2. Even the godly will sometimes disagree. When I was younger I had difficulty with this one. I couldn't understand how two people who loved the Lord with equal passion and who believed the Bible with equal zeal could come to different conclusions. In my two-by-four mind I was convinced that all godly minds held to identical conclusions. Not so! To my amazement, I soon discovered that there were not only various opinions on the same subject, but that God had the audacity to bless those who disagreed with me. I believe it was Dr. Bob Cook, while he was president of The King's College, who wisely said, "God reserves the right to use people who disagree with me." I'll go one step further, for I am now convinced that God is not nearly so narrow as many of His people are. I find that God is much easier to live with than most of His followers ... far more tolerant, certainly full of more grace and forgiveness than all of us are.
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
Unlike us, when He forgives, He forgets the transgression and removes it as far as East is from West. Perhaps you have heard of the man who loved the Lord, but he couldn't seem to conquer a particular sin. Time and again through the week he would come before the Lord and confess the same transgression. In all sincerity, he would tell God how much he hated what he had done and how grateful he was for God's grace in forgiving him. Wouldn't you know it, by Saturday of that same struggling week he was back on his knees: "Here I come again, Lord, with the same sin . . . asking Your forgiveness and claiming Your cleansing." To his surprise, he heard God's audible answer: "What sin?"
There will be no denominations in heaven, no categories of Christians—only the vast company of the saints, and only then will there be perfect harmony of heart and complete unanimity of agreement. Until then, count on it, even the godly will disagree.
3. In every disagreement there are the same two ingredients: (a) an issue, and (b) various viewpoints. The issue is usually objective and involves principles. The viewpoints are subjective and involve personalities. And therein lies the sum and substance of a clash, which could be defined as a disagreement over an issue because of opposing points of view. I will be candid with you: Every time I have remembered those two basic ingredients in the midst of a disagreement, I have been able to keep calm and think clearly. When I have forgotten them, almost without exception I have failed to negotiate my way through the clash with wisdom. Furthermore, I have regretted something I said in the heat of verbal exchange. Those two simple ingredients have never failed to help me keep cool. Why? The next fact will explain.
4. In many disagreements each side is valid. As "liberal" as you may think that sounds, chew on it before you toss it aside. On numerous occasions when I have encountered a brother or sister who felt as strongly as I about the other side of the argument, I came to realize it was not so much an I-am-
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
right-and-you-are-wrong matter as it was an I-see-it-from-this-perspective-and-you-from-that-perspective matter. Both sides of most disagreements have strengths and weaknesses, which means neither side is an air-tight slam dunk. Nevertheless, any disagreement can lead to a serious, permanent rift in a relationship . . . and sometimes (this may surprise you) that is God's will. There are times God chooses to spread the good news of His Son rapidly in different directions by having two capable servants of His have a major disagreement. As they separate and minister effectively in two different locations, He accomplishes a greater objective than their being in agreement.
A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO GODLY LEADERS
That is exactly what happened between two men who had labored alongside each other for years. I am thinking of Paul— the godly apostle of grace, and Barnabas—the godly servant of compassion. Two more dedicated men could not be found in the first century. Both were effective; both spiritually minded. Neither was selfish or immature. But what an argument! Can you imagine what the media today would have done with the headlines?
Religious Co-workers Clash Head-on
or Evangelists Fight Over Team Member
... or some such nonsense. If there is one thing I have learned over the past few years it is this: Be suspicious of the headlines and never expect the media to get the whole story straight. If it can be garbled or exaggerated or slanted, they will doit.
Frankly, I am pleased to read of two men as respected and as
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
full of integrity as Paul and Barnabas wrestling over an issue about which both felt strongly. Too often we Christians resemble the little toy dog sitting in the back window of a car always nodding in agreement. Too many fear that disagreement is tantamount to mutiny. But that's not true; grace leaves room for a few clashes. The late great G. Campbell Morgan agrees:
I am greatly comforted whenever I read this [disagreement between Paul and Barnabas]. I am thankful for the revelation of the humanity of these men. If I had never read that Paul and Barnabas had a contention, I should have been afraid. These men were not angels, they were men. 1
One more thought before we get into the specific clash between Paul and Barnabas. No matter how much good may come from such disagreements, they often hurt . . . and I mean hurt deeply. This is especially true when you have to take it on the chin and choose not to strike back. The more heated the disagreement, the more our inner steam tank builds to the breaking point; and it is all we can do to keep a level head through the whole explosive episode. Again, only God's grace can give us sufficient strength to restrain retaliation.
This reminds me of the Quaker who owned an ornery cow. Every time he milked her, it was a clash of two wills. This particular morning she was unusually irritable, but he was determined to endure the session without so much as a cross word. As the farmer began to milk her, ol' Bossy stepped on his foot with all her weight. He struggled silently, groaned a little under his breath, pulled his foot free, then sat back down on the stool. She then swished her tail in his face like a long-string whip. He merely leaned away so it wouldn't be able to reach him. Next she kicked over the bucket, by then half-full of warm milk. He started over, mumbling a few words to himself; but he never lost his cool. Once finished with the ordeal, he breathed a sigh of relief, picked up the bucket and stool, and as he was leaving she hauled off and kicked him
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
against the barn wall twelve to fifteen feet away. That did it. He stood to his feet, marched in front of his cow, stared into those big eyes, and as he shook a long bony finger in her face, he shouted, "Thou dost know that I am a Quaker. Thou dost also know that I cannot strike thee back . . . BUT I CAN SELL THEE TO A PRESBYTERIAN!"
Let's look now into the biblical account and set the stage for how the disagreement arose between Paul and Barnabas. It all started when they took their first missionary journey together. Accompanying these two seasoned veterans of the faith was a young man named John Mark, who was neither seasoned nor strong. Perhaps because he was Barnabas's cousin and because he showed real promise as an up-and-coming young believer, they felt comfortable having him travel with them. For sure, they could use an extra set of hands to help them with what they carried by way of supplies and clothing, not knowing what they would encounter in the primitive and rugged places of their destination. Everything was fine at the start.
And when they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper. (Acts 13:5)
But when they crossed over to the difficult area of Pam-phylia, they reached a region that was probably tougher to take than the Normandy coastline was in the Second World War. An imposing range of mountains stood before them like rugged giants of stone. It was a mosquito-infested, feverish coastline. To say the least, the honeymoon of adventure was over when they got to Perga in Pamphylia. The excitement and theoretical delight of missionary travel screeched to a halt as the three companions came upon hard times. Finally, it became too much for John Mark, who lost the heart to go any further. "Now
Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John left them and returned to Jerusalem" (Acts 13:13).
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
Don't move too hurriedly over that last statement. The young man's drive weakened. His dream turned into a personal nightmare. No doubt embarrassed, he admitted, "I just can't go any further. I'm leaving." William Barclay calls him "the deserter." 2 Chrysostom says, "The lad wanted his mother." 3 More than a few New Testament scholars refer to him as "the defector." When the going got tough, John Mark up and quit. If my figuring is correct, this was also the time Paul got sick. It may have been a bout with malaria or the beginning of his intense headaches connected with some form of eye disease. Whatever, it was the worst possible time to be deserted. If ever they needed to pull together, it was then. Nevertheless, Paul and Barnabas were faced with no other option than to slug it out on their own. Little did they know the pain awaiting them. It was on this trip, you may remember, that Paul was stoned and left to die. Ultimately, he and Barnabas endured the rigors of the trip, came back, and reported the wonderful results. I have often wondered if John Mark was there in the Antioch church when the report was given. If so, he probably sat in the shadows back out of sight, feeling terribly ashamed.
The Critical Issue
Some time later the thought dawned in Paul's mind, Let's go back and look things over. The Acts account picks up the story:
And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." And Barnabas was desirous of taking John, called Mark, along with them also. (Acts 15:36-37)
"Let's take John Mark. Let's give him another chance." The next verse makes it clear that Paul disagreed: "But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along." Remember my earlier comment? In every disagreement there are two
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
ingredients: an objective issue and opposing viewpoints. The issue here? Should a person who defects from a mission be given a second change? Should someone who leaves people in the lurch when they really need him be taken again on a similar mission? And the viewpoints? Paul said, "No, absolutely not." Barnabas said, "Yes, by all means."
The Opposing Viewpoints
There stood two men of God, each fully convinced in his own mind that he was right. Remember Barnabas? He is the model of compassion. I have heard my friend, Howie Hendricks, call him "the man with an oily disposition." Barnabas is the builder-up of men. He is the same one, in fact, who earlier had searched for and found Paul when the other disciples were suspicious of Paul's recent conversion. When one who had been persecuting Christians said, "I've become a Christian," the other Christians sneered, "No, we don't trust that." But it was Barnabas who found Paul, believed in him, vouched for him, and won a hearing for Paul. It was Barnabas who was responsible for introducing him to the Christian community. Giving people a chance was Barnabas's style. Naturally, he felt it would be best to give John Mark another chance.
Not Paul. His style was altogether different. He was the man of great conviction and strong commitment to the truth, the one who founded more churches than anyone in the history of Scripture. Paul was the trailblazer who set the pace for missionary ministries to this day, a man of discipline and determination . . . more of the shape-up-or-ship-out mentality. Paul looked at the issue from the viewpoint of the overall good of the ministry. Barnabas looked at the issue from the viewpoint of the overall good of the man. Barnabas saw it as the classic opportunity to restore John Mark's confidence. It is not an oversimplification to say that Paul was led by his head, Barnabas by his heart. That is why we read, "Barnabas was desirous of taking John, called Mark." He thought, Why, he could
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
become a great disciple of Christ. We can't leave him here with his memories, licking his wounds, feeling ashamed and badgered by remorse. That would kill him! We've got to bring him along. Paul strongly disagreed, "There is no way!"
A close reading of the next verse reveals the intensity of Paul's feelings: "But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work" (v. 38). The Greek term translated "deserted" is the term from which we get aposta-sized. In Paul's mind, Mark had done more than back off and bail out . . . the young man had apostasized. "He was unfaithful once, and I've learned in dealing with defectors that you can't trust them once they blow it, certainly not as royally as John Mark blew it." Paul had no room in his future plans for John Mark ... at least not now.
Unless I miss my guess, you are leaning in favor of Barnabas, right? I understand, and I am tempted to agree. However, I am reminded of a proverb we would be wise to consider: "Like a bad tooth and an unsteady foot is confidence in a faithless man in time of trouble" (Prov. 25:19).
Franz Delitzsch, the late reliable and reasonable German scholar, amplifies the verse to say: "He who, in time of need, makes a faithless man his ground of confidence, is like one who seeks to bite with a broken tooth and one who supports himself on a shaking leg, and thus stumbles and falls." 4
Before you start feeling too magnanimous and greathearted, let me ask you if you have ever loaned money to somebody who never paid it back. Let's say the debt is still outstanding. My question is this: Would you be desirous of loaning that person money again if you had a chance? Probably not. Suddenly, the issue is clearer.
Why? Because confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is a shaky thing. He stumbled and fell once . . . he's still not paid you back, and chances are good he will do the same again. Paul's reasoning is, what if he defects again and one of us gets hurt ... or it has an impact on the lost souls
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
we're ministering to? What if his action gains public sentiment and several in the church begin to be persuaded that John Mark has a better plan, leaving the home church polarized? It's risky, no doubt about it.
Paul has a point. If you see only Barnabas' side, chances are good you have never been in a rugged place in ministry and had a partner fail you. Nothing hurts quite like that. I am not saying I vote for Paul or that I vote for Barnabas. I am really saying I see both sides . . . which highlights my earlier comment that both sides have validity.
Was it really a severe argument? Verse 39 states that the conflict resulted in a "sharp disagreement." It is the Greek word paroxysm. Interestingly, our English word is a transliterated Greek word. "There arose such a paroxysm." One Webster's dictionary says a paroxysm is "a sudden attack, as in a disease." It is a convulsion, a violent emotion. There arose such a clash of wills the rift could not be mended. The final outcome? They agreed to disagree. As Scripture states, "They separated from one another."
The Permanent Separation
The fact is that the two men never ministered together again. They reached such a stalemate in their argument that one said, "I'm going this way"; the other, "I'm going that way." If you take a map and study where each went you will see they traveled in opposite directions—Barnabas and John Mark took to the sea and traveled to Cyprus; Paul and Silas (his new partner) stayed on the land and went northeast toward Syria, then swept over toward the west as he came to Cilicia and the other cities.
There was a loss of temper. There was an outburst of unrecorded, strong words. I am glad all the words are not recorded in the passage of Scripture, just like you and I are glad that our words in a violent outburst of a recent paroxysm were not recorded, right? I don't want to diminish the heat of
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
their disagreement. There was a strong, highly charged debate between these two men of God.
One writer offers an imaginary dialogue that could have occurred that day between Paul and Barnabas.
Paul: John Mark? We can't take him. He failed us last
time.
Barnabas: Bu
t that was last time.
Paul: He's likely to fail us again. He's a deserter.
Barnabas: He's had time to think it over. We've^got to give him another chance. He's got the makings of a great missionary.
Paul: Tell me, Barnabas, isn't it because he's your cousin
that you want to take him again?
Barnabas: That's not fair. You know I've tried to help many people who aren't related to me. I'm convinced this lad needs understanding and encouragement. He could be a great evangelist some day.
Paul: We need someone who can stand up to persecution,
an angry mob, beatings, perhaps jail. Our team has to be close-knit, thoroughly reliable. How can we trust a lad who failed like John Mark? No, Barnabas. Recall the word of the Master, "No man who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Barnabas: I've talked to him about his failure. I'm sure he won't defect again. To refuse him might do spiritual damage at the moment of his repentance. It'd be like breaking a bruised reed, like quenching smoking flax.
Paul: It's too soon to trust him.
Barnabas: Paul, remember how soon after your conversion I took a chance on you. The apostles were afraid of you, thinking you were faking your conversion in order to infiltrate the church at Jerusalem. I didn't
Graciously Disagreeing and Pressing On
make you prove yourself first. I'd rather not keep John Mark waiting. I vouch for him now. 5
The Grace Awakening Page 17