critical55

Unconsciously or consciously, Luther’s ‘two-kingdoms’ theory, developed from Augustine’s idea of ‘two cities’, was adopted and has become a lasting, dominant social theology since the time of Christian missionaries till today. While this is a social political necessity, many Christians neither see the need nor make efforts to bring Christian values to bear upon the social system. They lived with a dichotomistic view of reality.

While the imported theology, to a certain extent, is responsible for the orientation of the Mara Christians towards other worldliness, we have also to look into the history of Mara Christianity itself. It is quite probable that the hardship and frustration of the early Christians in Maraland resulted in other worldliness. It is interesting to note how the traditional celebration of life turned out to be a longing for eschatological celebration. For example, the Mara communitarian society celebrated life together not only in the many festivals but also in their daily work and leisure time. When they were converted to Christianity, they gave up drinking rice beer, abstained from participation in the festivals and became a lonely, isolated, marginalised minority group. When the revival movement came, the frustration and hardship turned into a hope for greater and everlasting celebration in heaven. The gift of the Holy Spirit was perceived as a foretaste of a celebration to come, accordingly heaven was perceived as a place of endless congregation and celebration.[1] The problem with this hope is its ‘other worldliness’ a consequent mystification of life’s problems and escapism from life struggle among a common people. The hope of heaven has to a certain extent, made them irresponsible and escapists avoiding struggle for the better society.

The understanding of God-human-world as belonging to one community helps the Mara Christians to rediscover a holistic concept of reality from their tradition. Such a concept would be in contrast to the dominant theology in Maraland, with its sharp distinction between secular and religious. It would provide a theological basis to inspire and orient the churches towards a social involvement to bring about social change. A holistic concept of reality emphasises the inter-relatedness of all things, against dualism. The significance for social transformation is primarily a theological re-orientation of the churches to be more realistic and subsequently be inclusive in their mission. A holistic concept of reality is a call to Mara Christians to be more inclusive and balanced in their theological articulation and actual mission and evangelism work.

This would lead the Mara Christians to broaden the circle of salvation, from salvation of individual souls for life after death to an understanding of cosmic salvation – the total salvation of human beings with their body, soul, spirit, society and all other creatures as well, here and now and in the future. Along this line, Gustavo Gutierrez has written, ‘Salvation is not something other worldly, in regard to which the present life is merely a test. Salvation is something which embraces all human reality; transform it to its fullness in Christ’.[2] Paulos Mar Gregorios said that human redemption can be understood only as an integral part of the redemption of the whole creation.[3] Accordingly, history will be regarded as ‘one’. There is no separate history of salvation and profane history. There is only one human destiny, irreversibly assumed by Christ, the Lord of history. The idea of singular history rejects the monopoly of the historical process by the privileged group of society, putting the vast majority of the people on the underside of history. The concern of Christian mission for the Mara church also has to be broadened from conversion for saving souls to include liberation of the total human being, society and nature from the bondage of sin. Above all, it implies reconstruction of the Mara theology of mission in order to re-orient the Mara churches towards a holistic approach in mission and evangelism.

2.      Significance for Eco-Theology of Mission

The Mara concept of ‘God-human-world relationship’ is making a significant contribution to the emerging ecological theology. In the Mara concept of this relationship there is no place for an arrogant approach to nature, to treat land and its creatures as mere object of human use. The land and all creatures are sacred, a holy temple, the self expression of God and above all it is part of their lives. Nirmal Minz, an Indian Tribal theologian rightly observed,

Tribal life is based and built upon a vision of human existence in which they are aware that land, forest and the country they occupy are the gifts of God. Therefore man, nature, spirits continue as the basic texture of existence, as what makes man truly human. Balance and harmony of man-nature-spirits are essential for man to continue to remain human. Any imbalance between and among these initiates a dehumanising process and hence this harmony has to be protected and promoted from generation to generation.[4]

Seeing the urgency of the environmental crisis, it is important to rediscover and revitalise the traditional Mara concept of God-human-world relationship and utilise it as a theological basis for the liberation of life as a whole. Since the issue of land is so fundamental in the Mara life, we will first deal with the Mara traditional concept of land.

2.1.The Mara traditional concept of Land

2.1.1.      Land is a temple

Land, for the Maras is sacred because their religion does not centre on a temple or a church or a particular shrine, but the whole earth is sacred and holy, animated by spirits. For them the whole earth is a temple where they worship God. The Maras performed several ceremonies such as purification of forest at the beginning of a jungle clearing, purification of soil after burning of the jhums, dedication of fields to the Supreme Being, thanksgiving and harvest festivals. Here most of the ceremonies are directed by the process of jhum cultivation, and therefore directly connected with the fields. Since the Mara life depends heavily upon the fertility of the soil, they developed respect for the earth. They invoke the soil to be kind, fertile and generous as they work and sow seeds on it. A religious rite was performed to the Supreme Being that the soil may become more fertile and fruitful. As the activities of the sacrifice were taking place on the ground, the earth for the Mara people is a temple, the dwelling place of God.

2.1.2.      Land is Life

For the Mara people, land is a living entity endowed with spirits. Because of this concept of land, Maras were described by the missionaries as animists. From the Mara perspective, this attitude expresses recognition of the value, power and validity of the land. Land for them is sacred, a temple in which they worship God. In a non-literate society, land is their scripture through which they read about the spirits and God and create myths and songs. For the Mara people, land is life and no land would mean no life. It is in the light of this that we are able to gauge the depth of degradation and deprivation in the tribal people’s experience in the face of growing land-alienation in India and in Myanmar in the name of development. For a people who experience God in and through their relationship with the land, theology cannot make light of this legitimate yearning.[5]

2.1.3.      Community Ownership of Land

The tribal theology of land regards community as the only legitimate custodian of the land, because land is the gift of God. ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein’ (Ps. 24:1).[6] The exclusive ownership by God implies for the Mara people that land equally belongs to all with equal rights and the freedom to live in it, and that no human being can claim it exclusively for themselves nor can they sell it as though, it is their own property. So even though the people own land, they do so only within the greater recognition that all land belongs to God. People’s perception of land as the gift of and owned by God is the basis of the community’s claim of a legitimate ownership of land, because God is the God of the people. The resources of the earth are for the benefit of all. Private ownership may be an appropriate way of administering those resources for certain cultures, but private ownership means stewardship or trusteeship, not the right to exploit the land and deprive others of access to land. Private ownership has to be subordinate to common use.[7]

The major problem with the Mara people today is that, as a result of frustration with the existing system, there has been a dangerous transition from constructive to destructive dependence on forests. The fundamental problem is that the government officials who, living in a distant place and having no knowledge and love of the land of the village are controlling the land from their office table. The village council, mediator between the people and the government is a political body which has become a destructive instrument, for it is no longer accountable to the community but to government. In the context of these problems, the following elements seems essential in the process of social transformation – community ownership, recognition of land as the people’s place and their life and the recognition that land rights are human rights.

Theological affirmation of community ownership is made here not merely because it is a traditional practice of the Mara people. It is rather, an attempt to restore the sense of communal ownership and to protect people from further alienation and exploitation.

2.1.4.      Land is a place

Land is not merely a space; it is a place which gives identity to the community. ‘Space’ means an arena of freedom, without coercion or accountability, free of pressures and void of authority, freedom from constraint and absence of responsibility. ‘Place’ by contrast, connotes ‘home’ and is bound up with a sense of belonging, a story which conveys an identity, a basis for participating in history.[8] As noted earlier, the Maras until recently identified themselves with their village. A Mara stranger, rather than telling his/her name tells the name of the village. Since the land holds the community together, there is no genuine community without communal ownership of land. Since the community owns the land, individual personal identity is subordinated to community identity. But as we have seen, a change of land system shattered the tribal sense of belonging and eventually created identity crisis. Alienation of the tribal land means alienation of their culture, personhood and sense of place.

2.2.Significance for Eco-theology from Mara Perspective

It was observed that the Mara society is in the initial stage of transition from a subsistence economy to a market economy. It is evident that it is a difficult process for the Mara community to switch over to a market economy since they have to compete with those who have been living with a market economy for more than a century. While this transition is an imperative result of development, it is currently worsening the position of the villagers and the common people, which directly relates to the loss of easy access to their land, and this, requires serious reconsideration of the land system in Maraland. It is quite evident from the villagers and common people in the towns that much of the land traditionally owned by the community has been transferred to individual property. Many of the land owners are not members of the community; they are living in the city or towns. The gradual process of latifundialization in Mizoram began with Indian independence, when community land was transferred to the government, then was intensified with the dawn of development, particularly with the introduction of the New Land Use Policy in 1990.[9]

The lands which were owned by the community and freely used by all members of the community have now passed into the hands of the rich and the privileged people. The common people have become landless, victimised by the new land system and life has become harder and harder for them. Because of this system people began to lose their sense of belonging to the land and developed dependent and destructive uses of the land. Land which was traditionally never been regarded as a commodity is increasingly treated as a private property which can be owned by legal fiction and used as one likes.

To meet this challenge, the traditional concept of land must be theologically rediscovered and reclaimed to make the local community responsible for their land. Theology certainly does not provide an alternative system of land tenure but may enlighten the people to evaluate critically and challenge the existing system. It is also important to understand that the root cause of the present systems and practices in the Mara society is the modern mindset that spawned and rationalised the existing system. While legal reform is important and necessary, it is not the whole solution to the problems. In a region where Christians form 86% of population, a Christian theology of mission has an important role to enlighten, orient, inspire and enable the people to understand, challenge and seek appropriate changes to the system.

The Mara church needs to reflect on how far it has helped in perpetuating social and ecological injustice in the contemporary society. It must challenge the sinful greed that has led to wanton exploitation of earth’s resources and pollution of its land, water and air. The liberating message of Jesus Christ is not restricted to human beings alone, but to all God’s creation, for God is present in the whole world. As Jurgen Moltmann affirms:

An ecological doctrine of creation implies a new kind of thinking about God. The centre of this thinking is no longer the distinction between God and the world. The centre is the recognition of the presence of God in the world and the presence of the world in God.[10]

This calls for a new sensitivity in our relationship as human beings to the rest of creation. We are not only intricately related to the other elements of creation, but we are profoundly dependent on them for survival. Every creature is in community with every other creature. Our concept of stewardship of the earth must help us move away from our sense of owning the earth and doing with it as we please. Instead, we Christians are called to be brothers and sisters of nature since we are united to the nature in our origin from the same mother earth as well as the same father God.

At this juncture, a rediscovery of the inter-relatedness of the whole creation or creation-centred theology from the Mara perspective is imperative. As already mentioned above, the land or creation occupies a very centre place in the Mara world view. Their ethics, religion, culture, politics, identity and other social patterns of the people are perceived in relation to creation or land. Poverty, oppression, ethnic conflict and identity issues cannot be understood without creation. Justice to land or creation is the key to liberation and human dignity. Commitment and dedication to the harmony of creation spring forth in love, care and acceptance. When there is justice in the land, the fields and forests and every living things will dance and sing for joy (Ps. 96:11-12). Thus an awareness of being with one with the whole creation is the spiritual foundation of the Mara people. By affirmation of the creation as the central point of reference in Mara Christian theology, we conceive our vision of God-world-human relationship in a new and distinct way.

Firstly, the Maras conceive of God as the one who is organically related to the whole creation. Though God is a distinct and transcendental being, yet God is an integral part of creation. Without the land and creation, God ceases to be God and becomes inactive. This idea rules out a conception of God as monarch who ruled the world from above imposing his divine laws. But God is immanent in the world that comes and drinks, speaks and is revealed to us as a person and even through animals, trees, wind and so forth. This helps the Maras to affirm God’s creativity, his active involvement in the whole earth, but is not limited to a rational being alone. Since God is an integral part of creation, God suffers pain when creation suffers, because the Maras conceive of God as one who comes out from the soil not from above.

Moreover, the land belongs to God, the creator and humans are simply the stewards. Hence the ownership of land by the community or individual has to be understood within the greater recognition that the land belongs to the Supreme Being. Thus the land equally belongs to all with equal rights and freedom to live in it and should be shared among the members of the community. Sharing of the ecosystem should be at all levels: at the level of a local community, among the states of the same country or even among different countries. The Maras’ eagerness to share is noteworthy, especially in the context of what we are trying to emphasize. Mathew George writes:

The most beautiful tribal virtue is an eagerness to share. Whatever can be spared is to be shared. In traditional tribal society, the season of abundance is the season after harvest. There is no shortage of generosity during this period. The feasts and celebrations of this season are indicative of the eagerness of the individual to share with the community whatever he has in surplus or whatever he thinks he has in surplus.[11]

The Mara approach to land economy based on highly egalitarian principles can be of immense help in the Mara Church’s attempt to usher in the kingdom of God based on justice and equality.

Secondly, this understanding of God leads the people to conceive of Christ in a new and distinct way. Christ is no longer conceived as the one who works only in the hearts of the believers. But humans are all challenged to see Christ as the incarnate one, who is organically related to the total ecosystem. Jesus shares his being with the whole created order. Since Jesus Christ is an integral part of creation, all parts of creation are now reconciled to Christ. The incarnation of God in Jesus represents God’s entry into finite space. It marks the consecration of all the hope for a land of peace, security and plenty.[12] For the Maras, the whole land is sacred and holy; it is a temple where they worship the Lord of creation Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, this understanding also helps the Maras to conceive of the work of the Holy Spirit in a wider perspective. The Holy Spirit is understood as the one who works not only in the hearts of believers, but also sustains all creation. It is the Spirit who makes all living possible and dynamic. The Spirit works in every life and inspires everything including land, animals and plants in a different ways. Therefore, there are strong grounds for saying that it is the Spirit that is responsible for the interconnectedness of the ecosystem. John V. Taylor, in particular, in describing the Spirit as the ‘Go-Between God’[13] has opened up a whole new avenue for missiological exploration. Though the Supreme Being and Spirit are understood as the creators and sustainers of all living things, they are also perceived, though distinct, as part of the total ecosystem.

Fourthly, this land or creation-centred theology challenges the Maras to revise our understanding of salvation. Since the Supreme Being is seen in creation and human as an integral part of it, we are able to affirm that human attains redemption only in relation to the rest of creation. Together with God, Spirit and the mother earth, we are redeemed. This idea of redemption further leads us to conceive of salvation as a reality which can be experienced authentically here and now. A redeemed person is the one who lives in harmony not only with fellow beings, but also with the mother earth, God and spirit. This affirmation rules out the narrow understanding of salvation in terms of personal salvation.

Fifthly, The Maras perceive humanity as an integral part of the macro-organism. Humanity relates to creation not in a hierarchical sense, but as family members. The relationship is rather understood as circular. In a circle, there is no beginning or end, all are interrelated and all in the circle are equal value. In this circle, human lose the status of primacy and dominion over other creatures. All mutually share and affect each other. The possession of intellectual faculty does not give human the right to dominate others. However, this does not mean that in the Mara world view, humans, animals and plants are the same, humans have a unique place and role to play. Humanity possesses a special ethical quality.

Finally, for the Maras, the land is life. The land is the source of our origin and identity. It is a place and symbol of unity which gives identity to the community. If there is no land, there is no community, personhood and identity. The land is also sacred and people observe earth’s day to pay respect to the land. Humanity has no moral right to treat the land as a mere object to be used and exploited. A creation-centred theology demands a radical change in our attitude and use of the land and resources. The land cannot be commercialized. The Maras believe that a person cannot become wealthy by selling the land. People often compare the land with a bird.[14] If one forcibly takes the land from others through unjust means, it will fly away within one or two generations. It is said that the land cries out if it is placed in the hands of greedy people. Moreover, the land does not belong to one generation alone, but belongs to future generations also. Therefore, the present generation does not have the right to commercialize, exploit and abuse it. It is the moral right and duty of every person to take care of, defend, preserve and protect the land for the future generations.

Since the whole earth is God’s body, the use of the land and resources becomes an ecological sacrament for the Maras. A.P. Nirmal, an Indian theologian recaptures the theological meaning of the aspect when he writes:

If the whole world is God’s body; and if God offers us His/Her body and blood, then the use of the world’s resources becomes an ecological sacrament for us. As we eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord reverently and not greedily, so also the world’s resources must be share reverently and without selfish greed. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a fellowship meal and has a community setting. What a tremendous ecological implications this has, if we are to conceive of different eco-systems having a fellowship meal in God’s oikos.[15]

Therefore, the centrality of land or creation in understanding the reality and its inter-dependentness cannot be ignored if Christian theology is to make sense and be meaningful, especially to the Mara community.

3.      Significance for Mara Feminist Theology

The non-hierarchical structure of the community of God-human-world is meaningful for feminist theology in the struggle against the Mara social structure dominated by men. As in many other communities, the relationship of men and women in the Mara traditional society is certainly not an equal partnership. The weakness of Mara traditional society lies in the relationship of men and women in which women are regarded as subordinate to men, and have been oppressed and deprived of opportunities. This should have been transformed by the power of the Gospel when the Maras embraced Christianity, but the relationship seems to have basically remained unchanged. However, this is certainly not a denial of the Mara communitarian life as a whole, the author will attempt to examine the relationship between men and women in order to rectify and transform the Mara communitarian society to make it more effective. In this effort, the concept of ‘co-humanity’ is used as the vision and criteria of the Mara community.

The concept of co-humanity is used here to express the relationship of men and women in which equal partnership is regarded as the fundamental nature of human relationship. According to the biblical creation story, God did not want man to be alone and said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’.[16] Here we notice that God’s intention in his creation is that man and woman should be together, but opinion differed in the perception and practice of partnership. The phrase ‘helper fit for him’ has been used to justify subordination of women. The English term ‘helper’ connotes the role of servant or of the superior. However, the Hebrew word ‘ezer/ozer’ which is inaccurately translated in English as ‘helper’ is consistently used in the Old Testament for Yahweh who is a helper par excellence.[17] This means the word ‘helper’ does not denote subordination, for Yahweh is never subordinate to the people of Israel.

---

[1] This hypothesis is supported by many songs and hymns composed by the Mizo Christians in the early period.

[2] Gustavo Gutierrez, Theology of Liberation, History, Politics and Salvation (London: SCM Press, 1974, reprinted; London: SCM Press, 2001), 151.

[3] Paulos Mar Gregorios, ‘New Testament Foundations for Understanding of the Creation’ in Charles Birch, Liberating Life, 39.

[4] Nirmal Minz, ‘Primal Religion’s Perspective on Ecology’ in Daniel D. Chetti, ed., Ecology and Development (Madras: Gurukul Theological College and Research Institute, 1991), 49.

[5] Mathew George, ‘Sources of Tribal Theology’ in Mission Today, Vol. IV, Oct- Dec, 2002, 290-300.

[6] Geoffrey R. Lilburne, A Sense of Place: A Christian Theology of the Land (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 3, quoted in A. Wati Longchar, Tribal Theology: Issue, Method and Perspective (Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre, 2000). Hereafter cited as ‘Lilburne, Theology of the Land’.

[7] Leonard Weber, ‘Land Use Ethics: The Social Responsibility of Ownership’ in Bernard F. Evans and Gregory D. Cusack eds., Theology of the Land (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1987), 30.

[8] Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 5.

[9] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community, 189.

[10] Jurgen Moltmann, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation (London: SCM Press, 1985), 13.

[11] Mathew George ‘Sources of Tribal Theology’ in Mission Today Vol. IV, Oct- Dec, 2000, (Shillong: Vendrame Institute), 290-300.

[12] Lilburne, Theology of the Land, 105.

[13] John V. Taylor, The Go-Between God: The Holy Spirit and the Christian Mission (London: SCM, 1972).

[14] A. Wati Longchar, Tribal Theology: Issue, Method and Perspective, (Jorhat: Eastern Theological College, 2000), 81. Hereafter cited as ‘Wati Longchar, Tribal Theology’.

[15] A.P. Nirmal, ‘Ecology, Ecumenic & Economic in Relation: A New Theological Paradigm’ in Ecology and Development: Theological Perspective, 24, quoted in A. Wait Longchar, Tribal Theology, 91-92.

[16] Genesis 2:18

[17] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community, 193.