Sashi Jamir
Prelude
“Where are our Naga churches?” “Why are our churches so silent to the suffering of the people?” Aren’t we supposed to act justly and show mercy to our neighboring brothers and sisters who are victims of unknown reasons?” “Are our churches merely concern about the extension of the church building?” These were some questions that were raised by some profoundly anguished and touched students of Oriental Theological Seminary as they reflect on the recent suffering and pain borne by the Karbi and Dimasa ethnic people. The visit by the ABF/OTS team on 22nd and 23rd of October, 2005 to the relief camps in Diphu which was caused by the current conflict between UPDS and DHD gave the opportunity to many students as well as the teachers to recommit their lives and visions align with that of our master Jesus Christ. These questions that were raised by the students are some serious questions and it requires serious reflection on the part of the Naga churches. A time has come for the Naga churches to re-think and re-orient our understanding of church.
Mapping the Problem
Apparently Nagas understand “church” as either the building in which they meet, or the denomination to which they belong. We have reduced the understanding of church and its services to a merely theatre audience, where one or several paid actors act on the stage while everybody else is looking on. To go to the church for many Nagas means to go to a big house filled with thousands of people and sit, perhaps, with sleepy eyes for one hour and return home. Many a times Nagas go to church just to go through the motion of singing, offering tithes, praying, and preaching.
Church for the Nagas has become an exclusive place for some elite group of people. The elite group consists of all the people who are not alcoholics, drug addicts and poor (those who have no money to buy some decent clothes to enter the church!). Just imagine the recent church—colossal and beautiful—built by Dimapur Ao Baptist Arogo (DABA). If there is any qualm about this massive church then it is the intention behind building this church. The church was built to accommodate more people and, therefore, today it can hold some five thousand to six thousand people. But now the serious question is; how will it accommodate those fifteen to sixteen thousand Aos living in Dimapur!? Does it have any concern for those unchurch people? This is not just being skeptic about our church rather this question comes with deep concern of our understanding of “Church.” No doubt, for many Nagas, we have a cheap understanding of Church. We have condensed the church to a Sunday activity, a non-relational gathering, gathering of people without any proper intention and conviction. As a result of this, our churches are cold, superficial and perhaps a place for catharsis where we ventilate our guilts that are collected during the six days of a week.
However, a time is coming when our Naga churches cannot survive with such cheap understanding of the meaning of church. For long Naga churches have domesticated the hungry and restless minds of the Naga people. However, there are many young married couples who are beginning to ask why they have to give tithes and offering, there are many young people moving from one church to another in search of the missing element in their lives. These are not just signs of another shallow and illiterate people screaming and demanding logical reasons for theirs acts. But these are profound queries bubbling out of people’s mind and heart who are craving to have meaningful reasons in things that they engaged. Little wonder it is time for the Naga churches to re-think and re-orient our concept of Church.
A Response to the Problem
Acts 2:42:47 provide us with a glimpse of how the early biblical church was and how we today’s church should be: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers…All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
Let us first clarify the word “Church.” Church does not simply mean the church building or the denomination to which we belong. In fact, the most important meaning of the word “church” means “people of God.” Therefore church means “you” and “I” who are the people of God. If church means “you” and “I”, and if “you” and “I” are the people of God, then our fellowship should be relational. In other words, church should be a place where we should be able to share our joys, sorrows with one another. It should be a place where we can build intimate relationship. This relational intimacy is vividly portrayed in the early biblical church.
Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish Christian thinker purports that the church is not a limited company whose members are accountable to one another only to a certain degree. Certainly church is not limited to merely asking question like, how are you? Or make such an action packed sentence, “Jesus loves you” to a mere cliché. In fact, we never get to the bottom of our selves on our own. We discover who we are face to face and side by side with others in work, love, and learning. A church should be relational accommodating people from all walks of lives—old, adult, young, children, addicts, alcoholics, and poor. Their relationship should transcend the superficial greetings and involved in sharing one another’s problem. A church should be a place where we find ourselves not independent of other people and institutions. This is not trying to spiritualize the understanding of church. But this is what the first century Christian churches practiced and today if the church wants to fill the void of many young people who are wandering to fill the vacuum in their lives then this has to be considered imperatively. Our churches cannot afford to miss this element.
There are many addicts, alcoholics, poor and HIV patients in Nagaland. If Nagaland is statistically 95% Christian then the addicts, alcoholics, poor and HIV patients must be members of the Naga Churches. However, these sections of people in our Naga society are considered as the down caste, lowly and lesser human. What is the response of our churches to these people? Church should exist for the sick and suffering of the society (Matt. 9: 12-13). At least in terms of legislating Nagaland as a dry state by the Nagaland churches, it has been successful though it cannot be said equally in terms of its execution. As usual the law and governing body is there to be blamed for the inability of the law to carry out. However, here the church has to acknowledge her failure. Alcohol, drugs and any abusive substances are in itself not sin or things that produce sin. Usually people fall into this vicious trap only out of curiosity or frustration. Missing out the in-depth relational aspect of the church actually paralysis the only powerful tool to fight against such a mighty phenomenon. Because being committed to have a relationship with our fellow Christians means, “you become my responsibility and I become yours.” In other words, it means such a responsibility to become to each other what Christ is to us.
Once our churches are rooted in such a relational foundation then the understanding that the better off should necessarily help those who does not have anything becomes the mandate (1 Tim. 5: 16). In fact our God does not want empty sacrifices but wants justice, love and mercy (Micah 6: 8). Naga churches should actively get involved in such work not to show off of our richness or power but because that is what God wants and therefore, this is what our theology should be. To make our theology real and immanent we need to see Jesus in our “neighbor’s” eyes. Once we see Jesus in our neighbor’s eyes we will empathize with the sufferings, marginalized, and victims of unknown reasons. Many young couples will not hesitate to give tithes and offerings to the church. Our Naga churches have a role to play and that is to make her members see Jesus in one another and beyond.
Perhaps the sort of Church that I am talking is not possible in such existing mega churches but in a small church where people actually gather with intention and conviction to know Christ and to strictly live out the teaching of Christ in praxis. This is the imperative need in our context rather than having massive churches with people gathering without any proper intention and conviction whatsoever. If needed and if we are serious about having a relational church we should not hesitate to split our churches into smaller churches! This is not heresy but this is a quest to find meaning in our worship. Splitting our churches into smaller unit does not mean having enmity with one another. Rather it is a serious attempt to practically follow the teachings of Christ. Of course, having smaller churches do not necessarily mean having acquired relationship among the member of the churches. Even if we split the big churches into smaller churches and continue to have the understanding of church as a massive non-relational building then it is not a remedy but chaos. This is because we still need to have right intention and proper conviction in order to have relational churches. However, splitting the churches into smaller units would certainly give the impetus to create the right environment for a relational church. Let us remind once again that our Naga churches must transcend our understanding of church from that of a building, denomination and non-relational to that of Church as people of God, relational that demonstrates our commitment to Christ and displays love, mercy and justice.
The writer is a Lecturer in OTS in Old Testament
