Peter’s Denial: From Ignorance to Awareness

René Girard, a man whom Bishop Robert Barron believes will one day become a doctor of the Church, writes that Saint Peter, during his famous triple denial of Christ, is “very much like us modern men…he cannot stand the disapproval of his neighbors” (196). Surely Peter, the head of the disciples, a daily eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, did not deny Christ because of peer pressure, right? And surely we wise modern men and women, individualistic and immune from group think, are not so concerned with the approval or disapproval of our neighbors, right?

Well, in my own life, I know that I have unconsciously imitated the behaviors and actions of my peers,
gravitated towards those whom I already knew shared my opinions, and with those people, verbally scapegoated anyone who did not share our beliefs. Shameful behavior, I know. However, Girard’s ideas about Peter’s denial have had a major impact on my own spiritual growth. His ideas also prove the Gospel’s continued power to illuminate sacred truths relevant for today’s volatile and fragile world of human relations.

First, let’s briefly look at the event of Peter’s denial. The account occurs in all four Gospels, and the details are mostly the same, so any Gospel will serve our purposes. For now, let’s look carefully at the account in Matthew. Notice that Peter’s actions are unconscious. He becomes conscious of his betrayal only after the cock crows:

Now Peter wain the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself
and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly (Matthew 26:69-75).

Ashamed after his betrayal, Peter weeps. While he was betraying Christ, however, Peter was unaware, was unconscious of his actions. The power of the crowd, the power of the collective mob or group, overcomes Peter, and he fails to defend his Lord. Notice also that in the final denial, Peter is accused of having an accent; the accusation causes Peter to “curse himself and swear.” The idea that this group would consider Peter an outsider with a strange accent escalates Peter’s anger because he desperately wants the crowd’s approval. Only when the cock crows, which symbolizes Grace, does Peter become aware, become conscious of his denials: “And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus.”

Like Peter before the cock crows, we often conform to negative group pressure without being conscious of our actions. In my own life, for example, when I was a young Lutheran, I used to laugh with my Lutheran friends at the ridiculous beliefs of Catholics: “Yeah,” we would all laugh, “why do they worship Mary?” Catholics do not worship Mary, of course, but I did not know it at the time, and what mattered during those conversations was that someone made a remark about Catholics, others gleefully joined into slander, and instead of stepping away from such unChristian behavior, I instead joined in joyfully to scapegoat, to slander a group of innocents. Even as a later convert to Catholicism, I was at times guilty of joining Catholics in verbally scapegoating certain protestants: “Can you believe the teaching of the prosperity gospel? How absurd.” In both cases, I and my fellow scapegoaters, though unaware, felt a strong bond during the process, a powerful sense of belonging at the expense of innocent victims.

René Girard argues throughout his writings that this behavior can often be tame in today’s world, like
the verbal scapegoating I have at times engaged in; however, the behavior can also lead to violence. Think of the mentality that takes place when a mob lynches a victim. All the group members desire to transfer their anger and frustration onto this victim.

Peter witnesses this when the mob seeks to crucify Christ, but the power of the group, whether it be a tame form of verbal scapegoating or a terrifying form of violent scapegoating, can, unfortunately, persuade many otherwise decent people.

I later recognized this fault in my behavior, thanks in part to the Gospel message I am discussing now, and I was able to significantly curb this attitude. However, even now, when I am talking with a group of people, someone or something, be it a political group, a religious group, a neighbor, a family member, or a coworker, becomes the target of gossip or slander, my initial instinct is to join the scapegoating group. The “instinct,” of course, is “ignorant,” if we understand “ignorance” in its etymological denotation of “to not know.” We often obey our instincts without knowing or without conscious thought, like when we satisfy our thirst by drinking a glass of water. But humans have the ability to disobey an instinct and listen to our deeper humanity, our God-given will, and our ability to reason. For Christians, to reason well depends on Grace and daily meditation on the Gospel so that Grace is lived. In Peter’s case, he recognizes his ignorance when the cock crows, which causes him to
abandon the crowd and begin his complete conversion to Christ.

Another example from my life can help convey the power of Peter’s denial. During my years after leaving the Lutheran church and living as an agnostic prodigal son, nothing could have upset me more than to be told that I was not a unique person, that I was a follower and not an individual. I would always deny that claim with bitter anger, and my bet is that most people in our country would do the same. Yet, the way I dressed, the way I spoke, and the way I behaved, all coincided with my own subjective belief that I was a unique individual.

However, even though I didn’t know it at the time, but that idea about uniqueness was and still is, the propaganda of most Western advertising and media: wear these clothes, listen to this music, speak and behave this way, and you will become the “true you,” your “real self,” and many of us, myself included for many years, blindly and ignorantly follow this propaganda. During my twenties, for example, I often dressed like some of my favorite musicians, unconsciously hoping that other people would see me as a certain type of person, an artistic, melancholy, neo-romantic individual, which is a
type of person seen and celebrated in many popular bands but also in many tv shows, movies, books, etc. I believed I was spontaneous without realizing how much I was an imitator. I believed I was unique without realizing I was a cliche. Unfortunately, I spent many years unconsciously conforming my behaviors and actions to popular media’s standards for role models, and if someone had told me that I was a follower, I would deny it in a rage just like Peter passionately denied his accent.

Thankfully for Peter, however, the cock crows. His ignorance is revealed to him. He was blind, but now he sees. Later, in the book of Acts, when Peter addresses the Israelites in Solomon’s portico, as he stands strong in the face of a new group of people, he is able to confidently declare the Gospel of Christ but also explain to the Israelites how similar his behavior was to their own: “and now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17).

At this point, Peter recognizes that he could just as easily have been one of Christ’s executioners but was instead saved by Grace. Without Grace, it is not easy to break out of the contagion of the group, especially because we are ignorant while it grips us. Peter was just as guilty of obeying the crowd, so he is able to now empathize with the Israelites he speaks to in the book of Acts. We need to pray for that same Grace, the Grace to be aware of our actions and our words and our deeds. Do we speak Godly things or the things of this world? If we are speaking Godly things, are we saying them with a goal towards Charity? Or are we saying “Godly” things but actually slandering those who do not share our beliefs, like when I verbally scapegoated protestants with a group of my Catholic friends? The differences in our beliefs are important, of course, but how are we engaging those whom we perceive as different, as others? Do we seek open and healthy dialogue, or do we cling to the security of our own group, our own neighbors?

Today, it is not hard to see this herd mentality play out all across our country. Even an atheist like Bill Maher complains, and not without justification, about the rampant “tribalism” that occurs in religion and politics and seemingly every other aspect of contemporary life. Instead of dialogue, various groups simply slander other groups. Each group slanders and denies culpability with words as passionate as Peter when he slandered Christ with each of his three denials. How do we escape this tribalistic predicament?

Like Peter, we need revelation, and that, in Peter’s case and in my own case, only occurred through the Gospel that reveals sacred truth. Peter became aware of the truth and lived the rest of his life humbly in the service of God, even unto death, without judging others who were in the same deceitful web of self-righteous denial he once found himself in.

Christ, suffering on the cross, looking at the crowd that has crucified him, says, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). May we believers in Christ pray for the wisdom and Grace to recognize our ignorance and to forgive our fellow sojourners who are unaware of their own.
Works Cited
Girard, Rene. “Satan. The Rene Girard Reader”, The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York,
1996, pp. 194-210.