US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, was asked the other day what compromises the Russians were willing to make for peace in Ukraine. He had no answer to give because the Russians have no intention of making compromises and haven’t been asked to make any. That’s one reason why Trump finds them easier to talk to than Ukraine.
Social media reaction was fascinating and challenging. A strong theme coming across is that we need to be willing to make compromises and unpalatable choices for peace. Again, there is this sense that we are in an endless and futile war.
It is worth remembering that whilst this war is three years old, that is quite short in the big scheme of things. Further that time and history are often on the side of the invaded rather than the the invaders.
My question today though is less about Ukraine and more about the follow through implications. I preached the other Sunday on Nehemiah 13 and we looked at the way that we can be drawn into compromise. I focused specifically on the believer’s personal walk and Romans 8’s call to kill sin. However, I noted that there were implications for wider church life. So I thought it might be helpful to highlight two of them here.
First, there is the question of ethics. Abortion laws have been in place since 1967 and the current zeitgeist is towards extending rather than reducing abortion. For s long time I think we have been in danger of accepting unpalatable choices here, to minimize the number of deaths by controlling the time limit for abortion.
Meanwhile, I’ve argued that even if the current assisted dying bill doesn’t get through, euthanasia is coming. Do we just resign ourselves to that fact and then try to work with the new laws to get some safe guards in?
It is worth repeating that the abolition of slavery captain and numerous social reforms from the past felt futile and unwinnable. Compromise was surely tempting. Yet campaigners persisted.
Secondly, The Church is constantly in a multi front ear against attempts to shift it from the Gospel, from prosperity teaching and other forms of superstition, from legalism and from liberalism. Do we settle for an accomodations which accepts these things in an individual church or a group of churches? I would argue that this is the error that Church of England Evangelicals have made. Or do we persist as the reformers like Luther and Calvin did?
Thirdly, there is a challenge for pastoral counselling. It’s often said in marriage guidance that relationships need compromise and that’s generally true. However, we need to be careful that this doesn’t filter through into our counselling so that we see ourselves as Trump style middlemen, there to get a quick resolution in relationship conflict. To be sure there will be times when both parties need to give ground. However, we need to be alert to the situation where one party has been seriously wringed and the other is in the wrong. There doesn’t need to be compromise in order to patch things up. That kind of marriage counselling creates an uneasy and temporary ceasefire. Instead there is the need for true repentance and the hope of forgiveness.
In my sermon, I argued that victory is possible. That’s because we have the Romans 8 promise of life in the Spirit so that we are “more than conquerors”.
Faithroots 