By Patricia Mukhim
If one were to look beyond one’s immediate needs and check out what’s happening not just in our immediate neighbourhood (Bangladesh) but in the UK, USA and the Middle East, amongst others, one cannot but feel the world coming apart. There are racist attacks on non-whites in the UK; Bangladesh looks like a horror movie with a shameful chapter of iconoclasm that is hell bent on destroying everything remotely connected to India, including the statues of Tagore and Tirot Sing Syeim at the Indira Gandhi cultural museum. The manner in which Sheikh Hasina’s home was vandalised and turned upside down with bandits gleefully carrying away her kitchen implements and personal belongings, (lingerie included), furniture and anything they could lay their hands on, just makes one cringe. The anger is palpable but how did this anger suddenly become a full-blown volcano?
There are sane voices from Bangladesh that urge us not to look at the problems in that country through the prism of religion but to understand it from the incremental chipping away of democratic tenets. But are we sure that right wing Islamic forces don’t have a hand in what’s happening in the country today? And even if that were not the case, why is it that apart from the student protestors – the majority Bangladeshis – the elders and rational forces were unable to contain the violence? Why is it that at crucial moments of a country’s journey, religion which is the hallmark by which that country is defined (Islamic nation) has failed to bring the healing touch? Why is it that religion has become a mere showcase – an external uniform as it were but does not touch hearts, much less impact the behaviours of people who profess it? And this is true of all religions today. While every religion is tending towards a more fundamentalist form, humanity seems to have become the casualty.
In our own country we have a strident form of Hinduism raising its ugly head and wanting to turn this country into a Ram Rajya and therefore trumpeting their agenda by hitting out at Muslims as if they are sworn enemies of the country. It would be wrong to assume that this is not hurting Muslim sentiments and that they are taking it in their stride. The large majority of moderate Muslims who don’t wear religion on their sleeves are deeply pained by the constructs that they are today defined by. It’s almost as if they are responsible for whatever that’s gone wrong or is going wrong with the country today. These merchants of rage don’t stop to think that India has had Muslim Presidents, one of whom raised the stature of the country in the committee of nations having contributed immensely to the country’s nuclear power. Hindu fundamentalists forget that there are patriotic Muslims who have served and continue to serve in the military services. And this sort of frenzy is allowed to take shape because the public discourse in India today is rife with crudities which constitute the tantrums of the merchants of rage.
If we believe that the country can progress with such divisive tendencies taking roots in our polity, we are delusional. This sort of ideology has no room for rational debates and discussions. If the soul of this nation has to repair itself, someone needs to press the pause button. But who will do it when the ruling party is benefitting from this religious polarisation? And the religion project is so entrenched today that people don’t seem to care about the other aspects of their lives. Sadly, the moderate Hindu mind is equally tolerant of the immoralities of their own side. They seem to have given in and I dare say that the media too has joined forces in this Islamophobic tirade.
Coming to our own North Eastern states where the majority of the population in the tribal states are Christians, there does not seem to be any attempt to narrow the divide between different Christian denominations. In fact, there appears to be a new Christian sect that appears and preaches with greater ferocity as if the others before them have failed in their mission. This extreme form of Christianity is also a more militant form that tells their adherents that they should not accept the Aadhar Card for that, according to the Bible, is a number-based identity which is satanic. Now how people come to such conclusions and how they are convinced that they can do without the Aadhar card in an age where every transaction including ones where government largesse such as health insurance and several other schemes designed especially for the poor, are distributed is hard to fathom. Is this not taking away the rights of the poor from accessing state resources? Is the church which preaches such absurdities able to provide for all the needs that the state attempts to provide? Sure, there are organisations that question the need for data privacy and all that and it can go on but not at the cost of depriving the poor of what they need most.
Growing up as Christians we were told that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that is why we dared not question anything in the Bible. In the past people who questioned anything about Christianity were called heretics and burnt at the stake. Religion demanded one’s unconditional belief and even if one had a disagreement with any preacher/priest one did not dare raise one’s voice for that is equivalent to heresy. But a question I have always had, since I have a questioning mind is this- Why is it that Jesus Christ never preached inside a church? He preached in the hills and dales and to people who were ordinarily dressed and could not afford to wear what is now commonly known as their “Sunday best.” It often makes me wonder if a poor woman who did not have the apparel that many are clothed in, almost like a uniform, would dare enter a church today. What would Christ have told that woman or women today? Where would they have met Christ? I am sure Christ would have been in their homes if they had a place for him in their hearts. Church services today are so stultified that Christ himself would not choose to be there.
I decided to read up on writings about the notion of church and whether the Bible as it was first written even had the word “church” in it and what was the actual meaning of ‘church’ when and if Christ did use that word. Amongst the several writings on the subject I came upon Dan Foster’s essay in “The Good Men Project,” where he says categorically that, “Church is not a building, a place, or an hour-and-a-half of dedicated time on a Sunday morning. Rather, the church is a universal community united around a common belief that cannot be contained within walls. It meets in coffee shops, on mountain tops, and around kitchen tables — as much as in grand cathedrals. Jesus never commanded people to “go” to church but to “be” the church. The word that Jesus used for “church” was originally a Greek term, “Ekklesia,” which literally means “community” or even “society.” In Ancient Greece, the Ekklesia was the assembly or gathering of free citizens to discuss, debate, and decide upon legal matters by democratic process.
The word “Ekklesia” was a compound word of two segments: “Ek,” a preposition meaning “out of,” and a verb, “Kaleo,” signifying “to call.” Together, it literally meant “to call out” or “called-out ones.” So, Ekkeslia meant both inviting people to form a group (the call) and the outcome of that invitation (the gathering of the “called”). Hence those listening to Jesus when he talked about “church” would have understood him to mean simply — “the community of believers.” One thing is certain: when Jesus used the word, he most certainly was not talking about an institution with a building and a hierarchical structure.
Therefore, when Christ said to the apostle Peter in Matthew 16:8 that he would build his church through him, he was not talking about a brick-and-mortar project. He was talking about building a universal community of “Jesus people.” Secondly, the church, as Jesus described it (particularly in Matthew 18), does not possess the kinds of power differentials that exist in many of today’s churches.
To believe in anything unquestioningly is what leads to totalitarianism and this is what polarises societies because there is insistence that one’s religion is the only true religion and hence all must follow that religion. True faith in God embraces humanity; religion on the contrary holds people hostage.