by Elisha Ann Wahlquist, July 2006
Compromise. Websters' 1828 Dictionary defines it as:
"To adjust and settle a difference by mutual agreement, with consessions of claims by the parties; to compound."
Now, this definition in itself may sound innocuous. Indeed, compromise is two parties giving up some of their desires in order to come to an agreement that is somewhere in between.
However, what determines the rightness or wrongness of a compromise is its subject. Let's use two examples to illustrate this.
In 1787, when the Founding Fathers were convening to create the Constitution, they came upon a seemingly insurmountable roadblock when the smaller States and the bigger States could not agree upon a "fair" way to have representatives in the government. The small States were afraid that the large States would have too much power and would steamroll their interests, while the bigger States felt that they should have a larger share of representation, since they had many more inhabitants. Both sides were adamant, and it looked like the convention would have to close without having accomplished its purpose. After more than two months of what seemed like fruitless wrangling, James Madison and some other Virginians hit upon a compromise that both sides could agree upon. They suggested that there would be a bicameral legislature, one house in which representation would be based on the state's population, and the other house ignoring population and having an equal number of representatives per state. This plan, in which each side gave way to reach unity, was accepted, and the Convention was able to proceed on to produce our Constitution.
Roughly two centuries before this Constitutional Convention, a quite different matter was being wrestled through. The French Protestants (also called Huguenots) and the Catholics had been warring on and off for a number of years, as the Huguenots protected their families and their faith against their persecutors. Then, during a short lull between declared wars, the French king opened negotiations to marry his sister, Marguerite, to prince Henri of Navarre, the son of Jeanne of Navarre, a staunch Huguenot lady. The prince was looked upon as one who would become an astute leader of the Huguenots in a couple of years. The problem with the proposed marriage, however, was that Marguerite, like all the royal family, was a Catholic, and it was stipulated that she would be allowed to openly remain so, while Henri of Navarre was a Huguenot. Among the Huguenots, this caused a fierce controversy. Was it Biblical? Was it wise? However, it seemed to offer immense advantages. Having a Huguenot near the King of France, where he would (hopefully) have influence as a brother-in-law, seemed to be a very good thing, and many hoped that then he would be able to help further the Huguenot cause and put an end to the horrible atrocities and persecution that were going on, even in the times of "peace." Finally, deeming that the advantages to be gained were of more importance than the objections that seemed to stand between, the Huguenot Henri of Navarre became "one flesh" in marriage with the Catholic Marguerite on August 17th, 1572.
Now, how was our first example of compromise different from the second? Why was it fine, and the second, wrong? In the first example, the men were simply yielding their own desires and advantages to achieve unity, while in the second example, the men were compromising biblical convictions. This is always wrong, and is never blessed. In fact, just a short six days later, Henri of Navarre was only able to save his life during the horrible St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre by denying his faith and becoming a Catholic. His "small" compromise led to an even greater one-openly denying the Lord.
When we compromise Biblical convictions, we are denying our Lord, not just "yielding our demands for the common good"-even though it may seem that that is the case. From commands in Scripture such as "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" [1] to family convictions to not drink wine, like the Rechabites[2], we are called to stand strong and not compromise, no matter what. God even sent Jeremiah the prophet to test the strength of the Rechabites' convictions, and when they refused to compromise and drink even a little wine, He blessed them with an amazing blessing:
"And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever." (Jeremiah 35:18-19)
Not only here, but over and over in Scripture, we are told to stand strong in the truth, no matter what, and not to budge an inch on our convictions. Here are a few of the verses:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:15)
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. …Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Ephesians 6:10,13)
I encourage you to stand firm on your convictions, rejecting the lies of the world that compromise in these areas is "okay." Daniel is a good example of standing strong in the face of trial and troubles-preferring to boldly confess his relationship with his Lord, rather than fearfully compromising to save his own life.[3] God will reward us if we are firm to the end, and, in His strength, do not waver from the truth He has delivered to us.
Footnotes:
[1] 2 Corinthians 6:14
[2] "And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:" (Jeremiah 35:5-6)
[3] "Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." (Daniel 6:3-10)
