Why Ao Theologian(s) are the only Illuminated People in Nagaland

A Critique of the book “The Ao Naga Illuminati” by Sentiakum Yaden

Tiatemsu Longkumer
Ph.D. Student, Working on ‘Anthropology of Religion’, Dept. of Anthropology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong.

Thesis of Book
The book critiques the Ao Nagas in general and the Ao origin myth in specific. The book talks about the ‘elite’ Ao Naga and Ao Nagas in general. The elite Ao is different from the other Aos because they take their origin myth literally. One similarity between the two categories of Aos is that they are yet to be illuminated. The book argues that to be illuminated, both the categories of Aos should put God and Bible (seriously studying and reflecting on it) first as a Christian rather than their ‘regressive,’ ‘unscientific,’ ‘static,’ and ‘conservative’ tradition. The elite Ao, in specific, should abandon their illogical, impossible, and non-historical origin myth and accept the Christian creation story to be illuminated.

Myth: Read more on it
Yaden defines myth as follows, “…they are depictions and representations that reflect reality in the form of emotionally concrete personifications and animate beings that are considered real by the primitive consciousness. They are traditional stories, especially concerning the early history of a people…Myths are fictitious products of the primal minds whose goals were purely to explain phenomena beyond their comprehension” (p. 15). If anyone has ever tried to Google the words ‘myth definition,’ the above paragraph is a very similar answer one will get.

Yaden just needed to go through a few works by anthropologists, folklorists, and philosophers to understand the basics of myth. Myths are narratives pertaining to the human psyche and the patterns of the world prompted by specific events and experiences. In a myth, the personification and animation of reality happen in all cultures, places, and times. Mary Midgley’s book “The Myths We Live By” explores such notion of myth and suggests that myth creation happens in every sphere of life – even the most educated and scientifically minded person creates such myths. Myths are not only traditional stories concerning the early history of people. Instead, they are symbolic and affective tools suggesting a particular interpretation of the world. Myths are creative products of the human mind in response to the unfathomable possibilities of understanding the world. Thus, the Bible’s creation story is a myth like the Ao origin story.

The Ao Elites: Who and where are they?
Yaden critiques the Ao elites for taking the origin myth literally. My only question is, “Who are these Ao elites?” The book does not answer that. What does ‘literal’ mean? Some Aos might say, “I believe that we came from Longterok” but it might not mean that they ‘literally’ came from Longterok. Similarly, Christians will say that “I believe God created human beings (Adam and Eve),” but they might be ‘literal creationist,’ ‘progressive creationist,’ or ‘theistic evolutionist.’ There is no clarity in the book’s definition of ‘literal.’

What about the Bible?
Yaden argues, “If the sub-clans that came out (poktet) from or are the offspring of these stones, then ultimately, they are all related, especially when viewed from the Aos’s own point on how one relates to another member through marriage. This would mean that all clans and sub-clans are related in familial bonds…The cases of all the Aos claiming of marrying someone belonging to unrelated clans are made invalid” (p. 42). Let me illustrate why this kind of reasoning is flawed by applying the same reasoning to the Bible creation story. If all humans are offspring of Adam and Eve, all of us as are brothers and sisters in the end. Why so much fuss about nationality, ethnicity, culture, and so on? Lastly, we are committing incest by marrying each other.

Yaden relegates the absence of women leaders in the church to the influence of Ao Naga origin myth (p.43). The absence/negligible number of women pastors or leaders in the Baptist church is due to a long theological debate rather than the influence of Ao origin myth. In Christianity, especially among the Baptist denomination, patriarchy is strictly maintained. Christianity as a religion historically is patriarchal. This is why one of the many reasons Christianity was readily accepted among the Aos was because of its patriarchal nature.

Yaden goes on to argue, “How can people have stones as their progenitor? In what universe is that possible?” (p. 44)—again, applying the same reasoning to the Bible. How can people have an immaterial and infinite, ultimate reality (God) as their progenitor? In what universe does that magic happen? Such reasoning will get us nowhere. Ao origin myth does not say that stones are the progenitor of human beings. Longterok (six stones) does not mean humans originated (poktet) from those stones. The Ao origin myth suggests that the origination of human beings is a natural process of reality without a prior ascribed purpose. Such origination happens because the non-human persons whom Ao calls tsüngrem, with its different ontological categories, exert their sensibilities coupled with its power to help configure new assemblage of tanüla (categories of essences), whereby the stone is the signifier of such assemblage.

Yaden dedicates a large portion of his book to analyzing other similar origin myths (p. 19-41) to find similarities and critique Ao origin myth. The methodology is itself a flawed one. Let me illustrate why. If I argue that the Bible is inauthentic, illogical, and impossible because similar stories in the Book of Genesis are found in the ‘Epic of Gilgamesh’ or similar stories of dying and rising God are prevalent even among other cultures. Then I’ve misunderstood the purpose of those stories and cultural indications in the Bible. That is not how myths are read, analyzed, and understood.

Context: Theological Blind Spot
Yaden writes, “The Aos claim to be the pioneer Naga Christians, yet their lives are an amalgamation of primal beliefs and only certain aspects of Christianity which they deem as ‘acceptable’, i.e., only speak, preach, live out and accept the portions of the Scripture that does not speak against the traditions and culture of the Aos.” This quote by Yaden suggests that he falls in the camp who are against doing ‘contextual theology’ and thus carries the same blind spot as Ao theologians of his camp.

Let me explain: Some Ao theologians and Bible scholars are divided into two camps, one who favors ‘contextual theology’ and others against it. In short, contextual theologian gives primacy to understanding the Ao cultural context and applying Biblical mandates accordingly. In contrast, those theologians who are against such methodology give primacy to the cultural and philosophical context of the Bible. This blind spot of some Ao theologians is what I call the “contextual play,” where they cannot understand their theology and people beyond contextual argumentation. Such theologians have not ventured into understanding the concept of “creativity” and “multiplicity of contexes” whereby creating a “third space” of identity.

Some Suggestions: After all, no one is perfect
1. Even though I’ve spent years every single day trying to understand the Ao Nagas, I believe that I’ve only scratched the surface. The book makes tall claims about the Ao culture, beliefs, and practices with a shallow understanding. Being an Ao does not automatically make one knowledgeable and proficient in writing on the subject matter.

2. There are many sections in the book where the reader is left wondering as to what the author is trying to argue. In other words, there is no proper flow from one paragraph to another, and there are abruptly incomplete arguments (a keen and experienced reader is needed for such observation).

3. There are two ways of argumentation: verbal (talking to each other) and non-verbal (writing). Verbal argumentation is what everyone is capable of (just like everyone can sing, but not everyone can mesmerize you). But not everyone is capable of non-verbal argument because it needs a different skill set. The book does not portray the skillset or the methodological clarity needed in argumentation.

4. I don’t usually write on theological arguments as long as it is indispensable because I’m not a theologian in the first place. But let me make a last passing comment. Over the year, I’ve had the privilege of reading and studying works by Bible scholars and theologians, including works by Indian theologians. I’ve even had the privilege of learning personally from some of them. My point or comment is that there are so many proficient and well-informed theologians and Biblical scholars; “Why are the theological arguments in the book so shallow?” For example, J. Richard Middleton, one of the forefront Biblical scholars who worked on the ‘image of God’ in the Bible, is not mentioned.