Unity in Diversity – A case study
“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.” Act 15:37-39a
This was the infamous argument between Paul and Barnabas in the Bible, which causes us much perplexity. Are arguments unavoidable in ministry, even between mature leaders? Is it justifiable for them to go separate ways in certain circumstances? Is it wise to risk effectiveness of ministry in order to give failed people like Mark a second chance? Eventually, in hindsight, who was right and who was wrong between Paul and Barnabas?
In ministry, we face these issues frequently, particularly in a church like CPC, when there are significant differences in culture and background that contribute to diverse viewpoints. These issues are never easy to resolve.
I think one thing is certain: both Paul and Barnabas were wrong to allow their difference in opinion to lead to a “sharp disagreement” that resulted in them parting company. It is clear that it was an argument that harmed their fellowship as partners in the gospel. This highlights the fact that even the best of the best servants of God are not perfect. We all need to continue to deny ourselves every day.
What about their different viewpoints with respect to Mark? It could be that both of them were right, in that both stances were biblical. The Lord did say that "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). Mark was found not to be reliable in the first missionary journey. Did Paul not have a valid point in not using Mark, in order not to risk the very important objective of the second missionary journey of strengthening the young churches? Mark might fail again in this new longer and harder mission, and would not be a good witness with his track record of capitulation. Paul was probably more “task oriented” at that stage. He chose Silas to be his new partner, and the second missionary journey achieved greatly.
On the other hand, Barnabas was more “people oriented”. He empathised with Mark, for whatever reason he pulled out of the first journey. Didn’t the Lord give the apostles, such as Peter, many second chances despite their repeated failures? Shouldn’t Barnabas also give Mark a second chance if he recognizes his fault and endeavors to change? Barnabas took Mark to Cyprus, because Cyprus, his birthplace, had not been visited since the churches there had been founded. It was important work in a place which Mark would have found easier to equip himself to be a better servant of God. Mark eventually became an effective worker who even Paul acknowledged (see 2 Timothy 4:11).
Both Paul’s and Barnabas’ viewpoints were vindicated. How could they have resolved their differences when both were “right”? Perhaps for them to separate and bring on new people to form two teams was, in fact, God’s will, and the best way of achieving greater results than if they continued to pair up. They could have arrived at that conclusion in a harmonious way, even with pleasure and thanksgiving had emotions not dominated their deliberation.
Let us learn from this case study, and by His wisdom be able to turn our differences of viewpoint into strength in our ministries in CPC.
...
多元化中合—— 一案例研究
「巴拿巴一直想帶著稱為馬可的約翰一起去，但是保羅堅持不該帶他去，因為他從前在旁非利亞離開他們，不跟他們一起去工作。他們起了激烈的爭論，終於彼此分開。徒15:37-39上 (環聖譯本)
這是聖經中保羅和巴拿巴之間著名的爭論，是令我們非常困惑的。在事工中，即使是在成熟的領袖之間，爭論是不可避免的嗎？在某些情況下，他們分道揚鑣是可接受的嗎？冒著事工達不到果效的風險而給像馬可這樣曾失敗的人第二次機會，是明智的嗎？事後回顧，保羅和巴拿巴之間誰對誰錯呢？
在事奉中，我們也會遇到這類的問題，尤其是在雪梨華人長老會這樣多元化教會中，因文化和背景存在顯著差異時，會導致觀點的不同。這些問題從來都是不容易解決的。
在使徒行傳這事例上，我認為有一點是可以肯定的：保羅和巴拿巴都錯了，因他們都不應該讓彼此的分歧升級成激烈的爭論，最終導致他們分道揚鑣。很明顯，這爭論損害了他們作為福音夥伴之間的團契。這顯明了一個事實，即使是神優秀的僕人也免不了有意氣。我們真的每天都需要繼續學習捨己成為主合用的工人。
那麼，他們對馬可不同的看法又如何理解？他們倆都可能是對的，因為兩種立場都可能符合聖經原則。主確實說過：「手扶著犁向後看的，不配進神的國。」（路 9：62）。在第一次宣教之旅中，馬可確實曾失信。保羅為了不危及第二次宣教之旅非常重要的目標，要鞏固初建立的教會，而不想使用馬可豈不合理嗎？馬可可能會在這個新的、更長、更艱巨的旅程中再次失敗，並且因着上次的失敗也不是一個好見証。保羅在那個階段可能更「以事工為主導」。他選擇了西拉作為他的新夥伴，结果第二次宣教之旅取得了巨大的成就。
另一方面，巴拿巴更「以栽培人為主導」。他對馬可的失敗，無論出於何種原因退出了第一次旅程，都感同身受體諒馬可。儘管使徒們, 例如彼得，一再失敗，主不是也曾給了他們許多第二次的機會嗎？那麽馬可若知錯能改, 為何不可以给他第二次機會? 因此，他帶馬可去了居比路，那是馬可的出生之地，並自從那裡的教會成立以來，都沒有使徒去探訪過他們。這是一個重要的工作，馬可會發現在自己的家鄉更容易裝備自己成為主更合用的僕人。馬可最終真的成為一位有果效的工人，甚至連保羅也在後來承認如此（見提後 4：11）。
保羅和巴拿巴的觀點都得到了證明和肯定。當雙方在屬靈原則上都有理時，他們要如何解決當時的意見分歧呢？也許， 他們的分手，並提拔新人組成兩個新的宣教團隊，其實正是出於神的旨意，也是取得比他們繼續聯手更大成果的方法。若非容讓了意氣情緒影響，他們本可以以和諧的方式，甚至帶著喜悅和感恩地達到這個結論的。 那豈不更理想並榮耀主?
讓我們從這個案例研究中學習，並藉著祂的智慧，將我們的不同觀點轉化為雪梨華人長老會彼此事奉主的力量。
Rev. Christopher Chan
