Paul and Barnabas traveled through Cyprus and across southern Asia Minor preaching Christ where He had not been preached. John Mark began the journey, apparently as their concierge, arranging food and accommodations along the way. About half-way through the trip, Mark left them and returned home. A year or so later Paul suggested to Barnabas that they follow up on their work in those places. Barnabas wanted to take Mark, but Paul thought it not a good idea.

“And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God” (Acts 15:39-40). Each “contended” for his preference, but they maintained fellowship; 10 years later Paul commended Mark (Col. 4:10). The contention was not over the message, but over the method of carrying that message to the lost.

Christians should “all speak the same thing” (I Cor. 1:10) with regard to Christ, for He spoke but one message, and we are commissioned to preach no other (John 12:44-50; Eph. 4:4-6; Mark 16:15; I Cor. 2:13). When differences are argued over whether to support this evangelist or that, whether to use electronic or print media, whether to build here or there, or any other thing not specifically commanded by Christ, Christians should on every occasion endeavor “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3).

When one wants to evangelize India while another prefers Africa as the target of prayers and resources, there should be neither animosity nor competition. If one prefers to pad the pews, but another to pave the parking lot with the limited funds, love for one another will result in the preservation of peace, whatever the final decision. If peace isn’t preserved, it is obvious that love is absent in at least one party to the discussion (Rom. 12:18).

We may sometimes love the unloving, but such a circumstance is not a justification for becoming ourselves unloving. We can’t prove our faith or convince others of the rightness of our opinion by engaging in uncontrolled emotional vitriol with an uncompromising person. If we maintain love we maintain peace, even if that means going our separate ways and letting the other have, in his own space, the way he is determined not to compromise. (“I love you and the Lord too much to cause a break in fellowship with you, brother, so you do the work your way in the east, and I’ll do it my way in the west.”)

Was one of the evangelists, Barnabas or Paul, unloving? Not necessarily, and we’ll never know for sure. We never hear again of Barnabas, but it is certain that Paul later joined with Mark as with an approved servant of the Lord. Africa and India both need to be evangelized (what country or continent doesn’t?). More preaching was done in the same time frame because Barnabas and Paul went different ways. More people were involved in evangelizing the world, for Silas was added to the work.

One might “contend” for his conclusion that paving the lot is more necessary just now than padding the pews, and yet not be unloving or divisive in doing so. Yet the two options discussed might be so incompatible as to admit of no compromise (Paul and Barnabas could not have traveled together and both have, and not have, Mark along with them).

Available funds might not permit both paving the lot and padding the pews, and so, while there might be a compromise (pave half and pad half, then come around later and finish both jobs), a third alternative might be introduced into the discussion (Paul and Barnabas didn’t travel together): the church might decide upon a new plan to which none would object. They might let the account of available funds grow until both desires could be satisfied, or they might decide to direct the money into evangelistic or benevolent works that would more immediately benefit others than themselves.

There is simply no need for division among the people of God, and the separation of Paul and Barnabas is not a case to serve as example or justification of acceptable antagonistic division.(*)