Dear one,
Is it: “To rob Peter to pay Paul”, or, “To rob Paul to pay Peter”? Such is the question I have sometimes asked myself, reflecting the twists and turns of my own mind. Of course you undoubtedly know the correct ordering of that phrase: robbing Peter to pay Paul. Now it’s possible that this phrase has an historic antecedent in English lore: the assets of the abbey church of St. Peter were used to repair or refurbish St. Paul’s Cathedral; but whether or not true, the phrase has long meant: in order to cancel one debt, another debt is incurred.
From another vantage, some view this phrase as indicative of the tension between Catholics and Protestants. The former appear more readily drawn to Peter, whereas the latter seem to champion Paul; but again, whether true or not, both are utterly dependent upon the lives and ministries of both Peter and Paul.
Because of these Lenten, pre-Easter days, once again I have pondered Peter’s reactions. You might recall: when Jesus told Peter that he would abandon (betray?) Him, Peter adamantly swore allegiance, even unto death (Mark 14:31); and yet, not many hours later, Peter did exactly as Jesus had forewarned: he denied his Lord and thereafter wept bitterly (Luke 22:62). To his credit, Peter did what none of the others dared: he followed Jesus “into the lion’s den”; but once there, he stumbled and fell badly. Thus, Peter’s denial became fundamental to the early church’s identity and history: one of the church’s two most venerated leaders, Peter, failed hopelessly.
Ah … but a year ago, as I shared with twenty-five Ugandan pastors, we had occasion not only to consider Peter’s failure and subsequent restoration (John 21:15-17), but to remember that, by his own and frequent admission, Paul was the chief of sinners, unequal to the other apostles, unfit to be an apostle, for he had persecuted the church (1Corinthians 15:11-13).
Peter and Paul, both greatly flawed and broken, and yet, their inclusion—their leadership within the Church birthed by Jesus reflects greatly, magnanimously both upon Jesus and His Church. At its inception His Church experienced the Spirit of grace and forgiveness—how else are we to understand Peter and Paul’s stories and their leadership? Oh, to the present, within the life of His Church, we are not to gloss-over or condone flawed and broken behaviors, even among her leaders; instead, we do well to admit that we differ little from Peter and Paul, knowing that we too are debtors unto grace.
Grateful for Peter and Paul,
Stan