What does the Bible say about compromise?

What I have to say tonight may be summed up in the two words "No compromise." This is dead in the teeth of the modern spirit, because among men the best road to a bargain is through compromise. Starting with our thoughts rather widely apart, we can by degrees get together, whereas if you maintain your point of view, and I maintain my point of view, our differences will be irreconcilable. Compromise is responsible for many successful things in the world of business and the world of politics, but it is the secret of failure in the things of God. If you want success there, you have to seek out what is the divine way, and stick to that without a shadow of compromise. You remember that word in 2 Cor. 6 where the Apostle Paul wants the believers to be enlarged, and then you have that most striking passage which begins, "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers." He had spoken to them with wonderful delicacy about various matters in the earlier epistle. He had given a good deal of personal information in the early chapters of the second epistle. He had found that which encouraged him, because he saw signs of the working of the Holy Spirit, and he felt that he could now tell them what was at the bottom of all their troubles. Why had they been so shaky on the great fundamental points of doctrine? Why this grave immorality in their midst? Why this importing into their assembly the methods and ways of the heathen? The reason was that they had their links with the world very largely uncut. They had broken down in their insulation. Instead of being like an electric cable well charged with heavenly electricity, and insulated from the world, the insulation had broken down and the energy was escaping. They were allowing in their midst many evil things from the world with which they were compromising. I might turn to that verse in Ephesians, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." The Christian has to be uncompromising when it is a question of sin, evil or the world.

If our lives are concordant to the world, they are discordant to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and if they are discordant to God, everything else must be wrong. The Scripture, which carries with it all the authority of God, shows clearly that there can be no harmony between God and the world, and it will allow no compromise with the world on the part of those who are God's. Paul asks: "What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? and what concord has Christ with Belial? or what part has he that believes with an infidel? … Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing" (2 Cor. 6:14-17). John tells us that "if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). James is stronger than all, for he says, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity against God? Whosoever then will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). These words need no comment, they are self-explanatory, and if by any subtle reasoning by "the god of this world," we have been led into compromise with the world, our unfaithfulness in this respect is the cause of the low spiritual tone in the soul. All such unfaithfulness is sin, and the way of restoration is by confession. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8).

In matters of outward arrangement, or of moral indifference such as questions of time and place, there is ample room for grace in mutual consideration and in special care of the poor, the weak, and the suffering. Here the principle applies, though in another sense, that the strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please themselves: rather, that everyone of us please his neighbour for good to edification. The strong may well afford to seek unselfishness and make it sweeter for all. And here Christ is our blessed pattern, Who in glorifying His Father never sought His own will, though it was all untainted and holy, and pleased not Himself, but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on Me.

From the beginning of Romans 14 to the end of Romans 15:7 another point is taken up, to which the different positions of the Jew and Gentile gave rise. It was difficult for a Jew to rid himself of the sense of difference between days and between meats. A Gentile, having abandoned his whole religious system as idolatrous, held to nothing. Human nature is liable in this respect to sin on both sides — a want of conscience, an unbridled will, and a ceremonial conscience. Christianity recognises neither of these things. It delivers from the question of days and meats by making us heavenly with Christ. But it teaches us to bear with conscientious weakness, and to be conscientious ourselves. Conscience cannot — has not a right to — prescribe a new thing to us as a duty, but it may, through ignorance, hold to a traditional thing as obligatory. In reality we have entire liberty, but we ought to bear with weakness of faith in another, and not put a stumbling-block in his way. The apostle gives three directions in this respect: First, to receive the weak, but not for the discussion of questions that have to be settled; second, not to judge our brother, since he is Christ's servant, not ours; and every one must give account of himself to God; third, to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves; to walk in the spirit of love, and, if we are in a higher state, to show it by receiving one another, as Christ has received us, to the glory of God, which eclipses man and his petty superiorities, and which kindles charity and makes it ardent, earnest in seeking the good of others — taking us so out of self, and beyond little things, that we are able to adapt ourselves to others, where the will of God and His glory are not in question.

On the other hand, the apostle has shown elsewhere — and we should always endeavour to remember it — that it is a wise and important thing to meet souls in grace as far as possible, not to impose upon others what they have not strength to bear. In writing to the Corinthians the apostle had insisted on this, as his ministry exemplified it. He had become a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews. He was made all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. There was no kind of pressing points. There was the hearty desire for the good of souls; for we may have this without the pressure of our own particular thoughts and feelings, however right they may be. It is the elasticity of the Christian if established in grace. We rarely can pull the cord too tightly in dealing with our own souls, or be too stringent in our vigilance and prayer against slipping here and there. But it is a totally different thing in having to do with others. We have to bear their infirmities, if, in truth, we are strong; it is for their good that the Lord lays them upon our hearts. We find that, even with His own disciples, He went not beyond what they were able at that time to bear. But the very desire to meet souls, and not to raise questions that would gender strife, might expose a gracious Christian to be taking the colour of those outside himself, and giving up his own principles. On every side he has to watch.

Ans. — The apostle surely is giving an inspired description of a God-given ministry, in contrast, throughout the chapter, with the spirit of ease, pride, and self-exaltation of false ministers. It is this which makes him speak so solemnly at the close of the chapter, that a man might be a preacher of the gospel and yet be a castaway. As to himself, he had not used his apostolic prerogatives, but had been content to be the servant of all, that he might win some. Therefore he took his place, so far as he could, with those to whom he ministered. He was “all things to all men” in a godly way, bearing with their weakness or their ignorance—not raising questions until God had raised them in the consciences of the people. So to the Jews he was as a Jew and as under law, in order that he might minister Christ to them. For this reason he circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother. But when Judaism had arrayed itself against the truth of God—when it was a question of the gospel and of the honor of the Lord, he gave no place to the “weak and beggarly elements.”

Our verse now speaks about those who not only seek and follow peace, but who make peace. There are many who are peaceable and love peace, but who are unable to make peace once a disagreement has arisen. Yes, a person who is a lover of peace by nature might be in danger of becoming unfaithful to the Lord, “for the sake of peace and quiet”. He may think the quarrel can be done away with by “sweeping the matter under the carpet”. But it is not possible to make true peace in this way. When the peace among brothers and sisters or in an assembly has been disturbed the grace of our Lord Jesus must become active to still the waves of human passion which then often come to light, before peace can be re-established. Much self-denial and waiting on the Lord is necessary for this, as the purpose is to reconcile opposite characters, emotions, convictions and interests, in a godly manner. Yet these loving efforts must never be at the expense of the holiness and righteousness of God. He who wants to be a peacemaker needs to have sound spiritual discernment. This means that he first has to examine himself in the light of God as to whether he has a pure heart, as in the previous beatitude. James writes that the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable (James 3:17). Truth as well as grace are necessary for the right fulfilment of such a task. To make peace is therefore also a matter of prayer for clarity, neutrality, wisdom and love. Only then can mercy and truth, righteousness and peace meet in our lives practically. Time is often required in order that God may work in our consciences and hearts, since peace cannot be enforced.

Much as thou art to seek after peace and pursue it, neither truth nor principle must be sacrificed to maintain it, either with the world or with Christians. The love of popularity is a great snare to many; even a Peter might be drawn aside for a moment by it; but Paul could not have peace on such terms. (Gal. 2) The great apostle, much as he loved peace and desired it, knew very little of it during the whole period of his life, because of his faithfulness. But though he had little outward peace, he was kept in perfect peace with God because his mind was stayed on Him. May we all know this solid, lasting peace with God, which the world neither can give nor take away.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would that thou wert cold or hot. Thus, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spue thee out of my mouth." Being neutral in principle and practice, they were half-hearted toward Christ. Nor is any place more likely to generate neutrality than an outwardly true position, if self-judgment be not maintained with godly sincerity. The more one stands in the forefront of the battle, with the responsible testimony of God, the more His grace and truth are in letter brought out before others, if there be not also walk according to the light, sooner or later comes a lapse back into neutrality, if not active enmity. For heart and conscience are not animated and governed by the power of God's Spirit through living faith in Christ. Indifference to all that is good must follow; and the only kind of zeal, if zeal can so exist, will be for what is of the first man, worldly, and bad.

Many plausible arguments could have been advanced in favour of unconditionally submitting to the proposal of the king. Expediency would suggest that to raise an objection to the proposal would probably wreck all their prospects. It would not only end their career of usefulness to their brethren, but it might do positive harm to others and add to the difficulties of the captives. Reason would argue that, as they had been given into the hand of the king of Babylon by an act of the Lord, their only right course was to submit entirely to the king, otherwise they might be rebelling against what the Lord had allowed. Compromise would suggest that, as long as they did not give up the confession of their God, the instructions as to not eating certain foods might under the circumstances be waived. Such instructions surely applied to a free people in their own land; but now that they were in bondage in a foreign land, would it not be a mere scruple to insist upon the strict observance of the letter of the law?