We love familiar things. The tendency to resist change is nearly universal. People often talk about how great things were in the “good old days,” and we can agree with the adage, usually attributed to Mark Twain, that “the only person in favor of change is a wet baby.”

While not all change is progress, all progress requires change. A willingness to embrace necessary changes keeps the church moving forward, as we reach out to new people and carry the gospel to new lands.

The early Christians shared a Jewish heritage, which had at its heart a reverence for Old Testament law. They were well aware of God’s commands to keep themselves separate from anything that would compromise the purity God demands from his people. Their rigorous devotion to living as a separate people had been an important part of their lives for generations.

But Jesus came preaching a new kind of kingdom that transcended political, national, and ancestral lines. While his message was accepted and shared by his loyal followers, accepting the gospel demanded changes. Conflict between the old way of doing things and the new challenges was inevitable.

Committed, but in Conflict
One such conflict is described in Galatians 2:11-21. Both Peter and Paul were absolutely committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ. Both were committed to the proclamation of the gospel and the earthly advancement of this new kingdom. Both were leaders, and both are remembered as heroes of the faith.

Peter had been the first apostle to preach to the Gentiles (see Acts 10:1–11:18), and defended their equal standing with the Jews in this new kingdom at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7-11). Paul committed himself to ministering to those who did not share his Jewish heritage, and had been specially commissioned to evangelize the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9). Peter and Paul appeared to be in absolute agreement regarding the Gentile Christians.

However, an event at Antioch created a conflict between them. On this occasion, Peter reverted to his old, familiar habits of separation from the Gentiles. Influenced by the arrival of Jewish friends from Jerusalem, he withdrew from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12). Both Jews and Gentiles observed his actions and followed his lead.

Because he was a respected leader, his behavior threatened to call into question the equal standing of Jews and Gentiles in the eyes of God. The future of the church hung in the balance. Clearly, his conduct could not go unchallenged.

Yet Peter was leader among the apostles and an acknowledged leader of the church. He had been one of Jesus’ closest associates. His courageous preaching in the face of persecution had been an inspiration to the believers. To confront and correct one with such an impressive reputation would be difficult.

Correction, and a Blessing
Paul rose to the occasion and corrected Peter, and the church was blessed by the result. A closer look at the way Paul went about this touchy task can offer us significant insights into handling conflicts today.

Right purpose—Paul’s purpose was not to simply win an argument, but to move the gospel forward. The mission at hand was far more important than the personalities involved. Here was a brother who was “clearly in the wrong” (Galatians 2:11) and was unable to see his error. Allowing Peter to continue in his error would be an act of weakness, not love, and would threaten the progress of the church. Paul’s commitment to Jesus and his mission demanded that he do his best to correct this brother in error. His goal was to win souls, not arguments.

Right motivation—A purity of motivation is also apparent. Paul was motivated by both his love for the Gentile Christians and his respect for the heritage of the Jewish Christians. In confronting Peter he sought to resolve the issue, not to destroy a brother. Both men, as well as the others involved, emerged from this incident as winners.

Right attitude—We can imagine the difficulty of confronting Peter. Yet Paul was able to resist both an attitude of inferiority that would prevent him from approaching Peter, and an attitude of arrogance that would seek to put Peter in his place. Paul is not intent on making a name for himself, but rather on seeing the name of Jesus honored among all.

Right manner—Paul clearly states that his communication with Peter was “to his face” (Galatians 2:11).

As others had witnessed Peter’s inappropriate conduct, Paul’s conversation with Peter was “in front of them all” (Galatians 2:14). This open approach allowed people to focus on the issue rather than the personalities of the people involved.