Never compromise on core matters of faith.
To some, that statement is so obvious as to be unremarkable. To others, any suggestion of a refusal to compromise is the first step to intractable division.
However, the focus of the statement ought to be less on refusing to compromise and more on what qualifies as a matter of faith. True core matters of faith cannot be compromised. When they are compromised, they are no longer core matters of faith.
For many people, faith plays a role in almost everything they do. Faith may not determine every decision a faithful person makes, but a little extra recognition of the Almighty never hurts.
For example, physics tends to be much more important than faith in how we drive our cars. Nonetheless, invoking St. Christopher in prayer before a long trip never hurts.
Faith may merely reflect the notion that there is something far more powerful than us. Indeed, that simple thought may fundamentally define some of us in a very deep and profound way.
Compromising faith would literally compromise who we are. The act of compromise would, at least temporarily, change who we are.
In a religiously plural society, people of all different faiths or of no faith at all must and should work together. My faith matters to me, and your faith matters to you. Usually, my faith should not matter to you, and your faith should not matter to me. However, on occasion, we must manage our different and sometimes clashing belief systems.
When our faiths conflict to the point that we cannot do our best work together, we have an issue. First, we ought to consider whether our beliefs and faiths really conflict in such a way as to make our arrangement problematic. However, if our deeply held beliefs continue to conflict, we probably ought to resist the urge to compromise.
Yes, we ought to continue to talk, but we ought to resist the urge to compromise on our beliefs.
To be clear, if the conflict is a true conflict of faith, rather than a conflict of mere faith-based preferences or desires, compromise is likely not an appropriate option. Indeed, the request that either or both sides compromise on their faith is itself arguably inappropriate. The appropriate solution may be for the two parties to no longer work together until the faith conflict can be resolved in a fashion that does not involve the compromise of faith.
Some would view the inability of the two parties to work together as a failure. I do not. First, issues of true conflicts of faith ought to be pretty rare. I have seen too much good work done by people of different faiths working together to believe that conflicts of faith will be common.
Second, I am much more concerned about a society that values the compromise of deeply held beliefs more than the defense of those same beliefs.
I am a firm believer in compromise. However, we can take compromise too far.
I have a cartoon on my office door that involves a "negotiation" between a crocodile and the zebra the crocodile wants to eat. The negotiator suggests that the zebra give the crocodile a hand. When the zebra realizes that the negotiator wants the zebra to literally give the crocodile one of his limbs — the negotiator notes that the zebra has multiple limbs — the zebra declines, noting that giving up a hand is not a compromise for him. Not surprisingly, the zebra realized that losing a piece of himself in a compromise is not negotiable.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement