The concept of ‘guilt by association’ – where if a person associates with someone who others think of as somehow ‘bad’ for whatever reason^[1] then somehow that person becomes ‘just as bad as ‘they’ are’ simply by associating with them there ‘sinners’ – has never sat well with me. Even writing about the concept makes me feel sick.

My opinion, of course, is radically different from the norm. If someone is ostracised for treating another person as a fellow human being, no matter what their leanings or beliefs, then it is the people doing the ostracising that are in the wrong^[2]. Plain and simple. To these abusers – and such they are – a person associating with someone being shunned means that the person doing the association will also get shunned too^[3]. Sadly, in these days of cancel culture and all the other judgmentalism perpetrated by people in general, and especially Religious people (who really should know better, according to their own rules), this sort of behaviour is rife. In some cases, especially in cults^[4], it is even taken as far as the complete exclusion of the people involved from their community^[5], which intentionally deeply harms the victims of such practices. It’s no wonder that Jesus didn’t do it then, eh?

I myself have never practiced this particular form of abuse (and abuse it is); it has simply never made any sense to me. I have always been aware that others have opinions which I may not share, and that’s fine^[6]. Yes, I regularly rant about the Religious, but that’s because a) Jesus did it, and I am feeling His heart on that, and b) they are the people who push their views on others, so they need pushback. But still, I do not do guilt by association. That’s simply not on. And even when it is explained to them that Jesus did it, the boringly predictable response is always, ‘Ah yes, but Jesus didn’t condone their sin!’.

Well that’s correct in one way, but actually it’s only correct because He never even mentioned their ‘sin’ on those occasions – their ‘sin’ being the perceived reason(s) why the Religious considered them ‘untouchable’. For Jesus, it wasn’t even an issue. No, it was the Religious that brought up the subject, via their judgmentalism.

For the Religious, and even for some of Jesus’s followers, the habit of assigning guilt by association was present, and they read into His association with these people that He approved of their ‘behaviour’, as did St. Paul later in places in his letters. Of course, Jesus was having none of that.

And so I present here, in a refreshingly clear and perceptive article, my online friend, Rhonda, expressing an excellent series of points saying why it should not be ‘common practice’ to do ‘guilt by association’, despite it being ‘in the Bible’. Over to Rhonda:

Jesus never taught guilt by association. In fact, if there was one thing that constantly scandalized the religious elite of his time, it was precisely his refusal to treat “sinners” as untouchables. He dined with them, befriended them, healed them, and even gathered them as his closest followers. Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, Samaritans, Roman centurions, and yes—even Pharisees—were all welcomed, loved, and drawn into his circle of grace. Jesus embodied righteousness in association, never in separation. His holiness was not a fragile thing that recoiled from impurity; it was a powerful, compassionate presence that made the unclean whole.

But it’s sobering to notice that this radical example of love and inclusion didn’t always carry over into the writings of some early Christians—even those who genuinely loved Christ. For instance, Paul, in his more combative moments, wrote of certain believers: “I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12). Not exactly gentle. In 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15, he says: “Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. DO NOT ASSOCIATE (CAPS mine) with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.”

John—yes, the beloved disciple—also wrote things that sound surprisingly harsh, if, indeed, it was the Apostle John who wrote them, but deep Bible scholars question their actual authorship. In 2 John 10–11, the writer says: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, DO NOT TAKE THEM INTO YOUR HOUSE OR WELCOME THEM (CAPS mine). Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.” That’s a far cry from Jesus’ warm table fellowship with everyone from doubters to traitors. And in 3 John, the author condemns a man named Diotrephes for not acknowledging his authority, writing in verse 10 that he “spreads malicious nonsense” and REFUSES TO WELCOME FELLOW BELIEVERS—ironically while hypocritically doing the same in return.

Even 1 John—filled with beautiful words about love—draws absolute lines. “THEY WENT OUT FROM US, BUT THEY WERE NOT REALLY OF US.” (CAPS mine) (1 John 2:19). That verse has been tragically used to justify excluding people who think differently, believe differently, worship differently, or honestly question ideas.

All of this, to me, is one of the clearest evidences that inspiration is not the same as inerrancy. People filled with love for Christ can still let fear, ego, and tribalism slip into their words. They can be profoundly inspired and also profoundly human. They can write deep spiritual truth and still get things wrong. We shouldn’t feel the need to paper over this tension—it’s honest, and even hopeful, because it reminds us that God works through imperfect vessels, like them… and like us.

So when we find inconsistencies between Jesus and those who tried to speak on his behalf, we don’t have to reject their words wholesale—but neither must we sanctify their every phrase. Jesus is the touchstone, the lens, the living Word. When the Bible leads us to him, we treasure it. When it seems to lead us away from his example, we step back and say, “That sounds more like us than like him.”

And that’s okay. It just means we’re still growing.

– Rhonda

I think that’s just brilliant. And it’s also an excellent example of how the Bible should, and should not, be ‘applied’ in our lives today – and in our cultures. Not as a one-size-fits-all set of rules, but as a set of documents that were written by imperfect humans who were growing and changing in their faiths, in a world and in cultures that were very different from ours.

We could do with remembering that.

Grace and Peace