A man who had been a notorious thief was telling a friend how
going to church had really changed his life. He was in a store just
that week and saw the nicest pair of boots. They were just his size,
and while he was there the owner of the store stepped out. He could
have easily slipped them under his coat and gotten away, and
ordinarily he would have, but this time he resisted the temptation.
The devil said to take them but the Lord said not to, and there I was
in the middle. He concluded, "I didn't know what to do, so I
compromised. I took a pair of shoes instead."
Obviously his life was not as dramatically changed as he
thought, for his compromise still left him as a thief. The question is,
however, is all compromise of this same worthless nature? Is
Reginald Kauffman accurate when he says, "Compromise is never
anything but an ignoble truce between the duty of a man and the
terror of a coward." Or is Edmund Burke the one who speaks the
truth when he says, "All government indeed, every human benefit
and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act is founded on
compromise and barter." Any wise student seeing these on a true or
false test would mark them both false, for one has a never and the
other an every, and an absolute is almost always false. Neither
extreme can be defended which says that compromise is always a
virtue or always a vice.
This question on compromise is stimulated by this first chapter
of Daniel because it appears that there is a contradiction in Daniel's
attitude. He refuses to compromise when it comes to eating heathen
food, but he submits without objection to a heathen education and a
heathen name. Some commentators question Daniel's values here.
They wonder why he draws the line where he does. It seems to be
such a minor point on which he resists, and then he goes along with
more major issues. It has to be admitted that Daniel did enter into
involvement with the pagan culture on many levels. But he refused
to do so on this level of eating. I think it is worth our time to try and
discover the difference, for this would give us instruction for our
own lives as to our own relationship to our culture. I think there are
at least three kinds of compromise, and each of them is illustrated by
Daniel's experience in Babylon. First we see-
I. COMPROMISE WHICH IS A VIRTUE.
The first thing we have to do is establish that this can be so, and
that compromise is not an absolute evil. John Herman Randall Jr.
wrote, "Now anybody who is capable of learning anything from
experience knows that the only way to get along with people, the
only way to do anything together with anybody else, is through
compromise. You don't need exceptional brains to realize that. You
need only to be married or to have a friend." If your wife insists
that you go on a picnic on a Saturday, and you insist that you go on
it on Sunday, and both of you hold your conviction with the view
that it is evil and cowardly to give in, you have a situation which one
can predict will lead to a dark future.
If one yields to the other and avoids the conflict, it is a virtue.
It is a virtue because it compromises only personal interests and not
any principle or moral that affects your relationship to God.
Examples of this kind of compromise are endless. It would be tragic
if there were no such thing as compromise between management and
labor. It neither made any concession, but were uncompromising in
their demands, our whole economic system would be in chaos, and
nothing would ever get settled. One could make 20 compromises a
day on the level of human relationships, and not in any way be out
of God's perfect will.
This is the kind of compromise Daniel made on the matter of
the pagan education he was to receive. He no more compromised his
loyalty to God at this point than does a Christian youth who goes off
to a secular university to study ancient mythology under an atheistic
professor. Daniel was getting one of the best educations of the day.
The Chaldeans were advanced and cultured, and they had plenty to
offer. The fact that they also had some weird courses on astrology
and magic made no difference. A youth like Daniel, who had been
instructed in the truth, and who had an intimate relationship with
the true God, would be no more disturbed than a mature Christian
today would be by taking a course in mythology.
It was a good thing for Daniel to get an education, even if it was
from a pagan viewpoint. Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians, and this also was in God's providence. If Daniel was
going to be a leader of great influence for God, he had to learn the
Babylonian language, culture, etc., just as missionaries today study
all sorts of strange things in seeking to understand the culture of the
pagans they are trying to reach for Christ. To be used in this world
we must see that it is a virtue to compromise and give some time to
the learning of what is part of a pagan culture so we can understand
those who are captivated by it, and be more effective in combating it.
Daniel may have had other plans for his life's studies before he was
taken captive, but had he been unbending and refused to study
under the Chaldeans, he would have been no good to God or his
people. Daniel was too wise to be stubborn here. He gladly took the
opportunity to learn all he could, and such a compromise was a
virtue. Next we look at-
II. COMPROMISE WHICH IS A NECESSITY.
There are compromises which are not in any way virtues, and
are even partly tinged with any evil, but which are the lesser of two
evils, and, therefore, are necessary. An example would be, if a
drunk comes charging at you with a knife, and in the fight you are
forced to save your life by fighting so furiously that you kill the
attacker in self-defense. Here is a case of a necessary compromise
on the commandment against killing. It is no virtue to have killed
the man, but it is less evil than if you who are innocent are the one
who is killed. This illustration does not leave much room for choice,
but the same thing can apply where there is premeditated choice. It
happens all the time in politics. A man can be an idealist and refuse
to settle for anything less than utopia, but he will get nowhere. It is
the man who is willing to compromise and take little steps at a time
who can move forward. He may have to stand for less in order to
get something rather than nothing. If a man always says all or
nothing, he is more likely to get nothing.
So there are points in life where a believer must compromise in
a way that is not virtuous, but yet not totally evil either. It is a
matter of the lesser of two evils. Luther said that we must exist in
compromise where there is no such thing as existential perfection.
For example, if you were in Russia and two Christians escaped from
prison where they were political prisoners falsely condemned to die,
and they came to your home for refuge, and the state police come
searching and asking if you had sent two escapes convicts, would
you say, with Washington, "I cannot tell a lie," and give them up, or
would you compromise on what you believe about lying. Would you
insist that love for your brothers in Christ is greater than the
obligation to tell the truth? Would you say then that you had not
seen them? Situation ethics says that love alone is the absolute, and
if need be all other laws can be broken to keep the law of love.
Dwight Eisenhower said, "People talk about the middle of the road
as though it was unacceptable. Actually, all human problems,
excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black
and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road
is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the
gutters."
This is not just a made up illustration, for there are decisions
like this that people are making all the time, and they are forced to
compromise truth and principles for the sake of love, or for the sake
of a greater good. Winton Churchill said that this is essential in
political life to escape total impotence. But the fact that it is
necessary does not make it a virtue. Let us never think that it is
good in itself to compromise because love demands it, or because it is
a matter of necessity. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it is
nevertheless an evil.
How does Daniel's experience fit this category? On the matter
of accepting the chance of his name from one that gives a witness to
God to one who gives a witness to a pagan god, we have to admit
there is no virtue in this at all. There was a tinge of evil, as Daniel
comes close to the system of idolatry. He may have despised it, and
he would have denied he would ever do such a thing earlier, but now
he compromises. He had no choice because it was a matter of
necessity. He could not control what his captures called him. He
and his companions may not have called each other by these names,
but likely they did.
Most Christians know the three companions by their pagan
names of Shadrack, Meschack and Abed-nego rather than by their
Hebrew names. They might have put a futile fight over the issue and
lost their chance for an education, but they choose to endure the
change. It was a compromise of necessity because resistance would
end only in lost opportunity to be used of God. It was better to allow
the evil of the names and offset it by living for the glory of God in
that negative situation. Next we see
III. COMPROMISE WHICH IS VICE.
For Daniel this was the compromise over eating meat offered to
idols, and wine dedicated to a pagan god. This was the line they
would not cross. Compromise like this was totally evil. In the New
Testament this particular issue changed, and eating meat offered to
an idol was no longer an absolute sin. In the Old Testament,
however, it was a matter of law and God's clear revelation. The
mark of a godly man was his loyalty to what he knew of God's law.
Daniel's contemporary was Ezekiel, and he wrote in Ezek. 4:14,
"Ah, Lord God! Behold, I have never defiled myself; from my youth
up to now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by
beasts, nor has foul flesh come into my mouth."
The issues they faced were certainly different from what we face
today, for we are free from all those provisions of the law on clean
and unclean foods. Nevertheless it was God's final word up to then,
and it called for absolute loyalty. To compromise on what is clearly
revealed is outright rebellion against God when one is not trapped
by necessity to do a lesser of two evils. Daniel was not trapped by
necessity on this point. He had the opportunity to try and escape
from partaking of the food. Had there been no escape Daniel may
have chosen to die rather than compromise, for he did so later on the
matter of prayer, and he was cast to the lions. There are absolutes,
which are not to be compromised even if the consequence is death.
Such was the case with the many martyrs who were killed by
refusing to deny Christ. Rudyard Kipling wrote,
Man, a bear in most relations, worm and savage otherwise,
Man propounds negotiations, man accepts the compromise,
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
This is true for Christians also. It is rare that our stand must be
absolute and uncompromising, but when it comes to matters of clear
revelation concerning Jesus Christ the Christian dare not
compromise, but push the logic of Christ's Lordship to its ultimate
conclusion, and recognize that death is the lesser of two evils if the
choice is between death and the denial of Christ. We need to pray
for wisdom in our dealings with the world that we might be able to
clearly discern when compromise is wrong, and when it can be
legitimate and beneficial to the kingdom of God.
