Relational compromise is not a new phenomenon.
What is new is how quickly it is increasing and missed discernment is the result. Let me explain.
Compromise reveals cracks in the foundation. In politics, it is applauded as “bi-partisan” working together. Understandably neither side of the political aisle will ever get everything they want—thus compromises are made. But the question is, do those changes compromise the beliefs, and core values of the individual? Those are compromises that reveal cracks.
Actions are indicators.
So what is relational compromise? When our relationships—whether by blood, marriage, friendship, or just trust in someone—cause us to abandon or change our stand/values on an issue because of that relationship.
For example, T.D. Jakes, Christian author Jen Hatmaker and Oklahoma Labor commissioner Leslie Osborn all publicly changed their stance on homosexuality after a family member (the latter two their daughters) came out as gay.
Suddenly, in these individuals their biblical/public stand of homosexuality shifted. They publicly showed their embrace of the individual (important), but also their new embrace of the lifestyle (compromise).
That is an example of relational compromise.
Of course, their love and support of the family member would not/should not change. But when we change our core beliefs due to a relationship, that is where lies the danger.
But it’s not always just within family.
Some people we once trusted, leaders, elected officials, pastors, etc. have changed—compromised. When that happens, it is on them. But when we blindly continue to trust them/follow them after we hear or see rumblings of compromise–that is on us.
How do people make such dramatic shifts that turn into compromise?
It is often because of who they spend time with and listen to that influences them and gradually changes them.
The compromise when acted on creates cognitive dissonance in those who see it or hear of it. And rather than explore and investigate the contradiction, it is often easier to double down in our trust of what is no longer trustworthy, rather than adjust to what evidence reveals. We become like the ostrich that sticks its head in the sand hoping if we ignore it, it will go away.
SEE ALSO: Don’t Compromise! Do You Fear God or Man?
But this compromise and outright deception by people we have trusted isn’t going away. It’s exploding.
Historical Example
In the book of Nehemiah, we are introduced to Eliashib the high priest. (Note: The cognitive dissonance regarding Eliashib is revealed clearly in Nehemiah 3:1 and 13:7-8.)
This biblical account reveals relational compromise. It also provides enormous insight into the power of a courageous leader.
In the 13 chapters we see the emerging of an unlikely leader and how he infused the discouraged people with courage. He then motivated and organized them to work together. Which resulted in the miraculous restoration of their city under his leadership.
Nehemiah was a cupbearer. He wasn’t a religious leader. He was a government servant with a call to protect the king.
But his relationship to the King was the ultimate driving force which moved him to accept that unusual assignment.
One of the first leaders to stand up and join Nehemiah to rebuild the walls was Eliashib, the high priest (Neh 3:1). You can imagine that people were hesitant at first to rally behind Nehemiah.
Eliashib courageously led by example. So all the people knew and respected Eliashib—and with good reason.
But wait…
After the wall was rebuilt and Nehemiah was made the governor, he put Eliashib in charge of the oversight of the temple. It is there we realize relational compromise has turned Eliashib into an untrustworthy leader.
He betrayed Nehemiah, disobeyed God’s instruction and ignored his duty which resulted in the Levites and singers leaving–all to accommodate an evil man – Tobiah.
So what caused the change?
When Nehemiah began to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem he made some political enemies. Namely, Sanballot, Tobiah and Geshem (Neh 2:19) who were already recognized leaders. The three publicly mocked Nehemiah, wrote letters to the king accusing him of rebelling and trying to pull off a coup.
They threatened the people in an attempt to make them afraid to help rebuild the wall. (Sounds exactly like what is happening in our world today on the political scene!)
Eliashib the high priest was well aware that these three men had worked relentlessly to thwart Nehemiah at every turn. And although Eliashib had stood courageously with Nehemiah initially, after the wall was rebuilt and the city and temple restored, Eliashib made a compromising decision.
He used his position to give a large room in the temple to Tobiah—the Ammonite–for his household.
In doing so:
- He violated God’s instruction (Neh 13:1) which stated no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God. Tobiah hadn’t just entered. He was living there!
- He gave honor to someone who had actively and repeatedly lied and opposed Nehemiah—dishonoring Nehemiah in the process.
- In order to provide the space for Tobiah, Eliashib had to remove the grain offerings, wine, oil frankincense and other things stored there for the Levites’ use.
- The result was Eliashib ceased to provide the Levites and singers their allotment of food from the temple provisions. So the Levites and singers had to leave as they were overlooked in the process.
Eliashib went from a trustworthy leader, to an untrustworthy leader in just a matter of months or a year.
Why? Because of relationship.
It turns out Eliashib was actually related to both Sanballet and Tobiah by marriages. Ultimately, after being promoted to a place of honor by Nehemiah, who trusted him, he betrayed Nehemiah by aligning with the very people who had worked to oppose all he had done for the Lord.
But guess what? That story of relational compromise is repeating often present day.
And the damage is great when we continue to look at the actions of people from the past and don’t recognize that they have changed.
Can you imagine the confusion as people who trusted Eliashib saw him doing things that didn’t seem to make sense? The question is, did they continue to trust Eliashib?
Or did they recognize actions are indicators and that something was very wrong?
What about us? Are we paying attention when our elected officials say one thing, but vote another? When a pastor teaches one thing, but does another?
A host of influential people we have previously trusted are and will be exposed for compromise that has resulted in their betrayal of America, the people they were to serve, the Church and ultimately God.
It is part of the shaking underway—and will increase.
The growing issue is when we refuse to believe what is exposed because it runs in stark contradiction to what we have believed of these people in the past.
We are instructed to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. May we be so now.
If someone compromises, that is on them. But when we continue to trust leaders who have compromised—that is on us!
If we stick our heads in the sand, we then open ourselves to relational compromise when we refuse to believe what actions indicate.
