A Sudden Revelation!

Spock is an atheist but he's seen some pretty strange stuff.

Revelation is a puzzling book of the Bible for everyone. Its interpretory range is probably the most well-known and least understood in the Christian faith. Some people ignore it completely, and others take it way too seriously. For anyone desiring to just get the message and move on, however, Revelation reveals another, more ugly side; it's so hard to make sense of, nearly everyone who has studied it has differing views on it. In our American culture, the most commonplace and therefore the most 'conservative' view on the book is under the dispensational lens. Revelation's structure is considered an orderly, chronological foretelling of the 'end times,' the ordering of events in and around Christ's second coming. This is what I presumed to be true as a young lad, but, as always, I learn that no issue is as simple as Sunday-school instruction. A different view shifts the Revelation timetable back to the first century, interpreting the 'tribulation' mentioned in the first chapters as a rough timeline of events since Christ's big goodbye to his big hello, including our current era. This view plays around with the numerical values and lengths of time mentioned throughout the book, deriving symbolic meaning from them rather than a doomsday calender. Yet another view takes the traditional interpretation of Revelation being all-future and gets a little crazy with it, supposing that several different sections in the book are actually retellings of the same amount of time, different perspectives of a single event. If those aren't strange enough, just imagine when someone supposes that pieces of both views could be true, or draws a unique conclusion from a single passage in Revelation and frames a view of his own. Such is the book of Revelation.

My own views on Revelation are not exactly resolved by all this conjecture and interpretation; in fact, they're clouded by it. I am fascinated by the theory that some of Revelation's passages could refer to events long past, and I have no problem with stretching 1000 years over 2000 actual years or so (after all, Revelation is universally considered mostly figurative anyway.) To be quite honest, I am most disturbed by dispensationalism; it's a very recent interpretation that's backed only by a handful of unorthodox interpretations of Scripture and yet it's pervaded our culture. In that light I would be more likely to discard my childhood paradigm rather than strange, different views about Revelation. Those differing views have little effect on how I live my life; I only know that Jesus will return and I will live forever, and exactly how that happens couldn't be called clear in any view of Revelation. The fact that he will  return is what matters, not when. Insight how and when society 'gets better' or 'gets worse' shouldn't sway our mission for Christ; our job is to be Christ on earth whether everyone's saved or everyone's trying to kill us. I see a much deeper problem in apathetic people than a different view on the end times than me; developing a relationship with God brings about godly conduct, and if conduct is replaced by a 'life will get better anyway' or a 'Omigosh we're gonna die' attitude, then Christ is clearly not present. The real revelation of Revelation is that Christs's return is certain, and we've got to do everything in our power to get ready.

What is Love? (This is probably the title of a lot of these blogs. Baby don't hurt me!)

The English language, while we might call it the "modern language of the world," is in actuality the abused offspring's offspring's offspring of some other language's real beginnings. This is because nothing is consistent in it for very long. Single words become homonyms, long words get chopped up into slang, and we even used to use f's instead of s's. That'f juft nutf. Because of this, the word "love" has, as is pointed out in the blog topic, been stretched over pretty much the whole spectrum of positivity. Love, as a modern definition, literally has four or five definitions ranging from merely 'liking' something to 'romance.' Wikipedia makes amends for the common Christian phrase "Love is an action," and goes on, in strange detail, to analyze the various physiological characteristics of various forms of 'love.' So what is it in the Bible? Are we supposed to merely like  other people? Does God feel romantic  love for people? Lucky for us, The Greek language has four separate words for four different kinds of love, and the Greek format of the Bible makes use of all of them. Those words are 'storge,' for mere familiarity to something, 'philia' for friendship, 'eros' for romance, and 'agape' for "divine" love. All of these words find their place in Scripture, but one densely overpopulates the rest. Agape, which almost always is attributed to God himself, means more than just liking something or even the normal bounds of 'loving' something. It specifically refers to the act of self-sacrifice, or at least the willingness to do so. God certainly is capable of such a love; Jesus died for us, but what about in John's books when the famous analogy is made that "since God loves you, you gotta love him and other people too." Well, I'm sorry folks; it's agape-love. The text could literally say, "Since God was willing and did intentionally get murdered for you guys, you gotta turn around and be willing to do it back for God and for everyone else, too." God means business. The same  love he showed you should be redirected to everybody. That means giving up time to serve people, to talk to them, and even be willing to die for them. How can we be expected to do that? Well, it's actually not as bad as you might think. Our goal is to love that much, but truly the only way to get close is to rely on God for our capacity to love. You see - God not only loves us enough to die for us, but he helps us out from time to time, too. He's willing to work to change our lives around to better love others, all we have to do is start acting on the little impulses to do good. A common phrase spray-painted on walls and weird hipster blogs is "Where is the love?" Well, look out, because it's in us, the lovers of Christ.

OMG U DONT KNO WHO JESUS IS!?!??!

If I had a friend who didn't know who Jesus was, and he was actually curious about why I cared about this messiah so much, I'd try to structure my introduction a little like this...

I would start off by briefly explaining the concept of God (If he doesn't know a thing about Jesus, then we need to start at the beginning.) God existed before the universe, created it, created man, and has been working on our behalf ever since. Jesus is, or was, because he existed as and with God before, a replacement for an old covenant God established with us, a man created directly by the creator, who was himself fully God. That sounds crazy, so I'd seek to elaborate on Jesus' nature a little bit. Jesus was fully human, that is, with a physical body and a human soul, but yet he was made by God, and fully possessed his spirit, too. He dealt with and struggled against the same things we do, but he was directly in sync with his father, God, guided for our sake. Additionally, he had a two-pronged mission: firstly to show the world who and what he was. It's easy to find the concept of God a little out-of-touch. After all, it's asking someone to believe in some faraway, all-powerful something that cannot be seen, touched, or even imagined. Whether this something is benevolent or not, he seems far too distant to matter. That's why God put himself on our planet, to show in the most relateable form possible who he was and why he mattered. The key word is relateable; God could have revealed his true power and blinded us all into submission, but it was much more loving and significant to humble himself into one of us. Jesus was limited in the same ways we are, and yet carried in his blood the power of God. That's the key to the second part of God's mission: we as humans don't and can't live up to God's standards; we aren't perfect like he is. We needed, one way or another, to be atoned  for. While Jesus spent two years spreading the human image of God, it is the last two months or so of his life we remember most. The punishment for our imperfect lives is irretrievable death, so to prevent us from that fate, God himself died. Woah, that's a big deal. Jesus, being human and mortal, allowed himself to be tortured and killed, dying a criminal's death despite his innocence, so that we wouldn't have to. I really hope my friend is tracking with me, or else he'll miss the best part. It doesn't end there, because Jesus is alive with God today. How? Well, if Jesus had remained dead, there would be no victory over death; it won over Jesus. That's where the God-part of him comes in. Three days after he died, he came back to life: resurrected. Only Jesus was brought back from the dead by God's direct will, and his physical destiny was fulfilled for us all forever. Kind of a big deal.

I hope that at least establishes what's important and why it's important for my Jesus-less friend. For me, I think the most important part of Jesus' life is that God was trying to make a point: I care about you guys, enough to myself come down and hang out with you. That's why Jesus' humanity, his deity, and his power all matter; without any of those the story falls apart.

Christian Dietary Essentials

To be honest, I'd never really thought much of doctrinal differences in Christian denominations before, assuming they were all small details that in the end wouldn't matter. Many are  just that, but when I was forced to draw the line between essential and nonessential I didn't really know where to start. After all, I had never talked through doctrine with someone who disagreed with me; that just seems like a weird discussion. Thinking it through a little more through the Bible Class debates we've had, I did at least have some concept of my options in choosing the essentials of Christianity. There is only one truly honest and mostly non-biased account to consider in analyzing our faith: the Bible. First assuming the Bible is honest and authoritative (and that's assuming a lot for some people, yikes,) I already had one essential down. With the Bible's self-declaring authority lost, I believe the whole faith loses its credibility, so I hold first and foremost that Scripture is true, and (though there are many interpretations of passages within) it provides clear and relevant guidance in most cases that count as essential doctrine. (ie. The Trinity, Jesus' Ressurection, An Afterlife) In sorting this all out, I really like the method stated in the paper we looked through in class, proposing that recurring and clearly stated passages are essential truths, while interpretations of vague and singly stated passages are the nitty-gritty nonessentials. That might have an exception here and there (just saying; somebody's always  going to make a case against a universal statement,) but I think it's just a comforting bit of logic to help sort out the mess that is our faith. It does raise some crazy questions, however (essentially foreign to me until now:) "Is Hell really eternal?" "Is it okay to believe that Hell is not eternal?" and most infamously recently, "Exactly how and to what extent is homosexuality a sin?" All of these questions are cringeworthy to me, and to be frank I'd rather not debate them at all, but it's nonetheless mind-opening to get the chance to. As for how I'd deal with something I'd never heard before or disagree with, I'd probably use that method. Is the Bible clearly for or against this issue? If not, then it's really likely nonessential. To verify that, what passage is this view based on? Does that shed any light on the issue? etc. I really think this is the simplest (and in many cases the simplest method is the best) and most applicable method of interpreting unfamiliar ideas, because, as I would say any true Christian necessarily believes, the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and thus it stands as a foundation on which to build faith in Christ.

Why does no-one call it the book of Jim?

James, in its short and to-the-point delivery of important morals, has a very clear message on wealth. In its final chapter, James really lays it down hard on rich folks, forecasting misery and destruction ahead of them that oppress others with money. The general theme of the book is getting people on a common page: instructing the rich to respect and equate themselves to the poor, and for the proud to show humility, and this has large implications. The question of the week in our Bible class comes from this: Is the accumulation of wealth a sin in itself, and if not, how can we be sure we are in control of our money for God, not in it for ourselves? James tells us that money is something to be shared communally, not to be withheld and hoarded. If we are making money for ourselves, James states that its corruption will destroy us. I would say the rest of the Bible agrees. After Moses freed the Israelites from Egypt, and the group met at Sinai, God ordered everyone to pool their resources for the creation of the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant. Those that disobeyed and kept treasure for themselves were ruthlessly dealt with; in that case the accumulation of wealth brought about instant destruction. Some time later, in the famous instant that doomed Saul, king of Israel, to be replaced by David, Saul kept the spoils of battle instead of destroying them as the Lord commanded. After this, Saul fell out of favor with God, and eventually he too would pay harshly for his greed and disobedience. In the gospels, Jesus talked often of the danger of accumulation, shaming the rich young ruler for not being able to surrender his wealth to the poor, and essentially living without wealth of any kind during his own life. In all these examples, whether hoarding riches was disobedience to God or simply a distraction from him, the result is the same, that you will, as James puts it, "weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you." Money can easily become a lifelong obsession and distraction from God, and that makes it an idol to him, but there is an straightforward solution, provided by Jesus. In the form of an argument: why let the temptation of hoarding wealth be an issue in the first place; if you give away your extra to the poor, you won't have any riches left to hoard.

"...so that we can give it away to the poor!"

Church and Chicks (among other things...)

Church structure is a difficult thing to define. How one should operate is, to be truthful, a largely unanswered question, still after thousands of years of maintaining and creating churches around the world. To be sure, no two churches are alike; Christianity is, at least in trivial doctrinal matters, the most diversified religion one can belong to, and it shows. There is a vast spectrum of governmental systems in churches, ranging from heavily organized and collectively linked Catholic cathedrals to loosely defined and secretive house churches across dangerous parts of the globe. Why, then, are these diversities so extreme, and is a single one "more biblical" than the rest? To even attempt to answer that question, we've got to examine why government would be important in the first place - and that ties heavily into what the purpose of churches are to begin with. The Bible is at least perfectly clear on this - oh, it's put in different ways, but it's easy to draw a general mission statement from it: A church's goal is to prepare believers for evangelizing in its area, and perhaps more importantly sending new and existing believers out to new areas to, well, make more churches. Now, this presents, in any culture, a logistical dilemma, and logistics requires organization. The Bible agrees. In Paul's day, churches were lead by teams of "elders" - in most cases, people who had been in Christ for some time, and these councils of Christians would direct the inflow and outflow of converts and church planters, keeping doctrine in check through letters and sending out long-standing representatives, like Paul and Timothy. Since then, different levels of inner and outer organization have surfaced, birthing the spectrum and seemingly disjointed faith we have today. Fun stuff, huh?

My church, whom I have learned to respect deeply, has tried to reverse the explosion of variety and revert back to the basics, so to speak, of church management. Inside, we're simply lead by a group of elders, who, just as plainly as in Paul's experience, serve to invite new believers and send out existing ones. There is only the biblical distinction of teaching and serving pastors, nothing more specific or complex. Outside our building, we're also trying to follow the Bible. Our church relates to a simple grouping of other churches around the world, who share beliefs and statuses electronically, but also transfer representatives to check in and share among other churches, not as "guest speakers," but as relating elders bringing their guidance to the church they visit. Overall, I think it's a pretty noble goal, and I believe I agree with the whole thing.

Rats, now I have to talk about women. I really didn't structure my last bit to carry that...

In class, we've explored a couple different interpretations of the controversial passage in Paul's letters to Timothy concerning women. The first, the take-it-like-it-looks view, states that women, who are better suited to listen and not speak, shouldn't teach over a group of guys, because they are easily confused and wishy-washy in their morals, not to mention greedy, self-centered drama queens when given too much power. That is, of course, exaggerating, but it was my reaction to reading through the passage. The other possible interpretation, a little rough but immensely less rude, explains that, possibly due to a reigning she-cult in Ephesus, women should not always serve over men, but should be treated as equals, not given too much power and control, but, like the rest of Paul's teaching about women and marriage, should serve with their husbands as a single unit.

I am not sure which of these two views my church holds fast to, but I do know one thing: no-one there would regard a woman as less valuable than a man in any way. It is true that all of the elders at my church are men, but each, as Timothy dictates, is married, and relies heavily on his wife as a partner and adviser. I could see my church following either goal, because neither one says that a woman can't have a say in the course of evangelism, and both say that only a loyally married man can take part in leading the direction of his church. The more hotly debated question of whether a woman can't teach over men at all or whether she simply can't only teach over men is a harder issue, and one that does not seem completely outlined in my mind. I halfway hope that N. T. Wright is correct in his theory surrounding the passage, but I'm just not sure.

A dynamic threesome...

The three letters we read in class are certainly similar on the surface, but in order to understand the point of each of them, we've got to consider what each is saying on its own. Paul was writing to very different groups of people in each letter, and that of course affects the entire tone of his writing. For example, Paul is usually very praising of the Philippians, but makes a special point to them to avoid argument and strife among themselves, citing Christ as an example; that's really the only criticism he offers. In Ephesians, however, Paul broadly states a large list of basic dos and dont's, not really as a specific condemnation, but rather as a general statement of Christlike character. In Colossians, Paul draws up a similar list, but explicitly states that the church had previously practiced those bad things, and needed to renovate their thinking. The message of Christs' example is applicable in all three cases, evident based on its constant appearance throughout Paul's letters. It serves as a universal bridge to anyone who can endeavor to become more like Chirst, who, frankly, is everyone.

It can safely be stated that the three passages from Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians are really the same message, worded slightly differently for the purpose of reaching different audiences. The broad point over each of these passages is the call to change to be like Christ. In each, Christ's character is lined up against the sinful nature of the world's, and the benefits of life in Christ are laid out for the receiving. Paul also makes a point in each to emphasize Jesus' saving us from our sins; without that there's no point in striving to be like him. There is something deeper in each of these letters, however, that we outlined in class that most people glance over. Taking time to understand each brings out a fascinating point. Paul is not saying that we should seek to be like God - Philippians makes clear even Jesus didn't do that - we're to be like Christ . Why the distinction? Well, for one, Christ was human . A perfect human, but flesh and blood nonetheless. It's our job, therefore, not to seek out equality with God - that's impossible; God is sovereign - but to conform to Christ, who represents the blameless human life; and as Colossians puts it, who is  our life.

Authoritative Advice

Romans is, as we learned, jam-packed with important advice to follow in our relationship with Christ and others, so it's a bit hard to explain one major concept without referencing and/or bringing up others. That aside, here goes nothing. I'd say that the part of Romans 12-14 that has most inspired me is the very beginning of chapter 12: being living sacrifices to God. To explain it briefly, Paul is saying that in order to become like Christ, we've got to give up on our personal wants - to cut out distractions in our lives and focus on Jesus. This is, put any way, a tough topic, I think, for anyone to accept, but yet it's essential to being in Christ. If the action of dying to ourselves is not present in our lives, it can be argued whether we truly accepted Christ in the first place or not. That's why I think becoming livings sacrifices is such important advice to follow; it's a must-happen of our faith. We should understand as Christians that if we're really committed to following God, we are going to be compelled to shove our previous passions away to maintain relationship with Jesus. There's no room for two focuses. It's just that important.

The reason that this sacrifice is being offered as advice and not as explanation of doctrine is a striking truth: while most Christians would be able to reference it, none could say they've followed it completely. It's hard to do, and some would say it's an unattainable goal. I say, to cheer things up, that it is just the goal. Becoming like Christ is a transformative cycle, and we've just got to be willing to let Jesus take over. No-one is perfect, but we have a choice to strive toward Christ's perfection, or continue to wade in our hopelessness. I'd prefer to lay myself down to Christ, because my simple faith is made powerful through Christ's resurrection, and I will achieve perfection in Jesus when He returns. That's important advice!

Roman's Believe it or Not

Romans, being Paul's letter to Christians in Rome, is a difficult read for someone who isn't familiar with Christian doctrine; to an atheist, the material might even be called laughable. I think this most applies in Paul's discussion of the supernatural in general; in our culture, anything unearthly has serious doubt cast upon it by the looming certainty of science and evolutionary philosophy. To an unbeliever, God's power and intervention in our world appears to be fantasy, and that's a hard belief to shake. Without the supernatural element of God, of course, our faith is nothing, so this point must be acknowledged for the Romans message to be taken seriously. As far as explaining this to a non-Christian goes, it is important to point out the evidence Paul himself takes time to record. In an indirect sense, Paul is doing his best to prove the power of God in his own story. In discussing his many hardships throughout his ministry, it would surprise anyone that Paul is still in the game after enduring and surviving so much, but Paul explains that it his his faith in God and God's power to provide that keeps him going. Paul is saying that the supernatural is explicitly evident in one's life, if they'll only dare to look for it. And once you see it, I'd say that there's no more denying it.

Despite the importance of the power of Christ in the gospel, there are other more philosophical points that Paul makes that would be easily digested by atheist listeners. For example, I think anyone would agree that a person's actions flow from his inward motives, and anyone would admit that love is the most important social virtue. Romans is full of justifications of morals that most people would believe that an ideal society would hold. Throughout the letter, Paul lists important virtues that sprout from relationship with Christ, and these virtues are found also throughout our global society. While atheists would cling to scientific principles behind these morals that shape our culture, the fact remains that they believe that certain behaviors rank better than others, and Paul did, too. Paul's Christian explanation of why these morals matter is an easy transition from simply holding those beliefs, and I think that many non-Christians could track with it. Paul's analytic approach and logical progression through points would stand out as intelligent to any reader, despite their opinion on its content. I believe this is an important fact to establish with those who would read Romans; without it, they may look at it as a fairy tale, but with insight on Paul's intellect, who knows, they might just take it seriously.

De Morte...

The dramatic difference between the Christian theology of death and You-Know-Whose© is the hope of new life ours provides and theirs denies. It is this distinction that Paul wanted to make very clear in his letters to the Corinthians. Put generically, life is not ended when we die, but we are resurrected and given new life in Christ. The impact of the notion of eternal life after death rippled throughout the world as individuals heard the good news. As we discussed in class, Paul teaches that death is nothing to be feared; it's a transition to our eternal lives. The Corinthians, firmly planted in Greek tradition, were unsure of the validity of the idea of resurrection through death, and asked for clarification. Paul eagerly replies. He puts very plainly that without resurrection as described in the gospel, with Christ dying and then being raised, the power of death over our lives is not ended and Christianity as a faith is ridiculous - a baseless tall tale. Death, as Paul explains, kills our sin, but without hope of revival we are left as we were before: hopeless and bound to death. Three days later, however, Jesus was brought back to life, and that seals the deal.

There is, however, a subconscious divide over this issue. In looking at the gospel message, many Christians come away solely with Jesus' death, and as we discussed in class, they're missing the whole point. Christ died for our sins, but he also was brought back to life, and that's the incredible part. It appears as though interpretation of the gospel has been subtly misaligned over the years, but I believe this is a simple problem to correct. As Paul did for the Corinthians, we must emphasize the role of Jesus' resurrection in our conversations with other Christians. We've got to give the message of hope back to the people, because that is, in the end, what really matters. Without it, our faith is a joke, and having that faulty notion in our world is no joke.

Paul's Marriage Counseling Service

Sex. yeah, that's right, I said SEX.

Paul takes it upon himself to be very clear to the Corinthians concerning their private lives, which, as we learn, aren't so private. There is prostitution, incest, and other unruly things rampant among the pagan culture the Corinthian Church has come out of, and Paul wants it gone. Addressing these issues directly as easily as they are dealt with, Paul then comes to a finer issue: Marriage. The Corinthians, even righteous ones, are caught up on issues of remaining single and the morality of divorce. Being frank as always, Paul rather explicitly endorses being single; he explains the freeing nature of bachelorship, being able to go anywhere and do anything for Christ with no home and family attached. He directs the same advice to women, saying that it is in the same way good to be unmarried. Paul also makes the important distinction that it is much better to stick to one person and marry than to be unreliable in one's single life. This can be confusing, but Paul makes it plain that marriage is a difficult decision that must be made individually and with great personal searching. On the subject of divorce, however, the situation gets even more dicey. Paul quotes Christ in saying that a woman that has divorced her husband must rejoin with him or face the single life forever, and that divorce itself in any case is to be avoided. Moving on, Paul then inserts an exception: if there is an unbeliever in a marriage who leaves their spouse, they should be let go; they are not in Christ, and are not sanctified through their spouse. Sifting through the what-ifs in divorce proves to be of great importance to Paul, and he spends a good time going over each one, but continually reiterates his love for the single life. Paul is likely the ultimate example of one married to his work.

I think one would have to be pretty ignorant not to draw a few parallels from the problems of the Corinthians to the problems in the cultures of the modern world; they're everywhere. Divorce is a normal thing, virginity at marriage is smirked at, and single people are all dweebs. The desire of Paul in writing the letter is as relevant as ever; it should be our job as Christians to endorse the morality of the Bible - not to force them, but to make clear across the board that we mean what we teach. On the home front, these issues are seeping into Christian relationships too, and we must be very blunt about correcting these, as Paul is to Corinthian believers. Sexual immorality is a problem that will never go away until Christ returns, but to ignore the consequences of falling into it is to dishonor the body of Christ.

The Second Coming

As far as early churches go, the Thessalonian church had a lot of faith in Christ; their grasp of his teachings - well, not so much. Paul wrote his first letter to them partly to clear up some of the misconceptions and myths surrounding Christ's imminent return. The Thessalonians were firstly unsure of when the return would come, and secondly they were anxious about what happened to believers that had already passed away; would they see them again? Paul attempts to answer these questions in a string of analogies. He begins with life after death, explaining that individuals who have died but believed will live forever when Jesus comes back, but are currently "asleep" and are saved until that day. This is a confusing passage for us, and it has spawned a good spread of different interpretations of its meaning. It is without a shadow of a doubt meant, however, to give hope to those who might doubt about eternal life, and calm mourning over the deaths of loved ones. Next addressing the time of the second coming, or as Paul puts it, the "Day of the Lord", Paul is very clear: No one knows or can know when the time will come. We can't even throw out an educated guess; we just have to be prepared for whenever it may come - and indeed, it is coming.

In our world today, the theme of Christ's return is actually all over. Post-apocalyptic genres of fiction root from the idea of God's judgement on the earth in coming times, and our culture is currently obsessed with these things. As Christians, understanding how the second coming will work can provide helpful insight into the motives behind the thrill of dystopian survival. Despite the wide variety of views regarding the true apocalypse within our own faith, I believe the core motivation of Paul's writings regarding it are still immensely relevant and useful: give hope to those who doubt. In a world swept up in the uncertainties of the future, it's nice to know that we Christians hold the truth, and can make use of it until the second coming actually arrives.

Until then, though, watch out for the alien apocalypse...

Blog 001 - Paul's Confrontation with Peter

      Paul's confrontation with Peter is certainly one of the most heated parts of Christian history, and it has gone down in that history as a defining chunk of our faith. It happened when Paul noticed a problem in Peter's actions towards the Gentiles - a big problem that Paul makes very clear in the latter parts of Galatians that he find despicable. This far-reaching dilemma, which was a difficult issue at the time, can be put quite simply: Should Gentile believers be required to follow Jewish law, i.e. being circumcised and not being allowed to eat pork, or should they be able to express their faith through their own culture, as long as it kept within the bounds of Jesus' teachings? Peter was doubling back on his previous word by directing fellow Jews to eat separately from Gentiles, and Paul picked up on the larger issue. Calling Peter out in front of everyone, Paul explains very clearly that Gentiles and Jews are equals under Christ, and are, lucky for us non-Jew believers, not required to follow the Jewish code. This certainly has impact in the Church today, besides the obvious part; all believers in Christ are equal, and any ranking or sets of rules cast on any portion of the Church are against what the Bible - and Paul, for that matter - teaches. . . .

Looks like Peter and Paul made up, though. Just look at this medieval icon. . . .

Now that's brotherly love. . . .