The Man Who Saved the World
The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 marked the beginning of what appeared to be a new age of global peace. In a journal article in Foreign Affairs political scientist Frances Fukuyama, in his now-infamous paper, The End of History, argued that the world was entering a new age in which liberal democracy had emerged as the ideological winner of the cold war.
Fukuyama contended that with the cold war over, civilization had entered the end of history, where the world would no longer struggle between different systems of governance; instead, he argued, the world had reached “the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”[1] Fukuyama’s contemporaries challenged him then, and we now know, by experience, that democracy, with its social contract established on trust, is in decline around the world. A new cold war of sorts has emerged, as new ideological battles shape geopolitical tensions around the globe. Trust, the foundation of human relationships, is eroding as the world again falls into polarization.
One of the most consequential moments of the cold war came when one man’s decision to question what he was seeing on radar possibly saved the entire world from a devastating nuclear war. In a period of heightened tension in September 1983, an unknown Russian, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, was overseeing an early-warning system that tracked launched missiles. He noticed on his radar that five intercontinental ballistic missiles from the United States were making their way toward the Soviet Union. Petrov faced a critical decision: whether to alert his superiors, who would then initiate a massive retaliation against the United States, or to trust his instincts and believe the most likely scenario: that it was not a nuclear attack, but a malfunctioning radar.[2] Petrov was right, and his decision not to jump to conclusions likely saved the world from nuclear annihilation.
A False Alarm
It was a situation similar to Petrov’s that the nation of Israel encountered shortly after the tribes of Gad, Manasseh, and Reuben were released from fighting across the Jordan. An agreement had been forged between Gad, the half tribe of Manasseh, and Reuben before the crossing of the Jordan, stipulating that they would stay and fight until the land was conquered. The tribes had kept their word and fought alongside Joshua until their release. In Joshua 22:3 Joshua acknowledged the tribes and confirmed with them that they had kept their word and had “been careful to obey the commands of the Lord” (NLT).[3] With the confirmation of their complete duty, the tribes received a warning to remain obedient to God.
As the tribes made their way home, they stopped at the Jordan and built a “large and imposing altar” (Joshua 22:10, NLT). The news of the new altar came almost immediately and clearly seemed to be a violation of God’s law and a blatant act of rebellion. The nation of Israel had dealt with rebellion before, and in many instances the results had consequences that impacted the entire nation. Eager to quell any uprising or disloyalty, the tribes met together to make war against them. “And when the Israelites heard that they had built the altar on the border of Canaan at Geliloth near the Jordan on the Israelite side, the whole assembly of Israel gathered at Shiloh to go to war against them” (verses 11, 12, NIV).[4] Trust erodes quickly when distance, either sought or unsought, is established between people.
On the precipice of civil war over the news of this supposed departure of worship, the 10 tribes to the east of the Jordan decided to send an envoy to inquire about the nature of what they had seen. Phinehas is chosen to lead the group, possibly because of his integrity during the sin at Peor when he saw Israelites who had fallen into debauchery, took up his spear, and executed judgment in the sight of all Israel. Along with Phinehas, 10 others accompanied him, and, with their accusation against the tribes, the group made its way across the river.
Christians should be more open to conversation and reconciliation rather than speculation and gossip.
The indictment was made against the tribes, and in defense, the children of Gad and Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh provided a thoughtful explanation. The immediate conclusion of the 10 tribes had been incorrect; in reality, the altar was built to promote unity and honor God. On that day war was averted. How different could this story have gone if action had gone before inquiry or if the false accusation had led the Reubenites to respond with anger and hostility?
Just as the Soviet lieutenant colonel chose to analyze the situation he was facing, presuming good faith, so too did the Reubenites, who, with a calm approach, provided a valid explanation without anger and disrespect. “How often serious difficulties arise from a simple misunderstanding, even among those who are actuated by the worthiest motives; and without the exercise of courtesy and forbearance, what serious and even fatal results may follow.”[5] While the distance made the crisis probable, it was assuaged by the soft and cordial answer of the children of Reuben and Gad and Manasseh. With the crises now averted, “the children of Israel blessed God” (Joshua 22:33) and peacefully returned to the other side of the Jordan to tell the others.
Had the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh chosen to settle in the Promised Land rather than on the other side of the Jordan, this misunderstanding may have been avoided. While God allowed the tribes to settle and live on the other side of the Jordan, it seems that this was not what He had intended for the nation of Israel. “A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; he rages against all wise judgment” (Prov. 18:1). The isolation of the tribes across the Jordan left them vulnerable to misunderstandings and more exposed to alienation.
Striving for Unity in a World of Polarization
As the world enters a new cold war of sorts, the church at times seems to struggle with a cold war of its own. Unity is not as highly valued as it should be, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which fosters unity, truth, and trust, is not appreciated. While partisan politics immobilize governments, politics within the church do the same, creating mistrust and dissonance between church members.
Crossing the river was not an easy task for Israel as they went to inquire the meaning of the altar, and today the challenge remains for us as we often see apparent deviations from the Word of God. If the church seeks unity, then we must make every effort possible to cross the river and to inquire into what we are seeing and hearing, whether it is truly a departure from the Word of God or a misunderstanding. Christians should be more open to conversation and reconciliation rather than speculation and gossip. How much of the division in the church stems from misunderstandings rather than an actual departure from the Word of God?
Christ crossed the most incredible gulf in coming to this earth to be born of and to live as a human. Every day of His earthly ministry Jesus crossed figurative rivers to connect with others. He went into Samaria, into the homes of tax collectors, and into the synagogues of those who sought His life. He did not burn bridges with those who were different, but instead sought to build bridges.
While we should never seek to compromise truth in building bridges, we should make every effort to connect on points on which we can agree. Within the church we should seek unity through the grace of Christ on every point possible and pray for the Holy Spirit to do the rest. We should engage and cross the river if we are concerned with the practice of others, and, like the tribe of Reuben, if we are accused, we should provide our reasons in humility and in love. “Nothing can weaken a church so manifestly as division and strife.”[6]
The story in Joshua 22 is a timely one for the time in which we are living. In these closing moments of earth’s history the enemy will again seek to divide God’s people as he did the disciples at the Last Supper, and as he intended to do with ancient Israel. “In union there is strength; in division there is weakness and defeat.”[7] While the world fragments into chaos, splintered factions, and polarization, let God’s people pray for unity and cross the river to inquire before isolating themselves and others as a result of false speculation.
[1] Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?” The National Interest 16 (Summer 1989): 3-18, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184.
[2] Alicia Sanders-Zakre, “The Man Who ‘Saved the World’ Dies at 77,” Arms Control Association, October 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news-briefs/man-who-saved-world-dies-77.
[3] Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.
[4] Texts credited to NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
[5] Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1890, 1908), p. 519.
[6] Ellen G. White manuscript 39, 1887.
[7] Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1913), p. 92.
