[Related: “No Compromise” (9 Jun. 2008).]
I generally don’t compromise deliberately. It’s more likely for me to be convinced to change my position. Why? If it’s an important matter of any kind of principle – really, any kind, where the difference of choice lies in difference of principle or motivation – I’m very resistant to having a defiled conscience.
For this reason, it is generally fruitless to try to cajole me into doing something against what I believe: it would be much more productive to try to convince me that I’m wrong – granted, with a train of thought that doesn’t sound mushy, and I give no guarantees that it’s easy in any way, shape or form – and so not risk losing my respect completely. Not that my respect matters much to you, anyway, but I can try.
Whether that’s “realistic” or not, this is the way I believe is obedient to the Scriptural commands in the letters of the apostle Paul: unless I’m pretty uncertain of what I think, I can’t just strike a deal. Am I wrong about this? (Then again, I must note that I may define “compromise” more narrowly than most people do.)
Yes, perhaps this sounds too logical in a world in which much cannot be explained by logic. Of course there are many such things, many things of great consequence to boot. I am convinced, though, that although the world cannot be explained by human ways of logic, it is not irrational, only above our understanding: I find no other way to understand God as the embodiment of logos.
How often do you compromise, and on what grounds?