I’ve been hearing a lot about compromise lately, thanks to the new wave of bipartisan rhetoric since last November’s election. Once again, everyone wants to work together, get along, just be friends. And I have to admit, it’s better than the partisan rhetoric we normally hear.
In the past day or two, however, I have begun hearing a slightly different conversation. Suddenly, people are asking what issues we should compromise on. And suddenly, we all realize that there actually is a gigantic elephant standing in the room. Compromise, for most of us, means the other side needs to give a little.
Yesterday I began to think about compromises I’m asked to make; they seem to fall into two categories. Compromises in relationships tend to be essential and highly valued. If I want to eat Chinese for dinner, and my friend would prefer Mexican, we compromise. Mexican tonight, Chinese tomorrow. On more significant issues (you homeschool your children; I send mine to public school), compromising for the sake of the relationship might mean agreeing not to argue about the issue, encouraging one another in the struggles, praying for one another.
The other kind of compromises fall in the moral/ethical arena: what I believe to be right and wrong, true and false. Will I lie if my employer asks me to? Will I stand by while unborn babies are aborted? People who compromise on these areas tend to be looked down on, called “flip-floppers,” and reveal their lack of conviction.
Politics seems to lie somewhere in the middle, and when there are only two sides, compromise can easily slip from agreeeable to apprehensible with hardly any effort. Especially if our side is the one who has to give too much.
What have your thoughts been, recently, in light of all this verbal hand-shaking? What compromises do you have to make on a regular basis? What issues will you never compromise on?
Charity, Good post, and commments.
I think it’s good to know when we should or should not compromise. Jesus seems to have compromised when he had Peter take a coin out of a fish’s mouth to pay the temple tax, even though the sons, in Jesus’ words, were really exempt from such a tax.
I think compromise is tricky, and can be dangerous. We can settle for something that is less than righteous. On the other hand, we can move the debate or even the agenda and solutions in a good direction. If I were a politician, I definitely would work some to that end.
Not just be like so many Republicans who seem, at least in years’ past, to be content with a position of wanting to see Roe v Wade overturned, yet do nothing, in my view, in their work, to help see the problems involved (and root issues) addressed.
I’ll vote for a Democrat any day, who wants to do something to help curb abortion, but is opposed to overturning Roe v Wade, over a Republican as I described. (OH, boy, I got political. Help.) Just an example of the kind of compromise (because I’d like to see Roe v Wade overturned, and it go back to the states) I believe in.
Craver — To your point, I read a great book called More Light, Less Heat: How Dialogue Can Transform Christian Conflicts into Growth by Joseph Phelps, which was all about approaching the “enemy” on the non-negotiables. His main premise is that we have more in common with our “enemies” than we think — which is probably the same point the Baker-Hamilton Commission was trying to make!
Laura — Great thoughts, and I agree. I think I was trying to come to terms with why some compromise seems to be regarded as “good” and some as “bad.” And beyond the distinctions I’ve indicated, I can’t really understand the difference. Your example of politics is the exact dilemma we find ourselves in in this country — calling the one compromise good and the other bad is just plain confusing!
This is a study that has always fascinated me. Whether Sheriff Andy Taylor’s diplomacy, or a gifted salesperson’s business deals, the ability to arrive at a win-win solution is the kind of stuff I dream about.
I would never agree that “everything is negotiable,” but some ways are better than others for approaching non-negotiables.
I guess it makes me uncomfortable to divide some things into moral/ethical issues and others not. For, where relationship is involved, even dinner with a friend and school for a child, their is an “ethics of relationship” at play.
Without this kind of understanding, one can say that abortion is wrong but certain political financial decisions are not wrong (because they are not in the “morals” category.)