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.