1.1.1.1.Deceiving approach
In
the deceiving approach the Mara did not worship evil spirits through their
sacrificial offerings. In fact deceiving is neither worshipping nor submission
to the spirits. Deceivable beings are lower than human beings in knowledge. In
the Mara concept, the evil spirits were never thought to be superior to human
beings; rather they were inferior and could be out-witted and deceived. J.M. Lloyd
delineates the concept of deceiving in this way,
‘Hens
were killed and the beaks, the entrails and the claws sacrificed on the altar.
The evil spirit assumed that they were being given the hens complete. Whenever
a man was ill a clay model of a woman was made for the evil spirits. Again when
a woman was ill it was a model of a man that was offered. There were other
occasions when evil spirits were deceived. If such a spirit was believed to be
trying to take away a new born baby it was promptly deposited in a neighbour’s
house. The parents would go along to the house pretending it was not their baby
but asking rather, “Have you got a little slave baby that you don’t want?” Ugly
names were also given to children so that the evil spirits would think them undesirable
and would not want to steal them![1]
Viewed
in the light of this approach, it can be advocated that the Mara did not
worship evil spirits as God but rather deceived them in order to have a
wholesome healthy life from their capricious and malignant effects on human
beings.
1.1.1.2.Adversary approach
This
approach sees that the Mara conceptualization of evil spirits as adversaries or
enemies who create in their minds constant fear in the world, who never do any
good to human beings. No adoration was shown and the meat offering to evil
spirits were the worst part which cannot be eaten by human beings. It was not
based on love.
In
the light of this approach, the evil spirits are the main source of injustice,
injury and all kinds of suffering in the world. A destructive rather than a
constructive attitude towards human beings cannot necessarily lead to worship.
How can the Maras worship these adversary spirits? It is therefore, not right
to identify the Mara traditional religion as animism.
2.
Postcolonial
Approaches to Mara Primal Religion
As
has been discussed in the previous section, Mara primal religion was described
as animism. It is therefore, necessary to see the validity of the term in
postcolonial subaltern approaches. When we say postcolonial approaches, the
author may includes–a theistic approach, an unknown god approach, an inclusive
approach, a fulfillment approach and a henotheistic approach. The Mara
religious customs and community worship will be assessed in the light of these
five approaches with the theological hermeneutics in a postcolonial
perspective. However, the author does not claim that the Mara traditional
religion was a completed one without Christianity; rather it had elements to
take as theological hermeneutics for reinterpretations in the light of the
gospel.
2.1.Theistic
approach
This
approach advocates that the Mara traditional religion was theistic; they
worshipped the Supreme Being whom they called ‘Khazohpa’ and never worshipped evil spirits. It is therefore not
right to identify the Mara religion as animism. Nevertheless, no one paid any
attention to these subaltern voices at the time of the colonial regime because
they dared not challenge the missionaries. The Mara religion is not a sacrifice
to evil spirits; rather it is a worship and submission of the family to Khazohpa (God), who is the creator,
guardian and dispenser of blessing to human beings. It is not obligatory to do
this religious worship every year, although there are certain times to do so.
A
critical survey of the Mara religious practices and ceremonies from the
beginning to the end and community worship shows that there was worship of Khazohpa
(God). Therefore, it is a valid fact that the Maras worshipped Khazohpa (God).
However, it was not a perfect understanding but a vague understanding, which
was far from perfect in the light of the gospel.
The
colonial mission did not recognize that the concept of a Supreme Being had
already been in existence among the Maras and did not incorporate it into
theological hermeneutics.
This
fact may be the proof of the worship of God by the Maras. In the light of
postcolonial criticism, this theistic approach retrieves and rediscovers what
had been lost in the Mara traditional religion and it highlights hermeneutical
issues for reinterpretation. As a matter of fact, the writings of the western
colonial officers and missionaries are challenged and corrected, and a close
connection between a Supreme Being (God) and human beings in the Mara primal
religion is reclaimed despite its deficiencies. However, it does not deny the
existence of many kinds of sacrifices to evil spirits. It recognizes such
practices but does not accept them as worship.
No comments:
Post a Comment