Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Why Should I Compromise?
The Alpha Study group was discussing the question: What is faith? Along the way, I brought up the story of how
some people may learn a method of seeing truth by a different path than us,
using the example of someone counting to 9 fingers on his hands. (See http://do-not-be-anxious.blogspot.com/2010/10/suffering-servant.html.) I explained how it is a growth in maturity if we can accept that some
people count things differently than us, and not be angry or righteous about
it. And I noted that it is a growth in wisdom if you can perceive that perhaps
it is you who count to 9 fingers on your two hands, blind to your errors of
sight.
But if we can accept that there may be two ways of seeing
the same truth, how do we speak of the matter?
Well, one way, on trivial matters, is to agree to disagree, and simply
avoid the topic. But a more important,
life changing way, is compromise.
In a compromise, each side (or view) of an issue obtains
something it wants, and willingly cedes something it also wants. The key word is “willingly”, not begrudgingly. It was Dr. Charles Stanley who wrote: “Humility
is essential for salvation.” Humility is
a giving up of “I know I am right, and you are not.” For those who still know history, there was a
time when our country leaders couldn’t agree on what each side thought to be a
key truth: is slavery right? Unlike our present leaders, they reached a
compromise on this key issue, called the Missouri Compromise, and because of it
one state entered the Union as a state allowing slavery, and another entered
not allowing slavery. Neither side changed
their beliefs about slavery, but they reached a compromise, to move ahead on a
critical issue.
There are some people who say some critical issues cannot be
compromised: there is truth versus
error; there is forgivable sins and unforgivable sins. Matters of faith are often deemed un-compromise-able: Allah is not a father; Jesus is God; the
angel told Smith bigamy was permitted, or there is no god. Direct discussion on these key beliefs often
leads to anger, and to short conversations.
What is forgotten in history, like the forgotten Missouri Compromise, is
that all matters of faith in God (or not) began with compromise.
At its heart, compromise recognizes two things: life is complex, and life is ever
changing. To the first thing, in
compromise a child might say: “Okay, I’ll eat my vegetables --- so I can get
dessert.” To the second thing a child
might say: “When I grow up, I’m never eating vegetables again.” Of course, when the child grows up, he is
wiser and likely learns to like at least some vegetables, perhaps cooked HIS
way. And the slave state of the Missouri
Compromise no longer allows slaves.
Things change. The good
end-results in these examples came about because the earlier compromises enabled
people to go on, together. (Wouldst that
our present politicians could be as wise as children who learn the value of
compromise.)
Many doctrines of faith are accepted in compromise. Many saints came into the Catholic Church
totally accepting “most” of its truths --- except that focus on Mary, or except
for papal infallibility, or except for …. whatever. They went along with what they found hard to
believe, in part because of so many other things they did believe. Many Catholics started even as atheists, or
well-educated scientists, doctors, or philosophers who knew, of course, that there is no god. But then they noticed other scientists,
doctors, or philosophers --- lots of them, in fact --- did believe in God, and
they wondered how these intelligent people could believe that, because of
course they knew there was no god. Then,
in effect, they were wise enough to consider that they might be counting to 9
fingers on their hands; perhaps they weren’t seeing things right. And they compromised; they willingly chose to
see through the other person’s eyes.
Jesus compromised.
How else could He eat with sinners?
Every time He forgave sin, He compromised, as did the sinner. He accepted into His arms someone who had
been choosing to reject Him, and the sinner chose to, RESOLVED TO, go on a path
of no sin, giving up the pleasures he got from sin. They both compromised. Usually the road to compromise starts along
the path of agreement, discussions of things agreed --- the likely start of
those dinners Jesus attended. Friendly
discussions lead to friendships, which make compromises easier to discuss. In the heat of an argument is not the time to
seek compromises. (See the reflection on
“dysfunctional families” at Christmas dinner at http://do-not-be-anxious.blogspot.com/2017/12/christmas-dinner-with-family.html)
God is perfect love, but every earthly love is a
compromise. It is the fool who marries
and says “I do” expecting he will change the disagreeable habits of his
spouse. Marriage is a compromise. Every person is different, like a unique
instrument; each plays a different tune.
Yet many widely diverse instruments and sounds can come together in
harmony, making beautiful music --- as long as we don’t just focus on one instrument
or another, believing the others in some way ruin the sound.
Faith is a compromise; it is never saying never. We cry in our belief: “That can’t be,” but in
compromise we cry in our unbelief: “I believe”.
We believe in faith, until we believe in truth, until we can believe the
unbelievable, and give praise to God for being the light in our darkness.
Compromise IS NOT an agreement to disagree, although it may
start out that way. Compromise allows
you to start out, together, and then grow together. The Alpha group discussed “What is faith?” They considered it in terms of what a person
believes or comes to accept, but spiritual faith is not what I or you believe,
but what WE believe, together: God and
man, man and neighbor.
What is hindering me from following Jesus’ path for my life
in this world, with my neighbor?
Compromise? Am I saying: “I will
never compromise”? Are we our own roadblock
to spiritual growth?
- -
- - - - - - - -
Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I remember reading about Bishop McQuaid, the founder of my diocese (Rochester NY) who was at Vatican I. He argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility, but when it was clear the council fathers were going to vote in favor of it he left before the vote so he did not have to vote against it. When the doctrine was declared, he said he accepted it as a son of the church, and never said anything against it.
ReplyDeleteHe sounds like a wise man. I wonder how his view changed as years passed by.
ReplyDelete