It was one of those nightmares I hope never to experience again. Our regular mid-week prayer service usually had somewhere between 6-10 people in attendance with a maximum of 4-5 cars parked alongside the church building to accommodate them. As I pulled up to the church on this particular night, I was still one-half hour early and there were already at least 12 cars parked in their usual Sunday morning spaces. Realization dawned quickly. This was business meeting night and an unusually high attendance didn’t look good for my future as pastor. Someone was upset about something, but the strange thing was that I didn’t have a clue. I have occasionally been blindsided in my life, but even when that happened, I usually had some kind of visceral indication that someone was upset. This time, there was nothing.
As the congregational meeting began, there was still no signal as to the problem. There was only the stone-faced silence and crossed-arms of hostile body language to indicate that something was amiss. Still, no one said anything through the usual reports and opportunity for the consideration of Old Business. Naturally, one would expect the pyrotechnics to begin once we entered officially into a time for New Business. At first, there was nothing. Then, one blessed peacemaker, who was also a deacon, stood up to request the floor. I don’t know exactly what he said, but it was something like: “I’m a little confused, Brother Johnny. You know I’ve had to work a lot of extra hours of late and I haven’t been around as much as usual. In fact, I begged for time off tonight because I was given to believe there was an emergency. I’m confused because it seems like if you were planning to sell off some of the church property you would have brought it before a committee, at least. And now, here we are in business session and we still don’t even have a motion.”
The implication was that I might have been planning to sell off some of the church property in secret. I suppose I was next going to be accused of planning to take off with the proceeds. I don’t know how anyone would have thought that was possible. No sale would have been possible without the signature of the trustees of the church and this very deacon who admitted his confusion would have been one of the trustees who would have had to sign any deal. Of course, now I was confused. I knew of no such plan to sell off the property, but here was a large group of people thinking that was my plan.
Then, it hit me. I realized, tentatively, where the confusion might have occurred. That week or the week before, the church had been assessed a huge tax bill against the vacant property that was earmarked for expansion. It was an old trick in California. The tax code clearly read that churches were tax exempt on property that was used exclusively for religious purposes. As a result, one county assessor, in a previous church, tried to assess us for our parking lot because we had allowed commuters to park in the parking lot through the week in order to ride public transit (a bus stop right in front of our church). I helped get a bill straightening that out through the California Legislature.
But the confusion in this church was a result of my response to that assessment. We needed to use that property for religious purposes in order to appeal the assessment. So, since Easter was coming up, another member and I found some old pieces of wood and former telephone poles. We set up an old rugged cross at the back of the property and planned to move the old poles over to sit on till someone warned me about creosote. We held our Good Friday service out there and a Sunrise Service there, as well as a meeting for the Youth. That was enough to appeal, especially since we intended to do Backyard Bible Clubs out there and a portion of our Vacation Bible School on that lot.
It seemed like a win-win situation and we later won the assessment appeal. But it seems that when a bitter old man in the church overheard me say something about not being able to afford the tax assessment on that property and needing to do something about it quickly, he thought I intended to sell the property. And he told everybody in the church that I intended to sell the property. And that’s why there was a huge crowd that night. Now, everyone relaxed and even laughed a little as I explained what I was trying to do with the assessor (we hadn’t yet won the appeal). Most, thought the misunderstanding was amusing. But it was only the first of several misunderstandings that came from the same source. This old man was a former deacon, the father of two other pastors, and a charter member of the church. He didn’t like me at all because I did children’s sermons with puppets, allowed choir and special music performances with taped music, and, most of all, didn’t seek his advice. The church didn’t split into two groups, but he continued to undermine my ministry and it is the only church I’ve served as pastor that I believe was weaker when I left than when I arrived.
Now, before we go to our text, I want to set this up with another story. A pastor friend of mine in another state observed a church that did split. In this case, the split began with disciplinary action against some very faithful church members. These church members were asked to resign from teaching their Sunday School classes, their choir positions, and any church offices because they had attended a retreat that sanctioned occult practices. The name of this retreat (and it is held in many churches and states) is called Walk to Emmaus. It is an intense, four-day devotional retreat that is carefully supervised by and developed by the Upper Room Ministries of the United Methodist Church. The so-called “occult practices,” by the time the facts came out was tied to the fact that there was a Communion held at the retreat and the church members had participated in this Communion.
Since Baptists generally hold that the Lord’s Supper (our preferred term over Communion) is something to be celebrated with the local church, their action was not strictly in keeping with our tradition. To call it an “occult practice,” however, was absurd. As it turns out, the people who accused these members of “occult practices” just kept at it until they drove these members from the church. Guess who ended up in control of this diminished (in more ways than one) church fellowship? That’s right! The accusers grabbed control.
This morning, I want to talk about church dissension even though I am unaware of any in our church. This discussion is a logical extension of Pastor Nick’s sermon about loving each other in order to be able to love those outside. The New Testament passages I will use in speaking about the “cure” complement that portion of Romans 12 very well. We’ve listed the entire passage for each of the New Testament teachings, but I’m only going to make one point from both texts. We’re going to spend most of our time in the Book of Numbers, but our New Testament summary is going to be phenomenally important. So, I first want you to turn with me to Numbers 12. And while you’re turning, let me further set the table by explaining that dissension in the Old Testament (and particularly when we see it in the Book of Numbers) had a fairly standard pattern. It went something like this:
A – God’s people sin
B – God “hears” (or acknowledges) the sin
C – God acts to punish the sin
A’—God’s people confess and ask for help
B’—God “hears” (or acknowledges) the request
C’—God acts to restore the sinners
What I need for you to see here is that the centerpiece of this pattern is the fact that God is aware of dissension or repentance (both B and B’ emphasize the fact that god hears) and that God acts upon our actions (both the punishment of C and restoration of C’ are God’s actions). God’s people complain about the manna (literally, “What is it?”) and God gives quail, but a lot of people gorge themselves and die (Numbers 11:4-33). God’s people complain and God sends a burning fire to consume the complainers (Numbers 11:1-3). When the people spoke against God and Moses, God sent poisonous serpents among them (Numbers 21:4-9). When Korah gathered up some young rebels to oppose God and Moses, God responded with the ground opening to swallow some of the rebels and fire to consume others (Numbers 16:1-5, 24-35).
Now, let’s read the text together. You’ll see the first part of the familiar pattern right away. “And Miriam and Aaron started to speak against Moses on account of a woman of Cush whom he had taken [in marriage]; for he had taken [in marriage] a woman of Cush.” (v. 1—jlw translation) Now, that portion of the passage is what I call the “red flag” reason. It’s the propaganda. In fact, it’s almost the big lie.
A – The Big Lie (The Propaganda—Numbers 12:1)
It doesn’t really matter whether this controversial wife of Moses is a second wife, an Ethiopian woman, or is actually Zipporah, Moses’ wife from Midian. It isn’t the real issue. Aaron and Miriam were dragging up anything controversial in order to create opposition to Moses, but they’ll give us, in their own words, the REAL reason for their opposition to Moses in verse 2. But before we get to that, let me deal with this bogus issue for a moment. A lot of people grabbed hold of the King James translation of this wife as being Ethiopian and used it to teach against interracial marriage. Now, there are a few of us who are Caucasians married to Asian wives who would have a problem with that if it was correct.
The problem with that interpretation is that the Hebrew noun used in this passage is “Cush.” And in the Hebrew Bible, Cush CAN mean “Ethiopian” but it can also refer to what is now Saudi Arabia, the largely desert area where Midian was located. And whether Moses’ wife was a second wife, a black one, or a first wife, a Midianite, Aaron and Miriam were trying to suggest that she was inappropriate for a leader of God’s people. Somehow, they suggested, she wasn’t a good pastor’s wife. We don’t know if it was because she was an “extra” wife as with polygamy, a “second” wife after Zipporah died or was divorced, or if it was Zipporah herself, but we can be sure that the issue wasn’t really the wife.
You know, many a pastor has had his ministry curtailed by the perceptions of, actions of, or reactions to his wife. Now, it’s very likely that (as with my property controversy or the devotional retreat controversy I mentioned) if it hadn’t been one thing, it would have been another, but the fact remains that the sneaky, diabolical force, the disloyal opposition, the Satan who wants to disrupt churches has very often used the wives of leaders to rally against. The Satan knows he can get to the leader easier through wife and family than any other way.
But it isn’t always, as in this case, a “red flag” that rallies around the leader’s wife. It could be a dispute about the Bible translation read from the pulpit, a disagreement over the type of music to be used in worship, or even major splits over (and these are all real): the color of the carpet in the sanctuary, the color of paint for the nursery, oversized pink offering envelopes over short white ones, the use of the church kitchen, changing the time or frequency of church services, borrowing of church folding chairs for personal use, the side of the church on which the piano was located, the way the Lord’s Supper is served, the amount of time the pastor gets off, the use of spiritual gifts, pastor’s and staff salaries, inauguration of some new ministry effort, a pastor wearing a robe in the pulpit, and a pastor who used his academic title (causing jealousy in a deacon who had procrastinated earning his equivalent degree). All of these and more have caused church splits of which I’m aware. But they weren’t the REAL reason.
B – The Real Reason (The Agenda—Numbers 12:2)
Let’s read the real reason together in verse 2. “And they started to say, ‘Has Yahweh really been speaking exclusively by means of Moses? Has He not also been speaking by means of us?’ And Yahweh heard.” (v. 2—jlw translation) Sometimes, people tell you they’re upset over something in the church and use a potential controversy (often, a building program or new ministry) to illustrate their point. But when you actually listen to them, as God listened to Moses, you discover that their feelings are hurt or they feel disenfranchised. You discover that it isn’t really the red flag issue at all. It’s really about them. The Big I that serves as the center of sin means self-centered motivation.
See, the Bible is very clear that this opposition to Moses wasn’t about his wife at all. The issue was whether Aaron and Miriam had enough recognition and power. And, if you look closely at most church conflict, you’ll discover that no matter what people tell you it’s over—even if it’s allegedly doctrinal issues or spiritual practices—it’s probably about individual egos and selfishness.
Well, let’s see what happens in our text: “And the man, Moses, was very humble compared to every human on the face of the earth. And Yahweh quickly spoke to Moses, to Aaron, and to Miriam, ‘Come now, you three to the Tent of Meeting!’ And so, the three came out. And so, Yahweh came down in a standing cloud [usually “a pillar of cloud”] and stood in the opening [usually “door”] of the tent, and so, He called to Aaron and Miriam, and the two of them came out.” (verse 4-5, jlw translation)
C – Taking Sides (Polarization—Numbers 12:3-8)
If there is one consistent fact about sin and the self-centeredness that drives sin, it is the fact that sin is divisive. Sin drives wedges between ourselves and God, as well as between ourselves and everybody else. For a time, it may seem that there is “honor among thieves” or “camaraderie among rebels,” but that is a very short season. If you’ve driven a wedge between yourself and God or between yourself and others for one reason, it probably won’t be long before you drive a wedge between yourself and your temporary companions over another. There is an old political cliché in the U.S. that states, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” When it is expedient to their own desires, unscrupulous people will make a deal with the devil in order to get their way. But notice that it doesn’t say that “Politics makes strange soulmates” or “Politics makes strange marriages.” It isn’t talking about long-term relationships; it’s talking about political promiscuity.
When the sin that emphasizes our own agenda comes before the needs and goals of the rest of God’s people, it is certainly a dividing force, not a uniting force. You’d be surprised how many times I’ve heard of well-meaning people who were afraid of dividing the church who failed to stand with God and, in most cases, with their pastor because they were afraid things would blow up and the church wouldn’t be the same. Guess what? When churches are threatening to divide, someone is wrong—someone is being selfish. And sometimes, that selfishness is actually on both sides.
In our text, we are specifically told that Moses isn’t being selfish in this case. The Bible underscores his humility, his selflessness. Now, at other times in the Bible, Moses doesn’t seem humble. His eventual sin is the sin of pride when he strikes the rock (or strikes it too many times) and asks if “we” (putting himself on the same plane as God) had to miraculously provide water for Israel. But in this case, the Bible makes it clear that Moses isn’t being defensive or territorial whatsoever. He’s amazingly humble as he’s being attacked by his own siblings.
So, God comes down and separates them. I was looking for an illustration of this and discovered an interesting experiment with fluorophores. Look at the following illustration at http://www.iss.com/resources/tech2/.
When a light source of linear polarized light hits these molecules, it excites these elements (usually of amino acids or proteins) and they glow with a fluorescent glow. Yet, it is interesting that only those fluorophores which are aligned with the plane of polarization (that is, in synch with the light source’s polarized plane) will be excited; the others become inactive and fail to glow.
That works for me. Among God’s People, those of us who are rotating on the same plane as God’s light are likely to shine with the glow of God’s Presence. God’s Presence, the light of God’s Power, excites us when we are aligned with God through confession and obedience, but it fails to excite us when we aren’t aligned with God’s Purpose within the church. And I tried to capture this by going back to the verbal root for “pillar.” God’s STAND in the entry flap of the tent of meeting kept Aaron and Miriam from entering the tent where God met Moses to instruct him and provide direction. God’s STAND in the entry flap barred Aaron and Miriam from the leadership positions they coveted. Instead of being excited or incited to do God’s work, they were polarized, separated from God’s will.
Now, sometimes, the rebellious people are the ones who separate themselves from the rest of God’s People. In our text and most often, God separates out and exposes those who are stirring up trouble with their rebellion. Sometimes, they hide behind pious sounding words and emotional expressions of concern, but if we pay attention to their actual attitudes and actions, we’ll usually see that the result of what they want is eventually going to hurt the church, not help it. But polarization is inevitable whenever people rebel against God. Let’s continue with the text.
“If there is one prophesying to you, I Yahweh will cause him to know Me in a vision for him and in a dream I will speak to him. It isn’t so with Moses. In all of My house, he is the faithful (dependable, one that’s standing fast, an AMEN or yes to God’s will). Mouth-to-mouth I will speak to him, in plain sight and not esoteric speeches (occult? dark?) and [at] the very likeness of Yahweh he will gaze. So, why weren’t you afraid to speak against My servant, Moses.” (vv. 6-8—jlw translation)
The prophets offered mysterious words, esoteric teaching, and dream interpretations to try to get the attention of God’s People. They followed a Near Eastern tradition that was ubiquitous, even in the pagan religions. But Moses was a prophet in the New Testament sense. He was so much in touch with God that he spoke straight to the people. He didn’t mince words or obfuscate the Truth with unnecessary ritual. [Don’t get me wrong, there was plenty of ritual, but it all pointed to a closer walk with God.] He told it like it was.
It was Moses’ closeness to God that counted, not the eloquence of his sermons, the high-sounding wisdom of his speeches, the pragmatic nature of his administration, or the mysterious nature of his dreams and visions. In short, we often judge our leaders with regard to the wrong criteria. We need to consider whether they are close to God and spend time in the presence of God, not the other aspects. Now, notice what happens when we use the wrong criteria.
D – Resolution (Restoration—Numbers 12:9-11)
Now, let’s see the results of this rebellion/dissension and separation/polarization. The text emphasizes two things: God’s withdrawal from the community and the effect upon the rebels. At first, it seems like bad news, but eventually, God’s plan is to lead us toward restoration. Sometimes, of course, the results seem rough.
“And the anger of Yahweh burned against them and so, He left. And the cloud departed from being on the tent and, check it out, Miriam was leprous like snow, and so, Aaron looked at Miriam, and check it, she was leprous.” (vv. 9-10—jlw translation)
There is a reason that leprosy served as a metaphor for sin in ancient Israel. It was contagious and it was a disease that ate away at the very body that hosted it. I’m going to put up an illustration here that’s pretty gross. It isn’t of a real person. It’s an artist’s conception of a very advanced phase in the disease. Feel free to close your eyes for about 30 seconds. Okay, I think that’s enough. Sin is also contagious. When we let it loose within a community, it can cause all to be affected by the disease. We all lose the clarity of vision necessary to discern what is truly destructive and truly edifying. And just as the disease makes the body weaker and less attractive, sin takes away the fruits of the Spirit and the Power of God’s Presence that is supposed to be within the church.
So, what can we do? The Old Testament text gives us a starting point, but the New Testament texts will take us to the finish line. Aaron admits in verse 11 that he and Miriam have acted foolishly. Believe it or not, the Hebrew root for this verb seems to be related to the Arabic root for being full of thick liquids, sluggish, and as a result, limited in movement and reactions. It suggests a vulnerability that comes from self-complacency. And by using this verb, Aaron admits that he and Miriam have done wrong and implies that they were selfish and short-sighted in doing so. Folks, sin is ALWAYS short-sighted.
But notice what Moses does. He receives the confession and immediately pleads to God for her healing and restoration (v. 13). But notice what God says in verse 14. If she had experienced a lesser shame, said God, she would still have to be separated from the camp for a full week. Reconciliation takes time and it takes recognition of what has been done wrong. There are no short-cuts to restoration. There is a price of confession and effort that has to be made. And in verse 15, Miriam pays the price and fellowship is restored.
But the key to the CURE is found on that last slide, confession of what we’ve done wrong and intercession, praying and acting on behalf of others, is the answer. To underscore the New Testament affirmation of this truth, I want to call your attention to two verses in two different New Testament books. They both teach the idea of submission. The key is to remove the AGENDA Through Submission (Ephesians 5:21, Philippians 2:3).
First, let’s look at the fifth chapter of Ephesians. We all remember this chapter because of the instructions for wives to SUBMIT to their husbands. But did you know that most Greek texts don’t have the actual verb for submission in verse 22? That’s right! You only understand the command to SUBMIT when you take it with verse 21.
Verse 21 is a hinge verse. It properly closes out the discussion before it of how people who are filled with the Holy Spirit should act AND it properly opens the discussion about how a marital couple and the church should act. Verse 21 commands us to SUBMIT ourselves to each other and verse 22 gives an example: “Wives—each to your man as lord [husband].” Later, the verb is repeated in verse 24 when it speaks of the church SUBMITTING to Christ and then repeats the idea of “Wives to husbands in every matter [thing].”
The cure to dissension among God’s People is the same as the prescription for a healthy marriage, SUBMISSION. Why? Submission is necessary because it keeps us from following our own agenda to the exclusion of God’s. Submission keeps us from falling prey to the Big “I” in the middle of Sin. Not only are we as members of the Church, the Bride of Christ, supposed to submit ourselves to Christ’s leadership but we are to submit ourselves to each other.
And submission doesn’t make one weak or inferior (though I dare say we would ALL have to admit our inferiority compared to Christ, the perfect divine/human man). It is a voluntary act that enables someone else to take charge. It is to place oneself under another’s authority, essentially to defer loyalty to that person. In marriage, it means to trust one’s spouse so implicitly that said spouse is able to make the final decision (hopefully, informed by your concerns and needs). In church, it means that we trust God to be working in each other such that we know that we aren’t the only ones who have heard any word from God.
Finally, there is the Crucifixion/Ascension Example (Philippians 2:3-11). The entire passage from Philippians that I have cited is one of the most important Christological passages in the entire Bible. It explains some of the rationale behind God becoming Human, but when we look at the context, it also explains how we are supposed to act toward each other. We are to have the same action plans (this mind in you) as our Lord Jesus Christ had, giving of ourselves for the benefit of others. We are to be obedient, even if it is as costly as death, in order for God to be glorified.
But again, notice that before that important passage, verse 3 tells us to HUMBLE ourselves so that we can value each other higher than ourselves and verse 4 tells us not to work our own agenda but to work on the agenda of others. And THEN, verse 5 tells us to have the same action plans as Christ (the Greek word for having the same mind or thoughts usually means thinking with regard to doing something).
Now, I don’t believe that we have any dissension in our church fellowship. If we do, I haven’t heard any glimmer of it. But if we want to keep it that way and progress as God wants us to, we need to be on guard that nothing is about our reputation and goals but about meeting each other’s needs by putting each other ahead of ourselves. If we do, we won’t ever have to worry about having an Aaron and Miriam in our midst. The CAUSE of dissension is self-centeredness; the CURE is God-directed other-centeredness. We are to love each other like God loved us. And that means submitting, putting aside our conveniences and preferences for what God wants and others need.
