Jonas Yanthan
Let us first place where Baptist, as a denomination, stands. Baptist denomination is a protestant of the protestant Church of England, popularly known as the Anglican Church, a former Roman Catholic break away. When Baptist was established, the framers of the denomination kept in mind the set-up of the Church of England, which is headed by a King or Queen as the Supreme head of the Church. Therefore, in contravention to the Church of England, the framers of the Baptist Faith constituted the church as pointed out in the ‘Biblical Basis For Baptists: A Bible Study on Baptist Distinctives by L. Duane Brown, PhD 1969, USA’, with “Baptist distinctives” in which complete ‘Separation of the Church and the State’ was enshrined with a view to be free from the interference of the government, king or queen and precisely in the words of Brown, “there should be no organic union of church and state, but the state should protect, not dominate or interfere with, the affairs of the church”.
From the above stated stand point, isn’t NBCC overstepping its boundary on the Prohibition policy and chewing more than it can? The direct confrontationist stance of the church on the Act, however well intended, is against the very norm and image of the Baptist distinctive. The pressure tactic, exerted on the government by the church to enact the Prohibition and now threatening the government for continuance of the Act, leave alone its workability, is imprudence because it paints the churches a bad picture on its image. The Church’s stand on prohibition is also superfluous because it ridiculously projects the general Naga public as infants who are incapable of discerning between the good and bad of alcohol intake. Giving out such unintended beatings on general public contribute to the depreciation of people’s respect for the church leaders.
The ongoing debate on the issue from all quarters is not only appreciable but, also a decent and civilized way of solving modern day issues. Prohibition issue, by nature, is a very slippery subject as it will automatically give birth to bootlegging and myriads of smugglers etc., as by-products of its enforcement while drinkers will be drinkers and, in short, an ever unending social as well as legal problems. On the other hand, the approach of the churches on the issue with an understanding that those who drink are sinners while those who don’t are righteous and considered ‘saved’ as well, no matter the kind of moral values they live-by or attitude they hold, adds another attitudinal phobia among the general populace furthering the complexity of the issue. The stigma about drinkers is neither reasonable nor biblical. Just because somebody has the unfortunate habit of drinking cannot be considered a sinner but rather such persons must be understood as individuals in need of help.
What becomes sin in drinking is drunkenness and gluttony or over-eating food. For example, in Mark 7: 14-23, Jesus said, “there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” This parable the disciples couldn’t understand so Jesus explained saying “since it (food or drink) enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on? And He said whatever comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thought, fornication, theft, murder, pride, foolishness.” Another example John 2: 1-11 at a marriage at Cana in Galilee, Jesus turned water into wine, not because Jesus wanted to show off his power or wanted special wine for the feast but, precisely to save the bridegroom from the impending shameful embarrassment that was to come from his guests. By stating these examples, I do not mean to suggest that Jesus advocated liquor intake but I mean to say that Jesus did not fight against food and drinks of the people but He vehemently decried against the attitude of his people towards such things and for holding pharisaical attitudes, which for Jesus, is the root of all evils. What brings harm to the society and oneself are persons without limit to their satisfaction; abusive mentality be it greed for wealth, money, food or drink. Our pharisaical attitude and mentality is the manufacturer of all social evils and problems that we are facing today. And this is where the importance and relevance of the Naga Scholars, leaders, the intellectuals and in a more specific way the ministries of the churches lay.
Christian values and Biblical teaching are not coercive but definitely persuasive. Therefore, the multitude of quotations from the Bible to assert the church’s stand on total prohibition is also out of proportion and hence out of context because those verses are primarily cautions against individuals and smaller local communities found misbehaving after over-drinking or over-eating. The Bible is also not suggestive about imposing any value, leave alone liquor ban, on a country or State as a whole because, in the first place, the approach of God, as elucidated in the Bible, is with steadfast love and concern to both individual and society and not through coercion or through force of Law like the Taliban laws. The strategy of the Bible is rather by inspiring individual souls patiently step by step and even from sociological point of view this approach is acceptable as it is more pragmatic and effective than through force of law.
The present stalemate is a result of giving too much room to the churches and NGOs in the affairs of the State by the government, a lesson which must not be forgotten. The State government must continue to regard them but it must be understood that NGOs’ participation in the development of the State should be complementary while the NBCC and the churches must keep their reverence. Never defile the sanctity of Christianity by a fast unto death or any other dharna thinking that it is a Christian pride; such activities are exclusively for political parties and NGOs. It is also not wise on the part of the church to continue poking its nose into the affairs of the State as it will invite unnecessary criticisms thereby bringing disgrace to the church as a whole. Over and above, it will be no surprise that by the manner in which the church is interfering into the state government’s affairs the State government will, one day, have the right to dictate and control the churches so much so that our churches and councils will soon be converted into mere government corporate bodies. And this would ultimately mean the unholy demise of the Christian denominations in Nagaland.
The idea or dream of Nagaland as a dry state may be good but its achievability, in the given situation, is beyond our control for the reasons that Nagaland is not the sole producer of all liquor brands in the country except local brew (modhu). The other hurdle is that we can’t force the liquor producing States from production nor can we fence ourselves completely in. Further, if the church or Naga parents are thinking about the safety of our younger generation from alcohol then prohibition in Nagaland alone is not enough. These children of ours desirous to drink can pick up drinks from anywhere outside the state. For safety of our children, the surest and most sensible way is to instill in them values and discipline rather than telling them about the prevalence of an unworkable Liquor Act.
Prohibition Act is a State policy matter and hence the Government must take a firm decision to lift it owing to the futility and the shameful outcome of the Act. The State Government has enough wise and intelligent bureaucrats and technocrats from whom it can take advice and suggestions while working out the modalities for streamlining the parameters for drinkers to be in place and strict regulation on liquor be enacted to achieve the goal of best behaved citizens and best regulated State in the country worthy of the name ‘Christian State’. And as for the churches, instead of persisting on an issue that is beyond its control and jurisdiction it would be better to find a manageable localized approach in consonance with the approach of the Bible starting with a group or individual alcoholic of one’s church by imbibing in them values of life rather than fighting against drinks that is inanimate. The other is having a referendum within the local churches whether to allow drinkers to be members of its churches or not. This is to suggest that there are numerous ways available to the church ministry to either reform the drinkers with understanding in a persuasive manner or expel drinkers from the church membership if it thinks that only teetotalers can be a Christian since to drink or not to drink is not only a personal choice but also a pervasive human problem which can be tackled only by change of attitude and, as it stands today, no church or government can stop drinkers by force except punishing the drunkards in the strictest possible.
