We live in a pluralistic society of different people, ideas, values, and practices. Networks, associations, and alliances are often formed to address common concerns such as poverty, violence, and war. However, there are instances when such occupational and social relationships are challenged because of scandals and conflicts between belief systems. There are even times when emotional and physical abuse challenges the continuity of social relationships. So what is to be done when such relationships become a liability? When association with an individual, group, or organization can potentially compromise your reputation, is it always advisable to avoid or abandon such relationships? Is association always an indication of agreement? Can there be association without compromise? Most importantly, can two walk together when they disagree? These questions relate to occupational, social, and even spiritual relationships.
Church scandals have commanded public attention, especially when the crisis surrounds the key leadership of the church. Disappointment, fear, anger, betrayal, and abandonment are a few of the issues mentioned by those who leave such ministries. Even though the programs and support ministries of the church may be exempt from a scandal, it is often feared that association indicates compromise or even agreement.
Let us begin by examining the motives for church membership, which include the following:
*proximity of church to the home
*preaching and teaching
*music and singing
*friends and family
*social acceptability
*charisma of the leader
*physical appearance of the worship environment
*public popularity of the ministry
While there exist other reasons for membership, a precipitating factor is the charisma of the key leader. Even though strong congregational bonds may be developed, the integrity of leadership is a key issue. Consequently, when there is a moral and ethical failure at the key leadership level, the implications are generally traumatic. Generally, congregational members, staff, and associates abandon the ministry because of integrity issues. Furthermore, continued association is often viewed as identification, compromise, and acceptance of the failure.
There are consequences of association. This is vividly revealed during the trial of Jesus. Luke records the events leading up to the trial and the Lord’s meeting with the disciples (Luke 22:25-62). Peter is warned that Satan desires to “sift him as wheat,” but the Lord prayed for the disciple. Although Peter quickly affirms his allegiance to the Lord, when confronted with possible imprisonment and death, the disciple denies knowing the Lord three times.
Self-preservation often precipitates the denial and even avoidance of certain associations. In this instance with Peter, his association with righteousness is a dangerous alliance. While we can say that God will protect him, when confronted suddenly with such an uncomfortable situation, many of us would still have reacted as Peter and moved toward self-preservation.
What is to be done when there is a perceived association with an unrighteous environment? In order to guard against “guilt by association,” is it often necessary to avoid or dissolve a relationship? Interestingly enough, the Lord Jesus establishes the criteria for such associations. Recognizing that his disciples are in the world and will remain in association with its citizens and all of their knowledge, organizations, and institutions, the Lord prays for them. Notice certain aspects of the prayer recorded in John 17:9-18:
I pray for them, I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You, Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept, and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by your truth, Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
In this prayer, there are several positional statements:
· in the world
· not of the world
· out of the world
· into the world
The disciples were in the world but not of the world. They were out of the world and yet sent into the world. Physically, they were in the world with all people. Doctrinally or conceptually, they were not of the world in their values, beliefs, and objectives. Experientially, they were out of the world because of their accessibility to spiritual wisdom, knowledge, and revelation. And yet, they were sent into the world on a mission.
These relational statements present the possibility of association without compromise. In fact, the Lord prays that the disciples not be taken out of the world but, instead, that they be kept from the evil. To be kept from evil requires some instructions. The teachings of the Lord and coming of the Holy Spirit are the resources. Without some enduring standards and irrevocable norms, there will be compromise. The truths and values that the disciples proclaim and demonstrate are the ideals in a community that is acquainted only with the exceptions to such righteousness.
The prophets ministered among a rebellious people. It is interesting that the Lord never removes the prophetic voice from among an apostate nation. Jeremiah is encouraged to stand his ground among a disobedient people with the promise of Divine help (Jer. 15:15-21). It is said of Lot that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (2 Pet. 2:7-8), but he remained among them.
There are times when separation and dissolution of relationships is the way, when the spiritual mandate is simply to “come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (Num.16:21). The peaceful separation of Abraham and Lot is a classic example of productive conflict resolution (Gen. 13:5-12). Relationships that are abusive and destructive should be carefully evaluated for their continuity, for there is no excuse for emotional and physical abuse.
It would be easy to criticize Peter for denying the Lord. It is interesting that the Lord associates “sifting” with denial. What is "sifting" anyway? It is a forceful separation, disruption of association and even a distortion of the essence of life. It is the replacement of hope, confidence, and productivity with hopelessness, insecurity, and stagnation. In this instance, the sifting strategy consisted of the precipitation of fear and self-preservation. It was an effort to separate what God had joined together. Nevertheless, Peter was able to rehabilitate himself and regain confidence and assurance.
This account also presents the idea that missions can be aborted or jeopardized because of self-preservation. If we constantly abandon or avoid the world of contrary ideas, beliefs, practices, and values, we might miss the opportunity to influence. If effective ministries are dissolved because of the ethical and moral failure of a few leaders, is this a judgment of God or satanic sifting?
It is a challenging concept, indeed. Association with the world does not always mean identification, and two can walk together and not agree. Perhaps the motivation for association can be more compelling than the catalyst for disassociation.
