For seven years, Jamilu and Ozioma had visited the prison together every Thursday. They had started the ministry with a borrowed Bible, a flask of tea and the reluctant permission of a deputy controller at a custodial centre in Kaduna. Jamilu, a quiet secondary school teacher, led the Bible studies. Ozioma, a nurse with a gift for organisation, handled the permissions, the volunteers and the families of the inmates. Between them they had seen dozens of men come to faith, and some of those men were now out, working and attending church.
Then a foreign foundation offered them a grant. It was a large amount of money, enough to rent a building and begin a skills centre for released inmates, teaching tailoring, welding and computer literacy. Ozioma was thrilled. She had watched too many men leave prison with nothing and return within a year. “This is the answer to our prayers,” she said.
Jamilu was not so sure. The foundation wanted quarterly reports, measurable outcomes and a full-time manager. He feared that the prison visits, the heart of the ministry, would be swallowed by paperwork and fundraising. And underneath his concerns, though he did not say so, was something more personal. The foundation’s director had written only to Ozioma. The volunteers increasingly brought their questions to her. He had begun to feel like an assistant in a work he had co-founded.
The disagreement grew through the rainy season. Meetings became tense. Jamilu stopped attending some of them. Ozioma started making decisions without him, because, as she put it, “somebody has to.” The volunteers noticed. Some began to talk of “Brother Jamilu’s people” and “Sister Ozioma’s people”. Two of the longest-serving volunteers quietly stopped coming. And one Thursday, for the first time in seven years, nobody went to the prison at all, because each of them had assumed the other would go.
That Thursday frightened them both. Neither of them had ever intended to harm the work. But their disagreement was doing exactly that.
What is this disagreement really about?
Disagreement among leaders is not, in itself, a sign of spiritual failure. Godly, mature, Spirit-filled people sometimes see things differently. They weigh risks differently. They carry different burdens and notice different needs. A team in which nobody ever disagrees is often a team in which somebody is afraid to speak.
But disagreement can reveal two very different things. Sometimes it exposes a real issue: a doctrinal question, a strategic choice, a matter of conscience, a problem that needs to be faced. At other times it exposes competing attachments: to reputation, influence, territory, a favourite method, a friend, or one’s own sense of importance. Very often, as with Jamilu and Ozioma, both are present at once. There is a real issue on the table and a tangle of personal attachments underneath it.
James asks a searching question: “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1). The word lusts there means strong desires, not only sexual ones. James is saying that much of our conflict comes from what we want for ourselves. Some disagreements are entirely unselfish, yet whenever leaders find themselves in conflict, they should ask honestly what they are really defending.
A good first question is simply, “If I lost this argument, what exactly would I lose?” Sometimes the honest answer is, “The truth of the gospel,” or, “The safety of vulnerable people.” Then the matter needs careful, courageous handling. But sometimes the answer is, “My influence,” or, “The feeling of being the one people come to.” Recognising that is the beginning of humility, and humility is the beginning of resolution.
PunchlineBefore you defend your position, ask what you are really defending. A real issue deserves truthful discussion; a competing attachment needs to be surrendered.
A real issue handled truthfully
The book of Acts records the most important leadership disagreement in the early church, and it shows how a real issue can be resolved without destroying the work:
And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said , Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
The question was enormous. Must Gentile believers be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved? The answer would shape the gospel itself. Luke does not soften it: there was “no small dissension and disputation.” Paul and Barnabas did not pretend to agree for the sake of peace. The issue was too important.
But notice what happened next. Instead of allowing the dispute to split the church in Antioch, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” They took the matter to the proper people. They did not form a separate faction. They did not settle it by who could shout loudest.
In Jerusalem, the disagreement was heard openly:
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
“When there had been much disputing.” The leaders did not rush to a conclusion. They allowed the matter to be argued. Then Peter testified to what God had done among the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. Then “all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” (Acts 15:12). Then James drew the threads together and pointed to the Scriptures, showing that the prophets had foreseen the Gentiles seeking the Lord.
Notice the elements of that process. There was open discussion. There was testimony about what God was actually doing. There was careful attention to Scripture. There was a listening silence. And there was a willingness to reach a decision: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God” (Acts 15:19).
Then the leaders thought carefully about the people affected. They did not simply announce a verdict. They wrote a letter, and they sent trusted men to deliver it in person and explain it. Luke puts it this way: “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). The letter described Paul and Barnabas warmly:
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The leaders who had argued so strongly were publicly honoured afterwards. The decision was presented as the fruit of a shared process: “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28). And the result in Antioch was this:
So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
“They rejoiced for the consolation.” A well-handled conflict can actually strengthen the people who were anxiously watching it. The church in Antioch had seen its leaders disagree sharply, and then seen that disagreement resolved by truth, prayer and humility. They came away encouraged rather than shaken.
The contention was so sharp
Only a few verses later, Luke records another disagreement, and this one did not end in agreement:
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 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. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
Paul wanted to revisit the churches they had planted. Barnabas wanted to take his cousin John Mark (Colossians 4:10). Paul refused, because Mark had “departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.” Luke had mentioned that departure years earlier, without explanation: “John departing from them returned to Jerusalem” (Acts 13:13). We are not told why Mark left. Paul clearly regarded it as a serious failure of reliability.
The word translated contention is the Greek paroxysmos, from which we get the English word paroxysm. It describes a sharp, heated provocation. These two men had been through persecution, stoning and danger together. Barnabas had once vouched for Paul when the Jerusalem church was afraid of him (Acts 9:27). Now they could not agree, and they parted.
NuggetWho was right? Sincere readers of Scripture have answered differently, and it is worth hearing both sides fairly.
Some believe Paul was right. The work ahead was dangerous and demanding. A team member who had abandoned them once might do so again, and the churches deserved reliable leaders. Some also note that Paul and Silas departed “being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God” (Acts 15:40), while Luke records no similar commendation for Barnabas and Mark, though others reply that this is an argument from silence. And from this point, Luke’s narrative follows Paul.
Others believe Barnabas was right. His very name meant “The son of consolation” (Acts 4:36), and Luke had described him as “a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith” (Acts 11:24). Barnabas saw potential in Mark, just as he had once seen it in Paul. And later events seem to vindicate him, because Mark became a valued worker.
Many believers conclude that both men had a point. Paul was concerned for the mission; Barnabas was concerned for the man. Both concerns were godly. This was a disagreement between two righteous men who weighed things differently. And God used the result: instead of one missionary team, there were now two.
What the parting did not destroy
Notice what Luke does not record. He records no slander, no letters undermining the other, no campaign to win the churches’ loyalty. Barnabas sailed to Cyprus. Paul went through Syria and Cilicia, “confirming the churches” (Acts 15:41). Both continued to serve.
And there are hints, later in the New Testament, that the wound healed. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul mentions Barnabas as a fellow worker who, like him, supported himself: “Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?” (1 Corinthians 9:6). He speaks of him as a colleague.
Even more striking is what happened with Mark. Writing to the Colossians from prison, Paul sends greetings from “Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas,” and adds, “if he come unto you, receive him” (Colossians 4:10). Mark is now with Paul and has Paul’s commendation. In Philemon, Paul lists him among “my fellowlabourers” (Philemon 1:24). And in his last letter, written shortly before his death, Paul writes: “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11).
The young man Paul once refused to take had become someone Paul specifically asked for. We are not told exactly how this happened. Perhaps Mark grew under Barnabas’s patient care. Perhaps Paul softened with age. Probably both. But the sharp contention of Acts 15 was not the end of the story.
That gives great hope to leaders in conflict. A parting of ways need not be permanent bitterness. Sometimes the most responsible resolution is a change in how people serve together, with separate teams, different roles or new structures, while honour and relationship are preserved and, in time, restored.
Two women who laboured with Paul
In his letter to the Philippians, Paul addresses a conflict between two named leaders: “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord” (Philippians 4:2).
We know very little about the disagreement itself. But what Paul says next reveals how he regarded these women: “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life” (Philippians 4:3).
Several things stand out. First, Paul treats them with deep respect. They “laboured with me in the gospel.” The word suggests contending side by side, like athletes in a team. These were significant workers in the Philippian church, and Paul does not belittle them.
Second, he addresses each one individually: “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche.” He repeats the verb for each of them. He does not take sides or blame one more than the other. He appeals to both.
Third, he asks for help from a third party, the “true yokefellow.” Some conflicts cannot be resolved by the two people involved. They need a trusted, mature person to help them listen to each other. There is no shame in that.
Fourth, he reminds them of what they share. Their names are “in the book of life.” They belong to the same Lord and the same family. Their disagreement, however serious it feels, is smaller than what unites them. Earlier in the letter Paul had urged the whole church, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Philippians 2:2), and then pointed them to the humility of Christ, who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant. Being “of the same mind in the Lord” does not mean agreeing on every detail. It means sharing the mind of Christ, which makes room for the other person.
And notice that Paul says this in a letter that would be read aloud to the whole church. The conflict was already affecting others. Paul addressed it openly, but gently and briefly, without humiliating anyone.
Having the conversation well
Even the disciples argued about position. On the night of the Last Supper, with the cross only hours away, Luke records an uncomfortable scene:
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
The twelve were not arguing about doctrine or strategy. They were arguing about rank. It was a pure contest of attachments, and Jesus answered it by redefining greatness. “He that is chief, as he that doth serve.” Whenever a leadership disagreement begins to feel like a contest over who matters most, that sentence should be brought into the room.
So how should leaders actually talk when they disagree? A few habits make a great difference.
Go to the person first. Jesus taught, “go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother” (Matthew 18:15). The goal is to gain your brother, not to win the case. A private conversation, early, prevents most disagreements from becoming public divisions.
Prepare honestly. Before the meeting, write down what you believe the issue is, what you want, and why. Then write down what you think the other person wants, and why. If you cannot state their position in a way they would recognise, you are not yet ready to argue against it.
Listen more than you speak. “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19). Ask questions. Repeat back what you have heard. Many conflicts soften the moment one person feels genuinely understood.
Separate the issue from the person. You can disagree firmly about a plan while honouring the character and service of the one who proposes it. Avoid words like “always” and “never”. Speak about what happened and how it affected the work.
Watch your tone. “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). A disagreement conducted in anger rarely produces wisdom, even when the angry person happens to be right.
Do not let it drag on. Paul’s instruction, “let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Ephesians 4:26), does not mean every question must be settled before nightfall. It does mean that resentment should not be allowed to settle in. Agree on a next step and a time to return to the matter.
Pray together. It is difficult to keep despising someone you are praying with. Prayer does not replace honest discussion, yet it reminds both people that they serve the same Lord and that the work belongs to Him.
And be ready to forgive. “Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). Some words spoken in heat will need to be forgiven, whatever the outcome of the disagreement itself.
The people who are watching
When leaders disagree, they are rarely the only ones affected. Volunteers, members, staff, families and the people the ministry serves are all watching, and many of them are being hurt. Paul warned the Galatians: “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Galatians 5:15). Conflict that is handled badly consumes not only the leaders but the work.
Here are some principles that protect the people affected.
Do not recruit allies. It is natural to want others to see things your way. But once leaders begin gathering supporters, a disagreement between two people becomes a division in the body. Speak to the person you disagree with, not about them.
Speak the truth. Paul wrote, “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:25). That includes being truthful about your own motives, and truthful about the facts. “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him” (Proverbs 18:17). Listen to the other side before you conclude.
Keep the essential work going. Whatever is being argued about, the core ministry must not stop. The prison visits, the Sunday services, the children’s classes and the welfare visits should continue while leaders talk.
Communicate honestly with the people involved. You do not need to share every detail of a disagreement with everyone. But you should not pretend that nothing is happening when it obviously is. A simple, gracious statement that the leaders are working through a question together, and asking for prayer, is often enough.
Distinguish disagreement from misconduct. If the conflict involves allegations of abuse, financial wrongdoing or serious sin, it is not a mere difference of opinion. It requires a proper process, protection of anyone at risk and, where the law requires, involvement of the authorities. Never ask a vulnerable person to “reconcile” with someone who has harmed them in order to keep the peace.
When resolution means a change
Sometimes the best resolution of a disagreement is full agreement, as at the Jerusalem council. Sometimes it is a compromise, where each side gives up something. And sometimes, as with Paul and Barnabas, it is a responsible change in how people serve together.
Abram and Lot faced a similar moment long before:
And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
Neither man was wicked. Their substance had simply outgrown the arrangement. The land “was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together.” So Abram proposed a peaceful separation: “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee... for we be brethren” (Genesis 13:8). Abram gave Lot first choice. He valued the relationship above his own advantage.
In ministry, a responsible change might mean dividing responsibilities more clearly, so that two strong leaders each have a defined area. It might mean starting a new work with the blessing of the old one, rather than in rebellion against it. It might mean one person stepping into a different role. It might mean bringing in a trusted mediator, or asking a denominational body to help. And it might mean, occasionally, that two people who cannot work closely together agree to serve in separate places while honouring each other.
What matters is how the change happens. Is it agreed openly, rather than forced through by whoever controls the money or the keys? Are the people affected told the truth? Is the honour of each leader protected? Does the essential work continue? Is the door left open for future restoration, as it was for Paul and Mark?
PunchlineA parting handled like that can bear fruit. A parting handled in bitterness can poison a ministry for a generation.
Jamilu and Ozioma did not resolve their disagreement alone. After that empty Thursday, Ozioma phoned an older pastor in Zaria who had known them both for years. He invited them to his home on a Saturday afternoon and listened to each of them for an hour without interrupting.
Then he asked each of them the same question: “What are you afraid of losing?” Ozioma said, “The men who come out of prison with nothing.” Jamilu was silent for a long time, and then he said, “My place.” He wept as he said it. Ozioma had not known.
They prayed together that afternoon, for the first time in months. Over the following weeks, with the pastor’s help, they agreed on a new arrangement. The skills centre would be a separate arm of the ministry, led by Ozioma, with its own manager and its own reports to the foundation. The prison visits would remain under Jamilu’s leadership, protected from the demands of the grant. Both of them would sit on a small joint board, along with the pastor and two others. They told the volunteers together, at a meeting where each of them publicly thanked the other for seven years of partnership.
Three years later, the skills centre has trained more than ninety men. Most of them first heard the gospel in Jamilu’s Thursday Bible study, and he personally refers every one of them to Ozioma’s centre on the day of their release. They do not always agree. But they have learned to ask what they are really defending, to speak the truth with each other, and to remember that their names are written in the same book.
Teaching Companion
For Reflection
- Think of a recent disagreement you were part of. What was the real issue, and what attachments were underneath it?
- If you had lost that argument, what exactly would you have lost?
- Who has been affected by conflict among leaders in your church or ministry, and how could they be better protected?
- Is there a “true yokefellow” you could ask to help with a conflict that has become stuck?
- Is there a relationship, like Paul’s with Mark, where the door to restoration could be opened again?
This Week
Identify one disagreement you are currently involved in. Write down, honestly, what the real issue is and what you personally are afraid of losing. Then arrange to meet the other person, and begin by asking them to explain their concern while you listen without interrupting. If the conflict is serious or stuck, agree together on a trusted, mature person who could help you both.
A Prayer
Lord Jesus, You made peace through the blood of Your cross, and You have called Your servants to live in unity. Search my heart in every disagreement. Show me what I am really defending, and give me grace to surrender what is mine and courage to stand for what is Yours. Help me to speak truthfully, to listen patiently and to protect those who are affected by conflict among leaders. Where relationships have been broken, open the way to restoration, as You did for Paul and Mark. Keep Your work safe in my hands and in the hands of those I serve with. Amen.
Truth received brings freedom. Truth believed establishes the heart.
Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. · Illustrations using first names only are composites unless stated otherwise.