God meets us halfway?
I grew up being told that God will always be there to meet you halfway. This was a corollary to the expression, “God helps those that help themselves.” For a long time, this was how I understood the tension between works and grace. It wasn’t that God didn’t have grace and love me just as I am, I just figured that I needed to be about the Lord’s work to provide him opportunities to help others. In retrospect, I guess that I was determined to somehow make the Christian life about me and what I am doing instead of Him and what He is doing.

It’s still a difficult question, especially in light of Scripture that urges the idle to be warned.

It is tempting to say that the answer lies somewhere between all works and all grace. After all, we know that relying on all works will not earn us anything. Then again, we also know that grace has limits – to some it is limited salvation, to others it is losing one’s salvation: either way it is a limit to infinite grace to all men. James and Galatians seem to be complete opposites, in fact, James seems to be paraphrasing Galatians throughout. I’ve often thought, which book is right? I’ve also thought, which book is more right?

I may not know a perfect answer, but I do know that the arguments in James and Galatians are both right, even if I do not understand how that is possible. Trying to find a middle ground between the two is saying that each book of the Bible is saying something that is not entirely true. James reads that faith without deeds is dead. It cannot be partially true. There is no provision for ‘some deeds’, and even if there were, would it be considered half-alive or half-dead?

Paul says in Galatians that if obeying the law could impart righteousness, Jesus died for nothing. Again, no room for partials here. Can someone obey part of the law and get partial righteousness? If what we read in the rest of Galatians is true, the answer is no. There’s no such thing as partial credit under the law.

It could be argued that there is no partial credit under grace, either.

Meet each other halfway?
The point, though, is not a examination of the role of grace and works in Christian life. The point is that a middle path is not the way to understand the roles of grace and works. American society values compromise and meeting someone halfway, but there is no compromise allowed here. This could make the Bible very distasteful to modern (post-modern?) sensibilities.

Let’s take another example. I’ve read about various Biblical teachers that are very conservative and claim that the best path to God is through being a real conservative. I’m thinking in Restoration Movement terms, here. This means a conservative is dedicated to, among other things, the idea that silence is prohibitive. Others claim that a liberal path is better by staking a claim on the mantra, “Free in Christ”. In terms of silence, it means that silence is permissive. Can a happy medium be reached by saying that silence is sometimes permissive? Better yet, is silence permissive with caveats? No, there is no medium. The restriction of silence is an extreme position and there is no room for compromise.

Given that there is no real compromise on the interpretation of silence, how does fellowship work?

Halfway through the article
These first two ideas may be oversimplified. It could be said that the faith/works issues and the meaning of silence in the Bible are very complex issues that cannot be stated in terms of black and white.

Let’s go into an oft-quoted passage and get to the matter at hand:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
…
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.

Romans 14:1-6;14-20

One man eats meat sacrificed to idols. Another will not. Our modern sensibilities would try to convince the ‘weaker’ brother is eat just a little meat. We’d tell the ‘stronger’ brother to eat a little less meat. What it halfway between meat is okay and meat is not okay? Halfway is that ‘some meat is okay’. Isn’t abstaining from meat an extreme position? All kinds of Scripture can be quoted to the ‘weaker’ brother that all food is clean, Jesus himself declared all foods clean. But that is not what Scripture says to do.

From the same passage, one man holds one day holy, another treats everyday the same. What is the compromise in this situation? A suggestion that each man hold three days holy. Is this really tenable for either brother?

Why is it, then, that when we encounter a brother that believes differently than us, that our first urge is to seek a compromise?

Halfway, Half the Time
It’s easy to quote the last part of Eccl 7:18 from the NIV, “The man who fears God will avoid all extremes”, however we do not quote the first part that says that this same man will grasp both extremes. Many other English translations do not even say “avoid extremes”, but it appeases our modern (postmodern?) sensibilities that the middle ground is best. We like centrist candidates in politics. We strive to live somewhere between rich and poor and generally consider ourselves middle class.

Still, it is much easier to make a rule that the middle ground is best and just leave it at that. Who wants to think through the extreme positions anyway?

Consider that the basic tenets of Christianity are rather extreme. Jesus is considered God. Jesus claims that he is the only way to God. It’s extreme to believe that 2/3 of planet earth is not saved because they believe something other than Christianity.

Does this mean that a compromise is always wrong? Absolutely not. Replacing a rigid rule with the opposite, yet equally rigid rule is no better. Consider that conference in Acts 15. When all was said and done, Gentiles believers were encouraged to follow some of the cleanliness laws. It certainly was a compromise to enforce anything less than the entire Torah, yet they did not get away totally free, either.