In the US Capitol, each state has a statue of a leading citizen. The statue for my home state of Kentucky is that of Henry Clay, the 19th Century politician. One of his most famous quotes is, "“Let him who elevates himself above humanity . . . say, if he pleases, 'I will never compromise'; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise." While holding some very strong political views of his own, Clay fervently believed that good governance was to be found in the middle, where people of good faith but differing views could find common ground. Indeed, from the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution, compromise is an essential element in a representative democracy that protects the rights of the minority against tyranny of the majority.
This is not only true in politics, but religion as well. The great church councils hammered out details about the Trinity and the two natures of Christ that are codified in the Nicene Creed, which is itself a compromise between disputing factions within Christianity. Every time we recite the Creed, we acknowledge the role compromise plays in a religion that holds many diverse views on some of the most fundamental tenets of our faith.
Compromise makes no one really happy - that may be the hallmark of it. Clay was disliked by people on either side of the aisle in his day who felt he was wishy-washy, and Christians who disagreed with the early church councils splintered from the rest of the church. They still live in Africa and the Far East. Compromise is no guarantee to unity, whether in the church or in the world.
So why champion compromise? Why resist extremes? Why be reviled by those on either side who hold their values as absolutes that cannot be abridged? Clay has the essence of it when he speaks of the "frailties of our common nature." Only one human being was divine, and even he seemed to operate with a emptying of divine knowledge during his lifetime. None of us can claim perfect insight, and so to hold a position with absolute certitude is to claim divinity for one's self in a way even Jesus declined to do. Compromise is how we admit that we do not see all ends.
This belief in the value of compromise is why I am concerned about the violent political (and sometimes religious) rhetoric being used in public discourse. While rhetoric always has used military imagery, the language seems to have turned personal in the last few years. Instead of seeing the opposition as a worthy opponent who probably has valid points and needs to be engaged, we have turned to language that infers the opposition needs to be eliminated. Sometimes this has been in very personal and graphic terms. While most of the violent language seems to be coming from the extreme right these days, we only have to think back a few decades to when it was primarily from the extreme left. The use of violent rhetoric to dehumanize is rooted in a tendency in humanity, not a particular political leaning, and it must be resisted no matter where it comes from. When we promise in our baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being," we disavow the use of any action or discourse that dehumanizes the other.
Many commentators have decried the current lack of civility in our public discourse, and as Christians, we need to add our voice to that call. Only in real conversation and a willingness to seek compromise can we honor our Lord who commands us to do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves.
David+







