Sermon 25 April 2010 - Acts 15: 35 - end
Preached by Revd Andy Smith

Isn’t it amazing how well politicians in the same party get on with each other during the run up to a general election. All the infighting, all the disagreements, the characters that rub each other the wrong way, they suddenly seems to be best of friends. The people that just weeks before seem to be at each others throats, planning the overthrowing of a party leader, or removing someone from a key role, suddenly with an election around the corner not only are all their differences sorted out - but it is as if they never had them in the first place. Quizzed on the problems of the past it is as if they have been airbrushed out, and replaced with a version that just seems a bit too good to be true.

Now to give an example from the UK political scene so close to the election is perhaps not appropriate - I am sure you can all think of examples, but a similar thing happened in the US presidential election. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who seemed so opposed to each other during the Democratic Party nomination process, not just relating to policies, but character and how they related to one another too. For the presidential election it suddenly seemed like they had always been best of friends.

May be I am just a bit too cynical - but when two people who disagree with each other on so many issues, and who seem to keep frustrating each other suddenly get on so well just as everyone is watching them I get a bit suspicious. And I am even more suspicious when it’s portrayed like nothing was ever wrong.

Our reading from the Acts of the Apostles there is no attempt at such cover up. There is no rewriting of the history books, no plastering over the cracks. One commentary I read on this text titles it simply ‘a huge row’. The word used for argument suggests red or distorted faces, loud voices, and things said that perhaps shouldn’t have been said. This was a proper, full on argument - not a gentle discussion.

It's between St Paul, who spearheaded the spread of the gospel in the early church, and has written much of what we now call the New Testament, and Barnabas. Barnabas was a close friend of Paul, they went on missionary journeys together, and he described earlier in the book of Acts, in Acts 11 as “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith”. This huge undignified row is between two of our spiritual giants.

The argument centres around Barnabas’ cousin John-Mark. He had been taken with them on an earlier journey but had disappeared off when it looked dangerous, when a mob set on them.

Paul and Barnabas where planning on heading much further afield this time, and Paul is rightly concerned that so much further from home, they need someone reliable - if things get difficult John-Mark he couldn’t have John-Mark disappearing off again.

Barnabas feels differently - he is known elsewhere as the ‘Son of Encouragement’ - and you can imagine him wanting to give John-Mark a second chance - after all he was his cousin. You can imagine too that Barnabas had spent time with John-Mark since the last experience, had seen that he’d matured, grown up, had a deeper faith and was ready to join them. The result - a big argument and they each go their separate ways.

The first thing I want to share is that it is really interesting that this big argument is recorded at all. Sometimes those who try to discredit the Christian faith and the Christian scriptures suggest the authors of the bibles books made things up, that stories were invented to strengthen what they now thought, and that they failed to record things that may discredit it.

We live in a world where most people no longer have a belief in Jesus, and many are deeply suspicious, they have read Dan Brown’s Divinci code, Phillip Pullman's book ‘the Good man Jesus, and the scoundrel Christ’ and become even more suspicious.

As disciples of Jesus we need to know why we can trust in the scriptures, both to strengthen our faith in the light of increased hostility and for each of us to help journey with those we know who are interested but suspicious of a relationship with Jesus Christ. This reading is a good example.

It does not portray the early church leaders in a good light, and so it would have been very unlikely to have been made up or altered, it speaks of authenticity. This is the sort of thing you would leave out of your political party manifesto, and asked about it, would be evasive.

It is the sort of account that if you were trying to paint a rosy picture of the early church and of the apostles you wouldn’t dream of including - yet Luke the author of Acts did include it. It is just one example of the credibility of our scriptures, and so gives us greater confidence in our scriptures.

My second point is about what actually went on in this account. Just because we see St Paul and Barnabas, two spiritual heroes of the Epistles having a big argument does not mean that it was right. They were still sinful humans and messed up. Just because this text from Acts is recorded does not mean that they were doing good.

I believe God deeply wants restored relationships with humanity - between him and humanity, but between individual people too. I think this event must have really upset God - it seems to be a backwards step of God's mission to restore relationships - from two people who were trying to move it forwards.

Restoring relationships between humans was part of God's mission then, and it is today too. He still cares about how we relate to one another. Individually, as a congregation how we relate to the others in the parish, as a national church - how we relate to others within the church we passionately disagree with. Now we live in a completely different culture to that of the middle east 2000 years ago. It's quite easy for us to use this to allow this reading not to impact us in the way that it's meant to. These two passionate middle eastern men disagreed probably by raised voices, banging their fists on the table and shouting.

Well I don’t think I have ever done that here - so I’ll look round and see if I can see anyone else behaving in this way. But in middle class, southern Britain Lymington people argue in very different ways. We are reserved, polite, British, but we still disagree, we say things to others when the person is not there, we leave people out, we go about it in ways that are just as destructive, just as damaging to each other, and just as disappointing to God.

My final point is about God's grace. The outcome of the argument between Paul and Barnabas - two missionary journeys instead of one. Barnabas going with John-Mark on one missionary journey and Paul and Silas on another.

This does not mean the argument was a good thing or that God wanted it - but simply another example of a recurring theme within the bible, perhaps the best summary of the entire bible - God takes the greatest human mistakes, the greatest sin and turns them around for good. This is what God is up to and it gives hope to each of us.