Friday, May 18, 2012


I read a blog this morning about compromise. Namely political compromise. The article concerned a situation where a political leader introduced, passed and began to implement a piece of legislature that a large portion of the people wanted. But a large, active, vocal part of the people did not want.

The leader has stuck to his guns, his principles and is being vilified all around. Other leaders are calling for compromise. The writer called for compromise. The writes seemed to assert in the article that the leader’s religious background is one of the main reasons he had an unbending position.

Compromise or standing on principle?

In the US today, we seem to have a large group on both sides of the political spectrum who are standing on principle. Neither side is interested in compromise. And solutions to problems are not getting discussed. So, it seems like compromise is needed to grease the wheels of political progress.

But what would have happened if Lincoln or Wilberforce compromised? A United States of America and a Confederate States of America? Slavery in some form? Wilberforce stood on his principles for 26 years, in the face of stiff opposition, until England abolished the slave trade. Seems like standing on principles can achieve a lot of good.

So, when does one compromise? When does one stand on principle? I don’t have a rule for deciding at the moment. Both seem to be necessary and one needs considerable wisdom to decide ones course of action. And maybe a lot of Christian charity when dealing with people … those for you and your position, and those against.

No comments: