The Greatest of Associations
The First Amendment to the Constitution reads as
follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”
At one time or another, every court in the American
judicial system—from local jurisdictions to the Supreme Court—has
served as an ideological battleground over the extent to which the
framers of the Constitution intended to guarantee these rights.
Decisions rendered during the 1950’s and ‘60’s established what is
now called the Right of Association—the freedom to engage in
association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas. The local
churches we attend are protected—at least for now—by this very
freedom!
The Right of Association means we have the right to
build an ideological alliance that includes some and, by its very
nature and or the edicts of its constituents, excludes others. For
the church, it means that God’s people are at liberty to build
theological alliances under the same protections. And the scriptures
are very clear about the kinds of alliances the people of God should
or should not be building!
Let’s begin with the kinds of folks with whom the
church should form no alliance. First are those who will not submit
to baptism. After Philip had “preached Jesus” to the
Ethiopian eunuch from Isaiah 53, the two came upon a body of water
(Acts 8:26-40). The eunuch asked: “What doth hinder me to be
baptized?” Philip responded: “If thou believest with all
thine heart, thou mayest.” The eunuch affirmed: “I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” His public statement of
faith was all Philip needed to seal the eunuch’s association with
the church via the baptismal waters. As one popular preacher said, a
profession that won’t baptize isn’t worth a plug nickel. In regard
to biblical evangelism, the only way Philip could have preached
Jesus unto the eunuch as the One who suffered for his iniquity was a
conviction that the “all we” and “us all” of Isaiah
53:6 was inclusive of all mankind. No Calvinist could have applied
that truth with a good conscience!
Second are those whose lives lack moral
transformation. In addressing the moral issues afflicting the church
at Corinth, Paul identified ten types of individuals with whom they
should disassociate or refuse to be allied (1 Cor. 6:9-11). They are
fornicators (sexually promiscuous as unmarried), idolaters
(worshippers of false gods), adulterers (violators of marital
fidelity), effeminate (addicts to sensual pleasures to
include male homosexuals), abusers of themselves with mankind
(practitioners of anal intercourse to include men with boys),
thieves (those who violate the property rights of others),
covetous (addicts to the self life and material things),
drunkards (addicts to strong drink to include all intoxicants),
revilers (practitioners of verbal assassination),
extortioners (those who steal by swindling). Paul reasons that
if these kinds of unrighteous individuals have no inheritance in
God’s kingdom, why should they be granted association or alliance
with God’s church?
Let’s now move on to the kinds of folks with whom we
ought to associate and ally ourselves as members of the church.
Actually, that group is the inverse of the disassociation list. That
is, those that profess faith in the Lord Jesus with evidence that
their lives are undergoing a moral transformation in righteousness
ought to be the recipients of our embrace as the people of God. No,
they do not have to be perfect. But they should be “in process” as
should all of us be! In fact, we can reduce our basis for
association down to just one word—faith! In this matter, God’s
people should have no respect of persons! If our spiritual
association is based on an allegiance to Christ, why should any of
us stand in judgment of others over external appearances?
Men and women alike have always tended to associate
themselves with those who occupy the same rung on the economic and
social ladder. It is an expected behavior in the world, but
unacceptable in the church. The believer who disassociates him- or
herself from another brother or sister for reasons of status or
appearance is a respecter of persons, and contradicts the very
gospel that forms the basis of our association in Christ!
In his epistle, James exposed the practice of
partiality by those who despised the poor. He wrote: “Hearken, my
beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in
faith, and heirs of the kingdom he hath promised to them that love
him?” (Jas. 2:6). James argues that if faith is the basis of
God’s election of men, why is it not good enough for you as a basis
of impartial association? Moreover, if faith in Jesus is good enough
for God to consider them rich, on what basis do you consider them
poor?
Faith, love, and a kingdom inheritance are riches
held in common by all of God’s elect. The doctrine of election, if
properly understood, is a spiritual adhesive to bind God’s people
together. Biblical election has nothing to do with an eternal decree
to save some and damn others. It has everything to do with the
family of believers—those whom God has chosen in Christ Jesus to
comprise the greatest of associations!
Top |