Posted by deangonzales on March 6, 2010
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 25.5 (see also LBCF 26.3), “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error.” There are at least two ramifications that flow from this doctrinal assertion. First, no church or ecclesiastical organization should assume the posture of having arrived at complete doctrinal and spiritual maturity–including Reformed churches and organizations! Hence, when we take too much pride in being “ReformED,” we run the risk of losing sight of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda (”always reforming”) and of assuming the rather haughty posture that we’ve got a “corner on the truth.” As a result, we can tend to spend too much time criticizing others and develop an unhealthy resistance to receiving criticism (whether from outside or inside our circles). Second, since we’re not immune to errors and imbalances and weaknesses, we should be just as ready to learn from others outside our ecclesiastical circles as we are eager to help them see their faults. In other words, we shouldn’t assume that we’re the only ones who have something profitable to bring to the table, that everyone else needs to keep quiet and learn from us. Rather, while we may have some insights and wisdom to offer our evangelical brothers, we can expect they probably have some things to teach us as well.
With the preceding remarks in view, I’d like to commend to you two recent blog entries by one of our seminary students, Bill Streger, Pastor of Kaleo Church in Houston, which is part of the Acts 29 Network, an association of pastors and churches focused on reaching the unchurched and planting churches. In the first entry, entitled, “Uncool People Need Jesus Too” (see link below), Bill directs a caution to pastors within his own ecclesiastical circles. Basically, he warns them against allowing a good thing (i.e., a burden and effort to reach the younger “hip” generation) to develop into an imbalance (i.e., a failure to be burdened for and reach people who may not be young and “hip”). In the second entry, entitled, “What I Actually Meant” (see link below), Bill provides some qualifying remarks to clarify the intent of his original post. He assures his colleagues (some of whom took offense at his first post) that he was offering the admonition not as a broad-brush critique of the whole movement but as a general caution regarding a potential pitfall into which some may unwittingly fall.
Personally, I didn’t need Bill’s qualification. I understood that his remarks were simply a generalization and that he wasn’t impugning the motives of those whom he was warning. Moreover, I understood the cautions as coming from one who was overall appreciative of the good in his ecclesiastical circles but who simply wanted to encourage biblical balance and maturity. Nevertheless, as one who has sometimes offered self-criticisms of my own “movement,” I know what it’s like to be misunderstood. Of course, this is not to say that I’m always above reproach in the way I communicate criticisms. Sometimes I fail to make necessary qualifications. This is why I appreciated Bill’s humble willingness to post a second entry in order to clarify his intentions and even concede that he could have said it better the first time. In the end, though, I think every church, denomination, or ecclesiastical “movement” ought to remain self-critical in the spirit of semper reformanda. If you read both of Bill’s posts, you’ll see that he highly esteems the Acts 29 Network, its leaders, and the brothers who are part of it. But he also recognizes the truth expressed in the Puritan confessions, namely, that no church or body of churches has “fully arrived.” Consequently, he’s willing to be self-critical in the interests of helping his church and his sister churches to become aware of pitfalls and to grow in “the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13, ESV).
I believe that we, as Reformed Baptists, can profit from Bill’s caution against the tendency to be trendy and to mimic other ministries in ways that are unwarranted or imbalanced. Perhaps more importantly, we can profit from Bill’s willingness to be self-critical. There’s always a danger of becoming so enamored with our strengths that we become blind to our weaknesses. May the Lord help us!
“Uncool People Need Jesus Too” by Pastor Bill Streger
“What I Actually Meant” by Pastor Bill Streger
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on February 2, 2010
Pastoral Theology is appropriately subtitled “The Pastor in the Various Duties of His Office.” In the book, Dr. Thomas Murphy carefully provides the reader a balanced mixture of theological exposition and practical exhortation. Each chapter seeks to address a unique area of focus common to those in pastoral ministry, providing instruction for how a man might faithfully and biblically serve God and His church in that particular area of ministry. Although Murphy deals with a wide spectrum of pastoral duties throughout the book, this review will restrict its focus to the chapters assigned for this course, specifically chapters two and three.
In chapter two, Dr. Murphy’s focus is “The Pastor in His Closet,” addressing the level of personal piety necessary for carrying out a faithful pastoral ministry. Murphy quickly makes it clear that the pastor’s piety is of the utmost importance, opening the chapter with suitably strong words: “Eminent piety is the indispensable qualification for the ministry of the gospel. By this is not meant simply a piety the genuineness of which is unquestionable, but a piety the degree of which is above that of ordinary believers.”
In the section that follows, the author enumerates a multitude of reasons that the pastor is to give great attention to maintaining his personal communion with God. It is clear that a pastor’s consistent, growing walk with the Lord is central to his being qualified to serve in his calling. In addition, this piety provides the spiritual power and godly example that will make his ministry effective. Murphy goes on then to outline how a pastor is to cultivate this increasing level of piety. The reviewer found this to be an immensely practical section, reminding even the most seasoned pastor of the crucial importance of seeking the Lord through His Word and prayer. Murphy bemoans the growing neglect of continual, fervent prayer on the part of pastors in his day. His words are more needed than ever in the face of modern evangelicalism in America:
The old ministers were not much better preachers than we are, and in many respects they were inferior, but there was an unction about their ministry, and success attended upon it now but seldom witnessed. And what was the cause of the difference? They prayed more than we do. If we would prevail and have power with men, we must first prevail and have power with God.
In addition to continual prayer throughout the day, it is essential that a pastor consecrate a time each day specifically for drawing near to God. Murphy suggests “that the pastor set apart the first hour of every day for uninterrupted communion with God”, providing the proper focus for the rest of the day.
Finally, if the pastor is to grow in his knowledge of the Lord he must maintain a regular practice of reading the Scriptures, mediating on them, and applying their truth to himself. Murphy concludes the chapter by providing a concise list of both hindrances and helps in developing the kind of personal piety that the pastorate requires. The author briefly reflects on temptations that are common to those in the ministry. From treating the ministry as simply a career to underestimating the forces of spiritual warfare, pastors must be on guard against these pitfalls. On the other end of the spectrum, Murphy reminds the reader of the great blessings that are afforded to those in pastoral ministry in that their livelihood provides them motivation and opportunity for pursuing godliness that are not available to most laymen.
As Murphy moves on to chapter three, his focus becomes “the pastor in the study.” If chapter two could be summarized as the need to cultivate the heart for communion with God through prayer and devotion, chapter three is dedicated to cultivating the mind for communion with God through regular, ongoing, systematic study. In making his case to the reader for the central role study is to play in the life of a pastor, the author goes as far as to argue: “God will not inspire a man without his own efforts, for the Spirit works through the diligent use of human means.” This is a much needed reminder that our diligent study to know God does not demonstrate a lack of faith in His illuminating grace, but instead avails itself to this very grace in the way in which God has commanded.
Murphy does not simply entreat the reader to devote himself to study, but provides immensely useful advice on how he might structure his time so as to give study the priority it deserves. The author even suggests times for when one might study and gives advice on the attitude and approach the reader should take during these times set aside for growth in knowledge. This down-to-earth, clear instruction was particularly helpful to the reviewer, providing a clear path forward for those ministering in a fast-paced, stressful culture which makes constant demands for one’s time and attention. For study to be effective, there must be a pre-planned system for ensuring it is a priority in the ongoing work of the minister.
Not only should there be an organized system for when and how the pastor studies, but he should also develop a strategy for what he will study. Murphy provides a suggested plan for gaining a broad knowledge of the whole counsel of God so that the pastor is prepared for whatever unique challenges and opportunities are presented to him. This includes a commitment to reading the Bible broadly and narrowly at the same time, diving deeply into particular books and sections of scripture while at the same time being able to place them in their context within the whole cannon. It requires the ongoing memorization of key passages of scripture, as well as a commitment to stay fresh with the original languages. Steadfastness in these areas will keep the pastor’s study from growing cold or dull, ensuring that he is continually equipped to carry out his ministry with competence and zeal.
Pastoral Theology is a tremendously helpful tool for pastors old and new alike. While it is written in a readily accessible style, it’s content is rich and transformative. Murphy lays a biblical foundation for each practice and then proceeds to provide clear direction on how it might be carried out. In a culture when pragmatism tends to win the day, this book stands as a resounding call to pastors to hold fast to what is most important by watching their “life and doctrine closely” (1 Timothy 4:16). Most importantly, Murphy reminds us over and over again that the key to a faithful, thriving ministry is not found in relying confidently in our talent or giftedness, but in being driven to our knees in utter dependence on God’s power and grace. It is as God’s under shepherds take this posture day after day that we live out Murphy’s prayer, found on p. 6 in the introduction to the book, that we might “contribute…to the promotion of the glory of Christ our King.”
Bill Streger
Pastor of Kaleo Church, Houston
Student of Reformed Baptist Seminary
If you’re interested, you may purchase the book at Trinity Book Service or Amazon.com for around $30.
Posted by deangonzales on January 1, 2010
In John 17:21, the Lord Jesus prayed to His Father on behalf of the disciples “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). In keeping with Christ’s prayer, the Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10): “I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” But in spite of these and many other statements in the New Testament, Christians still have sharp disagreements. Indeed, the very apostle who exhorted Christians to be of “the same mind” and of “the same judgment” did not always attain to that ideal himself. In Acts 15:36-41, we read the sad story of a sharp disagreement between Paul and his close companion, Barnabas—two of the greatest leaders of the early church. What made their disagreement so disheartening was the subsequent division that resulted.
Many of us can think of modern examples of disagreements among true believers. I believe this is part of the explanation for so many different evangelical churches in our day. Sometimes these disagreements have been so sharp that brothers have gone their separate ways even though they may hold the same creed! And these kinds of divisions can challenge our faith. We have a God-given affection for the church of Christ, and it pains our heart to see brethren divided. But the fact remain, good and godly believers–even church leaders!–may sharply disagree and, as a result, divide into separate spheres of ministry. The Bible itself acknowledges this fact. It not only presents ideal Christianity; it also portrays real Christianity. But the Bible’s purpose in revealing these sad realities is not that of the gossip magazine. Its design is not to make us disillusioned and cynical. Rather, the Bible reveals these things for our instruction and edification. With this in view, I’d like to (1) examine the disagreement and division of Paul and Barnabas, (2) to offer a biblical assessment of the incident, and (3) to draw out several practical lessons that should enable us to respond to brotherly disagreements and divisions in a godly way.
I. THE INCIDENT EXPOUNDED
After a brief furlough, Paul decides it’s time to get back on the missionfield. Therefore, he suggests to Barnabas that they revisit their former church-plants to check on the spiritual condition of the brethren and to give them further instruction: “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing” (15:36). Barnabas agrees, but he adds a stipulation: “Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark” (15:37). The Greek word translated, “was determined,” refers to purpose or intent. Barnabas intended to go with Paul on this second journey, but he also intended to take John-Mark.
We’re first introduced to John-Mark back in Acts 12:12, where we are told that he was the son of a Christian woman named Mary. In Colossians 4:10, we learn that Mark was the cousin of none other than Barnabas. So, it’s not surprising that Barnabas would want to take Mark on this missionary journey. But this wouldn’t be the first time Mark had assisted his cousin. According to Acts 13, Mark had accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. So Barnabas’ plan to take Mark on the second missionary journey seems a natural and logical plan.
Paul, however, firmly objects. He “insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work” (15:38). Literally, Paul didn’t consider Barnabas’s plan “worthy of consideration”! Why was Paul so opposed? “Because,” says Paul, “Mark deserted us half-way through our first missionary journey!” Paul’s accusation is confirmed by Acts 13:13, where we’re told that John-Mark “left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Luke doesn’t tell us exactly why Mark left Paul and Barnabas. But the word he uses to describe Mark’s action is commonly used for “apostasy” or “defection” (Lk. 8:13; Heb. 3:12). Mark didn’t apostatize from the faith, but he did apostatize from the ministry. As a result, Paul had some deep concerns. He didn’t believe Mark had the Christian maturity and character necessary for gospel ministry. Therefore, he opposes Barnabas’ plan to take Mark.
This brings us to the sharp disagreement and sad separation that resulted:
Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches (15:39-41).
Perhaps you thought only churches had splits. Here we have an “apostolic split”! And with that split a harmonious partnership comes to an end. Not a pretty picture! This prepares us for our second part of our study.
II. THE DISAGREEMENT ASSESSED
The first question we are compelled to ask is “Who was in the right?” To address this question, let’s consider the matter both from Paul’s as well as Barnabas’ perspective. Paul’s rationale is explicitly mentioned in the text. John-Mark had deserted his post. The apostle would remind us that such defection is a serious matter. He would remind us of the words of Jesus in Luke 9:62: “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Paul would remind us that faithfulness and reliability is an essential prerequisite for Christian ministry (1Tim 1:12; 1Cor 4:2). And he would also remind us of the danger of putting one’s trust in a man who has proven himself to be unreliable (Prov. 25:19): “Like a bad tooth and an unsteady foot is confidence in a faithless man in time of trouble.” Do you think the captain of a Special Forces unit would be eager to take along a soldier who had just deserted their unit on an earlier mission? Of course, not! This was no doubt Paul’s perspective. This is why he would later tell young Timothy, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin” (1 Tim. 5:22).
It certainly seems that the apostle Paul is acting according to biblical principle. In fact, verse 40 gives us the impression that the church at Antioch may have agreed with Paul: “But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord” (emphasis added). Notice there’s no mention of Barnabas or Mark. On the surface, it seems Paul was right. But before we form a settled judgment, let’s give Barnabas a chance to speak. After all, Solomon wisely reminds us that “the first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). And as Nicodemus reminded the Jewish council, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:52).
So let’s consider Barnabas’s perspective. Admittedly, the text does not explicitly identify Barnabas’ reasoning. Based on what we’ve seen of Barnabas’ character and based on other NT teaching, however, I think we can infer his perspective. First, I don’t believe Barnabas would have defended Mark’s previous actions in any way. Second, I don’t think Barnabas was indifferent to Paul’s concerns. He would have agreed with Paul that a minister of the gospel must be faithful. However, I believe Barnabas would have reminded his beloved colleague of another biblical principle. That other biblical principle is this: past sin and failure do not preclude future faithfulness and success.
This principle is beautifully illustrated in the life of the apostle Peter. Peter didn’t just desert his Lord and Savior; he denied Jesus three times! It’s hard to know which hurt Jesus more—Judas’ kiss or Peter’s three-fold denial. Thankfully, Peter repented, and Jesus forgave him. In fact, not only did Jesus forgive Peter, but according to John 21, Jesus re-commissioned Peter to the office of apostle. And the Lord didn’t wait five years or three years or one year or even six months. Jesus gave Peter a second chance within 40 days of Peter’s fall! Jesus knew that past sin and failure do not preclude future faithfulness and success.
I suspect Barnabas and Paul were familiar with the story of Peter’s re-commission. I can just hear Barnabas saying to Paul, “Paul, if Peter, why not Mark? If Jesus gave the other disciples who deserted him a second chance, why not Mark?” And I can also hear Barnabas also saying, “Brother, don’t you remember that when the Jerusalem church initially refused to trust you and accept your profession of faith, I was your advocate. Paul, I was right about you. Won’t you concede that I may also be right about Mark?”
What should we think? If I took a poll, there would probably be some who’d say, “I’m of Paul” and other, “I am of Barnabas.” But before we take sides, let me make two important observations. First, the disagreement was not a matter of heresy or immorality, but it was a difference of judgment regarding the application of biblical principle. Neither Paul nor Barnabas was accusing Mark or one another of heresy. This wasn’t a disagreement over one of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the deity of Christ or justification by faith or the hope of the resurrection. Nor was this a disagreement over a black-and-white moral issue. They weren’t debating whether it was appropriate for a minister to live in adultery or to steal or to commit murder. Instead, we have two men fully committed to Christ and to the Scriptures. Both of these men sought to live and labor in accord with biblical principle. The problem is that Paul was putting a greater emphasis on one principle, whereas Barnabas was placing a greater emphasis on another. And as they each placed their biblical principles in the balance, the argument was over which way the scales were tipping.
I believe many disagreements and divisions among brethren today can be boiled down to difference over which biblical principle to emphasize most in a given situation. For example, some pastors believe that forming and joining formal church associations is the way to implement the biblical teaching on unity and cooperation among churches. Other pastors are zealous to protect the autonomy of the local church, and are therefore opposed to forming or joining formal church associations. The result: we have associational and non-associational Baptist churches. And we can probably think of more examples: differences over methods of evangelism, styles of worship, approaches to childrearing, etc. Oftentimes these differences boil down to differences regarding the application of biblical principle. This was certainly true in the case of Barnabas and Paul.
But who was right? That brings me to my second observation: the Bible doesn’t demand us to take sides in this particular case. I don’t believe the immediate context or the rest of Scripture gives a clear judgment either for Paul or for Barnabas. The reference in verse 40 to the brethren commending Paul and Silas to the grace of the Lord doesn’t necessarily mean they were taking Paul’s side. It may simply mean that in spite of Paul’s separation from Barnabas the church in Antioch wasn’t going to cut Paul off. They’d still recognize his ministry as well as Barnabas’ ministry. And even if they were siding with Paul, it doesn’t mean they were right.
We know that Mark turned out to be a faithful minister of the gospel, and even Paul acknowledged this to be the case! In this letter to the Colossians, he refers to Mark as a “fellow laborer,” and in his final letter to Timothy, he writes, “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service” (2 Tim. 4:11). Moreover, not only was Mark useful to Paul. He became useful to Peter. Peter refers to him affectionately in his first epistle as his “son” in the ministry. According to tradition, it was this same Mark who under Peter’s direction and supervision became the human author of the second Gospel in our New Testament! That doesn’t mean Paul was wrong in his concerns about Mark at the time of his judgment. It does suggest, however, that Barnabas had a point.
So, what should we conclude about this strong disagreement and sad separation? I don’t believe the Bible demands us to take one side or the other. In fact, I believe the safest path is that taken by most commentators. Most commentators believe that both of these men were partly in the right, but they were also partly in the wrong. Which was mostly right and which was mostly wrong we probably cannot know this side of the grave. That’s my assessment.
III. SOME LESSONS LEARNED
In light of what we’ve seen, how should we view and respond to some of the disagreements and divisions among godly brothers in our day?
1. We need to face the reality that godly brothers may have sharp disagreements and even sad divisions.
Commenting on this incident, John Piper writes, “Here the bubble of idealism bursts on the needle of reality.” Sometimes we have too idealistic a view of the church and church leaders. And when some church or church leader disappoints us, we’re tempted to question the power of the gospel. We’re tempted to give up on the Christian faith. But God wants us to be biblical realists. He wants us to set our affections on things above, but He also wants us to keep our feet planted on the earth. As a result, we can’t expect to enjoy the degree of unanimity and unity that we’ll someday enjoy in glory.
Is your faith strong enough to accept that? Can you live with the reality that remaining sin may have clouded to some degree even the judgment of godly apostles? And if remaining sin could hinder the harmonious relationship of two godly apostles and send them in opposite directions, it shouldn’t surprise us when godly leaders and genuine believers strongly disagree and even separate from each other in our own day. Even the best of men are but men at best.
Can you live with the fact that God has not given us all the answers to every judgment call we have to make in this life? It’s true that God has revealed to us everything we need to know in order to be saved and to live lives that are pleasing to Him. This is what we call the “sufficiency of Scripture.” But God has not revealed to us everything we would like to know. Paul refers to this fact in 1 Corinthians 13 where he says,
For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come [that is, when Christ returns and the Age to Come is ushered in], then that which is in part [both mode of revelation and the knowledge it imparts] will be done away (9-10).
The day is coming, Paul goes on to say in verse 12, when we will “know fully just as [we] also have been fully known.” Until that time, we live in an age in which revelation and the knowledge it imparts is partial and, in a sense, incomplete. I like to think of it as a large puzzle. God has given us enough pieces of that puzzle to enable us to make out the picture. We can see what God wants us to see. However, there are some pieces of that puzzle that are missing. There are some details that we cannot see and will not see until we get to heaven. This is one reason why genuine Christians don’t always arrive at the same conclusions in their attempt to apply biblical principle. And as Matthew Henry correctly observes, “We shall never be all of a mind till we come to heaven, where light and love are perfect”
Is our faith strong enough to accept this? Can we live with the imperfections of this age? I believe God wants us to. So He takes the needle of Acts 15 and pops the bubble of unhealthy idealism. He doesn’t do it to make us disillusioned or cynical. He does it to help us learn to cope with the challenges of living in a sin-cursed world.
2. We learn that though we may not overlook brotherly disagreements and divisions, yet we do not always have to take sides.
Sometimes we do have to take sides. But in many cases, we don’t. We don’t have to form firm opinions. We may have concerns. We may have suspicions. But in many cases, it may be the better part of wisdom to leave the matter with the Lord. That seems to be what Luke is doing here. Luke doesn’t try to gloss over this sad situation. He doesn’t try to sweep it under the rug. But neither does Luke compel us to pick sides—nor does the Holy Spirit for that matter. Apparently, God doesn’t want us to know who was mostly right and who was mostly wrong.
I think that’s true of many disagreements among believers today. Why is it that two great Christian leaders labor in different ministries? Why don’t they attend the same pastors’ conferences? Why don’t they support the same missionary? Why doesn’t “Church A” have more communion with “Church B”? They’re in the same city. They hold the same doctrinal beliefs. Why aren’t they working together more? Brothers, God doesn’t always expect us to take sides. Therefore, resist the temptation to figure it all out and commit both sides to the Lord (Phil. 3:15).
3. We learn that God’s providence is able to overrule such disagreements and divisions for good.
This is not to deny the devil’s involvement in such disagreements and divisions. I’m quite sure he was able to get some mileage out of this apostolic split. As Matthew Henry suggests, the enemies of Christ would no doubt warm their hands at the flames of contention between Paul and Barnabas. But as John Piper notes, “The celebrations of hell are very soon ruined by the sovereign wisdom and grace of God.” What the devil intended for evil, God intended for good. As Paul reminds us in Romans 8:28: “We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” God uses His blessings for our good. God uses persecution and suffering for our good. And God even uses disagreements and divisions among genuine believers for the ultimate good of the church and glory of His name.
How so, you ask? Consider the following. First, as a result of this split between Barnabas and Paul, the missionary endeavor doubled in manpower. Instead of one missionary party consisting of two; now there would be two missionary parties consisting of four. And I suspect Silas counted Paul’s invitation a blessing and answer to prayer!
Second, now that the missionary endeavor had doubled in size, more work could be done and new churches could be planted. Paul’s original proposal to Barnabas was merely to revisit the churches they had already planted. But God had other plans. God wanted the work to expand into Macedonia and Greece. Therefore, Almighty God by a wise and holy decree permitted Paul and Barnabas to disagree and divide in order to bring the gospel to un-reached lands. After assessing this disagreement and division, Conybeare and Howson write:
Of this at least we are certain, that the quarrel was overruled by Divine Providence to a good result. One stream of missionary labor had been divided, and the regions blessed by the waters of life were proportionately multiplied.
Third, not only does God cause such things to work together for the good of the church and the spread of the gospel; I also believe He’s able to use them for the good of those involved in the disagreement and division. Think of how God may have used both Barnabas and Paul for Mark’s good. On the one hand, Barnabas’s willingness to restore Mark gave the young man hope. One commentator remarked, “Humanly speaking, Mark may have dropped out of Christ’s service altogether” were it not for Barnabas. On the other hand, I suspect that God used Paul’s perspective for Mark’s good as well. Can’t you picture Mark more determined than ever to show Paul by God’s grace that he really is useful to the ministry? In fact, God probably used this disagreement for the good of Barnabas and Paul. Perhaps, as a result of Paul’s emphasis on faithfulness, Barnabas became more watchful and demanding of Mark. Perhaps, Barnabas’s emphasis upon grace helped Paul to become a bit more sensitive and patient in his later ministry. We do know that in later years Paul would do for a slave named Onesimus, what Barnabas did for Mark. Paul would become Onesimus’s advocate and ask the slave’s master, Philemon, to give Onesimus another chance. So let’s look for ways in which God might be using the disagreements and divisions among godly brothers for their good, for our good, and for the glory of His name.
4. We learn that in spite of such disagreements and divisions, the work of God’s kingdom goes forward.
We have here one of the most tragic splits in all of church history—two of the greatest apostles divided! But this disagreement and division between Paul and Barnabas did not stop Christ from advancing His kingdom. It did not stop Paul and Barnabas from doing the work of missions. It did not paralyze the church. God’s people kept on doing what God had called them to do. And because they persevered, you and I are gather in Christian churches to worship 2,000 years later!
We too must persevere despite disagreements and division. Therefore, let’s not become disillusioned or cynical. Let’s not give up hope. Let’s remember the words of Paul to the church in Corinth—a church that was struggling with disagreements and divisions: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). That’s how God wants us to respond when brethren disagree. May He grant us the grace we need!
5. We learn it’s possible for brethren to have sharp differences over matters of principle and yet to remain brethren and to be supportive of one another’s labors for the kingdom.
What do we do when we’re one of the brothers having a disagreement? Even though Barnabas and Paul had such a sharp disagreement and even though they found it necessary from that point on to work separately, yet the Bible seems to indicate that both parties continued to view one another as faithful brethren and were overall supportive of one another’s labors in the Lord. Paul continued to view and refer to Barnabas as an apostle of Christ and fellow laborer for the kingdom (1 Cor 9:5-6). I suspect that he who exhorted the brethren to pray for “all the saints” did so himself (Eph 6:18). Paul kept Barnabas and Mark on his prayer list. And I think we can reasonably assume that Barnabas and Mark continued to pray for Paul.
Brothers, don’t take everyone who disagrees with you off your prayer list. You may not have the same degree of responsibility to pray for someone who has left the church as you did when he was a member. But you may still pray for him as God brings them to your mind and gives you opportunity. You say, “I’ll still pray for them all right. I’ll pray they get right with God and see things my way!” Very well. But also pray that God may bless them inasmuch as they are walking in the truth. And inasmuch as they’re not walking in the truth pray that God might have mercy on them. Just don’t take them off your list.
Furthermore, don’t allow your disagreement to be so firm and your separation to be so fixed, that it cannot be revised in the future. Paul had to later revise his opinion about Mark. As it turned out, Mark became a very faithful and useful minister. As it turned out, Barnabas’s willingness to give Mark a second chance paid off. And not only was Paul willing to revise his opinion about Mark and commend him to others. But he was also willing and humble enough to ask Mark for help. To Timothy he writes, “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service” (1 Tim 4:11). Can you imagine the joy in Mark’s heart as the he learned that Paul, who once doubted his usefulness, now desired his service!
So too, brothers, let us always be willing to revise our judgment calls. There are some convictions regarding clear doctrine and biblical ethics that we may not revise. But when it comes to making judgment calls based on the application of biblical principle, we should at least be willing to revise our opinions. And that won’t be so difficult to do if we maintain a disposition of brotherly love. That’s why Paul urges believers not to loose sight of the value and importance of brotherly love in our quest for knowledge:
Love is patient …
Love is kind …
Love is not arrogant …
Love is not easily provoked …
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things! (1 Cor. 13:4-7)
May God grant us greater measures of this love!
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 25.5 (see also LBCF 26.3), “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error.” There are at least two ramifications that flow from this doctrinal assertion. First, no church or ecclesiastical organization should assume the posture of having arrived at complete doctrinal and spiritual maturity–including Reformed churches and organizations! Hence, when we take too much pride in being “ReformED,” we run the risk of losing sight of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda (”always reforming”) and of assuming the rather haughty posture that we’ve got a “corner on the truth.” As a result, we can tend to spend too much time criticizing others and develop an unhealthy resistance to receiving criticism (whether from outside or inside our circles). Second, since we’re not immune to errors and imbalances and weaknesses, we should be just as ready to learn from others outside our ecclesiastical circles as we are eager to help them see their faults. In other words, we shouldn’t assume that we’re the only ones who have something profitable to bring to the table, that everyone else needs to keep quiet and learn from us. Rather, while we may have some insights and wisdom to offer our evangelical brothers, we can expect they probably have some things to teach us as well.
