I was reading Acts with a couple of friends recently and we got to Acts 15. It is a passage I've been meaning to dig into for a while but have also avoided because of how it has been used. For many who have gone through church hurt, especially one involving a church leader, this passage has been used badly.
Here is the passage:
"Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.’ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches."
During a mediation meeting I was part of between a church leader and a staff member who had raised a grievance, the leader started discussing this passage. His conclusion was that, just as Paul and Barnabas parted ways, maybe it was right that the staff member parted from her role. A job she loved, was very good at, had no reason to be asked to leave, but simply had had enough of poor behaviour from a trustee. It was the only time scripture was used in that meeting and it was the first time the leader had suggested a settlement was going to be offered. The fact no one other than the leader knew a settlement was on the cards is very poor practice when it comes to employment mediation meetings. Not only was it poor practice, they'd also now offered the separation as "the" biblical option to resolve the issue.
I'm certain you can see why this was problematic in this instance but this experience isn't unique. This passage is regularly used in church contexts to minimise wrongdoing as simply "disagreement". It is used to provide spiritual authority to recommend people part ways so that those in the wrong (but most often the ones with the power) don't need to apologise or deal with the actual issue being raised. As was the case for the operations manager, NDAs often follow as part of settlement offers.
So what is actually happening in the bible passage? Paul and Barnabas disagree on what was wise in terms of Mark's reliability. This wasn't about Mark having been abusive or particularly sinful but whether he was right for the job. There is no power dynamic between Paul and Barnabas, neither are attempting to rule over the other but they can see their disagreement won't be resolved so they part ways. They are then commended by the believers around them. This is clearly not an instance of broken relationships, sin, and hurt. This is clearly not a moment of disfellowshipping and silencing. When Paul speaks of Mark being helpful in his letter to Timothy, it isn't that they've needed reconciliation but more likely that Mark has proven himself to be reliable.
When this is used in a situation where poor behaviour, bullying, or spiritual abuse is being challenged, it not only misses the point of the passage but minimises the issues that require leaders to step up and take responsibility for.
If you have found this helpful and are currently unpicking theology, have experienced spiritual abuse, or just want to talk through your experience in church please do feel free to get in touch.
If you would like to support the work I do, please consider subscribing.