Tony Blair's Faith Foundation and good compromise

I was talking to someone the other day about Tony Blair's new Faith Foundation. This austere site gives the briefest of information about its purposes. In between sorting out ecological meltdown and the intractable divisions of Israel and Palestine, Tony Blair will be giving his attention to relations between faiths in Britain. A whole load of experts and practitioners are being canvassed for their views on the issues of faith and community cohesion and I was intrigued to hear the view expressed that, "It's going to happen, there's going to be lots of money spent, these people don't know what they're doing so let's at least make it happen as well as possible."

This got me thinking about compromise: a word loaded with negativity. But actually, is an engaged life about a whole series of considered compromises? In the church we have ideals (big assumption I know), but those ideals have to inform real practice on the ground. It's not about debunking ideals but living in the tension of what we are and what we are becoming.  A whole series of exciting developments  in the church (Pioneer Ministry, Bishop's Mission Order to name but 2) are to some extent good "compromises". The ideal is that the church organically releases and affirms mission and new leadership; in the meantime broken people and structures fail to do so. Is that a cause for revolution to bring about necessary change or compromise? To resist the compromise and hold on to the ideal is in danger of creating a sectarian church that somehow denies God's grace to transform the whole of life. Seeing God's vision limited to the structure conversely immunises us from the prophetic challenge that we all need to live with. It's the already and the not yet of the kingdom. For many, the church is "already" sorted and fine thankyou very much. For others, it's "not yet" something they wish to be part of/suffer any longer.

So what  good compromises are you deciding to make? The very fact that it is a "compromise" involves decision and cost, and dare I say it, some humility. Are our ideas for interfaith relations, the church, society the best, or do we believe we have to work with and alongside some discomfort to be part of God's work?