subject matter for tonight.

Context and Text

For our passage tonight, we will be in the book of Galatians.

Paul wrote to the members of the Galatian church because false teachers had arrived in their midst.

This church was mostly made up of non-Jewish Christians and these false teachers were teaching that in order for these Gentile believers to be counted as children of God they had to be circumcised.

In other words, they had to be Jewish before they could be Christian.

They had to do the work of altering their flesh before they could have Christ as Savior.

And in teaching this, the false teachers were not preaching the Gospel of grace, but a false gospel of works.

Paul is writing to correct the false teaching and warn the Galatians to be bewitched by it no longer.

But as we will see in this passage, even the Apostle Peter had some issues with buckling to the pressure of these false teachers.

And as a result, Paul is going to confront him.

We are going to see one of the most important leaders of the early church correcting another.

And there are lessons we can learn from it for when we inevitably have disagreements with our brothers and sisters in the church.

Galatians 2:11–14 ESV

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Exposition

In verse 11, Paul says that he opposed Peter (or Cephas) to his face, because he stood condemned in his actions.

Not only is this a face-to-face conversation, but it is a public confrontation, which v. 14 shows us.

This confrontation probably takes place after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, when Paul and Barnabas continue to teaching and preach in Antioch.

Acts 15:35 ESV

But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

The reason for this confrontation and the reason Paul says that Peter stands condemned is this:

Peter had made a habit of eating with Gentiles (v. 12).

And what is implied is that he is participating in Gentile table manners—meaning he is not concerned with eating animals that were unclean by ceremonial law.

At the very least, Peter is eating with them while they are eating unclean animals.

We shouldn’t be surprised that Peter is doing this because he had a vision in Acts 10 where God communicated to him that both food and Gentile people who believe in Christ, shall not be called unclean in the New Covenant.

Acts 10:10–15 ESV

And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

But here in v. 12, we see that when certain men came from James, he changed his ways.

These “certain men” are not sent by James.

They come from Jerusalem, which is where James was leading the church.

These are Jewish Christians.

It seems that out of fear, Peter is wanting to avoid conflict with the “Circumcision Party,” which is the false teachers.

So he starts acting differently and draws back when the men from Jerusalem come.

And since Peter is a leader, you see in v. 13 that others are following suit.

Peter acts hypocritically and they act hypocritically right behind him.

It is so destructive that even Barnabas gets swept up in it.

Again—all this is proof that there are no perfect churches.

We are talking about Peter and Barnabas here.

Two dynamic and indispensable leaders in the church.

They stumbled here.

This shows that we will all mess up from time to time.

We will put a foot in the wrong place.

We will follow the wrong example.

We will react our of fear instead of faith.

These things happen to the best of God’s saints.

So what happens?

Paul confronted Peter publicly.

Now why does Paul publicly confront Peter the way he does? (v. 14)

Well, Peter had committed public sin that had impacted others in the church.

The church needed to see Peter’s correction and repentance.

The church needed to see him forsake fear and hypocrisy and get back in step with the truth of the Gospel. (v. 14)

So he says to Peter, “If you, though a Jews, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Circumcision and dietary restrictions were signs pointing to what was to come.

Circumcision was a sign of the way the heart of every believer would be circumcised in the New Covenant.

The dietary restrictions made Israel distinct from the nations, something that is now accomplished through faith in Christ, not food on the table.

And if Gentiles have faith in Christ, they are one with their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ’s body—the church.

For Peter to start acting hypocritically the way he did, it was like he was reinstating boundaries and signs and symbols that the New Covenant Gospel had already torn down.

It was a regression that could not be tolerated.

The truth was at stake.

Paul’s not concerned with being right.

He is concerned with contending for the Gospel of Christ.

Paul’s motivation was not self-interest, but the defense of the Gospel.

And by confronting Peter in this way, it put Peter in a position where he had to respond.

The open-ended question from v. 14 begged a reply from Peter.

And there is no evidence in Scripture that would lead us to believe that Peter did not reply with godliness and repentance.

Paul presented the issue plainly and invited a response from Peter.

This means that as Peter turned around and got back in step with the Gospel, the people around him who had followed him into hypocrisy would have seen it.

Just as their feet followed this leader into anti-Gospel living, now their feet would hopefully follow Peter back into the parade of discipleship as he walked rightly with Christ again.

Worldly Approaches

What we see from Paul here is a godly, biblical approach to disagreement.

It is a Gospel-Centered approach to conflict and confrontation.

Think about it—

In the Gospel, God moves toward us in grace.

Paul does that with Peter here.

In the Gospel, God does not pour His wrath out on us (which would be to attack us) or withdraw His presence from us.

Instead, he moved toward us in His Son Jesus Christ, who sacrificially died in our place for our sin.

He did this in love and He did this filled with grace and truth.

And this is how we proceed in confrontation.

Unfortunately, many of us do not handle conflict in this Gospel-centered way. Instead, we choose one of two worldly approaches.

These worldly approaches include ATTACK and WITHDRAW.

And since no one is perfect, we are all prone to doing one or the other.

Attack

If you are someone who goes on the attack, here are some ways that might play out:

You deal with anger or frustration by venting it

You argue your case with passion

You ask questions like, “How do you know?” or “Can you prove it?”

You want to fight until the fight is over.

Winning the argument is most important to you.

You cross-examine like some sort of lawyer in order to “get to the heart of the conflict.”

You make the other person the focal point of the argument, even if you are clearly the one who has the issue.

Withdraw

On the other hand, you might be the total opposite. You might be the sort of person who withdraws.

If so, you might be prone to these sorts of behaviors:

Dealing with your anger and frustration by suppressing it

Having opinions, but keeping them to yourself so that you can have “peace” —even if it is a false peace

You ask questions like, “Do we have to talk about this right now?” or “does it really matter?”

You would rather avoid a fight than win one—even if you are right.

You sometimes walk away from conversation instead of resolving it.

Attack/Withdraw

Neither one of these responses are wise or honoring to God.

In fact, they tend to deepen divides.

No combination works out.

Let’s apply this to marriage:

If you have two spouses who both attack, it is going to be constant war.

If you have two spouses who both withdraw, hurt will simmer under the surface and there will be passive-aggression plaguing the relationship

If you have one of each, one person will always be on offense and the other will always be on defense—and ultimately it will be a game that no one wins.

What is true in marriage is also true in church relationships.

Attacking and withdrawing are both hurts and not helps with confrontation is needed and conflict is raging.

The Gospel Response

Let’s just compare the responses with more Gospel-centered responses.

First let’s start with the heart.

The heart of attacking is self-righteousness.

The heart of withdrawing in insecurity.

The heart of the Gospel-centered response is Repentance and forgiveness.

If you are always defending yourself and blaming others in self-righteousness, you will never bridge divides.

If you are always avoiding confrontation out of insecurity, you will never bridge divides.

But if you come owning your sin and ready to forgive others who own theirs, the hope of reconciling is great.

Next let’s consider the power source in our approach to conflict.

The power source of attacking is the pride of the flesh.

The power source of withdrawing is fear.

The power source of the Gospel is The Holy Spirit.

We must let go of our desire to be right.

We must let go of our desire to be safe.

Instead, we should rely on the power of the Spirit to lead us as we have conflict with one another.

Then we have our commitment in our approach. What are you committed to as confrontation happens?

In attacking, you are committed to being right.

In withdrawing, you are committed to avoiding conflict altogether.

In the Gospel, we are committed to understanding one another in love.

What good is there in being right if you are right alone?

What good is there in avoiding conflict if it leaves you with a bunch of broken relationships?

We must come to the table of confrontation wanting to understand our spiritual family and love them as Christ loves us.

Next we have our direction. In what position to we set our sails when we engage in conflict?

In attacking, the direction is arguing and dominating.

In withdrawing, the direction is denying and appeasing.

But in the Gospel, the direction is honesty and invitation.

The attacker comes with a sharpened knife.

The withdrawer would rather turn a knife on themselves before they would actually talk with someone on the level.

But in the Gospel-centered approach, we know we are forgiven of our sin and we are free to be honest with one another and invite others to do the same.

In a culture of honesty, lies die.

In a culture of truth-telling, sin perishes.

Rightness and goodness and truth abound.

And finally, we have our goal in confrontation.

In attacking, the goal is self-preservation.

I will come at you with the sword so that you can’t get to me.

In withdrawing, the goal is peace, even though it is a false peace.

When conflict hasn’t been dealt with and we claim peace, we are saying, “Peace, peace” when there is no peace.

But in the Gospel, our goal is the glory of God.

For God is glorified when sin is defeated by forgiving brothers and sisters who are determined to dwell together in unity.

And not only that, but as we go through the conflict, we relay on the Lord and grow closer to Him.

And quite often, we end up closer with the person we had conflict with, as grace does its work.

The End Result

In the end, we can’t afford to not get this right.

When we are viciously on the attack, it will result in hurt and divisiveness in Christ’s body.

Just imagine what would have happened to the young Galatian believers if Paul had taken this approach?

It would have been scarring to see these two great leaders clanging swords together.

When we are retreating by withdrawing, it will result in separation and a bubbling bitterness in the heart.

Imagine if Paul had taken that approach?

How far along would the Galatians have gone with the lies of the Circumcision Party?

What would his feelings toward Peter and Barnabas turned into?

But in a Gospel-centered approach to conflict and confrontation, there is healing and reconciliation in the body of Christ.

This is what we need.

This is what Christ died to give us.

Let us crucify our attacking and withdrawing.

Let the Gospel color every aspect of our Christian walk, including how we deal with conflict with one another.