Contemporary Context
With reference to the above post-colonial period, theological development of the late 20th century triggered some discussion in terms of engaging with tribal traditional religion and indigenous culture (see Wilson 1982:323-332).
Tribal theological scholars attempted to liberate the religious system from colonial captivity; it was also done by engaging with the contemporary socio-political concerns of the tribals (Shimray 2003). However, such theological discourse was limited in academia and within a particular school of thought (i.e., those with ecumenical or liberal pursuits). It did not receive the desired impact in the dominant religious setting or ecclesial setting of the indigenous community (i.e., those with conservative pursuit). This resulted in an apparent gap between what is taught and discussed in academia and what is preached and practised in the church or religious institutions.This seems inevitable. Though Tangkhuls are all Christians, the institution of church or the leader of the church tends to be more conservative. On the other hand, Tangkhul Christians, who are in the academy, tend to be more open minded or liberal in their theological discourse. Consequently, when tribal theological scholars critiqued the presence of colonial influence in the church, it made the adherents and policy makers of religious institutes/church uncomfortable. Instead of embracing the input of contextual theological discussion, they deemed such discussion a ‘compromise and syncretism’ of tribal traditional religion and culture with Christian beliefs (Keitzar 2003:21). However, what the religious institutes/churches failed to recognise is that all along, they have uncritically adopted beliefs and practices that are colonial in nature - and not necessarily Christian orthodoxy per se22. And, they also adopted beliefs and practices that are of tribal traditional religion in origin.
This is the colonial difference.If that is the case, their dismissal of constructive engagement with the context and tribal traditional religion is built on shaky ground. In light of this reality, there is a need to reconsider and reread colonial text, such as Bible and Bible translation, hymns, church documents, church history, etc. There is also the need to reconsider and reread socio-religious values that have come to be a part of Tangkhul culture - values that are indigenous and colonial, but not necessarily biblical in nature or origin (e.g., denominational biases).
When talking about the adoption of colonial values, the heart of colonial captivity emerges from the understanding that what they brought is better than what the indigenous community had. Pertinent to the current discussion, they brought the understanding that they have a high view of God or religion. While that is not explicitly stated, it is evident in their dismissal of tribal traditional religion as a worshiping of the evil spirit, and in their use of derogatory words when referring to tribals and their religion. Initially, it helped the colonials market their religious concerns i.e., Tangkhul Nagas became Christians with the arrival of the colonials. However, their presence and continuing influence planted the understanding that everything that comes from them is good or beneficial for the indigenous society. In doing so, it implicitly planted the seed to be critical of tasks - whether theological or anthropological - that deals with tribal traditional religion. While they are critical of indigenous values, they continue to uncritically embrace colonial values - even in the contemporary context. For example, they have comfortably embraced hymn singing and playing of musical instruments during religious events, though such practices are very much a part of Western culture23. But in doing so, Tangkhuls have neglected their traditional musical instruments (like tingteila,sipa, talla, etc.) and folksongs, hao laa.
Concerning the adaptation of tribal traditional religion, the indigenous community has brought in the patriarchal system of the contemporary socio-religious structure. Like the hangva (village council) is made up of men, the role and responsibility of sharva (priest) is limited only to men. Such gender dominance is directly adapted in the contemporary context in the form of male dominated religious leaders. It means that the policy making and the role of priest-pastor is given mostly to men. Backed by patriarchal thinking, Tangkhul Nagas are still hesitant to give equal opportunity to women in religious leadership i.e., there is no gender equality in the area of church leadership. In terms of praxis, such Tangkhul socio-religious reality comes from the perceived notion that men are better than women i.e., men pastors are preferred over women pastors. To suggest that Tangkhul Nagas have adapted socio-religious thinking and practices of the pre-colonial indigenous community confronts the tendency of the religious institutions/church to dismiss tribal traditional religion at the surface level.
12.4