By Henry Nawl Thang Bik
___________________________________
1.The Logos (bia) Christology of John from Chin Perspective
1.1. Etymology of the Bia:
- In Chin dialect, the ‘Bia,’ is similar to the Logos in Greek. The dictionary meaning of the ‘Bia’ can be
‘word, speech, speak, talk, conversation,’ [1]
according to Lian H. Sakhong, “It is ‘Thaw or Hu’ (Breathe or Force), which is always ‘in and out.’ And the
source of ‘Thaw or Hu’ is proceeded from the human being itself.”[2]
At the same time, the ‘Bia,’ also
refers to the “Nunnak or Zing (Life), and the Zing is the thing that kept the body and soul
together, but the source of the Zing
was believed to come from the Khua-Zing,[3] Himself who is, in Chin concept, the
Supreme Being, as for John also,
the Word was not merely a principle, but a living Being, who is the source of
life; not merely a personification, but a Person, and that, is a divine Person. Logos is the ‘mind of God,” or “the
expression of the thought of God.”[4] In the
Chin concept without Zing or Nunnak, the Mi or Minung (Person or
People) cannot exist. Therefore the Zing
is very important for the Chin concept.
The literal meaning of Zing is ‘invisible force.’ In other words, Zing is the
vital force or source of life, which includes the vital force of human life and
also the forces of all things[5]:
the force of spirit, the forces of sun and moon, light and darkness, rain and
river, even the forces of time and space. The Chin believed that the source of
Zing itself comes from Khua-zing,[6] who is the Supreme Being. Without zing
there is no life, so, Khua-zing is life itself,[7](the
concept of Khua-zing more detail in
next topic). Therefore, in this research paper, the researcher would like to
demonstrate the ‘Bia’ (Logos
In Greek) is to be understood as the Khua-Zing, who is
invisible Supreme Being, the creator of all and the sources of life, which
includes the vital force of human life and the forces of all things.
2.1.
The Logos in Ceremonies and
Sacrifices: -Preman
Niles states that, “Only two stories are very closely related. They are the
story of the people and the stories of Jesus and only through the involvement
of Christ; the people’s theology comes alive.”[8]
Thus is the theology which the researcher will try to attempt and formulate with
the Chin tribal’s ceremonies and sacrifices. By observing the ceremonies and
sacrifices of the traditional Chin religion, it is right to say that Christ was
active even in the traditional religion because generally, the offerings and
sacrifices in the ceremonies were attributed to Him. Therefore, the involvement
of Christ among the people makes the traditional Chin religion alive.
Gustavo
Gutierrez states, “The action of Christ the Logos
is experienced throughout the history.”[9] In this case, just as God acted in the history, it is also
the same God working in the person of Logos
in the tribal religion of the Chin who was known as Khua-zing, who received all offerings, and sacrifices can also be
identified as the Logos who involved
in the world and the creation. Even
though the traditional Chin religion was based on the worship of Khua-hrum, it was Khua-zing that received all respect and honor in worship, because as
Inato Aye affirms, “The Logos was the
essence of worship” (the Logos
Spermatikos).[10]
True to this, it
is this Logos that had been active
within the Chin traditional religion because finally he becomes the one through
whom Khua-zing acted.[11]
For this argument Wati Longchar asserts, “Tribal religion is basically a
community religion. To be truly human is to belong to the whole community,
including the ancestors and creation, and to involve the active participation
in the beliefs, ceremonies, rituals and festivals of the community.”[12]
At this point it can be affirmed that the Logos
was the main figure in the sacrifices and ceremonies to Khua-zing because he was the action of this Khua-zing. Therefore, it is acceptable to conclude here that the Logos was actively involves in the
ceremonies and sacrifices of the traditional Chin religion but as Renthy Keitzar
affirms, “We must make the people to understand the active involvement of Logos in their culture and religious categories.”[13]
2.2. The Eschatological Logos: -As Lian H. Sakhong,
the Chin scholar, rightly affirms, “The Chin eschatology is mainly discussed
when it is the question of the soul.”[14]
According to traditional Chin religious concept, there are two places for the
human soul in the life after death, namely—Puthikhua
and Sarthi khua. Pulthi-khua is a place for those who died of
natural causes at home. The Sarthi-khua was a place for the souls of
people who had died an accidental death or outside the village or the compound
of their own house. [15] As
it has been mentioned, Sarthi-khua is
a place of suffering and loneliness. They are excommunicated from Minung-khua and Pulthi-khua where every Chin fears to go for their second life.
Because of this
reason, the Chin did not even like to stay in the hospital long enough to
recover from their illness. For the Chin, their main concern was not just
recovery from illness but preparation for life in Mithi-khua. The Chin
wanted to recover at home or die at home. In the Chin context, a matter of life
and death was a matter for the home, not something that should happen outside
the house or in a hospital. No Chin who practiced traditional religion would
leave home during such a critical period as a serious illness. That is the
reason why the Chin did not like to stay at the hospital for any prolonged
period of time. For the Chin, to die outside the home is considered to be a
course. Therefore, during his/her life time, everybody attempts all good works
for the good life of the soul by performing appeasement of sacrifice to the Khua-chia. But later the Chin community
understood that it was not the Khua-chia
(evil spirit), who controls sickness and has authority over the dead soul but the Khua-zing is the one who heals the
sick and guides even the dead soul into a new journey of Mithi-khua. Even though, the Chin community did not understand it
before, the act of Khua-zing was the
same as today.
Therefore
eschatology for the Chin is spiritual and this meaningfully shows that this
spiritual is an issue between Khua-zing
and soul. As Paul Tillich points out, “It is acceptable to use eschatological
symbols that turn us from man to God, thereby considering man in his
significance for the divine life and its eternal glory and blessedness.”[16]
In this case, we affirm that the Logos which
is the act of God, continually acting upon the soul towards a new journey.
And we can also
say that the Logos involves and causes
on account of what a person deserves at the point of the life of the soul,
punishment or good spiritual life to reaching his destination. Thus, it is
viewed that the Logos drives the soul
to its destination of eternity. Hans F. Bayer affirms, “Christ is completely
affirmed by the ‘God of our ancestors,”[17]
he further argues that “Christ shapes eschatology,”[18]
and thus on this basis the Chin concept of the eschatological soul can be affirmed
that it is the Logos that guides the
soul in its eschatological journey.
2.3.The Logos
as the Traditional God:
- Kusuke Koyama, a Japanese theologian, once states, “…..if Origen made use of
the categories of Platonic thought and Aquinas made use of Aristotle, Indian
theologians also must use of the great philosophical insight of the Vedanta.”[19]
If this is true, the tribals have their great resources to make use of
understanding God. For the Chin community, the act of Khua-zing in their traditional religion is an example to understand
God of the Bible.
The
name may be misunderstood or different, it can be right to declare that that
the Logos is the God of traditional
Chin religion whose action is seen in the action of Khua-zing in their traditional religion. Gutierrez often comments
that “God is revealed in history, and it is likewise in history that persons encounter
that Word made flesh………Christ is not a private individual; the bond which links
him to all persons gives him a unique historical role.”[20]
And then the revelation in the tribal religion of this person; the Logos who motivated people to worship
the ‘Khua-zing’ and this ‘Khua-zing’ is revealed by the Logos in the history. Archie C.C. Lee once states, “It is very strange if Christ of
history does not work in the history of Asia…………”[21]
In this case, it will be no mistake to say that the Person Christ acted in the
history of traditional Chin religion as he acts today. If it is not so, the
traditional Chin religion will be so strange and remain insignificant.
As
T. V. Philip quotes, “John Macquarie once points out that ‘the people of Asia
are the people of God,…..their culture and religion express their experience of
God.’”[22]
Yes, it is through the involvement of Khua-zing
in their culture and religion that they express their experience of God. In the
Indian theological articulation Christ as Logos
is described as Cit first propounded by K.C. Sen,[23]
which means ‘intelligence.’ Klaus Klostermaier used Sabda for the Logos,[24]
meaning both the eternal Logos and
the written Sabda of scripture. The case here is that ‘to state the
significance of God in our own meaningful and beautiful way.’ Therefore the Logos can be referred to as the one who
in his own active existence was inherently the essence of the belief in the Khua-zing.
Further
as Takatemjen discerns that “it is necessary for us to welcome the Naga Jesus,”[25]in
relation to this, it has no mistake to quotes which the Chin theologians once
discussed, “It is not a wrong idea to draw a picture of Jesus Christ in the
Chin image and we need to recognize Him as he really is. This Chin Jesus should
look like one of us and be attractive… For He came down to us to be identified
with us.” This is the whole meaning of His incarnation. This is adequate to end
here that the Logos is our
traditional God, who worked actively amongst our ancestors and who is also our
God now in the person of Jesus Christ.
Note: What is posted is one-third of the article. Therefore, the researcher can be requested to post the remaining parts or sections if any reader is interesting.
Restriction: Referring this material without acknowledging the researcher's name may lead you into plagiarism. Hence, it is a must to acknowledge the researcher's name and let him, too, know it if you copy this material.
[1]
J.H. Lorrain, Dictionary of the Lushai
Language (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1975), 513.
[2]
Lian H. Sakhong, In Search of Chin
Identity., 29.
[3]
The spelling of KhuaZing can be different based on various Chin
dialects. While Parry, for instance, spells ‘Khazangpa’ in Lakher
dialect, Carry and Tuck spelled ‘Khozin’ in Lai dialect.
[4]
Jose Maniparampil, Reading the Fourth
Gospel., 130-131.
[5]
Lian H. Sakhong, “The Principles of Traditional Chin Theology,” In Search of
Chin Identity: A Study in Religion, Politics and Ethnic Identity in Burma., 23.
[6]
David Laisum translated Zing as ‘dark or darkness’. However, ‘it is
hardly used in a literal sense’ (1994: 126). His statement, in my view, is both
right and wrong. Depending on various Chin dialects, Zing can be
translated as both darkness and light. In Zophei dialect, Zing is
darkness, but in Lai, especially in the Hakha
area, Zing is morning, which is light. In both senses, Zing is an
invisible force, which gives the source of both light and darkness. Darkness,
therefore, is not the literal meaning of Zing but the symbol of Zing.
[7]
N. E. Parry, The Lakhers (AiZawl:
Tribal Research Institute, reprinted, 1976), 349.
[8]
Preman Niles,
“Introduction to the Orbis Volume of Minjung Theology,” ed. Kim Yong Bock, 2.,
Cf; David Kwang-Sun Suh, “A Theology by Minjung,” Theology by the People: Reflection on Doing Theology in Community, Ed.,
Samual Amirtham and John S, Pobee (Geneva: WCC, 1986), 76.
[9]
Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of
Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation (London: SCM Press Ltd.m.,
1988), 87.
[11]
Desmond Tutu, “Towards A Relevant Theology,” Confronting Life: Theology Out of Context (ed.,) M.P. Joseph
(Delhi: ISPCK, 1995), 155.
[12]
A.
Wati Longchar, The Traditional Tribal
Worldview and Modernity (Jorhat: Limal Lkr, 1995), 6.
[13]
Renthy Keitzar, In Search of Relevant
Gospel Message: Introducing a Contextual Christian Theology for NEI (Guwahati:
CLS, 1995), 24.
[14]
Lian H. Sakhong, In Search of Chin
Identity., 149.
[15]
For the Chin concept, death should take place outside the house. It is thought
to be course by the Khua-hrum.
[16]
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol.
III (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1984), 423.
[17]
Hans
F. Bayer, “Christ-Centred Eschatology in Acts 3: 17-26,” Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical
Jesus and New Testament Christology (ed.,) Joel B. Green & Max Turner (Grand
Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 241.
[18]
Hans F. Bayer, “Christ-Centred Eschatology in Acts 3: 17-26,” Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ: Essays on the
Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (ed.,) Joel B. Green &
Max Turner., 243.
[19]
Kosuke Koyama, “Asian Theology,” The
Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the 20th
Century (ed.,) David F. Ford, Vol. II (Oxford : Blackwell Publishers,
1994), 219.
[20]
Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of
Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation., 115.
[21] Archie.C.C.Lee,
“Biblical Interpretation in the Asia Perspective,” The Asia Journal of Theology (ed.,) K.C.
Abraham, 7/1, April, 1993., 37.
[22] T.V.
Philip, Reflections on Christian Mission
in Asia (Bangalore: ISPCK,
2000), 100.
[23]
R.H.S.
Boyd, Kristadvaita: A Theology for India (Madras: Christian
Literature Society, 1977), 21.
[24]
R.H.S. Boyd, Kristadvaita: A Theology for
India., 21.
[25]
Takatemjen,
Studies on Theology and Naga Culture (Mokokchung:
Author, 1997), 25.
No comments:
Post a Comment