Evangelical Christians and Their Love Affair with Compromise

There's a song by the country-western band Diamond Rio that has a chorus that goes like this:

"I'd start walking your way

You'd start walking mine
We'd meet in the middle
'neath that old georgia pine
We'd gain a lot of ground
cause we'd both give a little
And their ain't no road to long
When you meet in the middle."

It's a catchy song, if you've ever heard it. Even more catchy is the viewpoint that a little compromise is a good thing. It seems that many Americans tend to think that in the debate between two opposing parties, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. I see this viewpoint quite often in conservative vs. liberal debates, or the Republican vs. Democrat debates. But this idea is not just in the realm of politics, it is also found in the Church.

There have been many times when I've met people who claim to hold to a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism. They view both sides as extreme poles, but the truth, they assert, is somewhere in the middle. (If you are looking for a great refutation of the idea of a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism click here.) Wherever you find opposing parties, free-will vs. bound will, sovereign grace vs. resistable grace, universal atonement vs. particular atonement, errancy vs. inerrancy, justification by faith and justification by works, etc., you will find those who claim to hold to the middle ground. Some have even claimed to have found a middle way between the Federal Vision and the Confessional Reformed positions. My question is: what is so attractive about finding a middle way? I'm sure there are a number of factors, but I suspect that it has something to do with a general lack of spine within American Christianity. Many Evangelical Christians cannot stand seeing divisions within the Church, and therefore they think that the real answer is compromise.

Toeing the line requires having a spine, and since many Evangelical Christians, yes, even Evangelical Christians in Reformed Churches, lack a real spine they are repulsed by the thought of having to hold to one side of the debate or the other. Holding to one side just might mean standing up to one's peers and telling them they're wrong, which, of course, one can't do without a spine. What I find with most "middle-grounders" is that they really have no clearly defined position. Those who say that they hold to a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism will quite readily find good points on both sides; however, they find that both sides are somehow missing the entire picture. Yet when pressed as to what EXACTLY is this middle position that they have found, they are unable to give any clear cut answer. The middle ground is not a position that brings clarity to an issue, but rather brings confusion. But, hey, if it helps everyone get along, then what does clarity matter?

Now when it comes to personal matters, or things that are indifferent, I'd be glad to start walking your way, and hopefully you'll start walking mine. But when it comes to the doctrines of the Word of God, we'd better start walking God's way as carefully defined by Scripture, and we should do so with the understanding that God is not going to start walking our way. If the Bible teaches Calvinism, then lets not be afraid to let our Arminian friends know that they are wrong. If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then let's not be afraid to defend inerrancy. If the true gospel is justification by faith alone, then let's be brave and tell those who advocate a justification by works in any way that they are teaching another gospel. If we find that our Reformed Confessions are in line with Scripture then let's not be afraid to bring charges against those who are out of accord with the Confessions.

Paul said to Timothy "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 1:13). And to the Thessalonians he said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). This is the same person who said that he became all things to all men that he might win some to Christ (1 Cor. 9:22). This is also the same man who was willing to give up certain foods so that he could win some to Christ (1 Cor. 10:25-33). The same Paul who would rather give up certain foods for the sake of his brothers, withstood Peter to his face because he was out of accord with the teaching of the gospel (Gal. 2:11). Finding middle ground is noble when it comes to matters of personal preference or indifference, but when it comes to the gospel and the clear doctrines of Scripture, there is no room for compromise.