00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Well, we got a little bit longer
reading, but we need the whole section to get the context. Joshua
22, beginning at verse 10. And when they came to the region
of the Jordan, which is in the land of Canaan, the children
of Reuben, the children of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh
built an altar there by the Jordan, a great impressive altar. Now
the children of Israel heard someone say, behold, the children
of Reuben, the children of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh
have built an altar on the frontier of the land of Canaan in the
region of the Jordan on the children of Israel's side. And when the
children of Israel heard it, the whole congregation of the
children of Israel gathered together at Shiloh to go to war against
them. Then the children of Israel sent
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the priest, to the children of
Reuben, to the children of Gad, and to half the tribe of Manasseh
into the land of Gilead, And with him ten rulers, one ruler
each, from the chief house of every tribe of Israel, and each
one was the head of the house of his father among the divisions
of Israel. Then they came to the children
of Reuben, to the children of Gab, and to half the tribe of
Manasseh to the land of Gilead, and they spoke with them, saying,
Thus says the whole congregation of the Lord, What treachery is
this, that you have committed against the God of Israel, to
turn away this day from following the Lord, and that you have built
for yourselves an altar, that you might rebel this day against
the Lord? Is the iniquity of Peor not enough
for us, from which we are not cleansed till this day? Although
there was a plague in the congregation of the Lord, but that you must
turn away this day from following the Lord. And it shall be, if
you rebel today against the Lord, that tomorrow he will be angry
with the whole congregation of Israel. Nevertheless, if the
land of your possession is unclean, then cross over to the land of
the possession of the Lord, where the Lord's tabernacle stands,
and take possession among us. But do not rebel against the
Lord, nor rebel against us by building yourselves an altar
besides the altar of the Lord our God. Did not Achan the son
of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath
fell on all the congregation of Israel? And that man did not
perish alone in his iniquity. Then the children of Reuben,
the children of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh answered
and said to the heads of the divisions of Israel, the Lord
God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knows. And let Israel
itself know, if it is in rebellion or if in treachery against the
Lord, do not save us this day. If we have built ourselves an
altar to turn from following the Lord, or if to offer on it
burnt offerings or grain offerings, or if to offer peace offerings
on it, let the Lord himself require an account. But in fact, we have
done it for fear, for a reason, saying, in time to come, your
descendants may speak to our descendants, saying, what have
you to do with the Lord God of Israel? For the Lord has made
the Jordan a border between you and us, you children of Reuben
and children of Gad. You have no part in the Lord.
So your descendants would make our descendants cease fearing
the Lord. Therefore we said, let us now prepare to build ourselves
an altar, not for burnt offering nor for sacrifice, but that it
may be a witness between you and us and our generations after
us that we may perform the service of the Lord before him with our
burnt offerings, with our sacrifices, and with our peace offerings,
that your descendants may not say to our descendants in time
to come, you have no part in the Lord. Therefore we said,
that it will be when they say this to us or to our generations
in time to come that we may say, Here is the replica of the altar
of the Lord which our fathers made, though not for burnt offerings
nor sacrifices, but it is a witness between you and us. Far be it
from us that we should rebel against the Lord and turn from
following the Lord this day to build an altar for burnt offerings,
for grain offerings, or for sacrifices besides the altar of the Lord
our God which is before his tabernacle. Now when Phineas the priest and
the rulers of the congregation, the heads of the divisions of
Israel who were with him, heard the words that the children of
Reuben, the children of Gad, and the children of Manasseh
spoke, it pleased them. Then Phineas, the son of Eleazar,
the priest, said to the children of Reuben, the children of Gad,
and the children of Manasseh, this day we perceive that the
Lord is among us because you have not committed this treachery
against the Lord. Now you have delivered the children
of Israel out of the hand of the Lord. And Phinehas, the son
of Eleazar, the priest and the ruler, has returned from the
children of Reuben and the children of Gad, from the land of Gilead
to the land of Canaan, to the children of Israel, and brought
back word to them. So the thing pleased the children
of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God. They spoke
no more of going against them in battle to destroy the land
where the children of Reuben and Gad dwelt. The children of
Reuben and the children of Gad called the altar witness, for
it is a witness between us that the Lord is God. Father, we thank
you for your word, and I pray that you would anoint my lips
and enable me to clearly speak this word to this your people.
We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Two weeks ago, when I was
reading posts on a music forum, I ran across a story that was
told by Valerie Cox. She said, a woman was waiting
at an airport one night with several long hours before her
flight. She hunted for a book in the
airport shops. bought a bag of cookies, and found a place to
drop. She was engrossed in her book, but happened to see that
the man sitting beside her, as bold as could be, grabbed a cookie
or two from the bag in between, which she tried to ignore to
avoid a scene. So she munched the cookies and
watched the clock as the gutsy cookie thief diminished her stock.
She was getting more irritated as the minutes ticked by, thinking,
if I wasn't so nice, I would blacken his eye. With each cookie
she took, he took one too. When only one was left, she wondered
what he would do. With a smile on his face and
a nervous laugh, he took the last cookie and broke it in half.
He offered her half as he ate the other. She snatched it from
him and thought, ooh brother, this guy has some nerve and he's
so rude. Why, he didn't even show any
gratitude. She had never known when she had been so galled and
sighed with relief when her flight was called. She gathered her
belongings and headed to the gate, refusing to look back at
the thieving ingrate. She boarded the plane and sank
in her seat. Then she sought her book, which was almost complete,
and as she reached in her baggage, she gasped with surprise. There
was her bag of cookies in front of her eyes. If mine are here,
she moaned in despair. The others were his, and he tried
to share. Too late to apologize, she realized with grief that
she was the rude one, the ingrate, and the thief. Now you may never
have had any misunderstandings that were that embarrassing,
But it is easy for conflicts or near conflicts to arise because
of bad assumptions, misunderstandings, and poor communication. In fact,
I read this past week that the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed
because of such misunderstandings. Apparently, what had happened
is that the thrusters on the orbiter were using the metric
units called Newtons and the ground crew was using imperial
units called pounds and apparently there was miscommunication between
or poor communication between the two teams and further investigation
showed that because of this miscommunication
everything was going wrong on this orbiter. Well, this is a
passage that illustrates misunderstandings because of poor communications
and bad assumptions. In verses 1 through 9, we see
that the Eastern tribes were dismissed with praise for their
faithfulness. Those verses show how the Eastern
tribes had so many points of faithfulness, we looked at that
before. But you would think that the first assumption of anyone
would be to give them the benefit of the doubt, to be more positive
in their assumptions. But no, bad assumptions and poor
communication almost led to a civil war. Now, let's start with the
sincere attempt of the Eastern tribes to follow Joshua's exhortations
to never forget and to remain faithful. And they thought, well,
one way to never forget is to build this altar. Now, they should
have consulted with the Levites, who may have given them some
better advice on this, and that's probably why Calvin's commentary
faults them, at least on that point. Calvin says, but they
sinned not lightly in attempting a novelty without paying any
regard to the high priest or consulting their brethren, and
in a form which was very liable to be misconstrued. They had
sincerity, but sincerity was not enough. Verse 10 says of
them, when they came to the region of the Jordan, which is in the
land of Canaan, the children of Reuben, the children of Gad,
and half the tribe of Manasseh built an altar there by the Jordan,
a great impressive altar. Now we're going to see later
it was a very sincere endeavor, even if it involves some naivety. But the conflict started in verse
11 with one person's gossip. And I call it gossip because
that person had passed on information without ever checking with the
sources to see if the information was accurate. And the Western
tribes acted upon one person's testimony, which is clearly unbiblical. You don't go to a court case
with one testimony. You certainly don't go to war
with just one person's testimony. But they did. Verse 11 says,
Now the children of Israel heard someone say, Behold, the children
of Reuben, the children of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh
have built an altar on the frontier of the land of Canaan in the
region of the Jordan on the children of Israel's side. And verse 12
shows that the listeners took instant offense rather than checking
things out. People might say, well, didn't
they check things out in verse 13? Well, even though that was
a case of wiser heads prevailing, and we'll look at that, verse
12 makes clear that even the delegates had exactly the same
problem. They were instantly ready to
fight their brethren, even though Verses 1 through 9 show that
these Eastern tribes had showed incredible loyalty and faithfulness
to the Lord. Look at the first part of verse
12, and when the children of Israel heard. Notice the timing. It was the moment that they heard
this word that they took offense. And this is a common problem
among God's people. They can easily assume that what
they have heard is the full truth without checking things out.
Proverbs 18.13 says, he who answers a matter before he hears it,
it is folly and shame to him. Even the wiser heads, in verses
16 through 20, answered a matter before they heard anything from
the people that they were upset with. And Proverbs is quite clear.
That was folly and shame for them to do that. Now, were the
Easterners naive that this could have happened? Well, yes, obviously
yes. But let's not let the Westerners
off the hook either. James 1, 19 through 20 says,
so then my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear,
slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man does not
produce the righteousness of God. Let that sink in if you
are one of those people that tends to come to conclusions
too quickly. And I've had to repent of this
myself. This is a sin. I've had to repent, especially
to my wife. But let me read that verse again. James 1, 19 through
20 says, So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift
to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man
does not produce the righteousness of God. And that they'd already
come to a bad conclusion could be seen by the fact they gathered
for war against the Easterners, their armies assembled in order
to fight. That's based on one man's testimony.
That's simply not right. Verse 12 says, when the children
of Israel heard it, the whole congregation of the children
of Israel gathered together at Shiloh to go to war against them. That was their plan. Go to war. That was their decision. And
so let's think a bit about how this communication broke down.
I believe at least some people, perhaps all of them, had some
bad assumptions on both sides. First, the Eastern tribes assumed
that no one would have a problem with erecting a replica altar
without some explanation. Now that's a pretty huge assumption. What are altars usually for?
They're for making sacrifices, right? And God's law only allowed
one place for sacrifices, that was at the tabernacle, on the
one altar there. They were no doubt totally sincere
in thinking that no explanation was needed, but almost always
more information is better than less. Second, the Eastern tribes assumed
that this exact replica of the tabernacle altar would not be
seen as constituting a competing altar with competing sacrifices. They might have thought, hey,
with the loyalty that we have shown to the Lord all these past
15 years that we've been fighting side by side with them, surely
no one's going to assume that we're going to apostatize. Nobody's
going to assume we're going to offer sacrifices on this altar.
We're just reminding ourselves of the need to go to the real
altar, but that was a naive assumption at best. But the Western tribes
had two bad assumptions as well. They first of all assumed the
worst, apostasy, without checking out the story. And again, given
the faithfulness of the Easterners for the past 15 years of fighting,
surely they would have given some benefit of the doubt, but
they jumped to the worst possible conclusion almost immediately
without checking out the facts. That was not wise. 1 Corinthians
13, 7 says, love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all
things, endures all things. Now, that's not talking about
naivety. It's just saying we assume the
best about our fellow believer until there is good evidence
to the contrary. Now, it doesn't mean you can't
investigate when things seem off. You probably should investigate.
But it means that you do investigate before you come to solid conclusions. Second, the Western tribes assumed
that they should jump to action, and pretty severe action. It
was civil war. without checking out the story.
Again, a very unwise assumption. Now, I would have had no critique
of these Western delegates if they just went to start asking
questions and start investigating without making accusations, but
they didn't. And I think what we can learn from this is it
is always important for us to evaluate our assumptions to see
if they're biblical, to see if they're right. Now, that's hard
because a lot of us don't even recognize we have assumptions,
but we all do. It's so important to analyze
our presuppositions because those are the things that tend to drive
our thinking and our actions. But having said all of that,
I do believe that cooler heads must have prevailed. where everyone
was already gathered for war, somebody decided, you know what,
we ought to first send a delegation to see if there's any way we
can avoid this war, sue for peace. That's good. Verses 13 through
14. Then the children of Israel sent
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the priest, to the children of
Reuben, to the children of Gad, to half the tribe of Manasseh,
and to the land of Gilead. And with him 10 rulers, one ruler
each from the chief house of every tribe of Israel. And each
one was the head of the house of his father among the divisions
of Israel. And perhaps it was Phinehas who
encouraged the others to send a delegation rather than declaring
war. to declare war based on what
one person said would be rash. And so the assumptions are somewhat
tempered by this delegation. But even then, the delegation
itself charged the Easterners with the worst possible interpretation
of the events before they even started asking questions. Now,
probably in their mind, there could be no other interpretation.
I mean, what's to ask? That's probably what they're
thinking. But let's read verses 15 through 18. I want you to
notice the dogmatism with which they interpreted the evidence
here. Then they came to the children of Reuben, to the children of
Gad, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, to the land of Gilead.
And they spoke with them, saying, Thus says the whole congregation
of the Lord, What treachery is this, that you have committed
against the God of Israel to turn away this day from following
the Lord, in that you have built for yourselves an altar, that
you might rebel this day against the Lord? Is the iniquity of
Peor not enough for us, from which we are not cleansed till
this day, although there was a plague in the congregation
of the Lord? But that you must turn away this day from following
the Lord? And it shall be, if you rebel
today against the Lord, that tomorrow he will be angry with
the whole congregation of Israel. So again, notice the dogmatism
with which they state what they think has already happened. This
is not couched in less dogmatic language like, wow, this is weird. It sure seems like you're doing
such and such, or have you done this, or why on earth did you
make this altar? We don't understand this. No,
they dogmatically declared that the Easterners have committed
treachery against God, have stopped following God, have rebelled
against the Lord, have acted just like the rebels of Peor,
and are about to bring down God's wrath upon all of Israel. That's
not fact-finding. That's dogmatic accusations on
very limited data. And many people will emotionally
react to such speech because they're offended. It's wrong.
It's false. Now, thankfully, that didn't
happen, but it could have happened. Next, rather than asking questions,
they already suggest the only solution that they can think
of in verses 19 through 20. Hey, they at least are thinking
of some kind of a solution that wouldn't require war, so I'll
hand it to them for that. But again, all sides were sincerely
seeking to serve the Lord, but they're not following biblical
principles in the way that they're doing it. Verses 19 through 20. Nevertheless, if the land of
your possession is unclean, then cross over to the land of the
possession of the Lord, where the Lord's tabernacle stands,
and take possession among us. But do not rebel against the
Lord, nor rebel against us by building yourselves an altar
besides the altar of the Lord our God. "'Did not Achan the
son of Zerah commit a trespass "'in the accursed thing? "'And
wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel, "'and that man did
not perish alone in his iniquity.'" That's why they're saying, we
don't want wrath falling on us, so we're gonna be taking action
against you. Now, how would you have responded if people had
made such inaccurate accusations against you? Some people would
get mad and be ready to fight. If someone has offended them,
they instantly get offended back. On page two, I put a humorous
meme off the web that reflects this common reality. I know it's misspelled, but hey,
I took it off the web. I didn't spell it. But it says,
I'm offended that you're offended by me taking offense at your
offensive offensiveness. And we've all seen this, haven't
we? And I think the Easterners are good role models in how to
respond to people who have taken offense because they've misunderstood
what we have done. The Easterners gave a very soft
and humble answer. And to me, this shows that God's
grace was indeed at work in their hearts. It'd be very difficult
to answer softly when you have been falsely accused like that. As Proverbs 15 verse 1 words
it, a soft answer turns away wrath. But a harsh word stirs
up anger. Now, first of all, in verses
21 through 23, we see the humility of the Eastern tribes in the
way they humbly acknowledge the seriousness of what the others
thought of this misunderstanding. Then the children of Reuben,
the children of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh answered
and said to the heads of the divisions of Israel, The Lord
God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knows and let Israel
itself know, if it is in rebellion or if in treachery against the
Lord, do not save us this day. If we have built ourselves an
altar to turn from following the Lord, or if to offer on it
burnt offerings or grain offerings, or if to offer peace offerings
on it, let the Lord himself require an account. Notice that they
are totally agreeing with the Western tribes that if they had
done what they have just been accused of doing, they deserved
to die. They said, don't spare us. They
acknowledged that doing what the Westerners thought they had
done would be a heinous sin against God. And this is a great way
to quickly diffuse tension. It's agreeing with the sentiment
of your opponent if what they assumed was true. It's in effect
saying, wow, I can see why you're upset if what you thought was
true of us. We can totally see it. And yes,
we would not argue with you at all if that was the case. That
takes a great deal of humility and self-control to come out
of the chute trying to find common ground when you have been falsely
attacked. And what it does, really, it
takes the steam out of the anger of the accusers. And I think
we can learn from this in our own dialogues. But next... The Eastern tribes quickly supply
facts that the other side did not know. They must have realized
that they should have done this long ago. They're thinking, oops,
it was a big oops. Verses 24 through 27. But in
fact, we have done it for fear, for a reason, saying, in time
to come, your descendants may speak to our descendants, saying,
what have you to do with the Lord God of Israel? For the Lord
has made the Jordan a border between you and us. You children
of Reuben and the children of Gad, you have no part in the
Lord. So your descendants would make our descendants cease fearing
the Lord. Therefore we said, let us now
prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering
nor for sacrifice, but that it may be a witness between you
and us and our generations after us that we may perform the service
of the Lord before him with our burnt offerings, with our sacrifices,
with our peace offerings, that your descendants may not say
to our descendants in time to come, you have no part in the
Lord." Now, that information suddenly gave a totally different
picture. And how many times have we changed
our tune when some new fact comes to light? Perhaps we've gotten
angry and the other person has explained how we have misunderstood
them, and we think, oh, wow, I didn't realize that. Please
forgive me for having misinterpreted you on that. It should make us
cautious in our speech. If someone gossips to you about
someone else, don't let it get your dander up. Ask the gossiper
if he's talked to the person himself. That's what he should
have done. And if he has not done that, he should be rebuked
for his gossiping. But once you know, you and one
other person can go with the gossiper to the party that he's
gossiped about and check things out. And if the gossiper is not
willing to go with you, there's something bad going on there.
They've got a problem. So those kinds of actions will
stop gossip in its tracks. Usually, a gossiper would not
want to be a part of the solution. But the Eastern tribes aren't
finished. They also humbly agree with a second presupposition
that the Western tribes had, that offerings should only be
at the tabernacle. They agree, verses 28 through
29. Therefore, we said that it will
be when they say this to us or to our generations in time to
come that we may say, Here is a replica of the altar of the
Lord which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings nor for
sacrifices, but it is a witness between you and us, far be it
from us that we should rebel against the Lord and turn from
following the Lord this day to build an altar for burnt offerings,
for grain offerings, or for sacrifices besides the altar of the Lord
our God, which is before his tabernacle. But backing up a
bit to verses 24 through 28, the verses we have read also
explain their fears and their desire to perpetuate the union
with the Westerners and their adherence to the Lord. In other
words, they're not treating them as enemies, they're treating
them as friends that they want to stay in union with. Their
speech was designed to placate anger and to maintain friendship. And I think we can learn from
this in our speech as well. And Gary and I would highly,
highly, highly recommend that every person in this congregation
read Ken Sande's book, The Peacemaker. It gives all kinds of, some of
these tips I've taken right from that book, but it gives all kinds
of other tips on what they call peacemaking versus peacebreaking
or even peacefaking. Their website, rw360.org, gives
a ton of free resources for relational wisdom, learning how to lead
on every level. And there's one article in particular
that I would encourage you to download called Approachability. That has fantastic principles
to coach leaders, whether those leaders are parents, or church
leaders, or business leaders, or leaders in some other area
on how to develop a gentle authority slope, is the way that they word
it. They have handouts on things like emotional leadership. It's
a fantastic website. Now, back to our text. You probably
noticed already that verses 21 through 29 also show that while
building the altar may not have been wise, and it wasn't, their
intentions were honorable and sincere. It's amazing how hearing
a different side of the story can completely change our attitudes
about a person, and it did so with the Western delegation.
I think the Western tribes must have recognized that they blew
it. when they prematurely condemned the Easterners. But the way the
Easterners have worded themselves gave the angry party a way out,
a way of saving face, so to speak. And the Westerners suddenly acknowledge
that they were wrong. They humbly agree with the sentiment
of the Eastern tribes. Now, let's break this down a
bit. In verses 30 through 31, we see that good communication
on the part of the Easterners totally satisfied the concerns
of the Western delegation. Now when Phinehas the priest
and the rulers of the congregation, heads of the divisions of Israel
who were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben,
children of Gad, and the children of Manasseh spoke, it pleased
them. Then Phinehas, the son of Eleazar
the priest, said to the children of Reuben, the children of Gad,
and the children of Manasseh, This day we perceive that the
Lord is among us because you have not committed this treachery
against the Lord. Now you have delivered the children
of Israel out of the hand of the Lord." Notice that these
are not emotional words. They tried to address the Eastern
concerns, they stuck with the facts, they avoided countercharges. Now, they could have brought
countercharges if they got emotionally stirred up. There was plenty
that the Easterners had done that was wrong. We've already
seen that. But they didn't make counter-charges. Why bring it
up if it's obvious that the Easterners already know that they have blown
it in not communicating adequately? After all, the Westerners' own
lack of good communication was part of the fault for the conflict
in the first place. And the Easterners did the same.
They're trying to put themselves into the shoes of the Westerners,
trying to understand things from their perspective. And that is
such an important thing to do when you're in the middle of
a conflict. Next, good communication on the part of the Western delegation.
To those that they represented, satisfied the concerns of everyone. Verses 32 through 33. And Phinehas,
the son of Eleazar the priest, and the rulers returned from
the children of Reuben and the children of Gad, from the land
of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the children of Israel, and
brought back word to them. So the thing pleased the children
of Israel. And the children of Israel, bless
God, they spoke no more of going against them in battle to destroy
the land where the children of Reuben and Gad dwelt. So this
solution put the issue to rest, and that should be our goal any
time conflicts come up, to seek for full resolution where all
of the parties will be satisfied. Let's look at each point. One
enough to communicate among the leaders, and then for the leaders
to say, oh, okay, we understand, hey, everything's okay, don't
worry about it. Now, they've got a whole army behind them
that's also very, very upset, and they need to be brought on
board as well. And so they sought to alleviate
the concerns that everyone had concerning this misunderstanding.
Everyone was brought on board, and sometimes that is tough,
very, very tough. But it's better to over-communicate
than to under-communicate. And then finally, in verse 34,
the true purpose of the replica altar became a permanent witness. The children of Reuben and the
children of Gad called the altar witness, for it is a witness
between us that the Lord is God. So it became a permanent witness
for all to see, and I think it reminded them, it was a great
reminder, of some of the principles we've been looking at on communication. So that covers the broad contours
of their particular misunderstanding. What I want to do right now is
make a few further applications from the text to ourselves. My
first application is we should seek to assume the best in our
brothers and sisters in Christ. Now, in this case, it was obvious
that those on both sides of the conflict loved God. They meant
well. Easterners did seem to assume
the best in their brothers on the other side of the Jordan.
I think the Westerners could have done better. Colossians
3.12 admonishes us to see each other as God's chosen people,
holy and dearly loved. When you treat the brother or
sister that you've got a conflict with as somebody that God dearly
loves, and you're looking at this conflict from God's perspective,
you're probably going to approach that person a little bit more
gently and tenderly. Peter says that the believers
he was writing to were a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
people belonging to the Lord. And so I think our first assumption
with fellow believers should be, you know, it's possible I
have misunderstood. Sure doesn't seem like I've misunderstood,
but it's possible I may. I need to be asking some questions. I sought to do this on the initiative
for 34 debates since I've got friends on the other side of
the debate And I read extensively on their websites to talk to
the proponents try to get into their heads I knew they were
sincere And so I tried to understand them. But I still think they
have failed to understand the magnitude of the implications
of that initiative. The second application is, don't
take actions based on the witness of one person, a rumor, since
that can amount to gossip. I should pause here and say it
doesn't have to amount to gossip, but it can. Listen deeply before
jumping to problem solving. People are much more likely to
be transparent with leadership, whether it's in the family or
elsewhere, if they know the leaders are willing to listen before
jumping to conclusions. Solutions should not be offered
until you've taken the time to ask questions and until you've
let the other side tell their side of the story. For sure,
don't take actions based on the witness of just one person as
that amounts to encouraging gossip. When people tell me a rumor,
I encourage them to go to the person themselves and get it
from the horse's mouth. We don't want to encourage gossip
in this church. If two people approach you with a concern,
that's totally different, right? But even then, take them with
you when you go to check something out. In any case, it's important
to try to put an end to needless rumors or misunderstandings.
The next application comes from Proverbs 15.1, which says, a
soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Now, the Westerners did the exact
opposite of Proverbs 15, verse 1. They came with very harsh
words, and I give kudos to the Easterners that they did not
let their anger rise to the surface of being so grossly misunderstood. They responded with humble and
soft words that calmed the situation down very, very quickly. So as
best as you can, try to be the one who diffuses tension by using
soft and humble words of response. The next application is, try
to give information that the other side has not considered. Now that's obvious in terms of
this story, but how do we apply it in our own lives? Well, I
like the way that Gary and John and some of the rest of you tried
to do this at the hearing in their county on Initiative 434.
I wasn't there, so I can't give exact quotes. But it seemed like
people were trying to get the proponents of the initiative
to consider information that they had not considered, such
as? that partiality in protecting persons via the three exceptions
contradicts the Constitution's current language of no partiality
in protecting persons. It's going to introduce conflicting
language into the Constitution at a minimum. I think it was
an extremely good point because if the language of 434 does not
get challenged in court, if it makes it into the Constitution,
then liberal judges are going to easily be able to say, Equal
protection of persons, we've got partiality on unborn people
here. Okay, so automatically, the only
way we could reconcile it is to say that unborn babies are
not persons. That's something that could very,
very easily happen. How else can you reconcile the
Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution with not giving
protection to infants or having exceptions in the second, third
trimester? That's partiality. Really, I
see only two options at this point for somebody to challenge
in court 434 as being unconstitutional. I don't know. Maybe there's information
I still have not gotten from the other side, but that's the
point. All of the legal ramifications should have been thought through.
I should quit because they didn't mention all of this. I'm trying
to quote them, but anyway, I liked what they said. Second data point
that they brought into the conversation is instead of viewing this as
a political battle that needs political strategies, shouldn't
we consider this to be a spiritual battle that requires biblically
sound spiritual strategies that God will agree with and bless?
Third bit of additional information that was put out there is that
all of the fear-mongering that was being thrown around, someone
suggested that fear is not compatible with faith, and that it is worthwhile
to do the right thing in faith regardless of the outcome. So
if God calls you to take a stand, Take that stand in faith. Now
that was a good additional bit of information for the other
side to consider. So thank you to the people who went to that
meeting. I think that the fourth bit of
information that was thrown out there was an answer to how hopeless
abolishing abortion might seem to be. And so people say, we've
got to settle for something less hopeless. keeping abortion at
the levels currently under, you know, basically Roe v. Wade was
reversed, but keeping them at that level. And so someone mentioned
that God has repeatedly accomplished impossible things when people
were willing to attempt what is right and to do so in faith.
That's a good bit of extra information out there. So kudos to whoever
said that. And then fifth, it appears that
some had never considered the idea that Romans 3, 8 condemns
promoting an evil action, and I would say even the lesser of
two evils, so that good might come. You never promote a bad
strategy so that good might come. So Romans 3.8 condemns having
a bad strategy in order to accomplish a good goal. The Bible is filled
with examples of people like Joab who did bad things because
they sincerely were pursuing a good goal, and that compromise
turned out disastrously. Now, I'm sure there were other
suggestions thrown out there that I didn't hear about, but
this was a case where it was hoped that by providing new ideas
that the other side had not considered, it might nuance the debate a
bit. Maybe I could have given a better example than 434, but
RW360.org encourages us to try to offer information that the
other side may not have considered yet. It certainly worked in this
case as it avoided a civil war that seemed like a foregone conclusion.
The next application that I see is to model humble confession
if you have blown it and you have misrepresented the other
side. That's what I see the Easterners
doing. They had no idea that what they were doing would have
been interpreted so badly. But they were quick to admit
that if the perceptions of what they had intended were the truth,
yeah, they would be deserving of death. They were humble in
admitting that they had blown it by not communicating better.
Now that's very, very hard on our pride. But that's the point,
pride's a sin, right? God calls us to crucify our pride.
All of us should aspire to be transparent and to admit that
we have blown it if we have misunderstood the other side, and the Westerners
did that too. The next application is that
open communication and a teachable heart are critical to conflict
resolution. I think the delegations on both
sides of this debate had open communication and a teachable
heart. When you get into an argument
with your wife, be willing to be convinced. Ask clarifying
questions. Be teachable. That doesn't mean
you're ultimately necessarily going to agree with her, but
humble teachability does give an atmosphere where conflict
resolution is possible. The next application is we should
seek to pursue true unity among believers, not fake unity. Not unity based on compromise,
but true unity, and I believe this is what the leaders of notoboth.com
have been trying to do. There cannot be unity based on
falsehood, and Initiative 434 is a strategy based on falsehood.
I don't know how anyone can read that language and say, yeah,
that's good language. I 100% agree with that language.
Even they admit that they don't like the language of 434, since
it authorizes abortion, shows partiality with the exceptions. They don't think they have a
choice, but we always have choices. The church doesn't need to take
the blame for abortion. I think in this case, you know,
the full-term abortion was defeated. the church is going to be taking
the blame that we've now got a Roe v. Wade kind of language
in the Constitution. So pursue true unity, not fake
unity based on compromise. The next application is that
true resolution of conflicts actually strengthens community
ties. Now, this may seem counterintuitive,
but it is true. If you ignore conflict, unity
won't be achieved. The lack of unity will just be
ignored, okay? That's not biblical. Some people
think you're being unkind by disagreeing, but when disagreements
are simply swept under the carpet, true unity is not being achieved.
I think that Ken Sandy calls this peace faking rather than
peacemaking. Psalm 133 verse 1 says, behold,
how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together
in unity. That should be our goal. And
that's our desire with the whole evangelical church in Nebraska,
unity in the truth. And even if that cannot be achieved
immediately, we have faith that it is still worth pursuing, as
Ephesians 4 or 3 commands us to do. And you might say, why?
That's because verse 13 promises eventually the church will have
this kind of unity in the truth when they use God's goals, methods,
and strategies, and they do it with faith before the Lord. Verse
13 says, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of
the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Now some people think
that's absolutely impossible, so they settle for a false unity
based on humanistic strategies. But since God promised that this
is possible, and in fact it will indeed happen in history, We
should continue to pursue true peace and true unity based on
the truth of God's Word, and do so in faith and not in fear.
Now obviously voting's ended, so I'm not trying to convince
you to vote differently, but my point in bringing these up
is to use that as an illustration for how we can approach similar
issues in the future. These kinds of things will keep
coming up in the future. And we should be ready to urge
brothers and sisters that we love in the Lord to not sweep
falsehoods and compromises and bad issues under the carpet.
True resolution of the issue strengthens community as God
defines it, whereas sweeping sins under the carpet does not.
Those sins, what they do is they just keep festering under the
surface and they eventually burst out in some other noxious issue.
The next application is really repeating in different words
some of what we have said. In Romans 10, 2 through 3, Paul
says, "'For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God,
but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God's
righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted to the righteousness of God.'" Now obviously, Paul is dealing
with knowledge of salvation issues, but the same principle applies
more broadly. Ignorance of what the Bible says
about compromise on strategies, methods, assumptions, and communication
can end up pursuing bad goals that are flawed. zeal without
biblical knowledge does not establish the kind of righteousness that
God is interested in. And that's why bringing God's
word to bear on even political issues is so, so important in
our conflicts. Another application is that a
reference to sins in the history of the Bible can sometimes serve
as lessons to the current generation. Sometimes those picture lessons
or stories from the Bible will instantly connect with some people.
I wish I was better at storytelling. But even reminding people of
a good biblical story can be helpful. Now, the Western delegation
did so a bit prematurely. Their reference to the sins of
Peor and Achan, even though they brought it up prematurely, registered
strongly with the Eastern delegation. The Easterners instantly caught
the point of those stories. And so stories can help some
people to connect with principle. And in the debate on initiative
434, I think it might have been useful to reference all of the
biblical times that people had a godly goal, but God judged
them because of their unbiblical methods and strategies. Moses
had a good goal when he struck the rock twice, but God judged
Moses for disobeying his command to only strike the rock one time. And you might think, that's such
a tiny compromise. What's the big deal? Well, God
was using that as an illustration that in the future, he was only
going to strike Christ once. So Moses blew it on that. He messed up the symbol. God
has his reasons for making sure that our strategies and methods
are just as biblical as our goals are. We may not always understand
God's reasons, but we should take his word on it. Another
example, Joab had good goals when he made several compromises
on strategy. Believe it or not, most of the
time, Joab was seeking David's welfare and the welfare of the
nation as a whole, and yet the text makes it crystal clear that
God did not approve of his strategies. For example, Joab thought he
was doing a good thing when he connived to get Absalom brought
back to Jerusalem. Why did he do that? Well, 2 Samuel
13 39 says he did it because he knew that King David's soul
longed to see Absalom again. Right? So his goal in bringing
Absalom back to Jerusalem was intended for the king's good.
But Absalom was a murderer. He should never have been brought
back. Anyway, we know how disastrously that story turned out. Absalom
engaged in revolution, tried to kill his dad, and many people
died in the ensuing battle. And none of that would have happened
if Joab had not compromised on his methods. I agree with Virgil
Walker that Initiative 434, regardless of whether it successfully gets
blocked through a court case, that will set the testimony of
the church of Jesus Christ back by many decades. When the church
can push Roe v. Wade language into the Constitution,
even when we disagree with the language, then can the church
be trusted to always stand for truth? I don't think so. The
church's testimony has been ruined, and it needs to publicly repent.
But having said all of that, the next application says that
we can achieve true unity in diversity if we seek to follow
the Bible. It was clear that the Western
tribes, and even the Eastern tribes, they had a lot of cultural
differences and other differences. But by facing the issues head
on, they were able to achieve unity. Even if they blew it on
how they communicated with each other, at least they were seeking
to achieve unity and diversity. That's a good goal. Next application
is that in our prioritization of our actions and goals, our
biggest goal should be to maintain God's presence and power in our
midst. Now, if there's only one point
that you would take away from this sermon, I think this is
by far the most important one. In verse 31, Phinehas, in absolute
relief, says, For Phinehas, nothing else mattered if God was no longer with them
fighting on their behalf. You can win the abortion battle,
but if you do it in a way that's offensive to God, you're not
going to have God's presence with you or his blessing upon
you. On every decision we make, we need to ask the Lord, Lord,
is this a decision that you would make? Is this a decision you
would be pleased with? Christians will keep losing future
political battles if God is not with us. But hey, if God is with
us, he can turn things around very quickly. And somebody at
that hearing, I think, mentioned that, that there are many times
in the past that God has turned things around very quickly when
people were following the Lord with all of their heart. But
it's not a win if you don't have God pleased with what you're
doing and willing to be with you and willing to support you.
But the last application is that nations should take seriously
the wrath of God, and true compromise should not be swept under the
rug. If the assumptions of the Western tribes had been true,
it would have been worthy of war, and both sides agreed with
that principle. Now, this is a very, very tough
point for modern Christians to agree with, but we must take
seriously the doctrine that the church itself can be under the
wrath of God. The Eastern tribes said in verse
22, the Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knows, and
let Israel itself know, if it is in rebellion or if in treachery
against the Lord, do not save us this day. So it was both the
West and the East. They were united on this issue.
And I believe America is deserving of the wrath of Almighty God
for its deliberate promotion of wickedness. And I, for one,
will not sweep the sins of our nation or the sins of the church
under the rug. To do so would be to ignore the seriousness
of this point, God's wrath. Those sins must be confronted
and dealt with. I believe repentance on the part
of the church is needed if God is to prosper our nation. And
until the church of Jesus Christ is willing to repent of its humanistic
strategies and methods, it will not prosper in achieving its
good goals. Well, that's assuming it even has good goals, but we'll
give them that assumption. But for sure, we within this
church need to take seriously the lessons in this chapter.
What is in a person's heart will eventually be revealed by how
they respond to truth. If they reject the truth self-consciously,
they're living like the world, even if they've got good goals.
Let's not be like the broader church that has stubbornly insisted
on ungodly strategies simply because they have a good goal,
like Joab did. Yes, Joabs can sovereignly be
used by God and the nation, But like David, let's not be like
Joab. We must be men and women of integrity
who have biblical goals, biblical methods, biblical communication,
biblical strategies, and biblical assumptions. It's also my prayer
that we would become more and more consistent in living out
the principles of peacemaking in this chapter. Let's pray. Father, I thank You that You
illustrate every issue that is common to man, and that You give
us the solutions for those issues. I pray that You would open the
eyes of our understanding, open our hearts, soften our hearts,
and enable us, Father, to be willing to follow Your Word in
faith, even when others call us ridiculous things and misinterpret
and misrepresent us. Help us, as well, never to get
bitter. Help us to respond with a soft answer to those that might
attack us. But I pray that we as a church,
at least within this church, would grow more and more mature
in peacemaking. And I pray this in Jesus' name.
Amen. Let's go ahead and stand as we
sing a psalm of response, Psalm 15.
Bad Assumptions and Poor Communication
Series Joshua
| Sermon ID | 111424121208028 |
| Duration | 52:36 |
| Date | |
| Category | Sunday Service |
| Bible Text | Joshua 22:10-34 |
| Language | English |
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.