As democracy grows in various human endeavors our lives are subjected to democratization. Society which creates the environment in which such a system is prevalent dupes local churches to adopt the same thought in the conduct of their ministries. Hence, churches geared their ministry administration into similar system, i.e., federal church government, congregationalism are examples. This is the height of humanism gain and its infiltration of local churches. This is grossly immoral. Why? Because the local church ought to be governed not by what society dictates neither by the current educational system but by what the Bible teaches.
Even ministerial relations or organizational structure are democratized already. Not to be designed in such manner is regarded as taboo and inhuman. My position on this matter is that the democratization of the local church is a perfect evidence of worldliness. To run the local church or any para-church in the same manner is also indicative of carnality. With these accepted practices, even biblical hermeneutics were redesigned thus interpretation follows the new model-that which is democratized. This is the reason a scenario similar to the Paul-Barnabas conflict could be repeated.
I want to discuss the reasons of this division between Paul and Barnabas, so we may learn to avoid the evil of this separation as well as integrate that which will equip us to stronger ministry relations. First, let us consider the reasons that support the validity of the Pauline action. Second, let us consider the reasons that reinforce the validity of Barnabas’ action. Third, why did God include this negative event among the early church missionaries in the Bible?
Pauline action was valid due to the following reasons and evidences. One, Paul rejected a quitter Christian worker as it showed immaturity and lack of readiness in the missionary work. He taught this principle in 2 Timothy 2:1-4 and likened the Christian life and work to a battlefield lifestyle. So he did not see John Mark fit for the second journey. Maybe he could be qualified in the future. Second, Paul highly emphasized the duty of ministry and its attendant implications upon the converts or followers. A quitting worker can not exact higher commitment from his disciples and it will affect the overall goal of discipleship.
Paul’s action is an act of faith because although it could result to loss of personnel yet he did not compromise for the sake of personnel retention. He walked by faith that perhaps in the future God will provide replacement. Evidently, verse 40 shows that God raised up a replacement in the person of Silas. The latter was recommended by the church. Paul would be guilty of hypocrisy or of having ulterior motives had he removed John Mark and replaced him with Silas. But we do not have evidence for such charge. 2 Timothy 4:11 indicates the purity of Pauline motive and manner in this conflict. He fully endorsed John Mark when he saw him perfectly fit for the ministry.
The evidence in the book of Acts (from chapters 15-28) shows Paul was favored by the Holy Spirit’s workings. This fact is consistent with what was stated originally in Acts 1:8 where geographical expansion of the church is prophesied. The person to use in such platform was Paul. Although Barnabas was ahead of Paul in membership and influence at Jerusalem church and at Antioch church yet God apparently chose to use Paul as the divine instrument to accomplish the geographical plan.
On the other hand, Barnabas’ action was regarded as valid also on the following grounds. One, being related by blood with John Mark, probably he could not bear to entirely lose him. This is typical of the Filipino way of dealing with church problems. However, we must outgrow such tendency and replace it with higher biblical premises. Second, Barnabas was a man of exhortation. He emphasized such quality in this situation more than anything. We have no evidence to further validate this point, however. If John Mark had repetitiously quit the assigned ministry, then emphasis on such quality has no warrant. Third, although it is out of argument from silence, Barnabas probably thought of starting a mission work with John Mark at Cyprus, his place of origin. Again we do not have evidence to validate this. On the other hand, Paul’s choice of Silas, as well as his continuing of the second missionary journey, was approved by the brethren in that local church.
So why did God expose us to this conflict between two greatly used missionaries? I do not claim exhausting the text. But I want to suggest some to the best of my understanding why this event transpired and was included by the Holy Spirit in the narrative revelation.
First, Luke under the divine inspiration honestly revealed what has transpired for it is relevant to the development of Acts 1:8 the geographical progress of missions work. It will also explain the absence of Barnabas in the succeeding chapters (16-28).
Second, as a narrative it does not necessarily dogmatize imitation. However, it does show the strength and weakness of the characters involved. It demonstrates what can be modeled and rejected by the morality and validity of each action. We can learn the primacy of maintaining the high quality of workers over the number of workers. Delegation of tasks must also be consistent with competence. Exhortation during hardship is a necessity to prevent manpower loss.
Third, integrating the passage in the teachings of Pauline theology and model, we can learn from here that a leader must exercise courage to impose discipline upon his subordinates. Such courage must not be threatened by possible manpower loss. One must also be ready to endorse another in spite of the past provided the candidate is fit for the work. We must also seek the role and contribution of others in such decision such as selection of worker and continuance of the work. Probably, Barnabas, due to his seniority, might have invoked supremacy over Paul that he chose to part ways from him.
Fourth, we are divinely exposed to the possibility of sinful manifestation even among missionaries. Realization of this fact diminishes discouragement during crisis especially among younger Christians and workers.
Fifth, we can also avoid similar repeat if a local church has clear organizational structure and sustained culture. Everything in the church must end at the office of the pastor. It will not work if it ends at a certain committee consisting of people who need to vote and get a majority to decide. An obscure structure is an impediment to the attainment of any organizational goal. The leaner or simpler your organization the better it will be. It does not also prevent the organization from achieving greater or complicated tasks. Everyone in the organization must subscribe to the system upon entry and strengthen it by constant support and promotion of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment