Desiring To Be Peter...

Stop and think for a moment about the sermons you may have heard over the years. How many of these are based on the person of Peter? Keeping that number in mind, how many have you heard about the person of Paul?

Why do you think that is?

For now, I'm going to focus on Peter. Let me guess what the sermons about him usually sounded like: "Look at Peter, an 'unlearned' fisherman [read: dumb as a post]. Holy Spirit comes. Look at Peter now! He's a Miracle Man! (Theme song optional.) Instant greatness; just add fire. Even YOU could be like Peter."

[Some of you may have had trouble with my wording in the preceding paragraph. In Preacher-speak, "unlearned" means "less intelligent than I am, and probably even dumber than you." Think: Homer Simpson with the eloquence of Ozzy Osbourne.]

For what is Peter remembered? Certainly not for his finer points. Not for the courage and humility with which he faced his execution. He did not count himself worthy to be crucified right-side-up. Not for his ability to receive correction from his juniors. Not for shepherding the early church in the turbulent first-century, nor as a great contributer to Christian thought and writings. Not even for his commitment to prayer. And, he is certainly not remembered for the maturity to which he grew.

Today's Church tends to praise Peter's flaws. What's his pattern? Small success, followed by failure, followed by God bailing him out.

Examples:

"Thou art the Christ"/"Be it far from thee, Lord"/"Get thee behind Me, Satan."

"Wash my hands and head also"/Denial/"Feed my Sheep"

Jerusalem Council/Peter in Antioch/Paul's Rebuke

The natural progression moves from praising to copying his flaws. You see the new mantra emblazoned on t-shirts and pasted to the rear-ends of cars: Be flawed for God. "He was 'unlearned', it's better to be 'unlearned'. God bailed out Peter. God is no respecter of persons, let Him bail us out, too. Let's not let any of that book-learnin' get in the way of our spirituality. We need to focus on the Bible. Only the Bible. And even then, some of that can get mighty confusing, so let's pick and choose what we need to know." It's Sola Scriptura, but only the CliffsNotes. (Not that they'd know either of these terms.) I know I might (perhaps) be getting a little facetious, but isn't that the undertone of the message? Am I the only one hearing, "It doesn't matter how thick you are, (and, man are you ever thick!) God will place His Spirit upon you and you will be great in the sight of all! Scripture says he uses the foolish things to confound the wise! Better to be foolish and used, than wise and confounded." (Or something like that...)

One needs only to read through the first five books of the New Testament to see that this is a myopic view of Peter. Yeah, he messed up sometimes. He even needed a firm rebuke once in a while. The real question is this: "Did he remain that impulsive, reckless, hot-tempered buffoon?" After reading the Epistles of Peter, I would say emphatically, "NO!?! What are you, dumb as a post?"

Look at the Gospel accounts of Peter. We get a glimpse of the "Peter-to-come" when Jesus says, "You're not a flimsy, little reed, you're firm stone." It was Peter who recognized Jesus as Messiah, and would defend Him with his life if necessary. It was Peter who would (impulsively, yet with faith) leap into something way over his head while the 11 stared blankly at each other. Peter got out of the boat. Perhaps he didn't get far, but he was the only one that made an effort. Peter wanted to be at the Right hand of God. He even ascended the Mount of Transfiguration. Now go to Acts. From Pentecost, it's Peter the spokesman for the early church. He gave effective, eloquent sermons and the church grew under his leadership. A man born lame was healed. Peter spoke with boldness, answered any who would condemn him for preaching in the name of Jesus, and was the first used by God to preach salvation to the Gentiles. (That's way better than my Curriculum Vitae!)


Peter's Epistles teach on relationship; practical, full of hope despite persecution.

Why the dichotomy?
Being 'early Peter' requires little effort. You don't have to change, God will simply supernaturally 'endow'.
Back to my 'thesis'. Peter reaches the Jews; Paul the Gentiles.
'Mature Peter' preaches relationship; Paul doctrine.
If you want to emulate Peter, choose the Peter of the Epistles; the mature Peter. It's a great thing to do. A goal worthy of aspiring to. However, that won't help you win the lost. You won't have the proper tools.
Peter built on a foundation laid by Moses and the Prophets.
Paul built on no man's foundation.