Given the fact that almost 100% of Nagas in Nagaland state profess Christianity and that there is rampant, all-pervasive corruption, one is led to wonder if there is something wrong with Naga theology. This is not an ecumenical debate nor a critique of Naga theology, but a message to faith leaders to analyze the reality of the times. Sola fide, one of the foundational principles central to the theology of the Protestant Reformation, seems to have been misunderstood or misapplied in Naga theology, leading to ethical and moral issues. Otherwise, how do you explain why most Nagas profess to be (Baptist) Christians but engage in almost all the wrong deeds?
When we profess to be followers of a faith but do not live our lives as commanded by that faith, it is safe to assume that there is something wrong with the way we are taught about the faith, even though the faith itself may not be inherently wrong. For instance, when we land a government job through the backdoor and offer tithes, what does that say about the faith we profess? More importantly, when those tithes are accepted at the altar, doesn’t that give the impression that ill-gotten wealth is acceptable? How about a candidate emerging ‘victorious’ in an election after employing all illegitimate means and then offering thanksgiving to the Almighty?
Sola fide, by faith alone, seems to have been terribly misunderstood. Today, it seems we are allowed to do whatever we want to do, even if it is wrong, and then simply profess one’s faith and all sins are forgiven just like that. There seems to be a belief system where, since faith alone justifies, moral laws and ethical behavior are irrelevant. Do as you please, live as you wish, and then simply profess your faith, say a prayer, and all your sins are washed away! Cheap grace, isn’t it?
When we can attain salvation simply by professing our faith without corresponding deeds, when what we do has no place in the faith we profess, doesn’t it imply that something has drastically gone wrong? When we profess a faith that accepts tithes from looters and sanctifies such tithes, instead of admonishing those who offer tithes from ill-gotten wealth, what does that make of us? Hypocrites.
The article is though provoking. But it seems to be pointing finger at the OTHER. The concluding statement itself is hyprocitical. who is hyprocrite? The one offers/tithe from looting and cheating or the one who recoeves ignorant of it? It is a misplaced summary aint it?