Pastor Ken
In my previous article in this series, I outlined the four categories of conflicts in interpersonal relationships: purpose, method, data, and value. Some individuals might assume that shared beliefs and values should eliminate conflicts. For example, they might believe that because both partners in a marriage are Christians, this automatically ensures mutual love and harmony, free from disagreements. However, such an assumption oversimplifies conflicts and fails to grasp their true nature.
A civilized approach to resolving conflicts between two people mirrors a business negotiation: start with high demands and respond with modest offers. Through several rounds of negotiation, both parties may eventually find a mutually fair agreement. If they cannot reach a consensus, there’s a saying: “A failed deal does not end a friendship.” Applied to personal relationships, this means both parties should have the opportunity to express their thoughts and feelings respectfully. Initially, their positions might be far apart, but a willingness to negotiate and make concessions can lead to an acceptable outcome for both. If finding common ground isn’t possible, the friendship will still be preserved.
A well-known instance of disagreement in the Bible is found in Acts 15:36-41. In this passage, Paul suggested to Barnabas that they revisited the believers in the towns where they had previously preached. Barnabas intended to bring his cousin, John Mark, along, but Paul objected, leading to a significant dispute between them. The tone of the word in the original language (Greek) indicates a heated discussion, but not necessarily one that implies a judgment about who was right. According to the Bible, during their previous mission, John Mark had left the group in Pamphylia and returned to Jerusalem. Because of this, Paul believed that John Mark was not suitable for the current journey. However, the Bible does not tell us why Mark left at that time.
Let’s delve deeper into this situation by examining it through the lens of conflict categories. Paul and Barnabas should share the same values, as both men accepted Jesus as Lord and were dispatched as missionaries on their first journey together. Their current mission also shared the same objective: to continue spreading the gospel. Despite these common values and goals, conflict arose because of differing information. They had different interpretations of why Mark left last time, which led to a disagreement about whether he should join them again. Consequently, they couldn’t come to a consensus. Should Paul proceed alone, or should the trip be canceled? This situation also highlights a methodological conflict.
In the end, they formed two teams to spread the gospel. Paul decided to bring along two new members, Silas and Luke. They headed north from Antioch, retracing their previous route. Meanwhile, Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed westward to Cyprus. In essence, their differing methods led to the involvement of new individuals and the exploration of new routes, resulting in a “win-win” situation. Any disputes regarding Mark’s suitability for evangelical work must have been resolved later, as Paul later commended, trusted, and collaborated with Mark in his letters.
This case demonstrates that conflicts are unavoidable, but they can be leveraged positively. By analyzing the points of agreement and disagreement, we can proceed with good-faith negotiations, thereby increasing the likelihood of reaching a consensus. If negotiations do fail, it’s essential to focus on the issues at hand rather than on personal aspects, to preserve relationships.
