In another thread, Fredgreco said this:

This seems very wise.


We often pride ourselves on being "no compromise" but I have seen several folks of this attitude cause some needless divisions within the past several years because they would not budge, even on minor secondary issues.


So, of late I have been thinking about "the virtue of compromise."


When is it a virtue to compromise? When is it good to downplay secondary issues? When is it good to try to be as broad as possible, to emphasis points of likeminded, etc?

And when is it not wise to compromise? And in what contexts? And on what issues?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone