Can a Christian hold convictions strongly, yet at the same time be willing to compromise?
First of all, how we answer this question depends on who we’re talking about and what convictions we’re referring to. For instance, if this is a question about policy makers, my answer would be: please compromise. Yet, if we’re thinking of “mere” voters, I’m not so worried about staunchly adhering to a position. Or, if you’re an activist for social change, we might even encourage you to forgo compromise in order to make your point. In addition, we should think about what convictions are up for discussion. Are they convictions central to your outlook on the world, such that giving them up would be a breach in your integrity? In this case, bartering and compromise is inadvisable. However, if the convictions in question are peripheral to your worldview, we’d think you were inappropriately stubborn if you refused to barter and compromise.
Now, caveats aside, I do have a general answer: Christians are not only capable of holding their convictions strongly and simultaneously compromising, but in addition, it is necessary that they do so. For better or for worse (for better, I suspect), we live in a culture that admits of multiple values and beliefs. Given this, a refusal on the part of Christians to compromise and barter is a kind of arrogance; it suggests that Christian perspectives ought to be imposed everywhere and privileged above all others. I find this attitude morally objectionable, but we can also object to this way of thinking on practical grounds.
Imagine that Christians refused to compromise and barter. The result would be a political standstill involving two polarized groups. On one hand, we’d have a Christian group, insisting, “These are our convictions, we will not budge. Join our side or leave entirely.” And how will the other group respond? One thing is certain: the conglomerate of non-Christians is not going to acquiesce and adopt Christian convictions. In this case, the remaining option is for the groups to split. Each side will form its own state. Does this solve our problem? Well, no. You may have noticed that there isn’t one set of “Christian convictions” universally shared by Christians. In fact, there’s serious disagreement within Christianity, which implies that our Christian state would have to break down into denominational states. This could, of course, keep going. We weren’t compromising before; why start now? Why not reduce to states of individuals?
I’m assuming that the above thought experiment points out the absurdity of a “never-compromise” position. But aren’t I being unfair? Perhaps compromise is a necessity in a pluralistic world, as I’ve argued above. The real question, then, is whether a general policy of compromise weakens our Christian convictions. Do we trivialize our own convictions when we set them aside in order to compromise?
At this point I would defer to my earlier remarks about the nature of the conviction in question. In some cases, yes, I think we rightly hesitate over compromise. Nevertheless, in many other cases, I don’t think that compromise weakens my own convictions on a given subject. Moreover, I suspect that the value of compromise is a deeply held conviction for many of us. We’re interested in promoting our own flourishing, and we’re interested in promoting the flourishing of those around us. Compromise is one of the chief ways in which we express our desire for general well-being in the world. Thus, although we temporarily set aside some of our convictions when we compromise, the very act of compromise honors our conviction that it’s a good thing for diverse groups of people to get along.