Battles against compromise

Christians often ask but how much we should compromise. One bit of my education came when I sent an article about helping the homeless to a scholarly magazine and received a response along the following lines: "Dr. Olasky, My sincerest appreciation for your contribution to our magazine. Please find attached the draft of your article, which has two small word changes suggested by the Editorial Committee." Not bad, only two changes. But here came the specifics: "The Committee wants to change 'she [a bag lady] needs a minister who will teach her that she is made in God's image' to 'she may need a minister.' Also, the Committee wants to change 'We need Christ' to 'We need religion.' The general impression of the Editorial Committee was one of support but they expressed concern over possibly alienating some of our members. I therefore suggested making the language more inclusive and it was accepted." I responded, "Thanks for your note. I cannot accept the change to 'may need'; that is what she objectively needs to learn. If the concern is with 'minister,' the sentence can be reformed to read, 'She needs to learn that she is made in God's image.' Concerning replacement of 'need Christ' to 'need religion': No way. Religion can be a bad thing or a good thing. When the ex-addicts I'm reporting on say 'Jesus Christ set me free,' I can say no less, both in terms of what I believe and in terms of accurate reporting." A short time later I received a brief, grim-sounding response: "I have made the necessary changes to your article as stated in your e-mail, and have re-submitted it to the Editorial Committee." But soon afterwards the final response came: "The piece will run as you wish. I look forward to future occasions wherein I hope to elicit your participation." One very small victory, yes - but there have been no future occasions.