This morning I woke up and had to think about the fight between Paul and Barnabas.Then of course could not go back to sleep and at 05:15 I'm writing this blog in a disintegrating obscure hotel in Wigan (near Preston) whilst drinking my second cup of "complimentary" tea before packing my belongings and travel on to Liverpools John Lennon International Airport where a KLM aircraft from will transport me back to my home turf.
The feud between these two men came up earlier this week and the echo of a comment someone made sounded in the back of my mind: "I look forward to spending time with Paul and find out who, in retrospect, was right."
Suddenly it dawned on me that it's not about who was right! The Western man has the inherent need to divide things in right and wrong, good and bad, and finds it hard to deal with, or accept "gray". "Gray" stands for compromise, vague, ambiguity: "gray" is for wimps. However, in real life we seem to allow for quite some grey in our own lives. But that's another issue altogether.
The dominant Western culture of 'right and wrong' dictates the type of questions we ask.
The question of who was right, is in some sense irrelevant. Both Paul and Barnabas had legitimate reasons whether or not to take John Mark along on the second missionary journey. Paul struggled with the lack of persistence in JM's character while Baranabas took a more pastoral approach with some family loyalty thrown in the mix (JM was a relative).
Anyway, it's not a competition where both contestants score points where the one with the most legitimate arguments can go to the next round.
1) The big story of God has to be brought in the equation. He gets what he wants: two mission trips, instead of one. The boys, after a first missionary journey already established a rut. The striking silence (no intervention) of God helps us to pay better attention to that side of the mystery. The "nothing" of God in human dilemmas can easily lead to something bigger.
2) The extent of the responsibility that God has given to man to make up his own mind, to make decisions and live with the consequences of that decision is vast. Choosing between the two seemingly equal options does not necessarily mean that the one is better than the other. I'm not talking about foul mouthing another person. That's not a moral dilemma. One just doesn’t do that. . It's about the more delicate issues that even the with the finest discernment doesn't present a clear case. Two rather equal options will result in two distinct future stories. The choice is ours. It helps to draw out potential story lines and to choose the preferred one.
3) We are and remain human. As much as we try to live in peace and unity with one another, there comes a time when find ourselves diametrically opposed to the other. Can we go our separate ways and still remain friends? We do not have enough information to draw a clear conclusion but after the feud we no longer find P and B together. Brokenness will affect our relationships and the way we work together.
In OM, we are faced daily with these dilemmas. On a small scale but also on a large scale where regardless of the possible future story any decisions will result in far-reaching consequences for the organization within and outside.
It occurred to me that the farther away we are from a story, the easier is to have opinions about it and to judge. One drawn in to the story, it's suddenly a lot less simple. Life is complex.
It's not easy to obey God when He speaks; to hear what he says when he doesn't speak requires highly trained hearts and ears. Even then, we mess up.
No comments:
Post a Comment