Some people view unity in Christianity to a degree that they cannot tolerate any disagreements. They assert that differences whether of style worship, minor doctrine or even method of selecting clergy are violations of God’s plans for the church. Some would assert that differences on a personal level are signs of sin in the parties to the disagreement. I submit that Biblical example shows that disagreement is used by God and may be a function of different callings rather than personality conflicts or doctrinal error.

The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas before they were to set out on their second missionary journey(s) is often viewed as two friends squabbling over a trivial matter and God used it to fulfill His purposes. On one level, that is true. People often note that the squabble resulted in two missionary teams rather than one and this seems like a good thing. I agree. On a more profound level, however, this squabble may have resulted in the continuation of missionary efforts into the long-term future.

Upon returning from Jerusalem with Silas and Judas and the letter clarifying the Christian understanding of Gentile conversions, Paul and Barnabas settled down in Antioch for a while. We don’t know how long, but it was probably a matter of weeks before Paul approached Barnabas with a proposal to return to all the churches they had established on the previous trip. Barnabas was enthusiastic for the task, but wanted to bring his nephew, John Mark, along. Paul opposed this because John Mark had left the first missionary journey not long after leaving Cyprus, his home territory. Paul felt that John Mark would only fail them again. Barnabas wanted to give the boy another chance.

Nobody else has to agree with me on this, but I think John Mark left the first missionary journey in part because Paul was an overbearing intellectual who made the boy feel small. That’s just my take on the situation. I like Paul’s theology and I admire his ability to explain doctrine and confront heresy, but I don’t think I would like him personally, at least not at the beginning of his ministry. I think he made John Mark miserable and, already homesick, the boy opted out. I also think Paul was right and John Mark would have ditched them again. However, I don’t think he ditched Barnabas, because Barnabas was a very different sort of personality from Paul. Also, the Bible doesn’t record it, so I’m thinking it didn’t happen.

What did happen was that two missionary teams were formed and Barnabas and John Mark revisited the churches that Barnabas and Paul had started on the first missionary journey, while Paul and Silas covered mostly new territory. One wonders what might have happened if there’d been no squabble. They would have returned to edify the churches they had established, but not really to evangelize new territory. Maybe there would have been no second missionary journey if Paul and Barnabas had not disagreed over John Mark.

“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. 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. And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.” Acts 15:36-39

I don’t think this was a personal rift. I don’t imagine Barnabas and Paul shouting curses at one another as they separated. I know of commentators who would disagree, but a strong disagreement between friends and co-laborers over methods is very different from a personal falling out. This disagreement was not rooted in pride, ambition or offended feelings. These two men had different spirit gifts, different outlooks and, perhaps, different callings. The outcome of their separation was very positive overall. There are certain characteristics of their disagreement that we could all learn from for harmony within our churches.

Paul and Barnabas kept their disagreement on a personal level. They don’t seem to have involved others in it; hence Luke’s rather banal dealing with the separation. There was apparently not a lot of gossip floating about and it seems Paul and Barnabas remembered it as a sharp disagreement that they didn’t allow to alienate them as friends and brothers. While both men stuck to their convictions, they resolved the disagreement by separating into two teams. The Corinthian letters suggest they worked together again. There’s no hint they were acting out of self-interest or ambition and they didn’t try to make it into a Biblical issue whereby one of them was right and the other must be wrong.  How often, when two Christians differ, we try to sanction our actions with texts of Scripture. Each party gathers up a collection of proof texts, and the one with the longest list wins. This was not a Biblical issue, in the sense that one of the two was doing the Biblical thing and the other was being disobedient. Both Paul and Barnabas were “right” to do what they did, and would have denied their convictions and calling to do what the other felt compelled to do. They were acting in accordance with their respective spiritual gifts and calling. Of course Barnabas would encourage John Mark to a higher standard while Paul would come down hard on failure to complete a mission. This was their personalities, but it was also their callings. Both ministered to John Mark by what they did. I suspect Paul’s refusal to take him with had a huge impact on Mark as did knowing that Barnabas was willing to invest his life and ministry in him. Paul’s negative response combined with Barnabas’ positive response would encourage Mark to take his problems seriously and strive to prove himself faithful.

All too often, when partners in ministry have separated in an unhealthy way, they have both pursued the same ministry, in the same place, requiring the involvement and support of the same people. Division or separation has not solved a problem, it has expanded it, resulting in competition rather than cooperation. Barnabas took Mark, and went to Cyprus. Paul took Silas and went in the opposite direction. The itinerary which they had planned was, in effect, cut in two, so that their initial purposes were met, but in a way that created no problems for the ministry of either. The result of this separation was two missionary ventures, not just one. Barnabas turned, at least temporarily, from a ministry of evangelism in dangerous areas to a ministry of edification (we’d call that discipleship now) to existing churches. Paul seems to have grown from the experience and his later relationship with Timothy shows that he softened toward young people. Others were involved in ministry, including Silas, Timothy, and Luke. The Book of Mark was partially the result of Barnabas’ ministry while Paul’s ministry planted many new churches. Neither Paul nor Barnabas later needed to repent of any wrongdoing in the matter of Mark, and Paul would later say Mark was of profit to his own ministry (2 Timothy 4:9).  

By reducing the number of churches Paul needed to visit, it opened doors to reaching new, unreached cities with the gospel. Paul seems to have learned a lesson in choosing to lay hands too quickly on a person, especially one who was not yet proven (1 Timothy 3:10; 5:22). He may have concluded that in the future he needed to commit himself to faithful, proven men, with gifts similar to his own, so that he could extend and reproduce his own ministry and gift (2 Timothy 2:2). Paul may also have learned to be more sensitive and tender toward those who are not as “thick skinned” as he. Paul seems to have grown in gentleness and understanding, as he dealt with Timothy, and I think that this experience with Mark was significant to his education.

One of the strongest gifts of Barnabas was his gift of encouragement (Acts 4:36). Barnabas first came alongside Paul at a time when he was a newly born believer, and when none of the apostles would associate with him, fearing him. Barnabas sought Paul to minister with him in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). As of Acts 13:9 and following, the need for Barnabas diminished. Paul could stand on his own while Mark needed Barnabas’ gift of encouragement. This strong difference of opinion and of approach was the means by which God could separate these two “inseparable” friends, brothers, and servants.

The separation of Barnabas paved the way for the selection of Silas (and others, like Timothy and Luke). For the second missionary journey, Silas was a better partner than Barnabas. Like Paul, Silas appears to be a Roman citizen, while the Bible doesn’t record if Barnabas was. How difficult it would have been for Paul to protest against his unfair treatment as a Roman citizen in Philippi if Barnabas were not a Roman (Acts 16:37). Moreover, Silas was from the Jerusalem church, thus could add weight to the letter from the Jerusalem Council, as he had been sent to do. Taken as a whole, the gifts and ministries of Silas appear to have been better suited to the second journey than those of Barnabas, thus God orchestrated a change in personnel.

We also see the hand of God at work once again in Acts, providentially orchestrating and arranging circumstances in such a way that the gospel is advanced among the Gentiles. The Jerusalem Council, which defined and defended the gospel, prepared the way for a wider mission field into Gentile territory. The disagreement between these two leaders paved the way for reaching a larger territory.

Christians can disagree with each other and both can be right. Disagreements don’t necessarily result in sin, and are not evidence of some sin on the part of those who differ. Disagreements can serve very beneficial purposes.

If there is a prominent theme emerging in Acts it is UNITY IN THE MIDST OF DIVERSITY. The gospel which our Lord made possible for His apostles to proclaim was one gospel. Jewish believers and Gentile Christians were recognized as different in Acts, but the gospel they believed and the faith they held was a common one to both. Paul and Barnabas did have different gifts, different perspectives, even different callings, but they remained, to the end, one in the faith and bonds of love. Their parting was a division, not a divorce.

Paul and Barnabas differed in a way that led them in separate directions, but they did not allow their disagreement to become a controversy or a source of contention. They went their separate ways, respecting the other, but convinced about their own actions.

Whether by divine design or our own sinfulness, there are going to be differences among and between people in this life. Christian unity does not deny these differences and does not attempt to change all of them. If we are to live in unity, we must, as Christians, agree on those few things which are essential to salvation. For this reason, the Jerusalem Council gave a full airing of opinions and issues, and then the apostles, elders, and saints came to a unanimous decision. This “unity of the faith” must be preserved in the “bond of peace” and harmony (Ephesians 4:3). The “unity of the faith” is that which will only be attained in our glorified state (Ephesians 4:13).

If we are to preserve the “unity of the Spirit,” we must deal Biblically with those differences which arise between us, whether on individual, corporate or church universal level. From the example of Paul and Barnabas, let me suggest some of the principles which should guide and govern our differences so that the “unity of the Spirit” can be preserved.

Believers will disagree because we are human. We should note who it is who differs with us and why. We should seek to discern the source of our differences and the seriousness of the issues involved. We should determine if the difference is a matter affecting a clear Biblical teaching or doctrine that is central to the gospel or a matter of interpretation, personal conviction, or individual gift or calling. We should seek God’s guidance as to the appropriate response, relying on Scripture to guide our response. There may be times, as with the Jerusalem Council, when we will have to stand upon Biblical grounds and define our position. There may be times when God’s work will simply be multiplied by our division. Paul and Barnabas parted in ministry, but never in spirit or unity. We should strive to do the same.