Having closely followed this article these few months and as one who is involved in Christian mission, I write this article with logic, thinking rationally and without pretension. It may seem too liberal to some conservatives but I write, taking into consideration the worldwide view and Christian mission approach to it in this changing times.
With utmost respect to the effort of the Churches and different NGOs who with all their sincerity and genuine vision for a better society have stood for Prohibition, I would like to side with many of the writers and say, “Prohibition is a failure”. Blame it on anybody, but it has failed and that we must accept. The beneficiaries of this Act are the bootleggers because after the Prohibition Act, Alcohol business has boom to its brightest and that way it has become the shortest way up the economic ladders. Let me not elaborate much here since many have written very good article on it.
As a theologian aspirant, let me come to our churches’ attitude to this issue. The Church is genuinely against it but I don’t know why this problem has been targeted so much out of many problems. The Church has claimed that so many lives have been saved because of this Act but I wonder if it really is a good claim. We have saved lives but have we saved souls?
The church has stood for prohibition but how much time do we give for visitation of the homes of alcoholics or its dealers? Have we given equal treatment to them in our ministry? Then, when we have rich undercover liquor dealers as our church members- we accept their tithes, offerings, financial supports for mission/missionaries and even for tour to Holy land Israel, which is yet to be holy despite its nickname, like our “Dry State”. We go home to home raising funds for mission outside but do not go home to home doing mission to those small petty liquor dealers’ home and alcoholic victims. We are yet to counsel them or dine with them or even say “hi” to them at their homes. We thunder sermons from our pulpit but not thunder their house with our presence. And even when we visit them, we put on our VIP status and make a flying visit, showing off our “oops this place stinks” attitude.
Biblically, Law has always been a failure: it failed at the Eden Garden, and then the Sinai Law failed again. And then, positively in the early church history, when Christianity was prohibited in Rome and Christians were excommunicated, it became an indirect endorser of Christianity as the Roman Christians took Christianity everywhere they went. In short, the Law has endorsed what it prohibits and has always failed. And God knowing this send His own Son to promote “grace instead of Law”.
What I am trying to say is that it’s time to boldly accept failure of prohibition which do not mean giving up but changing strategy- it’s time to sit back and evaluate our failure and plan new strategy where our Pastoral staffs are directly involved to tackle this issue within our own respective churches instead of entrusting the Government to do what we piously avoid, fearing confrontations.
That brings me to the Government and the Church in this issue: we ask the government to do what we are not able to do. In this history of prohibition, what the church have done is simply stand for prohibition and proclaim to visitors that “Nagaland is a dry land” and leave the government to do all the logistics. We have done nothing to assist the government in the implantation program. We have been acting like “only child trauma” to our government. And our government has been kind enough (atleast in this) to us. Lucky they don’t insist the church to prohibit entrance to Church those bootleggers, absentee officers, slack contractors, those with illegal cars, those who keep proxy in jobs, etc in exchange for total prohibition act. It would be impossible because then we would have no deacons, treasurers, transportation in charges and church building conveners. Thus it is, this “Dry State” slogan is a day-dream vision, which is seemingly attractive but practically impossible.
Therefore, if the Government admits of failure and if prohibition is endorsing Liquor business then let us play the reversal attack by not endorsing it and simultaneously, it will no more be a booming business. Still further, there will be no reasons to bribe those at the gates for illegal liquors and thereby we have few less bribery office in our dry land. Believe it or not, countries which legalize liquor don’t have problem of alcoholism because people are educated not prohibited. Let us also keep in mind that practically no one has given up drinking just because the government or church prohibits it. It has only piled up their conscious with guilt thereby distancing them away from the church and the church never realizes this. This is earth, where sin exists, not heaven. We cannot eradicate sin from this earth but we can certainly counsel the people to keep their focus on values that are higher.
What is irony in all these is the fact that when there are those with greater crimes, bigger defaulters, graver threats sitting in churches, why do we target only liquor business which is too meager a problem compared to other life threatening issues. Don’t this show how narrow and far behind our minds are still? Why don’t we stand for prohibition of killing, injustice, bribery, corruptions, nepotism, gun culture, to name few, which are responsible for our handicaps- economically, socially, politically and religiously? Perhaps, questions which would remain unanswered, yet worth questioning are – is it because they are an easy target, the last benchers of our churches, shunned by our society, with nothing much to contribute? Are we not maintaining double standard? Are we not endorsing day light robbery while prohibiting night robbery? The Church has to realize these facts and make room for change, as they deal with government in this matter. More importantly, the church should first begin to practice equal treatment of its members without cynicism. A Church should not a court, where we denounce some few voiceless offenders while sparing the powered defaulters but it should be a refugee for all seekers regardless of ranks and stains. In other word, the church should not only be holistic but wholistic in its mission and preach “Grace, not Law!”
L. Hutton Sumi
Seoul Christian University,
South Korea.
