In the sermon titled 'Agreeing to Disagree,' speaker Peter Allison reflects on a significant biblical conflict between Paul and Barnabas found in Acts 15. After the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas planned to visit the churches they had established. However, a sharp disagreement arose over whether to take John Mark, who had previously abandoned them. Paul, task-oriented and focused on the mission's success, opposed taking John Mark due to his past failure. In contrast, Barnabas, relationally inclined and an encourager, wanted to give John Mark another chance. This disagreement led to their separation, with Paul taking Silas and Barnabas taking John Mark. The sermon emphasizes that such separations are not inherently sinful and can lead to greater mission opportunities, as evidenced by the two new missionary teams. It underscores the importance of valuing different perspectives, maintaining fellowship despite disagreements, and recognizing that failure is not final. John Mark's eventual rehabilitation, becoming valuable to Paul and writing the Gospel of Mark, illustrates the potential for growth and reconciliation. The sermon concludes with lessons on handling conflicts constructively and viewing differences as opportunities for personal and spiritual growth.

Our Scripture reading is from Acts 15, the end of the chapter beginning at verse 36. The Jerusalem Council has concluded. People have returned to the church at Antioch. We pick up verse 36. Then after some days, Paul said to Barnabas, 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." Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark.

But Paul 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. 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. His testimonies are wonderful.

May our soul keep them. Father in heaven, Your Word is truth. Sanctify us by Your Word and give to us faith as we hear Your Word that we might believe. And believing have life in You. And I ask that You would sanctify my lips, that from a vessel of clay the riches of Your grace might be shown forth.

In Jesus' name, Amen. Well, some conflict is a lot like that man in the very well-known story who went to the doctor because he thought his wife was getting deaf and he wanted some advice. I'm sure you've heard about him. When the doctor asked what was wrong, he said that there was nothing wrong with him, but he was concerned about his wife going deaf because she couldn't hear anything he said. So after thinking a minute, the doctor said, well, here's what you need to do to test your hearing.

Go home and ask her something from about 10 feet away. And if she can't hear, move closer and ask her again. And you keep repeating that until you get close enough that she can hear. So the husband went home and asked his wife what they were having for supper. And when he didn't get an answer, he moved a little closer.

He tried again. When he didn't get an answer, he moved a little closer and tried again. Eventually, he heard her say, well, for the fifth time, we're having meatloaf. See, conflict exists because someone thinks they are correct, and then it's the other person that's not thinking straight. Sometimes it is a clear case of being right, one side being right and the other side being wrong.

But other times, it's not so clear cut. In fact, at other times, conflict can arise because well-intended, faithful people are coming to a different judgment about something. And that, I believe, is what is happening in this situation. Both sides have legitimate points. Paul, who felt great weight, he said, for the daily care of the churches.

He described to the Corinthians, in 2 Corinthians 11, how he was in weariness and toil and often sleepless and in hunger and thirst, and in fastings often, and cold and nakedness. And he's probably describing some of the things that happened on his first missionary journey. And then he says, besides these other things that come upon me daily, my deep concern for all the churches. This is Paul who had written a letter to the Galatians just prior to the Jerusalem Council at the beginning of chapter 15. He's completed that missionary journey and the Judaizers have come and are destroying the churches he's planted.

And he writes this very strongly worded letter to these Galatian churches to counter the Judaizers in those churches. And so now they've come back from the council. This thing has been decided. They've been there a while. And now he feels the need to go visit these churches and see how they're doing in person.

To follow up his letter with a personal visit. And so Paul goes to Barnabas and says, hey Barnabas, how about going back and visiting the churches, the brothers and sisters in all those churches that we plan, and then let's see how they're doing. And that's a good desire. It's a righteous plan. And Barnabas is all for it.

He's for that plan. He's with Paul. He's all game to go back. He thinks it's a good idea. But he's determined to take John Mark with them on this trip.

You notice he's determined. This is something he had thought about, I'm sure. He had planned. And so when Paul comes to this, Paul meets a determined opposition, or determined, not opposition, but determined desire to take Mark with them. But Paul, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to this idea of Barnabas's.

He doesn't think it's a good idea. And neither side is willing to give. Neither side is willing to compromise for the sake of some kind of perceived unity. They each believe that something very important is at stake. And they're not willing to give it up.

This is important. It's not something that they can compromise on. So they're at an impasse, overtaking John Mark with them, given that he had deserted them at a very critical point on their first trip. And this is a sharp disagreement. I don't know if they were shouting, but They were very passionate about it.

This is a very strong word. This contention. The contention became so sharp. Barnabas had yielded to Paul's leadership on the first trip. Barnabas was the more senior person.

But in this case, he digs in his heels. He's unwilling to yield to Paul on this point. Mark was his cousin. Some people say nephew. I'm not sure.

Well, King James in a number of the older translations, most of them, translate it that Barnabas was his sister's son, which would make him a nephew, but the word is cousin. But Either way, he's a relative. But I don't think that's what's primary in his mind here. I think he's got other issues that are weighing on him. He has another focus in wanting to take John Mark with him.

And so who is right in this? These are both mature Christians. These men are both filled with the Holy Spirit. These men have both sacrificed for the church. Remember, Barnabas was the first one who was mentioned by name selling his land to provide for the needs of people in the church who had probably come from far away, or just other needs, poverty in the church.

He's selling his land to pay for that, to provide for that. Both were pioneer missionaries who took the Gospel to foreign lands. Both, the Bible says, have risked their lives for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The credentials, the track record of both these men is impeccable. Both were willing to work to support themselves when it was needed.

1 Corinthians 9.6 says, Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? To refrain from working. In other words, are we the only two people that have to work to provide for ourselves? You see, it can be definitely said that the overarching goal Of both their lives was the success of the Gospel and the advancement of the Kingdom of Heaven, the advancement of Christ's Kingdom. But Paul was task-oriented.

In terms of making decisions, people can be grouped into two broad categories based on what criteria they use to make decisions. You see, one group focuses on metrics and data, And they evaluate criteria against how it affects the mission or the task to be accomplished. That's what's prominent foremost in their thinking. So value or importance is defined based on how favorably something impacts their mission. If it advances the mission and the cause, the overarching cause, then that's good and they put a lot of weight on that.

They focus on questions like is it strong enough to do the mission? Is it fast enough? Is it reliable enough? Is it tested? What does justice require?

What's the law require here? And they even apply these types of metrics to people. So you can imagine Paul applying these metrics to John Mark. He didn't measure up very well. John Mark had failed in a big way on their first journey, deserting them at a very critical time and jeopardizing the entire mission.

Remember, the trip had been rigorous, physically demanding, resulting in a lot of personal hardship. And That's probably what Paul was describing there in Corinthians. Some of the hardships that he endured going through very mountainous territory, over mountains. Not easy geography to navigate. There were personal hardships, sleepless nights, all the hardships of just being out in that kind of territory, geography, that terrain.

They were traveling and ministering in much more primitive conditions than the affluent conditions that Mark was used to or able to handle. They were also ministering cross-culturally. You remember how big this is to the Jews. Jew-Gentile distinction is huge. Their whole lives were separated.

They didn't interact with each other. And so here it's John Mark taken out of the Jewish culture and being thrust into a purely Gentile culture. And he's supposed to minister in this and love these people. That's not always easy to do, unless your mind is set right about that. Paul was ministering to Gentiles who didn't know their Bible and certainly didn't follow the Mosaic Ceremonial Law code.

And on top of that, John Mark picked a very inopportune time to leave. Paul was apparently, according to other of his letters, apparently very ill at this time. And given the climate and the terrain, many people have speculated that he might have had malaria. But whatever it was, he was ill, and John Mark had left when Paul most needed him. He left when they were least able to replace him just based on where he left them and departed.

And so in Paul's mind, there's no way that he would take Mark with him on another missionary journey to the exact same place, over the exact same terrain, in the exact same conditions. In Paul's mind, Mark just needed to be pulled from the game and put on the bench for a while. You see, he was evaluating this situation in terms of criteria and how it would impact the success of the mission, the task. And it's important to note that Barnabas doesn't disagree with Paul that John Mark had failed them in a significant way. But he's weighing the criteria differently.

He's putting weight on criteria that Paul did not put much weight on. And so he's balancing his scale slightly differently in terms of what criteria he thinks is most important. Because see, Barnabas was an encourager. Barnabas was relationally oriented. He excelled.

It was his great strength in relating to people. Barnabas could see the good and the potential in other people where other people only saw red and danger. He so excelled at being an encourager, at his ability to relate to people and to see the potential in people. He so excelled at that that the apostles changed his name. His name was Joseph.

But he was such a strong encourager to the brethren that The apostles renamed him Son of Encouragement, or Barnabas. And it was Barnabas, this is ironic, I think it was Barnabas that saw the potential in Saul. When most people in the church were afraid of Saul. After all, he'd been the chief persecutor of the church, dragging Christians to jail and murdering them. Wrecking havoc.

Wrecking havoc in the church. And here's Barnabas taking Paul under his wing, so to speak, and introducing him to the apostles, promoting him, saying, look, here's a man. Look at what he's doing. In Acts 9, when Paul came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, verse 26 says. But they were all afraid of him.

They didn't know what to do with him. They only knew of him as somebody who was wrecking havoc. Maybe they had friends, relatives, that had been killed by Paul, or whom he had dragged into jail. And so they were afraid of him, and they didn't believe that he was a disciple. They thought, Well, maybe this guy's a double agent.

Maybe he's a spy. He's going undercover to infiltrate our church. The Chinese Communists do that. Luke writes that they were all afraid of Him and did not believe that He was a disciple. But Barnabas took Him and brought Him to the apostles.

And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road and that He had spoken to him and how He had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. But it was Barnabas that saw the potential in Paul. And it was Barnabas that brought him to the apostles and said, here's somebody that you should meet. Because Barnabas was an encourager. He excelled at relational skills.

And so you can see now why Barnabas feels it's very important for John Mark to go on the next missionary journey. He's probably thinking, Paul, don't you remember when everybody was afraid of you and you were an outsider and nobody would talk to you and they were all afraid ostracizing you because they weren't sure if you were even a Christian. And now here you're throwing away this guy. Yes, he did commit a shameful thing. He did desert us at an inopportune point.

But we need to help him. He can do better. We need to give him a chance. So Barnabas is determined. He's determined to take John Mark Because he sees a very important principle here as well.

And that is helping John Mark to achieve his gifts, use his gifts. And he sees the good that John Mark can do in the church. Some people have that ability to see in a pile of junk something beautiful. Some people can take a pile of junky wood and make an amazing piece of art out of it. And other people can see things in other people and recognize potential.

And this is what Barnabas was. And this is why he's so adamant, he's so determined, to take John Mark and not to leave him. Because you can imagine how discouraging that would be for them to leave without John Mark, when the last time he had gone with them. And he apparently was wanting to go again, willing to go again. And see, Barnabas then represents the other way that people make decisions.

The other people focus on personal criteria. How will this affect the relationship? How will this look to other people? How will others receive this information? And so he's putting more weight on these relational aspects.

Because he realizes that the very best way to build confidence is someone that has failed is to trust them to do the exact same thing that they failed at before. To help them get right back in the saddle as it were. You know when they say when you get thrown from a horse, you need to get back in the horse and ride again. Otherwise you can lose your confidence. And he didn't want that to happen to John Mark.

It's an important principle in relating to people, is when they fail to help them get back in the saddle again, by helping them and encouraging them to continue to do whatever it is that they failed at. You know, little kids are great at that. They can fall down and get up and fall down and get up and fall down and get up. They don't seem to be discouraged. But us older people, We've forgotten that.

And we fall down one too many times and we don't want to get up again. And so John Mark, he's failed. And that was a shameful thing. But he is, Barnabas being the relator and the encourager that he is wants to see him rehabilitated. Some people use the words modality and sodality to describe these two differences.

Modality refers to the mode. In math, the mode is what's the most common or most frequent. Culturally, it's the way things are customarily done. So you can have... Sodality refers to friendship or acquaintance or grouping together, solitude, coming together as groups, is where the word comes from.

But it's referring to people that are focused on the mission of an organization. You think of a lot of parachurch organizations, a lot of missionaries, pioneering missionaries. Their mission, China Inland Mission, was focused on China. That was how everything was evaluated. Is this going to help the Chinese mission?

And so Modality tends to biological church growth, and it focuses on the health of an organization. It's good at maintaining what has been established. And so modality leaders tend to be relationally oriented. Whereas sodality tends toward conversion church growth. Pioneers going out and starting new things, and they're focused on that mission.

And so what's the aftermath then of this separation? Or should I say of this division? Well, they separated. And they went to different places with different teams. So How do you differentiate?

I mentioned earlier about separations, and not all separations are necessarily wrong or sinful. How do you differentiate between separation that is sinful and separation that is not? Well, one important way is to look at the fruits that flow out of that division. What happens? What's it result in?

Matthew 7, 16 says, You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Therefore, you will know them by their fruits.

If this is a good tree, this is something good, it will bring good fruit. So what was the fruit that came out of this? Well, first thing we see is that there are two mission teams formed instead of one, and they go in two different places. So this resulted in really a doubling of the missionary teams out there. One, Barnabas took John Mark and went to Cyprus, which is a more established place.

It's where Barnabas was from apparently, from Cyprus, a Levite from the island of Cyprus. And that's where he went back. They had gone there on the first trip. It's a culture that's much closer to where John Mark was. It's a lot less arduous and rigorous in terms of the personal hardships.

And it wasn't cross-cultural to the same extent. And so he took John Mark and went there to continue the work. But also, what also came out of this is that John Mark is rehabilitated and becomes valuable to Paul's ministry. In taking John Mark back on another mission trip and enabling him, putting him in a situation where he's able to succeed, John Mark matures. From somebody who gave up and quit, to somebody who's capable, such that Paul can later say that he is valuable to me.

And he also went on to write the Gospel of Mark. So there's good fruit that came out of this. Notice also what didn't happen. They didn't split the church. We're half siding with Paul and the other half with Barnabas.

And that's the problem in the Corinthian Church. That didn't happen here. Because these were godly men and they handled this dispute in a godly way. They didn't condemn each other as heretics. They didn't refuse fellowship with each other.

They continued as friends, as brothers in the Lord, as co-laborers. They didn't separate from each other in terms of their fellowship. They separated in terms of their ministry. And this is really what's behind denominations. Denominations, people have noted, are really a good thing.

It allows us to practice those areas where we differ without being grading on other people who want to practice differently. And yet it allows us to work together in those areas where we can agree. So what can we, a few lessons that we can learn. One, separation is sometimes necessary and not necessarily sinful. Division is a result of the fall of man.

It's a consequence of sin. But it's not necessarily sinful in and of itself. In other words, it's not necessarily the direct result of sin in one or both parties. In that sense, it's like sickness. We have sickness because of Adam's sin and because of the fall, because we're all sinners.

And it brought the entire human race under God's wrath, the righteous and just wrath of God. And yet, an individual's sickness is not necessarily the result of their sin or the result of any sin, specific sin. It could be, sometimes it is the result, it's a chastening for sin, but many times it's not. It's like Job's case, sent by God for other purposes. Another example is languages.

We have different languages because of the sin at the Tower of Babel. But the fact that we speak different languages is certainly not sinful. It's certainly not wrong to learn other languages. In fact, more than any other single factor, the advancement of the Gospel is the driving force that is breaking down that language barrier. Missionaries desiring to translate the Scriptures into native languages have been the leaders in linguistics, learning languages that have never been written down before, and then translating the Scriptures into those languages.

So the Gospel is made, and the proclamation of the Gospel has resulted in great advancements in linguistics and removing that language barrier. So there are times when two people can have a different calling or a different focus and where they can see things differently. And often both those perspectives can have merit. There can be value in those sides. And this division I think is another example.

The church here we read did not decide one way or the other who was right or who was wrong. In other words, they recognized that both had their place. And they commend Paul. But the second thing we think we need to remember is that we need to guard against sins in the midst of an otherwise appropriate division. Because division itself, even necessary division, separation, can be a temptation to sin.

In other words, we're told to be angry and do not sin, because anger is so often associated with sin. So often, when we are righteously angry, we can be tempted more easily to sin. And so there's the caution. Be angry and do not sin. Do not let the sun go down on your wrath.

See, in this kind of division, it's very easy to impugn the motives of the other party. To think, What's wrong with them? Why can't they see this? It's so obvious and it's clear to us. And so we wonder why can't the other party See it.

It's easy to begin to assume that the other party must not like us then. It has something to do with them not liking us or that they have it in for us. And we can make all kinds of assumptions. It's so easy to do that. I remember once I reached out to a board member of a prominent national organization who I knew, had known fairly well in the past, And he never got back to me.

And I began to think, I guess he's angry with me. I guess he doesn't like us. I guess he's cutting us off. I mean, all kinds of things. That I began to wonder.

And it turned out when he reached out some weeks later that that was just the way it went. That was just the timing. You see, when there's separation, it's so easy to begin to question what's going on. And to begin to doubt the motives of other people. And it's easy to pull back from fellowship, to find ourselves not inclined to spend time with that person that we have a difference of opinion on.

And I think those are things we really need to guard against, to go out of our way to maintain that fellowship when there's been division, good division, necessary division. I won't say it's good, but necessary division. Because if these thoughts or these feelings are not addressed, we can even begin to imagine things that aren't true, what often happens next. People just begin to imagine things that never even happened, and to construct in their mind this edifice, this horrible person. So we need to guard against sin in the midst of an otherwise appropriate division.

We also need to see that disagreements are often complex. Sometimes in the middle of a disagreement, we want to make it so simple. It's just A or B. And why can't you see? But sometimes these things are not simple matters.

We should seek to understand the nuances of the other side, the other party, and what they're saying. And recognize that things aren't always simple, black and white. In God's eyes, they are all things black and white, but we don't see with God's vision and knowledge. And so there are complexities that we should be willing to acknowledge. Fourthly, we need to value differences.

Where there are differences, we need to recognize that, okay, this person is approaching this differently. It's not how I would do that. But I appreciate them doing that because I recognize that's a weakness in me. So I'm glad that they see it differently here. And I'm going to defer to that.

I'm going to certainly have not caused the fellowship to be hindered in any way. Or try to put a block in it, what they're doing. And we may have to go our separate ways, but what he's doing is not wrong. I see value in it. So we need to see value in the differences.

The church commended Paul and Silas to the grace of God. They recognized there's value here in Paul's position. In fact, in one sense, he's right. He was right. They were both right.

Paul was right not to take John Mark on that trip. He was untested. It wouldn't have been a good thing to do. But Barnabas was also right in that John Mark needed an opportunity where he could succeed. He needed a mission trip in a different place in a different culture.

Barnabas was the older Christian. He was in Christ before Paul was. Barnabas was in fact the one who brought Paul to Antioch. Remember, he went out to Tarsus and searched for him. This was after he had introduced him to the apostles in Jerusalem.

So Barnabas has been kind of a mentor in one sense to Paul in his early days. And so he was the one who was senior. He was the one who was probably better known to Antioch. But the church in Antioch still valued Paul very much. Paul was a leader there.

And so they saw value in both of these men. Fifthly, separation in mission does not mean separation in friendship. Paul remained close relationally in fellowship to Barnabas and Mark. And sixly, separation may not mean permanent separation. And that's what happened in this case.

Paul did not write off Bonnerbiss or Mark permanently. In fact, in 2 Timothy 4, Paul wrote, only Luke is with me, get Mark and bring him with you, for He is useful to me for ministry." A complete 180 change. Where before he didn't want him going along, now he's saying, bring him to me because he's useful. He regarded him as a peer. He recognized that John Mark had grown up, and he didn't let a decision that was made years earlier continue to influence his thinking.

But he was willing to say that, okay, that's not the right time, but now it is. Now John Mark has grown, he's matured, and he's valuable now. So Paul's very willing. Speaks warmly of him, willing to take him back. And to Philemon he wrote, Epaphras, My fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greet you as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke.

My fellow laborers." There he's elevated Mark to be in one of his co-workers right along with Luke. But also seventh, encouragement. This should be encouragement not to be discouraged by failure or to give up. Like those Israelites did in number 17 where they basically gave up. When we fail, this is a lesson not to stop.

John Mark is willing to continue. He's willing to go back on another mission trip. And eventually he's used by the Lord to write the Gospel of Mark. See, it's also because failure is not permanent. John Mark failed.

He bailed at a very inappropriate time and jeopardized the mission trip. That was shameful, and there's no justification for that. But he came back. He came back. He continued.

And so it's not permanent. He didn't just continue failing, but he continued, and the Lord granted him success. The Lord equipped him, and he was able then to withstand the rigors of working with Paul and became a valued peer of Paul. And so, lastly, we ought to see these differences as an opportunity for growth. As an opportunity for growth.

And the opportunity to learn from other people. And the wisdom in the Scriptures, the wisdom that God has given them from His Word. So may God redeem to us those righteous divisions in our lives. Heavenly Father, we thank You for the great sufficiency of Your Word that equips us for every area of our life, equips us on how we are to live with one another and to dwell together in peace, and how even we are to separate when that is necessary for the advancement of your kingdom. Lord, help us to seize these differences and to grow through them and to learn from them and to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Jesus Christ.

In His name we pray, Amen.