The latest article I read (from Christianity Today) is a Jew speaking to evangelical Christians.
He quite gladly praises evangelicals’ human rights record in this last while. Then he makes the point that compromise is sometimes the best approach. You can’t get Utopia, so at least get a foothold at the bottom of the mountain.
We have all had that experience. With our children, we fight the fight that’s worth winning. With our boss we approach the problem that can be fixed in order to get to the rotted root of the system.
Paul, of New Testament fame, only made it to prison to write his prison epistles by using the name of Caesar. He freely chose to take the world’s philosophies and use them to point to the “Whom”. David, in the Jewish scriptures, works well with King Hiram. Joseph works well with Pharoah. Isaiah is a king’s confidant in both good and bad reigns.
All fine and well. Compromise carries the idea of “promise” when working with (“com”) another. But what is the point of no return, and of no entrance? The point where we just say, “I can’t work with this?” and then leave?
Is it a question of allegiance? Of never leaving the rock that is “first place” in your life — while at the same time surveying the surroundings to find out who is standing with you on a piece of that rock at that time?