The half tribe of Manasseh...

It has been far too long since I have had the time to blog. I am missing it, I can feel a difference in my heart when I don't take my eyes off of temporal things and put them on God.



Today's OT reading had an interesting story. The people of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh are answering accusations from the rest of Israel that building an altar on the "wrong side" of the Jordan somehow is a sin against God. Israel sends a large contingent of people to asses whether they have sinned, and to understand what to do next. The fear of the accusers is that the actions of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh will plunge Israel into a civil war, destroying the nation.



The response of the accused is that no, their intent was not to sin, but to function as a memorial that they, too, worship the same God, even though they are geographically cut off (by the Jordan) from the rest of the people of Israel. It is "a reminder of the relationship both of us have with the Lord." Joshua 22:28. Their fear is that the descendants of people on the other side of the river will not accept their faith, due to the geographic distance. The purpose of the altar is to justify their faith. The justification of that faith is acceptable to the main tribes of Israel, and thus, civil war is averted.



The actions and reactions stir up many questions. These questions are echoed throughout history in the idea of whether one is worshipping "in the correct way." Jesus will divide Judaism in His worshipping "the right way." Martin Luther will divide Catholicism forever with his statement of protest. Many church reformers attempt to bring a frozen doctrinal approach back to life by getting to the heart of the matter, the content of faith rather than the form of faith. And what do you do when you are confronted by such a reformer?



The lesson of Israel is pretty clear. Try to understand the "reformer" (here the tribes of Reuben and Gad, etc), and then see how it fits in one's theology. Israel was contented that Reuben and Gad were not trying to reform Judaism (the altar was a memorial, it was not for burnt offerings, which would have been a true break from the the scriptural doctrine in Moses and Deuteronomy), and so they accepted the actions of Reuben and Gad.



But what do you do when a reform is attempted? Rather than reject it out of hand, attempt to understand it, and then identify whether the message of the reformer is consistent with scriptural doctrine. In this case, the actions of Reuben and Gad were consistent with scriptural doctrine. But, the message of Jesus was not wholly consistent with Judaic scriptural doctrine at the time. Although there were extensive similarities, the fundamental doctrine of Jesus is at odds with Judaic doctrine. Similarly, Martin Luther's message was not consistent with Catholic doctrine, leading to the Protestant reformation.



The underlying point is the process. The first reaction to the action of the "offender" is to seek to understand the motivations. The second reaction is to assess those motivations in light of one's own spiritual doctrine (which necessitates that one examines and fully understands his own doctrine). The third reaction is acceptance or rejection of the action.



However, the process of assessing motivations and agreement with doctrinal purity begs the underlying questions of legalism and accountability. How legalistically does one interpret a document, making any reformer automatically at odds with the interpretation, but maybe not necessarily with the underlying content from which the human interpretation grows? And what human is able to decide the question of doctrinal purity? The one who argues the best? The most charismatic? The best educated?



Israel was scared. They were scared of civil war, but they were ready to go to war over a perceived sin. All of us would be wise to take a lesson from their behavior in learning how to resolve conflicts.