The “Rooster of God” and other symbolisms in Tribal Theology in India

The use of cultural symbols in Tribal Theology, a contextual theology in India, shares the story of the tribal quest to synthesize the Christian message in the culture and to allow it to speak to their life situations.

“Behold the Rooster of God who takes away the sins of the world,” wrote Renthy Keitzar, a Protestant tribal theologian from Northeast India. This translation of John 1:29 forms part of Keitzar’s attempt to theologize the Christian message in the tribal culture in India. The term “tribe/tribal” is a generic word used in India to refer to several people groups, whose traditional location in the Indian society falls outside the caste system. Thus, they are the “other” in the caste-dominated Indian society. Its etymological origin can be traced back to the British colonial period, when the word “tribe” was used to refer to “primitive” people. The two understandings form the basis for the treatment of the tribals in independent India, where they are considered the “primitive other”. The Census of India (2021) listed 705 ethnic groups as Scheduled Tribes in India. The expositions of liberative themes and cultural values and practices by theologians of tribal heritage, known as Tribal Theology, contribute significantly to the tribal advocacy movement in India.

Tribal Theology is part of a wider Asian theological ferment that emerged in the later part of the twentieth century. Drawing inspiration from Liberation Theology in Latin America, Asian contextual theologies sought to address the experiences of injustice in society in various forms: Minjung Theology in Korea addresses the experience of powerlessness of the common people; Dalit Theology in India addresses the denial of basic human dignity; and Tribal Theology addresses the experiences of alienation and marginalization.

In this article, I will show how Tribal Theology as a contextual theology in India uses cultural symbols to appropriate the Christian faith, and how the use of the symbols (through the choice of vocabularies and metaphors, the analytical approach, and so on) is itself symbolic of the hermeneutical location of the interpreter. The discussion will be approached by identifying several overlapping phases of hermeneutical orientations and their corresponding approaches to theological symbolism. I will draw on Stephen Bevans’ Models of Contextual Theology (1992) – translation, anthropological, praxis, and synthesis – to outline an analytical framework for the discussion.

Cultural images, metaphors, and translating the message

The first phase involves a translation model of contextual theology and the use of images and metaphors of the host culture to explain the Christian message. A case in point is Keitzar’s rooster symbolism. Among Keitzar’s Ao Naga tribe in Northeast India, the rooster is an important animal in the traditional sacrificial rituals. In some instances, a rooster is sacrificed to appease the spirits, while in others it is released into the wild as a substitute for one or more persons, as the rooster is believed to carry away sicknesses, misfortunes, and even a person’s sins. Keitzar saw similarities between the Ao Naga traditional rituals and Old Testament practices such as sending away a goat into the wilderness on the Day of atonement (Lev. 16:20–22) and the New Testament narratives of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb (John 1:29).

A key feature in Keitzar’s theological symbolism is identification of the essence of the Christian message and presenting it in cultural terms. Following Keitzar’s lead, several cultural images and metaphors have made their way into tribal theological articulations: Jesus as Pasaltha (a Mizo word for a person with an exemplary character); Indoi-Pathen symbolism as representing the Christ-God relation, where Christ’s incarnation reveals the transcendent God (Indoi is a ritual object made of several parts of plants and animals and is hung on the front porch of the homes of Kuki Naga tribes as a representation of Pathen, the creator God); and Jesus as Arasentsür or Terhuo Pe (a term for “female shaman” in Ao and Angami languages, respectively, signifying Jesus as a holistic healer), to name a few.

Cultural categories and reimagining the message

Jesus as Arasentsür and Terhuo Pe involves a feminist reimagining that questions the assertion of the divine as S/he or it. In reimagining the received Christian tradition with insights from cultural analysis, Tribal Theology moved away from the translation model towards an anthropological model of contextual theology. The underlying assumption in this model is that the revelation of God is found within human culture. Thanzauva, for instance, suggests that the message of Christ was hidden in the tribal culture in Tlawmngaihna, the ethical principle of a communitarian society.

How does one locate the ontological significance of Jesus’ vicarious death in the symbolic representation of Jesus as a sacrificial animal (rooster), a ritual object (Indoi), a moral exemplar (Pasaltha), or a holistic healer (Arasentsür and Terhuo Pe)?

In the tribal Mizo society, Tlawmngaihna is patient, kind, not jealous or boastful, not arrogant or rude, and so on. Thanzauva compares Tlawmngaihna with the Christian message of love (I Cor. 13:4–7) and suggests that Tlawmngaihna is the hidden message of Christ in the tribal culture. Similar tribal cultural categories such as Sobaliba (an Ao Naga principle of life to live for the best of the community) and Keperuo (an Angami Naga concept of the interconnection between the creator, the human community, and creation) have also been suggested as hermeneutical frameworks to interpret the Christian message in the tribal society.

As with any academic discourse, theological symbolization faces questions of relevance. What purpose does the symbolization perform other than the interpreter’s hermeneutical location within an academic discourse? How does one locate the ontological significance of Jesus’ vicarious death in the symbolic representation of Jesus as a sacrificial animal (rooster), a ritual object (Indoi), a moral exemplar (Pasaltha), or a holistic healer (Arasentsür and Terhuo Pe)? What message does Christianity have for society beyond its moral and ethical teachings (a point emphasized in the symbolization in Tlawmngaihna, Sobaliba, and Keperuo)? Amidst the intricacies and creativity of theological articulations, what pragmatic and liberative message does it have for the Church and society? These concerns, along with the contextual reality of tribal experiences as the “primitive other” in India, have contributed to the development of a Synthetic-Praxis model in Tribal Theology.

Towards a pragmatic and liberative message

The synthetic model, as the name indicates, looks to a synthesis of all the other models of contextual theology, that is, translation, anthropological, and praxis (see Stephen Bevans’ Models of Contextual Theology). The hyphenated addition of “praxis” in the Synthetic-Praxis model reflects an added urgency in Tribal Theology to be pragmatic and liberative. Tribal Theology is a form of Liberation Theology with an emphasis on cultural and religious liberation (in contrast to Latin American Liberation Theology, which emphasizes political and economic aspects). It has resulted in a theology that is culturally rooted and liberative. Wati Longchar, for instance, draws on the Lijaba (the Supreme Being) tradition of the tribal Ao society to develop a creation-centred theology that advocates liberation of the whole of creation. The term Lijaba consists of two words, Li, meaning “earth”, and jaba, meaning “real”. Thus, the Supreme Being is the real Earth. Reflecting on this, tribal theologians have argued that the tribal worldview of the creation-creator relation affirms the Biblical creation story, which presents the inherent unity of all creation in the cosmos as the handiwork of God. Subsequently, they argue that true liberation involves more than humans; liberation without justice for the land or creation is no liberation at all.

Theological symbolism in Tribal Theology is as old as Tribal Theology itself. It shares the story of the tribal Christian quest to synthesize the Christian message in the culture and to allow it to speak to the tribal life situations in India. Its practice in Tribal Theology is varied, ranging from adopting vocabularies and values as tools to express certain Christian teachings to reinterpreting Christian theology with insights from the culture. Its practice in Tribal Theology is therefore one of a mutual transformation of culture and the Christian tradition, both critiquing and enriching each other.

Kirjoittaja

Literature:

Bevans, Stephen B.: Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992.

Keitzar, Renthy: In Search of a Relevant Message. Guwahati: Christian Literature Centre, 1995.

Thanzauva, K.: Theology of Community: Tribal Theology in the Making. Aizawl: Mizo Theological Conference, 1997.

Longchar, Wati and Larry E. Davis (eds): Doing Theology with Tribal Resources. Jorhat: Trible Study Centre, 1999.