Two weeks ago, when I was reading posts on a music forum, I read 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… oooh, brother. This guy has some nerve and he’s also 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. 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, the thief.

Now you may not 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. Actually, the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed on Mars precisely because of such poor communication. Everyone was puzzled on how this could have happened until it was realized that the spacecraft's thrusters used metric units (called newtons) to measure the force of the thrust whereas the ground crew's software used imperial units (called pounds). Further investigation showed that there had been poor communication between the different teams working on the project, with everyone working with different assumptions. Well, this is a passage that illustrates misunderstandings because of poor communication and bad assumptions.

Conflict Through Misunderstandings and Poor Communication (vv. 10-20)

In verses 1-9 we saw that the Eastern tribes were dismissed with praise for their faithfulness. Those verses showed how the Eastern tribes had so many points of faithfulness that you would think that the first assumption that anyone would have made about them would have been positive - giving them the benefit of the doubt. But no, bad assumptions and poor communication almost led to a civil war.

The Sincere Attempt to Follow Joshua's Instructions (v. 10)

Let's start with the sincere attempt of the Eastern tribes to follow Joshua's exhortations to never forget and to remain faithful to the Lord. They should have consulted with the Levites, who might have given them some cautions. And that is probably why Calvin's commentary faults them on at least 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."¹ They had sincerity, but sincerity is not enough. Verse 10 says of them,

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.

We see later that this was a sincere endeavor, even if it involved some naivety.

One Person's Gossip (v. 11 "heard someone say")

But the conflict started in verse 11 with one person's gossip. And I call it gossip because that person had passed on bad information without checking his sources, and the Western tribes acted on one person's testimony - clearly unbiblical. You don't go to court based on one person's testimony and you certainly should not go to war based on 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.”

Offense Instantly Taken (v. 12)

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?" Even though that was a case of wiser heads prevailing, verse 12 makes clear that the delegates had the same problem - they were instantly ready to fight their brethren even though in verses 1-9 these Eastern tribes had shown incredible loyalty and faithfulness to the Lord.

The other tribes are greatly offended - people can easily assume that what they hear is true without checking! (v. 12a; see Prov. 18:13; James 1:19-20)

Look at the first part of verse 12. "And when the children of Israel heard it..." Notice the timing. It was the moment that they heard it that they took offense. And this is a common problem among God's people. They can easily assume that what they heard was 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 16-20 answered a matter before they heard anything from the people they were upset with. Proverbs is quite clear that what they did was folly and shame. Were the Easterners naive that this could have happened? Yes. Obviously yes. But let's not let the Westerners off the hook either. James 1:19-20 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 who jumps to conclusions too quickly. I've had to repent of this very sin myself - especially with my wife. Let me read that verse again. James 1:19-20 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.

The other tribes gather for war without checking the story of this "someone" (v. 12b)

And that they had already come to a bad conclusion can be seen by the fact that they gathered for war against the Easterners. Their armies assembled in order to fight. That's based on one man's testimony. That is not right. Verse 12 says, "And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered together at Shiloh to go to war against them." That was already their plan - to go to war. They had made their decision.

Why did communication break down? Assumptions

So let's think a bit about how this communication broke down. I believe that at least some of the people on both sides had bad assumptions in these verses.

The Eastern tribes erected a replica altar without seeing a need to give any explanation - an unwise assumption

First, the Eastern tribes assumed that no one would have a problem with erecting a replica altar without some explanation. That's a pretty huge assumption. What are altars usually for? Sacrifices. And God's law only allowed one place for sacrifices - at the altar on the tabernacle grounds. They were no doubt totally sincere in thinking that no explanation was needed, but almost always, more information is better in situations like this, not less.

The Eastern tribes assumed that this exact replica of the tabernacle altar would not be seen as constituting a competing altar with competing sacrifices - an unwise assumption.

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 may have thought, “Hey! With the loyalty we have shown to the Lord, surely no one will assume that we will offer sacrifices on this altar! We are just reminding ourselves of the need to go to the real altar.” But that was a naive assumption at best.

The Western tribes assumed the worst without checking the story - an unwise assumption

But the Western tribes had two bad assumptions as well. They first of all assumed the worst (apostasy) without checking out the story. Given the faithfulness of the Easterners for the past 15 years of fighting, surely they should 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 saying that we assume the best about a fellow believer until there is good evidence to the contrary. It doesn't mean you can't investigate when things seem off (you probably should), but it means that you do investigate before you come to solid conclusions.

The Western tribes assumed that they should jump to action without checking out the story - an unwise assumption

Second, the Western tribes assumed that they should jump to action (and pretty severe action - war - civil war) without checking out the story, again, a very unwise assumption. I would have had no critique of those tribes if they had simply sent the delegation to investigate and to ask questions without making accusations. But they didn't.

And what we can learn from this is that it is important to analyze our assumptions to see if they are Biblical. That can be hard, because we often don't even recognize that we have assumptions or presuppositions. But we all do. It's so important to analyze our presuppositions since they drive our thinking and actions.

Assumptions are somewhat tempered by sending a delegation before going to war (vv. 13-20). But they still perpetuate misunderstanding.

But having said all that, I do believe that cooler heads must have prevailed. Where everyone was already gathered for war, someone decided it might be better to first send a delegation to sue for peace. That was good. Verses 13-14:

Josh. 22:13 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, 14 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.

Perhaps Phinehas was the one who encouraged the others to send a delegation rather than declaring war. To declare war based on what one person said would be rash. So the assumptions are somewhat tempered by this delegation.

But rather than asking questions, they charge the others with the worst possible interpretation of the facts (vv. 13-18)

But even then, the delegation itself charged the Easterners with the worst possible interpretation of the events before they even started asking questions. Probably in their mind there could be no other interpretation - what's to ask? Let's read verses 15-18. And note the dogmatism with which they interpreted the evidence here.

15 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, 16 “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? 17 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, 18 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.

Notice the dogmatism in their interpretation of what had already happened. This is not couched in less dogmatic language such as "Wow, it sure seems like," "or have you done this?," or "Why on earth have you set up an 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 at Peor, and have therefore brought down God's wrath upon all 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 are offended. Thankfully that didn't happen, but it easily could have.

Rather than asking questions, they already suggest the only solution they can think of (vv. 19-20)

Next, rather than asking questions, they already suggest the only solution they can think of in verses 19-20. But hey, at least they were thinking of one solution that wouldn't require war. I will hand it to them for that. Again, all sides were sincerely seeking to serve the Lord. Verses 19-20.

19 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. 20 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.’ ”

A Soft and Humble Answer Turned Away Wrath (vv. 21-29)

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 somebody is offended with 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 is misspelled. But it says, "I'm offended that you're offended by me taking offense at you're offensive offensiveness." 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 have misunderstood something we have done. The Easterners gave a very soft and humble answer. To me this shows God's grace was indeed at work in their hearts. It would be difficult to answer softly when being falsely accused like that. As Proverbs 15:1 words it, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

The Eastern tribes humbly acknowledge the seriousness of the misunderstanding (vv. 21-23)

First of all, in verses 21-23 we see the humility of the Eastern tribes in the way they humbly acknowledge the seriousness of the misunderstanding.

Josh. 22:21 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: 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. 23 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 been guilty of doing what they were accused of doing, then yes, they deserve 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. That's a way to quickly defuse the tension. Agreeing with the sentiment of your opponent - if what they assumed was true. It's in effect saying, "Wow! We can see why you would be upset if that's what you thought about 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 are the only being falsely attacked. And it helps to take the steam out of the anger of the accusers. We can learn from this in our own dialogues.

The Eastern tribes supplied facts that the other side did not know (vv. 24-27)

But next, the Eastern tribes quickly supplied facts that the other side did not know. They must have suddenly realized that they should have done this long ago. Oops! It was a big oops. Verses 24-27.

24 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? 25 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.’ 26 Therefore we said, “Let us now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering nor for sacrifice, 27 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.” ’

That information suddenly gives a totally different picture. And how many times have we suddenly changed our tune when a new fact comes to light? Perhaps we have gotten angry, and the other person explains how we have misunderstood them. And we think, "Oh wow! I didn't realize that. Please forgive me for misinterpreting you." 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 has talked to the other person himself. That's what he should have done. And if he has not done it, he should be rebuked for gossiping. But once you know, you and one other person can go with the gossiper to the party he gossiped about and check things out. And if the gossiper is not willing to do so, he's got a problem. Those kinds of actions will stop gossip in its tracks. Usually a gossiper would not want to be part of the solution.

The Eastern tribes humbly agree with the sentiment of the Western tribes (vv. 28-29)

But the Eastern tribes aren't finished. They also humbly agree with a second presupposition of the Western tribes had - that offerings should only be at the tabernacle. They agree. Verses 28-29.

28 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 for sacrifices; but it is a witness between you and us.’ 29 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.”

The Eastern tribes humbly explain their fear and their desire to perpetuate the union and adherence to the true God (vv. 24-28)

But backing up a bit to verses 24-28, 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, far from treating them as enemies, they are treating them as friends that they want to stay in union with. Their speech was designed to placate anger and to maintain friendship. And we can learn from this too in our own speech and actions. And Gary and I would highly recommend that everyone in the congregation read Ken Sande's book, The Peacemaker for these and many other tips on peace making versus peace breaking or even peace faking. Their website (https://rw360.org) gives a ton of free resources for relational wisdom and learning how to lead on every level. There is one handout in particular called "Approachability" that has fantastic principles to coach leaders (whether parents, elders, business owners, or some other kind of leader) on how to have a gentle authority slope. And they have handouts on things like emotional leadership. It's a fantastic website.

While building the altar may not have been wise, their intentions were honorable (vv. 21-29)

Back to our text, you probably noticed already that verses 21-29 also show that while building the altar may not have been wise, 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.

The Issue was Put to Rest (vv. 30-34)

I think the Western tribes must have recognized that they blew it when they prematurely condemned the Easterners. But the way the Easterners had worded themselves gave the angry party a way out - a way of saving face. And the Westerners suddenly acknowledge that they were wrong. They humbly agree with the sentiment of the Eastern tribes. Let's break this down a bit.

Good communication on the part of the Easterners satisfied the concerns of the Western delegation (vv. 30-31)

In verses 30-31 we see that good communication on the part of the Easterners satisfied the concerns of the Western delegation.

Josh. 22:30 Now when Phinehas 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. 31 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 they weren't emotional words. They tried to address the Eastern concerns, stuck with facts, and avoided counter-charges. It would have been very easy to make counter-charges by pointing out the Easterners' faults (and we've already seen that they did had some faults). 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 by 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 had done the same. They tried to put themselves in the shoes of the Westerners and tried to understand things from their perspective. That is such an important thing to do when you are in the middle of conflict.

Good communication on the part of the Western delegation to those they represented satisfied the concerns of everyone (vv. 32-33)

Next, good communication on the part of the Western delegation to those that they represented satisfied the concerns of everyone. Verses 32-33.

32 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. 33 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.

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 parties will be satisfied. Let's look at each point.

It wasn't enough to communicate among the leaders and then for the leaders to say, "Hey, don't worry about it. Everything's OK." No, they have an army behind them of offended people too; they needed to be brought on board. So they sought to alleviate the concerns that everyone had had concerning the misunderstanding. Everyone was brought on board. And this can sometimes be tough, but it's better to over-communicate than to under-communicate.

The true purpose of the replica altar became a permanent witness (v. 34)

Finally, in verse 34 the true purpose of the replica altar became a permanent witness.

34 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.”

That became a permanent witness for all to see. So that covers the broad contours of their particular misunderstanding, but let's make some further applications to ourselves.

Further Applications

Assume the best in brothers and sisters in Christ. In this case both sides in the conflict loved God and meant well.

My first application is that we should seek to assume the best in our brothers and sisters in Christ. In this case it was obvious that those on both sides of the conflict loved God and meant well. The Easterners did seem to assume the best in their brothers on the other side of Jordan and they responded humbly. But Westerners could have done better. Colossians 3:12 admonishes us to see each other as "God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved." We should treat them as people that God dearly loves. When you do that you are going to treat them a little more tenderly. Peter saw the believers he was writing to as "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to the Lord" (1 Pet. 2:9). Our first assumption should be that we may have misjudged the other person, and to ask questions before jumping to further conclusions. I sought to do this on the Initiative 434 debate since I have friends on the other side of that debate. I sought to read extensively on their websites, to talk to the proponents, and to try to get into their heads. I knew they were sincere, so I tried to understand them. But I think they have failed to understand the magnitude of the implications of that Initiative.

Don't take actions based on the witness of one person (a rumor), since that can amount to gossip. Listen deeply and ask questions before jumping to problem solving.

The second application is "Don't take actions based on the witness of one person (a rumor), since that can amount to gossip. [It's not always gossip, but can amount to gossip.] Listen deeply before jumping to problem solving." People are much more likely to be transparent with leadership if they know the leaders listen before jumping to conclusions. And solutions should not be offered until you have taken the time to ask questions and until you have let the other side have time to share 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 find out from the horse's mouth. We don't want to encourage gossip in this church. If two people approach you with a concern, then that is a totally different story. But even then, take them with you when you go to check something out. In any case, it is important to try to put an end to needless rumors or misunderstandings.

A soft answer turns away wrath

The next application comes from Proverbs 15:1, which says, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." The Westerners did the exact opposite of Proverbs 15:1. They came with very harsh words. And I give kudos to the Easterners that they didn't let their anger rise to the surface at being so grossly misunderstood. They responded with humble and soft words that calmed the situation down very quickly. So as best as you can, try to be the one who diffuses tension by using soft and humble words of response.

Try to give information that the other side has not considered

The next application is, "Try to give information that the other side has not considered." That’s obvious here, but how can we apply this principle? I like the way that Gary, John, and others tried to humbly do that at the hearing on Initiative 434 in his town. I wasn't there, so I can't give exact quotes. But it seems like people were trying to get proponents of the initiative to consider information they may not have considered, such as:

1. 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. That's an extremely good point because if the language of 434 does not get challenged in court and if it makes it into the Constitution, judges will be able to use that language to say that unborn infants are not persons. How else can you reconcile the equal protection clause of the constitution with not giving protection to infants in the first trimester and giving exceptions in the second and third trimester. That is partiality. And I see only two options - a lawsuit challenging the language of 434 as being unconstitutional or judges treating unborn children as non-persons. Now, maybe there is information I still don't have from the other side, but that's the point - all the legal ramifications should have been thought through. And I should quit talking because I've added words to what they said. They just mentioned that it sure seems like unconstitutional partiality.
2. The second data point that they brought into the conversation is that instead of just viewing this as a political battle that needs political strategies we might want to consider that this is ultimately a spiritual battle that requires Biblically sound spiritual strategies that God can agree with and bless.
3. A third bit of additional information that was put out there is that with all the fearmongering 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. If God calls for you to take a stand, then take that stand in faith. I thought that was a good additional bit of information to get the other side to consider. So thank you to the people who went to that meeting.
4. I think that the fourth bit of information that was thrown out there was in answer to how hopeless abolishing abortion might seem to be, so let’s settle for something less hopeless - keeping abortion at the levels under Roe v Wade. 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 to throw out there. So kudos to whoever said that.
5. And then fifth, it appears that some had never considered the idea that Romans 3:8 condemns promoting an evil action (including the lesser of two evils) so that good might come. In other words, it 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 were sincerely seeking a good goal, and that compromise turned out disastrously.

And 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 help to nuance the debate. Maybe I could have given a better example to illustrate this point, but rw360.org encourages us to try to offer information that the other side may not have considered yet. It certainly worked in this situation where civil war seemed like a foregone conclusion.

Model humble confession if you have blown it

The next application that I see is to model humble confession if you have blown it and if we have misrepresented the other side. That's what I see the Easterners doing. They had no idea that what they were doing could have been interpreted so badly, but they were quick to admit that if the perceptions of what they had intended were the truth that they would have been deserving of death. They were humble in admitting that they had blown it by not communicating better. Now, that's hard on our pride, isn't it? But Scripture calls us to crucify our pride. All of us should aspire to be transparent and to admit we have blown it if we have misunderstood the other side. And the Westerners did that too.

Open communication and a teachable heart are critical to conflict resolution

The next application is that "Open communication and a teachable heart are critical to conflict resolution." The delegations from both sides showed 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. It doesn't mean that you will ultimately agree with her, but humble teachability does give an atmosphere where conflict resolution is possible.

We should pursue true unity among believers

The next application is that we should seek to pursue true unity among believers. Not fake unity, or unity based on compromise, but true unity. 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 see how anyone can read the language of that Initiative and say, "Yeah, this is good language that I 100% agree with." And even they admit that they don't like the language of 434 since it still authorizes abortion and shows partiality with the exceptions. They don't think that they have a choice, but we always do have choices. The church doesn’t have to take the blame for abortion. But in this case, the full-term abortion was defeated, and perhaps the only reason we have language similar to Roe v Wade is because the church pushed for it. So pursue true unity, not fake unity based on compromise.

True resolution of conflicts actually strengthens the community ties

The next application is that true resolution of conflicts actually strengthens community ties. Now, this point may seem counterintuitive , but it is true. If you ignore the conflict, unity won't be achieved; the lack of unity will just be ignored. Some people think you are being unkind by disagreeing, but when disagreements are swept under the carpet, true unity is not being achieved. I think it is Ken Sande who calls that "faking peace rather than making peace." Psalm 133:1 says, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" That should be our goal. That's what we desire with the whole evangelical church in Nebraska - unity in the truth. And even if that can't be achieved immediately, we have faith that it is still worth pursuing (as Ephesians 4:3 commands us to do). Why? Because verse 13 promises that eventually the church will have that unity in the truth when they use God's goals, methods, and strategies, and do so in 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." Some people think that's impossible, so they settle for a false unity based on humanistic strategies. But since God promised that this is possible (and will in fact happen in history), we should continue to pursue true peace and true unity based on the truth of God's word, and to do so in faith and not in fear. Obviously voting is ended, so I am not trying to convince anyone in this message to change their vote. I’m using a past event to illustrate how we should approach life in the future. These kinds of things will keep coming up in the future, and we should be ready to urge the brothers and sisters that we love in the Lord to not sweep falsehoods, compromises, and bad issues under the carpet. True resolution of the issues strengthens community (as God defines it), whereas sweeping sins under the carpet does not. Those sins keep festering under the surface and eventually burst into some other noxious issue.

Zeal without knowledge (Rom. 10:2) is one way by which people "seek to establish their own righteousness" (v. 3).

The next application is really repeating in different words some of what we have said. In Romans 10:2-3 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, of course, Paul is there 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 promoting goals that are flawed. Zeal without Biblical knowledge does not establish the kind of righteousness that God is interested in. That's why bringing God's Word to bear on even political issues is so important in our conflicts.

A reference to sins in history (like Peor and Achan) can sometimes serve as lessons for the current generation

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 really connect with certain people. I wish I was a better story teller, but even reminding people of a good Biblical story can be helpful. Though the Western delegation did so a bit prematurely, their reference to the sins of Peor and Achan registered strongly with the Eastern delegation. The Easterners instantly caught the point of those stories. So stories can help some people to connect with principle.

And in the debate on Initiative 434, it might have been useful to reference all of the Biblical times that people had a godly goal, but unbiblical methods or strategies. Moses had a good goal when he struck the rock twice, but God judged Moses for disobeying His command to strike the rock only once. That may seem like such a tiny compromise. What's the big deal? Yet God was using that rock as a symbol of His striking Christ (our Rock) only once. Moses 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. Most of the time Joab was seeking David's welfare and the welfare of the nation as a whole. Yet the text makes it very clear that God did not approve. For example, Joab thought he was doing a good thing when he connived to get Absalom brought back to Jerusalem. Why did he do it? Well, 2 Samuel 13:39 says he did it because he knew that king David's soul longed to see Absalom again. So his goal of bringing Absalom back 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 a revolution, tried to kill his dad, and many Israelites died in that 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 gets blocked or put into the constitution) will set the testimony of the church back by several decades. When the church can push Roe v Wade language into the constitution even though 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.

We can achieve unity in diversity

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 Eastern tribes had a lot of cultural 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 in diversity. That's a good goal.

In our prioritization of our actions and goals, our biggest goal should be to maintain God's presence and power in our midst (v. 31)

The 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." If there is only one point you take away from this sermon, this may be the most important one. In verse 31, Phinehas in relief says, "This day we perceive that the LORD is among us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD." 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 offends God, you won't have God's power and presence in your midst. If anything we do precludes this goal, then it should be tossed. On every decision we make we should ask the Lord, "Lord, is this a decision 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 if God is with us, He can turn things around very quickly. And as one of you said at the hearing, God has done that over and over in the past. It’s not a win if you don’t have God pleased with what you are doing and willing to be with you and support you.

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

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 on that principle. Now, this is a tough one for modern Christians to agree with, but we must take seriously the doctrine that even the church can face 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." They were all 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 the nation or of the church under the rug. To do so would be to ignore the seriousness of this point - of 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 repents of its humanistic strategies and methods, it will not prosper in achieving its good goals (assuming it has good goals, which right now is a pretty big 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 the ways they respond to truth. If they reject the truth self-consciously, they are living like the world - even if they've got good goals. Lets 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 be sovereignly used by God in a 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. And it’s also my prayer that we would be more and more consistent with the lessons on peace-making versus peace-faking that we have learned from this chapter. Amen.