Compromise can be a good thing. Compromise is especially necessary when partners have conflicting desires in marriage. However, compromise can also be synonymous with selling out the gospel. A quote that Steve Camp referenced made me think of this. Campi quoted Jay McInerney as saying, "The good life is the middle way..." What a wonderful summary of postmodern thought. In one sense I actually agree with the quote. In another sense I disagree with it from the core of my being.

I agree that compromise (or the middle way) can be a good thing. When no clear answer is spelled out in Scripture then compromise is a wise way to go. If my wife wants Burger King (and enjoys their slow service and gross food) and I want Taco Bell (with its luscious Chicken Bacon Ranch chalupas) then a compromise (you decide what that would be) is a good option. Theologically speaking, if there are issues in Scripture that are somewhat unclear and not very close to the gospel then perhaps compromise is a good idea. There are quite a few hills that are not worth dying on.

On the other hand when truth is known compromise is stupid and morally repulsive. Christians believe Jesus is the only way to God. Nobody else does. Compromise in this regard would not be a virtue but tantamount to abandoning the faith. Now, the pomo will tell us that truth cannot be known, therefore, the "good life is the middle way..." As believers in the God that calls believers to worship Him in spirit and truth, we cannot sell out to such garbage. God has clearly revealed Himself in Scripture. There are things that can be known, and known absolutely. On these matters refuse to compromise.

Compromise can be appealing. After all is it not easy to be "unified" when we all seek the middle ground? But, unity for the sake of unity is no virtue. If unity is not unified around the truth of Christ then it stands just as opposed to God as the people in Genesis 11. Brothers and sisters, there are things that we must NOT compromise on. The good life is not the middle way, it is the narrow way.

One last thing. There is a difference between compromise and cooperation. Take the debate in the SBC over those darn Calvinists. I would consider myself on the Calvinistic side of the debate. To me compromise is not an option. My Arminian friends would probably say the same thing. The truth is compromise for either side would be (in the opinion of each) a sell out. Therefore, in these situations the call is not to compromise it is to cooperation. It is having a "self-sacrificing conformity to a shared vision" and cooperating despite our differences. Compromise is stupid, cooperation is not.