Tuesday: A Thousand Times More Numerous
After the long trek in the wilderness, Moses, speaking for the Lord (he was a prophet, though, indeed, more than a prophet), said: “See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to your fathers — to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — to give to them and their descendants after them” (Deuteronomy 1:8).
Notice, however, what comes next.
Read Deuteronomy 1:9-11. What is the significance of these words, especially in light of the fact that, in a real sense, they were being punished by God for the rebellion at Kadesh Barnea?
Image © Review & Herald Publishing from GoodSalt.com
Here we see another example of the graciousness of God. Even amid the wilderness wanderings, they were blessed: “Forty years You sustained them in the wilderness; They lacked nothing; their clothes did not wear out and their feet did not swell” (Nehemiah 9:21).
And Moses, again showing his love for his people, asked God to multiply them a thousand more times than God already had done!
Read Deuteronomy 1:12-17. As a direct result of God’s blessing upon them, what happened, and what steps did Moses take to deal with the situation?
Thus, even when the Lord was so powerfully present among them, there was the need for organization, for structure, for a system of accountability. Israel was a qahal, an organized assembly (see Deuteronomy 31:30), a precursor to the New Testament ekklesia, Greek for “church” (see Matthew 16:18). And though working in a different context, Paul was never far from his Jewish roots, and in 1 Corinthians 12 we see him clearly delineating the need for qualified people to assume various roles for the proper functioning of the body, just as we see here in Deuteronomy and the qahal in the wilderness. The church today, as the qahal back then, needs to be a unified body with people fulfilling various roles according to their gifts.
Though we sometimes hear people rail against “organized” religion (what would they prefer, “disorganized” religion instead?), the Word of God, especially the New Testament, acknowledges no other kind but an organized one.
(33)
The word "Gestalt" came across my horizon many years ago when I was doing my teacher training. It caught my attention and it simply means, "the sum is more than the parts". It carries with it the idea that an organisation is more than just a lot of individual people. An organisation has a "gestalt", a life of its own.
To illustrate this; early in my career, I taught at a church high school in Melbourne for three years. Then I taught for six years at the church's boarding academy and then I went back to the first high school again. Interestingly, in spite of the passing of six years, an almost complete change of staff, and a totally new pupil population, the school felt the same and had the same characteristics as when I left it. It is as though the school had a life of its own. It was more than just students and teachers.
The children of Israel had grown and developed during their wandering in the wilderness. They had been thrown together during this time and were in the process of becoming a new nation, an entity in its own right. And in doing so they had achieved a gestalt. That required organisation. It needed lines of communication and a fine balance of individual freedom with social responsibility.
We like to make the point that our salvation is individual. It is not the church organisation that is saved. Sometimes we get a bit "snooty" about church organisation. It does need to be remembered that we can spread the gospel more effectively if we work together, hand in hand with God.
I saw an ant nest at work one day. They had discovered a large grub within ant-walking distance of their nest. A couple of hundred ants had surrounded the grub and there was a frenzy of activity. In spite of the erratic, seemingly random motion of the ants, the grub's body was being slowly moved towards their nest. Gestalt!
Is it the same as one body, with many parts?
Should be synchronize to work properly..and healthfully.
For want of a better emotion word, I am 'saddened' that today's lesson resorted to (mocking) sarcasm in its statement: "(what would they prefer, “disorganised” religion instead?)". Perhaps it is merely me being too sensitive - except that I have encountered this same tone expressed within Adventist contexts beyond this single instance. To clarify, I am not personally 'hurt' by this, so it is not a matter of me just needing to harden up. Rather, I feel for others who it does adversely impact.
I interact with a lot of people who have had former interactions with Christians and Christian groups and no longer currently have a Christian faith or faith walk as a consequence. And yes, I absolutely understand there is personal responsibility involved - especially given it is very trendy at present to hold everyone else's 'faults' to blame for what I do or don't do. However, when we as Christians do things that we could just as easily not do, why wouldn't we refrain from doing so where we reasonably can? The principle of taking reasonable care not to be a "stumbling block" to another when we can reasonably refrain from doing so appears relevant here.
In my interactions with non and ex-Christians, I have found that it is not organisation per se that they are reacting to. It is the particular dynamics that organised religions have employed as the means and sometimes motives of organisation. Thus, it is not an issue of organised vs disorganised, but rather of manifest 'form' (or underpinning agenda) of organisation that exerts a constructive impact upon its members vs manifest 'form' (or underpinning agenda) of organsiation that exerts a destructive impact. Organised religion that results in genuine benefit is not an issue for most people. John 13:35 rings true here too.
Can it be too easy to dismiss feedback via a 'quick flick' of (mocking) sarcasm rather than be willing to see if perhaps there is some truth to that feedback that perhaps needs attending to?
Morning Phil, am I missing something? When I read "Though we sometimes hear people rail against “organized” religion (what would they prefer, “disorganized” religion instead?), the Word of God, especially the New Testament, acknowledges no other kind but an organized one." I read God is a God of order in all things and not disorder.
Hi Myron
You are correct that God is a God of order in all things and not disorder. My comment is not disputing that.
My comment relates to first part of the author's statement that doesn't make logical/rational sense and therefore comes across as (mocking) sarcasm: ie, it is not a logical/rational truth that people are railing against organized religion because they actually have a preference for disorganized religion. The words within the brackets within the author's statement add no additional rational meaning to that statement and could have been left out without any loss of rational meaning.
The resorting to (mocking) sarcasm is what I am responding to. Does that explanation help?
Phil, yes it does. Agree what was stated in parentheses was unnecessary. Thanks for clarification.
Phil,
My opinion is also that the comment in the brackets is mocking and unnecessary, and that unfortunately, it displays the “better than them” attitude that we (as Adventists) are often accused of.
God is indeed a God of order, and comments that mock can be stumbling blocks. It is not my intention to focus on this when the lesson in itself is so good but rather, to let it help and remind me to be more careful in choosing my own words when sharing the goodness of God.
Thank you to everyone for sharing your thoughts in these lesson studies. I don’t comment often, but I truly enjoy and look forward to these shared lessons.
I believe you are right Myron, it was pointed out in the history last week that they were not railing against Mosses and Aaron, they were actually murmuring, or railing if you prefer, against God. Numbers 14:27.
I believe that when we dwell or put our focous on an opinion or if you prefer a emphasis of the author/editors, we lose what we are suppose to get out of the lesson. We are all guilty of putting emphasis of our own opinion from time to time, to emphasis a point. So I take it as a emphasis rather than sarcasm.
Brother Phil, I agree with you in part. When the author of the lesson ended with that paragraph "it is a faux pas" to my humble opinion. As you put it,"willing to see if perhaps there is some truth to that feedback that perhaps needs attending to?" it's ideal.
Because we are humans and sinners, the lack of "fairness" is evident and many left the Church not for organizational structure per se for they see it instead very hypocritical.
I agree with your "reaction" to the quarterly comment Phil, and appreciate your thoughts on this issue. If we allow popular culture to entertain us, we will "become changed" into the likeness of what we behold, which soon becomes acceptable and inevitably, our personal practice(Ps 1:1).
Yes, this is not a rare or isolated incident, and it might be sadder to realize how few would even notice the affront, and how many may find it to be amusing or justified. It requires constant watching to refrain from participating in this common spirit.
Also, I wonder if some of the objections to "organization" arise if/when leadership forgets their position is to serve(Matt 20:27,28)?
I agree with you. I wrote at the bottom of the page of today's lesson, even before I read this, "not entirely fair". There is a reason why some people do not like organized religion and it behooves us to hear what they have to say. Maybe we need to think about why people feel this way rather than dismiss them with sarcasm.
Funny too, that we have no problem calling out a certain "organized religion", so certainly we should be able to handle criticism.
I was reading all the negative feedback to Clifford Goldstein's comment about disorganized religion. Jesus often used sarcasm (ie. broad of vipers, whitewashed sepulchers etc.) I don't believe Cliff was attaching any individual. Cliff is not Jesus, but I think people need to lighten up and extend some grace to the author.
Agree with you, Alfred!
The promises of God never fail, only by unbelief will anyone fail to realize the blessings graciously promised. By righteousness the nation would prosper, by disobedience they would eventually be scattered among the nations whose gods they would choose to seek after in the place of Jehovah, who had blessed them greatly.
"...what steps did Moses take to deal with the situation?"
In a word: organization. The best way to prosper is to work together in harmony, but that harmony must be based on truth and obedience, as it is perilous to unite with unbelief(Prov 13:20).
The very idea of founding an organized body of God followers stands against the dogma of infallibility. Hans Küng, the late controversial German theologian, wrote The Church (Das Kirche) in the 60's in an age of radical changes: his approach is, in my opinion, a cutting edge still, because the meaning of the existence of a Church intermingles with the intricacies of doctrine, faith, personal or spiritual experience, or in a broader sense with the eschatological approach of the perfection of God's Kingdom, which, paradoxically, is reflected in the imperfect Church. Infallibility is a down trodden track stepped by all churches, it is a subtle and dangerous temptation for leaders and also believers, it fuels the monstruos distortion that may transform a church in an apocalyptical beast... or an image of a beast.
I believe in today's lesson, Moses was looking forward to God's increase of Israel into an "innumerable throng" of the faithful that would enter the final "Promised Land" of the earth made new.
The author rightly notes that "The church today, as the qahal back then, needs to be a unified body with people fulfilling various roles according to their gifts."
Paul refers to the church as a "body" with many members. (Romans 12:4,5) Christ is waiting for the "body" of believers to represent His character of love, as He prayed in John 17:21-23. As the analogy in Romans 12 indicates, to function as a body, believers need to be organized. Scattered believers without connections cannot do the work or provide the testimony to the world that an organized body of believers can do.
An organized body also provides discipline that is necessary for the development of a Christ-like character. It is relatively easy to be a Christian alone - without having to rub shoulders with other Christians or with family, for that matter. It is in our interactions with those close to us that our characters are revealed. Do our family members, our church members or our work associates see the character of Jesus revealed in us personally and in the church corporately?
When the church corporately reveals the character of Christ, it will shake the world. It will happen. The question is whether you and I will be part of this happening