There are differences over fundamental truths of the gospel, where the whole question of what defines a Christian is at issue. There also may be failings in the lives and Christian profession of believers. But there also may be differences over matters of personal judgement or behaviour in relations between those who are faithful believers. What may we learn about this kind of problem?
There are two New Testament examples that are of help, one involving two men and another involving two women.
Paul and Barnabas
This was a difference between two leaders of the church, about another believer, John Mark (Acts 15v36-41). He had assisted Paul and Barnabas during the Cyprus part of their first missionary journey (Acts 13v5), but then had left and returned to Jerusalem. Paul later suggests that they revisit the churches, but thought best not to take Mark. Barnabas disagrees, and “there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other”. They both agreed that Paul’s proposal to revisit the churches was a good idea. But on the matter of Mark, Paul is adamant. Barnabas is equally convinced, and their emotions became heated. Age, family loyalties, upbringing – all were different.
Here are two godly and gracious Christian leaders. What do we know of the relations between them? They were very different from one another in personality. The first we hear of Barnabas is that his name speaks volumes. His actual name was Joseph, but the apostles had nicknamed him “Barnabas” (son of encouragement) because he was so gracious and encouraging. He seems to have had an extraordinary ability to discern the true spiritual quality of a person that others might not perceive.
The best example of this was shown in his recognition of Paul’s gifts and qualities. Soon after Paul’s conversion, when most Christians were terrified of him and did not believe that he was a true disciple, who was willing to take the risk and argue with the apostles for welcoming Saul? Barnabas (Acts 9v27). Later, when Gentiles started coming to Christ in Antioch, who did the apostles in Jerusalem trust enough to go and assess the genuineness of their professions of faith? They “sent Barnabas to Antioch” (Acts 11v22). Shortly after, when Barnabas discerned that the Antioch revival was the Holy Spirit’s doing, who did he know would be best at helping these new Gentile Christians understand the gospel? Paul (Acts 11v25-26).
There are two questions involved in their acute disagreement about Mark. First, which judgement was right? This is a difficult question about the weight we should give to the wider work of the gospel on the one hand (this seems to have been Paul’s concern), and loving care to a young or weaker Christian (which seems to have been Barnabas’ concern). It was complicated by Barnabas’ and Mark’s family relationship. Mark was a ‘cousin’ of Barnabas (Col. 4v10), and Barnabas would have had a natural love for him.
Perhaps we cannot say whether one or the other was in the right. But to their credit, neither of them let the conflict distract from their respective efforts of spreading the gospel. I think both deserve the benefit of the doubt.
2. Was it right that their disagreement was “sharp”? Well, perhaps not. But God brought good out of this. Years later, Paul finds the formerly useless Mark “useful”. “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministering” (2 Tim. 4v11). And in Colossians 4v10, one observes that the once-rejected young worker was commended, and the Colossian saints were asked to receive him.
What may we learn from this? Paul says elsewhere: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12v18). Note the words “if possible”. These words carry the implication that, for all sorts of reasons, it’s not always possible for Christians to remain joined together in ministry. But it is always possible to trust God’s sometimes mysterious, inscrutable purposes; to not pass judgement prematurely; to be quick to forgive others, “as God in Christ forgave [us]” (Eph.4v32); and to let love cover a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4v8). For “love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13v7). Our call is to pursue faithfulness in disagreement, with love always being our aim.
Were Paul and Barnabas reconciled over this matter? We are not told that they met again, but there is one moment where Paul joins himself with Barnabas in underlining their equal right to be financially supported in their ministry (1 Cor. 9v6). What may we conclude?
- The closest of godly friends may fall out. What a warning this is! It can happen between those who are leaders in the church.
- In the midst of fruitful ministry, we may stumble over our own shortcomings. When we read an account like this, our consciences are stung. But the gospel advances and the church grows, not through our power, piety or special gifts.
- The deepest differences on matters of Christian judgement of this kind, when they are held in good faith and conscience, should never be grounds for a complete rupture of fellowship.
- The fact that this personal conflict is openly displayed on the pages of the New Testament is evidence that the Holy Spirit guided the writer, Luke, in producing this narrative. Natural inclination would have led Paul’s friend to omit this potentially embarrassing incident. There will always be times when good Christians will disagree over matters of judgement. The important thing is to keep focused on doing the will of Christ. That is what Paul and Barnabas both did. As a result, perhaps even more work was accomplished for the Lord because of the way their disagreement was handled. That God uses sinful servants never excuses our sin, but it always glorifies His grace.
Euodia and Syntyche
“I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have laboured side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life” (Phil. 4v2-3).
Here we have two strong, good women in Philippi who for some reason had fallen out – and it was affecting the whole church. They had jointly (“side by side”) laboured with Paul in the gospel. It does not appear to be about doctrine. These are women whose names were “written in the book of life”. The nature of the problem may be hinted at in Chapter 2 where the church is urged to be “one in spirit and purpose” and do “nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit but in humility consider others better than yourself”.
How does Paul approach the problem? He makes a direct address to “agree in the Lord”. As the NIV expresses it, “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord”. It is a strong word, and Paul repeats it because he is speaking to both, to show that this is not something where just one of them has to apologise or give way.
How does this help in a practical way? We are to focus on Christ until personal differences fade into insignificance, as Paul has manifested in a remarkable way from his own experience (Phil.1v15-18). Alec Motyer puts it like this: “Where there is agreement on what the gospel is, there is no room for personal disagreement … Where there is disharmony inside there is bound to be defeat outside. Where Christians cannot bear the sight of each other, they will not be able to look the world in the face either.”1
But the wider fellowship should not just leave it to them to sort out. Paul addresses a “true companion”, who is to “help” in the sense of becoming actively involved, to come alongside them. Indeed, this true companion is to make the first move. He (or possibly she) is unnamed. Therefore, Motyer goes on to say: “Here we may put our own names, ever alert to discern and then to heal the cancer of disunity in the fellowship of the church.” Paul does not take a position – but neither does he sit on the fence. For some the temptation is to avoid confrontation and stay out of situations in which they should intervene. For others, the tendency is to poke our noses into places where they don’t belong.
But there will be situations where trust cannot be recovered. It is sad when things are so, but fellowship is not foolishness, and we need to be aware of each other’s weaknesses. But we can understand one another, express practical concern and pray for each other. John Newton manifested this spirit as well as anyone. On one occasion he refers to a letter of his which had “brought a reply full of resentment and provocation”. He records: “I am more confirmed in what I have often observed and have expressed in print, that self-justification usually does harm, and seldom answers the end proposed. I hope to decline it for the future; for though I hope I said nothing but the truth, yet I find it more than he could bear, and his answer is more than I can bear. Thus in the multiplicity of words there wants not sin. The Lord pardon us both.”2
Are we conscious of troubles or difficulties in our or others’ Christian relations? If they affect us directly, then do not think it is down to the other person to take the first step. If it doesn’t affect us directly, then, like this “true companion”, it still may be our responsibility. Whether facing acute dissent within the fellowship of the church or living the daily challenges and privileges of the Christian life, we must model our relationships on Christ, surround our circumstances by prayer, drill our minds in godly thinking and subject our lives to the word of God. For “if we ignore the laws, we must be prepared to forego the blessings” (Motyer).
FOOTNOTES
1. Motyer, A. The Message of Philippians. (Inter-Varsity Press. 1984). 2. Bull, J. The Life of John Newton. (Banner of Truth Trust. 2007)
