Christian (Dis)Unity
The Drama Between Peter and Paul
Oops! I accidentally forgot to send this out before the one that went out last week. My apologies for them being out of order. If you would be so kind, just pretend that I was able to bend time and send this one first. Thanks!
When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, [the followers of Jesus] were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.
—Acts 2.1–4 (NRSVUE)
Before we take the beginning of the Book of Acts too literally, I want to point out that Acts is a creation story that largely parallels Genesis. It begins with a fantastic creation, and then over time transitions the reader to a more down-to-earth ending.
What we see is the creation of a reunified humanity, bound together in one Spirit under one Lord. They are all in one accord (no, not the car).
Rather than romanticizing or idealizing that beginning, let’s wrestle with the disagreements and conflicts within the wider Christian community, some of which are identified in the Book of Acts.
St. Peter vs. St Paul
Biblical scholar Michael Goulder has explored these conflicts in his book St Paul versus St Peter: A Tale of Two Missions. What he finds is two influential leaders gathering their own followers into communities that effectively become two different versions of Christianity right out of the gate.
You're probably familiar with the disputes in the early church around whether followers of Jesus had to keep the Jewish law. But, their differences spilled into many other areas of life as well.
Here are some highlights of the disputes between the Petrines and the Paulines, according to Goulder.
The Kingdom of God
Petrines: The Kingdom has already arrived and is here among us
Paulines: The Kingdom is coming very soon
Tongues and charismatics
Petrines: They were probably leveraging visions and other charismatic events to assert their authority over the Paulines
Paulines: They denied mystical claims to authoritatively speak for God
Sex
Petrines: They abandoned it for bodily purity
Paulines: They believed celibacy was ideal, but not everybody had that gift
Money
Petrines: They shared their money, gave it away, and ended up poor because they believed that the kingdom was right now and God was going to take care of them
Paulines: They shared what they had with the poor, but expected people to work for their food
The Holy Spirit
Petrines: The Holy Spirit manifests in the community through visions, prophesy, and other charismatics leading to new revelations
Paulines: The Holy Spirit is primarily experienced in baptism and does not bring any new revelations to the community because the revelation in Christ is final
Christology (how Jesus is the Christ)
Petrines: They adhered to an adoptionist or posessionist Christology that believed the Christ of God joined with Jesus in his baptism and departed upon his death
Paulines: They believed Jesus incarnated the pre-existent Christ/Word of God
Jesus's resurrection
Petrines: They believed Jesus was raised spiritually (which follows from the possessionist Christology that believes the Christ Spirit left the body upon death)
Paulines: They believed Jesus was raised physically (which follows the incarnation theology that binds the eternal Christ Spirit to Jesus entirely)
The outcome of this earliest conflict has significance for Christianity today.
At first, it seems the Petrines were more influential. But, the Paulines ultimately won the day, and their understanding of Christianity became dominant.
As a result, Goulder sees the Petrine lineage fade into the later Ebonite and Donatist communities, and perhaps other offshoots as well (keep this in mind for later).
And, this brings us to the next stage of the conflict.
The rise of orthodoxy
Moving beyond the time studied in Goulder's book, we enter a world dominated by two general schools of thought that disagreed on how to best interpret biblical texts.
Strongly influenced by Platonic philosophy, the Alexandrians believed the Bible was meant to be read primarily as allegory. The words and stories of the texts were not nearly as important in themselves as the concepts they represented. Indeed, it was Clement of Alexandria (see the connection to the Alexandrians?) who declared philosophy to be the "handmaiden of theology".
(Side note: this is actually a downgrade because philosophy was previously known as the "queen of the sciences" since it tackled everything.)
The Antiochans, meanwhile, emphasized a more narrative, literal reading of the texts. For them, the actual text served as their anchor for meaning more so than did philosophy. (Btw, it’s not that they weren’t philosophical, but their emphasis was Aristotelian rather than Platonic.)
Now, hopefully, you’re paying attention. If so…
Do you see how this seems to be an evolution of the earlier conflict between the Petrines and the Paulines?
Let’s continue to follow the timeline of this conflict…
Perhaps the most well-known scuffle between these two schools of thought emerged between Athanasius (an Alexandrian) and Arias (an Antiochan).
They fought theologically over how the Son was divine (or, to put it another way, how the essence of the Son was related to the essence of the Father).
Arius believed that the Son was divine, but was created by the Father. Therefore, the Son was not of the same substance as the Father.
Athanasius, on the other hand, believed that the Son flowed from the Father and therefore was of the same substance as the Father. In other words, it was God's very Self who came to us in human form.
This fight was ugly, to say the least. And if you thought settling it would settle everything down, you’re wrong.
Shortly after the Alexandrians won the dispute, the two schools would clash again over the question of how the divinity of Jesus was related to his humanity. Again we would see those following the thought of Arius arguing that the two natures of Jesus were in harmony but separate, much like two eyes looking in the same direction. And again we would see those following Athanasius arguing for the complete unity of the two.
Long story short, ultimately, the Arians would lose and be condemned as heretics. Then, they would then return, take power and persecute non-Arians. Then, they would lose power and be persecuted once again.
Dizzying isn’t it?
Here’s one thing I want to highlight. Being declared a heretic back then was different than being declared a heretic today.
Back then, it could mean death. In fact, the theologian Augustine created the doctrine of the “just war” in order to justify the use of military force to crush the heretical Donatists in Africa.
And thus, what we call “orthodoxy” was created and enforced with the sword.
Remembering where we started
Now let's jump back to the beginning of this article, back to Peter and Paul.
The earliest church seems to have followed more closely the Petrine perspective. However, according to Goulder, the Petrines were ultimately moved out of the center of power and transformed into sects such as the Ebionites and Donatists. Both were later declared to be heretical. So, it appears that the Paulines ultimately won the day as the Petrines were largely eliminated.
Remembering what we talked about in a previous article
What I'm most interested in here is noticing the parallels we see to the topic of my previous article: Theological Thinking and Biblical Thinking.
Notice the way that the two streams of thought diverge in how you should read the Bible.
Sometimes, in our day and age, we progressive Christians can become frustrated because evangelicals seem unyielding (indeed, unreasonable) when it comes to how we should read the Bible.
I think it's important for us all to step back and take notice of something important here…
This conflict isn't new.
In fact, it goes all the way back to the apostles.
So, next week (well, technically last week since I accidentally skipped this one in the lineup), I want to talk about how I believe we should be reading the Bible.
Let’s take this pattern from history and use it as a guide while looking for inspiration.
Peace, Bo
www.evolvingchristianfaith.net
Want to know more about my perspective?
Feel free to pick up my book, Drinking from an Empty Glass: Living Out of a Meaningless Spirituality on Amazon.
Please Help Me Spread the Word
As I try to grow my audience, I need your help.
If you know anyone who would find value in what I have to say, please let them know about this newsletter.
I would greatly appreciate it.