Theology over a rainy afternoon meal

Was challenged today in how I read the New Testament.  We assume a lot when we read it, or at least I do.  I usually take it for granted that what I am reading is more than merely recorded history.  But where do I get I assumption?  Is it far?  The Hebrew Scriptures record many of the failures of their leaders.  I respect that we have a well rounded view of, say King David.  2 Samuel doesn't have any reserve in exposing this man for who is truly is; a man that through his many failures loves God with everything inside of him.  He wasn't perfect.  Far from it.  But we can gain from his life encouragement for our own.  His failures make him appear like a real person.  But we somehow change our lens when we flip a few pages over to the New Testament.  We don't like to think about these men failing in their lives and ministries.  Where do we get off saying that they did ministry right, that theirs is an example to follow?  What if it isn't?  What if they did do something wrong? 

Paul confronting Peter for example.  We have only one record of this instance.  Paul in Galatians tells us of a time when he had to confront Peter on an issue.  Without getting into the issue they were dealing with, Paul is retelling of a time when Peter was acting hypocritical in his dealings towards Gentiles.  From other places we can see that yes, Peter was in the wrong.  But how do we read this confrontation.  Do we read this as an example of how we are to confront our brother in sin?  Or do we merely read it as recorded history?  Paul, in seeing Peter acting wrongly took it upon himself to correct him.  Was Paul right in doing this?  How do we discern a yes or no? 

In the conversation today at lunch, this question was raised in the context of a larger question; do we have a right to get angry at sin.  I never have thought of this before.  I guess I have always adopted the assumption that since God gets angry at sin, and God doesn't sin himself, getting angry at sin is something that is allowed for me.  In other words, God does it, so of course it's okay for me to do.  To this line of thinking, my friend replied, "Where are we called to get angry?  The command that we have been given is to love."  He went on to question whether we have the right to get angry at sin, since all of us are sinners.  Who are we getting angry at?  He too questioned, if we do have the right to get angry, where is the line between getting angry and sinning and getting angry and not sinning.  Wouldn't it be easier to not bother in answering that question by merely doing our best in not getting angry; in every situation loving each other.

I agreed.  I am challenged, and convicted.  I need to love more and also learn how to be a better student of Scriptures.