Election is around the corner. Political parties have sprung into action to further their manifestos and campaign for support. Concurrently, Christian dominated Nagaland is filled with uproars from different corners, addressing variety of issues that needs addressing or have been left unaddressed.
People have started evaluating and questioning the political agenda behind different political parties, for which BJP has been under the scanner for quite some time now. BJP has been branded as a Hindu political group, with their political agenda bearing nothing but effectuating Hindutva ideology.
Dedicated and committed Christian leaders have tagged them as anti-Christian, even to the extent of referring to BJP as “Satanic.” Recent events that have headlined BJP in different social media groups is the visitation of Catholic Cathedral in Kohima and the denied reception to Kohima Ao Baptist Arogo. Much debate has been generated over this initiative amongst educated Christian leaders, while leaving the majority of simple Christians confused over maintaining a firm foothold for the issue at hand.
Considering the outcry of Christian leaders against the BJP, as a political party, can’t help but wonder, if ever there was a Christian backed political party, that is ‘anti-Hindu’ and‘anti-all religions except Christianity’, how would the same Christian leaders react and respond.Mind you, I am just trying to toss the coin and attempting to consider both its sides. This is just a call for us to uphold consideration and retrospection of our Christian faith before giving our final call.
This brings us to the two wordsof deliberation – ‘accommodate’ and ‘compromise’.
‘Accommodate,’ in its entirety, is defined as “finding a place for (providing space), giving what is needed to someone, to make room for, to bring into agreement or concord, to give consideration, etc.”
‘Compromise’ is defined as “settling a dispute by mutual concession or accepting standards that are lower than is desirable.”
Both has its positive and negative connotations. Addressing these two words from a religious perspective, ‘accommodate’ is generally used with positive connotations, while the very term can have negative implications when used with intentions for personal benefits. On the other hand, ‘compromise’ is generally used with negative connotations, while the very term can have positive implications when used without intentions for personal benefits.
From a Christian perspective, ‘religious compromise’ can mean going against our own feelings, faith, values and beliefs, just for the sake of selfish purposes. While ‘religious accommodation’ can mean making a change or accepting someone because of our faith, values and beliefs. This, I believe, is where we should learn to draw the line – Christian compromise is going against our Christian faith, while Christian accommodation is accepting someone because of our Christian faith.
Some Biblical considerations for our reflection on the discussion at hand:
“Love them (foreigners/outsiders) as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt” (Levitiucs 19:34 and also echoed in other Biblical references as well). We believe that God accommodated us in a world that we had no claim to. This offer could not have been very approving for we were outsiders, capable of defiling what God has created. Yet we were accommodated. Miroslav Volf writes, “Having been embraced by God, we must make space for others and invite them in – even our enemies.” Similarly, Jesus dined and accommodated sinners and tax collectors. This was not just about simply sharing a meal, but his way of identifying with them and making them part of his community. It is indeed possible to accommodate without compromising.
Accommodating anything or anyone who satisfy our conditions and who can give us something in return, is something which every individual or group has been and is doing. However, accommodating anything or anyone beyond boundaries of politics, religion, ideology and socio-economic conditions is how the Church and Christians have stood above and gained reputation.
Accommodating does not mean compromising. However, in accommodating, the temptation of compromising gains prominence. King Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17) was a godly man who took pride in the ways of the Lord. He was notable for bringing about religious reforms by removing idols from the land and sending out teachers to instruct the people in God’s Law. Yet by entering into an alliance with King Ahab, King Jehoshaphat entered into a situation of compromise that almost cost him his life (2 Chronicles 18). If King Jehoshaphat, one of the most godly kings ever to reign in Judah, fell into a compromise of his faith, we are also no different.
I hope in using these Biblical references to draw light on the two terms, I am not accused of Biblical Concordism. Accommodating is a Christian principle and the temptations of compromising in our Christian duty to accommodate demands matured Christian faith. Do we have the maturity to withstand compromise?
Coming back to the topic of BJP visiting our Churches or the presence of BJP as a growing political party in Nagaland, I think this is a concern of accommodating vs. compromising. Once we are clear of our Christian values, I believe we will be able to identify the clear line of distinction between the two. I also believe that the Christians in Nagaland are matured enough to perform our Christian principle of accommodating without compromising our Christian faith.
