By

Davis W. Huckabee, Pastor

We cannot look upon the heart, and so, for this reason, we cannot know exactly the reasoning that goes on behind any action. And Scripture warns us against taking a judgmental attitude toward others. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4). And later on, the believer is admonished to rather make sure that he does not cause a weaker brother to fall. This, however, is in a context of incidentals, and not regarding things clearly revealed in the Word of God. There are a lot of areas where we must learn to bear and forbear with our brethren, for in the day of judgment, it is doubtful that any of us are going to get an A+ in all areas of faith and service to the Lord. Doubtless we shall all be found faulty in some areas. But in things regarding “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), it is not our option to compromise under any circumstance. To do so is to practically repudiate the Lordship of our Saviour, and to reject the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Bible History gives us an insight, however, into the reason why God’s people may sometimes be tempted to compromise. The Old Testament often illustrates the New Testament (1 Cor. 10:6, 11). From the time that God granted Israel a glorious deliverance from Egyptian bondage, for some four hundred years she enjoyed many and great blessings as a Theocracy—a nation ruled by God. But, in the days when the sons of Samuel were judges over the nation, the nation compromised on all this. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramab, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:4-5).

The problem here was a failure in the leadership of the nation, as the wicked sons of Samuel abused their office, and lost the confidence of the people. These began to envy what seemed to be the better circumstances of the pagan nations around them who were ruled by kings instead of by God-appointed judges. Without doubt this sometimes enters into some churches’ discontent today, for we are all notorious for gazing upon other fields and thinking that the grass is so much greener over there. I confess that, as one who has always pastored small, struggling churches, I have been guilty of this. However, one time several years ago when I was struggling with this, I was reminded that the greener seeming grass might be artificial turf. It often is.

Another Scripture illustration of compromise is to be seen in Solomon. Three things are to be seen in him. First, His Capabilities (1 Kings 3:7-14). When he came to the throne, he asked for wisdom to be able to serve God. God was pleased with his request, and granted him wisdom above any other king. Second, His Compromise (1 Kings 11:1-4). Contrary to the command of God, he took many wives, most of whom were princesses of the nations round about, and so, these were marriages for political expediency. Kinfolks do not generally go to war with one another, and so, these insured peace with neighboring nations. But these did not result in the desired ends. Third, His Confession (Eccl. 1:1-3). Indeed, there is a tone of pessimism throughout all of Ecclesiastes, for compromise is always frustrating, and so it was to Solomon.

Satan is a past master of not only deceit, but also of promoting envy in God’s people. It was by promoting a discontentment that he moved Adam and Eve to disobey God, and so, to lose their home in a perfect environment. It worked then, and it works today. Other religious denominations are not confined in their activities by the Word of God as Baptists are, and so, their denominational standards will generally allow them to make whatever changes are necessary to satisfy carnal people. Baptists have always held that our supreme goal is not to satisfy ourselves, but rather to obey God, and to do those things that He has commanded us to do for his glory. Boasting is excluded by the law of faith (Rom. 3:27), and that is always hard on the pride that is such a large and influential part of every one of us.

Therefore, it is so easy for thoughtless, and sometimes outwardly carnal church members to look about them and see the artificial turf of almost totally humanistic religions, and so, to demand “make us a church like the large, ornate, worldly, manpleasing, and seemingly numerically prosperous Protestant churches around us.” And while this is sometimes done against the advice of a faithful pastor, at other times it is done at the instigation of a discontented pastor who has tired of bearing reproach for the name of Christ. It took some grace to endure it when a Catholic friend boasted of St. Paul’s Church having “overflow crowds at two morning services.” But why is this? Because it caters wholly to the flesh, and Christ’s word and will has no place there.

As even the Apostle to the Gentiles acknowledged as a continuing problem in himself, there is nothing good in our fleshly nature, and this is manifested by a will that is against the Lord’s workings (Rom. 7:18). And, brethren, if Paul had this problem, you can be sure that it will be an even greater problem to every one of us. The flesh is never willing to bear discomfort, or material loss, or reproach, and it will use all sorts of specious reasoning and excuses to justify itself in this. Often this will be manifest in a desire to compromise on our spiritual responsibilities. The words “to will is present” are an indication that this is a constant problem. A statement that came on my E-mail recently from Brother Earl White’s “Morning Meditations (1-27-2000)” is appropriate. “I know we all sometimes wish that we could make a once for all decision to live for Christ and never have difficult decisions to face again. It is just not that way. We must make the right decisions daily. But the glimpses that the simplest Christian gets of Christ as he daily serves at the door [as a door-keeper in the house of the Lord—DWH] makes it all worth it.”

My first experience with this problem happened in my first pastorate many years ago when I was pastor of the First Baptist Church of Kirk, Colorado. Our church was 150 miles from any church of like faith and order, and when we heard of a supposed independent Baptist church across the line in Kansas thirty miles or so away, we tried to cultivate some fellowship with it. At a young people’s fellowship, they had a native Fiji Islander, the grandson of a cannibal, who worked with his own people. I don’t know if I ever heard how they came into contact with Alfreddie Yaya, but they had supported him for some years. During the time of the fellowship, after the preaching service, as I visited with him, he declared that “I am Baptistic in my beliefs, but I do not use the name as I am able to reach more people by doing so.” Not even the most regions are exempt from the temptation to compromise, for no place is remote enough to get away from Satan.

I was quite young in the ministry, but my beliefs had solidified enough that I was immediately depressed at this evidence of compromise, and my confidence in this church that thought so highly of this man was lessened. As I thought about this situation, I was made to wonder how the Lord could bless this knowing and willing lying deception as to one’s true condition. If one holds to a denominational position, he should not be ashamed to admit it, and if those in error do not like it, let them take the matter up with the Lord and see if they get any satisfaction. Not only so, but if one is ashamed of the denominational position that he holds, is it not the most rank hypocrisy to secretly hold to it while denying it in practice? And may we not ask any such person for his Biblical authority for either compromising upon God’s truth for the sake of finding favor in the eyes of those who are unwilling to stand for the truth. Or, if that is not the case, then for his authority for playing the hypocrite by his inconsistency?

And while not bearing directly upon the name that one goes by, yet certainly we see a biblical instance of one not being consistent in his profession in Peter’s actions at Antioch, for which Paul rebuked him. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled (Greek, sunupokrinomai—to act the hypocrite with) likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation (Greek hupokrisis—hypocrisy).” Galatians 2:11-13. This shows that not even an apostle is immune to temptation to compromise because of the fear of man. And we see what often accompanies this—the baleful influence on others [v. 13]. But it is interesting that Peter showed an amazing ignorance of his Popish prerogatives, if he was the first Pope, for so far from hurling his anathemas and excommunications against Paul for rebuking him, he later speaks of Paul with great respect and affection in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Paul himself was involved in a situation that was of a similar principle. The Judaizers who claimed to accept Jesus as the Messiah, were offended at Paul for his refusal to preach circumcision as necessary to acceptance with God. He and Barnabas had no small confrontation with them, and the Antioch church finally sent a delegation up to Jerusalem to find out if this was what the church there believed, as the Judaizers had implied (Acts 15:1-2). The unanimous decision of all the apostles and elders that gathered to discuss this matter was that salvation was by grace, and by grace alone, and this eliminated all trust in human performances of any kind or degree (Acts 15:8-11). This information was then sent throughout the Gentile churches (Acts 15:19-29). This attempt by the Judaizers involved a denial of the whole system of grace. So it often is in compromise. The fact is, that grace enters every realm but one-there is no grace in judgment—and no one can preach any subject but this without grace entering in, unless he preaches mere legalism.

Later this same problem surfaced among the Galatian churches, and some claimed that Paul actually preached circumcision. But he denied this, saying that if he had preached circumcision as a means of justification, then the offence of the cross would have ceased, and he would not have been so bitterly persecuted (Gal. 5:11). In this we see intimated a possible reason why some will compromise—an unwillingness to suffer reproach or persecution for the cause of Christ. But this is nothing less than the rising up of the flesh in rebellion against Christian duty. Another thing is implied here, and that is that the unbelieving world will always be offended by faithful preaching. Hence the cause of all the persecution of Baptists of the past. All could have been prevented by compromise. But—then the Gospel would have perished, and would never have been brought by someone to the little Lubbock County, Texas, community of Woodrow, and I would have been forever lost. The fact that the Gospel was faithfully propagated so that I could be saved, ought to forever obligate me to faithfulness.

And be not deceived, Brethren, the name “Baptist” is an offence to many in other denominations. For the fact that true Baptists have generally always stood true to Christ automatically condemns all those who are so gutless or so greedy that they will not take a stand for the truth lest they be reproached or lose their positions of esteem in the world. We all have the duty of going outside the camp of the religious world where it has apostatized from the truth, as did our Lord. “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:12-13). Serving the Lord obediently has always required a lot of grace in order to overcome our natural fearfulness and cowardice. Our Lord dealt with this in Matthew 10:22ff. Here we see: (1) The world’s hatred for our Lord’s people [vv.22-23] (2) Our likeness to our Lord in this [vv. 24-25]. (3) The need for a proper fear [v. 26-28] (4) The need to take a public stand for the truth [v. 27]. (5) God’s providential care for all His creation, [vv. 29-31). (6) The sure consequences of both courage and cowardice [vv. 32-33]. This puts the compromiser on very solemn ground. (7) The certainty of religious division when God is given first place [vv.34-36]. Most of us have seen this last situation as families were split wide open simply because part loved and obeyed God, and others only wanted the name of being Christians without bearing the responsibilities of it.

This all has a bearing upon this present matter. The question is, Whom do you most fear? Man or God? This will be the determining factor in whether we stand true or compromise. I had already done quite a bit of work on these lectures when I read Brother Darter’s editorial in the October-December, 1999, issue of The Independent Baptist Voice, but I could not help but think how very appropriate to this very matter was his quotation of Ecclesiastes 12:13-14. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” An ancient writer of the Fourth Century said: “Fear God and you need fear nothing else. But if you fear not God, then you must fear all else.” True! God has never called anyone to make the truth palatable to the flesh.

Many people want to be generic Christians, for they think that Brand name Christianity is too costly. They are like a wealthy old maid caretaker of her equally well to do mother who both lived in the community where I first pastored. Evidently the mother had experienced God’s saving grace, for the daughter often expressed a desire to have her mother’s expectation of coming glory. Lena’s mother was on her deathbed, and, since she loved Queen Ann cherries, she told her daughter to go to the community general store and buy a whole case of them so she could enjoy them in her final days. But when the daughter learned the cost of the cherries, she said, “Those are too expensive to buy a whole case,” and she only bought three cans. What was the problem? First, it was not her money that was involved, although she expected to inherit it in time. Second, she was not being a loving and obedient child to her mother. Third, and most importantly, she was not authorized to determine if this was too costly. The spiritual problem that we are now dealing with finds a correspondence to this. We are supposed to be presently occupying till our Lord returns, and taking care of His business for Him, Luke 19:12ff, and we are dealing with that which He has instituted. Love to God should compel obedience. “The love of Christ constraineth us”(2 Cor. 5:14). And I see no indication in Scripture that God has ever authorized anyone to shop around for the cheapest form of Christianity.

As the Owner of all things, cost is no object with God. He paid the highest price ever paid for anything for our salvation, as we read in John 3:16. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And 2 Corinthians 9:15: “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.” Yet Christians are often unwilling to pay the price for discipleship. What is that price? Matthew 16:24 answers, “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Part of the cross that Christians are to bear is the reproach of the world because we belong to Christ, and are endeavoring to follow Him. That entails a lot of self-denial.

By contrast, what will it avail if a person has the worldly reputation and esteem of a combined Martin Luther King, jr., a Billy Graham and a Norman Vincent Peale, if he is not in submission to the will of God? One will suffer loss of reward at best, and may even lose his soul. Note what Matthew 16:25-26 goes on to say. “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Obedience to the will of God is the chief characteristic of Christians, as we read in Hebrews 5:9. “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” Present obedience proves that one has part in Christ’s redemption.

Perhaps the reason why some churches decide to lay aside the name “Baptist” so that they may escape the reproach of the world, is because they are like the Sardus church. In Revelation 3:1 it is written of this church that “I know thy works, that thou has a name that thou livest, and art dead.” This church is only mentioned in Revelation 1, and here. It had begun as a true church that was living for the Lord, but here the Lord casts a sad reflection upon it. Though it still had a few members who were living as they should [v. 4]—perhaps some of the older, original members—yet the church itself is now dead in the Lord’s reckoning, which is all that really counts. What had happened? It had once been a sound, serving, church, but someone compromised, and others followed him in it. This is how compromise always works.

Let me illustrate this from the life of a great Baptist, but one who compromised on one point. John Bunyan was a deep theologian and great practical preacher, who wrote sixty major works. I have the three volume set of his complete works. He spent twelve years in the Bedford, England, prison as the authorities endeavored to silence his preaching. To be in prison under the conditions then was bad enough, but he had to watch his little fourteen year old blind daughter, Mary, walk barefoot through snow at times, as she, led by her younger brother, came to obtain the tagged shoelaces that Bunyan made. These, the children sold for a few pennies in the hopes that they could buy a loaf of bread, which was sometimes all the food that the family had. That had to be very hard, but Bunyan refused to compromise. However, he did try to play footsie with Protestants around the Lord’s Table, as he was one of the most outstanding open communionists of the day among Baptists. As a result of his compromise in this matter the Baptist church of which he was pastor ceased to be a Baptist church after his death. What a high cost to compromise!

And I am aware that one of the most common attempts at justification of this compromise is the plea that “The souls of men are so much more important than mere doctrine, or names, and my love for souls moves me to do anything to gain a few more.” That may sound good to fleshly reason, but our Lord Who has commanded us to stand firm in the truth, has already shown us His own infinitely higher concern for the souls of men, so that love for souls is not in conflict with doctrinal faithfulness. Indeed, no one ever has been, or ever will be, converted apart from God’s truth, but many have been eternally damned by a perverted Gospel that began as a compromise of what was considered unimportant matters by men of the religious world.

And another thing that enters into this is that we presume to be wiser than our Lord, if we think to determine what can, and what cannot be retained in our preaching and practice. If we compromise, why should He put forth any of His power to make what preaching we do to be effectual? The best preaching that man can do is just so much wind unless the Spirit of God empowers it, and why should He do so if we will not obey God’s revealed will. Well did Jesus ask in Luke 6:46: “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Real submission to the Lordship of Christ is not a matter of profession, but of practice, and this will involve taking our place among those who are the historic people of God.