"Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company."

"Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children, and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." -- Ephesians 5:1

         There is conflict on the journey of faith, and sometimes it takes the form of internal disagreement. Sometimes sincere believers disagree. In reflecting on my own experience in the church, I have noticed that when churches become overly focused on themselves, when they lose a passion or focus on evangelism, the disagreements tend to become personal and petty. For example, the argument might be over the color of the restrooms. When the church is not actively focused on making disciples it becomes much more aware of personality clashes, and people can carry overly long memories of past incidents. In these churches I have read of pastors who see their role as one of "putting out fires."

         It is quite different in a church that becomes active in reaching out to its community and in doing God's will in disciple-making. In such churches there is energy, attractiveness, and a kind of buzz reflective of people using their gifts and trying new ideas. It can feel almost chaotic, but there is a joy that comes with it. It is in this type of situation that at some point people will come into sharp disagreement with each other. Such disagreement is usually not mean-spirited and not the result of sinful behavior. Rather the disagreement comes out of people acting passionately in their desire to see God's will accomplished. The arguments are about evangelism methods, leadership and priorities. People bump into each other. It is in those instances that this text in Acts is instructive.

         Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch after their first journey and a trip to Jerusalem. They spend some length of time teaching in Antioch, and I think there was an energy and a buzz in the church in those months. Then Paul proposes a second journey, to visit the churches they had begun and probably to bring the decision of the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile believers to these churches. That is when the disagreement hit. The outward issue is whether John Mark should go along. He turned back on the first trip. Is he a good choice to be on this mission team?

         There is perhaps a lurking issue as well. There is tension in the church concerning Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. How much of the purity laws do Gentile Christians need to keep? When Peter came to Antioch, he pulled back from table fellowship with Gentile believers. Paul confronted him on that. Barnabas sided with Peter.

         Conflicts are never simple. It is not just one issue, or we would be able to resolve them much more easily. This appears to be a complex disagreement. It is a family issue – Mark is the cousin of Barnabas. It is an issue of ethnic tension, reflecting long generations of mistrust between Jews and Gentiles around the issue of holiness. It is a leadership issue: on the first journey Barnabas and Paul become Paul and Barnabas, and I am not sure they ever really talked about that. It is a personality issue: Barnabas is an encourager, he believes in giving people second chances. Paul has a heart for the church, he sees the mission whole. And, after all, he was the one who got stoned and left for dead, not Barnabas and certainly not Mark. If he is going to return to that spot, he wants a trustworthy team around him. All of these issues carry significant emotion and have a history.

         They cannot agree. Neither backs down. The word used for the conflict indicates a heated exchange in which both argue with force and neither budges. This must have been felt in the church. Paul and Barnabas, who surely were seen as the team who would stay together forever, part company. They cannot go on mission together. The argument is not resolved.

Notice that the church does not seem to clearly take sides. Also, Luke gives the account in such a way that it is hard to tell which side he is on. There are just a few subtle clues. In the end, Luke gets on the ship with Paul and Silas. This happens clearly in verse 11 of chapter 16, where he shifts language to "we put out to sea", and "we traveled." He appears to side with Paul.

         It is hard to tell whose side the church chooses. Barnabas and Mark leave and begin their mission. Paul and Silas leave, going overland, "commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord." Perhaps the church feels Barnabas is right here, that Mark should be given a second chance. But they extend grace to Paul, trusting how he will handle the situation.

         What do we learn from this unresolved conflict?

First, the church does not stop its mission because of a dispute over strategy. Barnabas and Paul each take half of the territory, and then they go on from there. The Gospel is extended. Paul chooses Silas, which is interesting, because he is very much like Barnabas. Silas, or Silvanus, was a leader in the Jerusalem church, and known as a prophet of encouragement. Paul's maturity is shown here. He does not jump to someone who is the opposite of Barnabas.

         Second, the mission does not stop the relational work of reconciliation. It is not enough to go their separate ways and pout about it. Several passages in Paul's letters indicate a reconciliation with Barnabas and certainly with Mark.

I Corinthians 9:6 - Paul is defending his method of ministry and says, "Don't we have a right to food and drink? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?" Paul admires Barnabas and keeps in contact with what he is doing. Barnabas affirms what he has learned from Paul. I don't think they allowed their conflict to destroy their relationship.

         This is clearer when we consider what happens to Mark.

Colossians 4:10 - "My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him."

Philemon 24 - "Epaphras sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers."

II Timothy 4:11 - "Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry."

Paul does not hold grudges. He makes a commitment to godly living and to restored relationships. The grace that the church extended to Paul was effective, it brought a good resolution.

         Third, out of the separation of the mission team comes a whole new generation of leaders. We now run into Silas, Timothy, Lydia and a bit later, Priscilla and Aquila. There are better ways to do this, but sometimes we have to separate good friends to allow a new generation of leaders to emerge.

         I see several principles for handling conflict that come from this account:

•  We are not to be surprised by conflict in the church. It is going to happen.
•  When conflict comes, usually it is not a personal attack by an evil person. Usually conflict in the church is between sincere believers about how best to carry out the work of God.
• It is always best to try to resolve conflict early. Maybe Paul and Barnabas could have dealt with some of these issues earlier.

Paul's model is to take the long view with a commitment to restoration and a willingness to forgive. He does not live with smoldering anger over this. He also does not live in prideful stubbornness. When Mark proves himself, Paul welcomes him fully.

Paul teaches us that our calling in Christ is both to a task of doing God's will and also to relationships of love. I think many of us have been shaped by the powerful example of Martin Luther. When pressed in the great crisis of his faith, he nailed the 95 theses on the church door and went on to say, "Here I stand; I can do no other." That action has shaped our view toward conflict. We can feel that any attempt to preserve a relationship is a sign of weakness, that we are called to take strong stands on issues, and be that lonely voice of righteousness.

Paul shows us a different model. His commitment to Christ was unwavering, and he lived it out in both mission and relationship. He did what he thought was right, and then he worked on restoring the relationship with his brothers in Christ. There is a humility in Paul that is important for us to see. The conflict did not kill the relationship.

         Most important, what we see here is that conflict is resolved only in the power of Christ. We get the sense here that Paul did what he could to keep his heart free from bitterness, and then he relaxed, he let Christ work. Apparently Christ did work. Sometimes only Christ can truly resolve the conflicts of our lives. We simply need to trust him to do that. In this event anyway, that is when mission really was extended to the ends of the earth.

         Amen.