Fatal Compromise

"You're on the wrong side of history," they tell Bible-believing Christians. These days it's typically on the matter of homosexual and transsexual morality, but it's been there before. When the likes of John Newton and William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Weld and more opposed slavery in a land dominated by slavery, they were "on the wrong side of history." When the Reformers called the Church back to biblical Christianity, they were "on the wrong side of history." When the Apostles preached Jesus as Lord and Savior, they were on the "on the wrong side of history." We're not new today. If you oppose the current trends, you're "on the wrong side of history" even if you're right.

The current trend in churches and, therefore, their congregations is compromise. They've largely surrendered "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) in favor of female pastors. Mainstream denominations have given in on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to embrace the concept of the "gay Christian." There are even some that have rejected "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6) in favor of a more ecumenical, inclusive "There are lots of ways to get to heaven" approach. "Thus saith the Lord" is replaced with "Can't we all just get along?"

So how do we know when compromise is possible and, just as importantly, when it is not? For instance, the concept of a democratic church polity is foreign to Scripture, but it's common in many churches. Is that compromise acceptable? The Bible recognizes no need to hold back our message wherever that might lead, but modern tax laws require churches to avoid political dialog. Is that compromise one we can manage? If there is room for compromise on these things, why not things like "gay marriage" or women as pastors? How do we know?

For most people, "I" am the final decider. Sure, the Bible says without any reservation that homosexual behavior is sin, but if "I" decide that it's acceptable, then it's acceptable and the Bible is simply wrong on that point. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe everyone in history has gotten it wrong. Maybe no one prior to the 20th century (or so) properly understood it. But "I" decide what's right or wrong, so "I" can compromise when "I" want to. That's all well and good, I guess, if "I" am the only one involved, but it's never that way. That "I" is telling others to do the same, informing the rest that their position is wrong, nay, evil. That "I" campaigns to change minds without recognizing that they're seeking to change minds to "my" perspective without any foundation. For the few, then, there is Scripture. God's Word tells us where we can and cannot compromise. Jesus said, "No man can come to the Father except through Me," so we have no room for compromise on that. The Bible says that homosexual behavior is sin, so we have no way to give ground on that. And so forth. On the other hand, the Bible does not command a particular polity that excludes some democratic church government or require that we share our political views from the pulpit, so there is certainly room for compromise on those things.

When people have differences, there are two options: compromise or no compromise. For the sake of people, compromise is typically a good thing. For the sake of God, compromise is unwise. So we need to decide when it is God or "I" talking. If we assume that the Word of God is not authoritative -- that compromise on the sin du jour is fine because we don't want to be on the wrong side of history -- then we have a bigger problem. If God's Word is not authoritative, then God is not authoritative and anything that we deem "Christianity" is an undefined mass of personal opinion, right or wrong in places, perhaps, but certainly not the truth. That's when compromise becomes fatal -- when we compromise God by compromising His Word.