Saying ‘no’ this Christmas

I have always been interested in the various characters that make up the Christmas story, the narratives they embody, and the roles they play. While most celebrations focus on Jesus, the silent protagonist, of the Christmas Play, I have often been interested in the supporting cast, particularly May-Jo, I mean Mary and Joseph, without whom the Christmas story wouldn’t unfold.

This year, as I reflected on May-Jo’s parts in the Christmas drama and their role in the story, what stood out for me was their agency. Their saying ‘yes’ to supernatural callings which societies even today would ridicule. Ordinary characters with an extraordinary agency! The will and determination to say ‘yes’ against all odds.

Mary said ‘yes’ to an out-of-wedlock baby and Joseph said ‘yes’ to marrying a bride who was pregnant with another’s child.

But the power of their ‘yeses’ lies in the various ‘noes’ it entailed. Their ‘yes’ to the angel was a ‘no’ to traditional mores, social expectations, and even basic common sense. All of it based on their response to a supernatural calling delivered by an angel in a dream. May-Jo’s determination to say ‘no’ to themselves and their world was the secret of their stardom.

Reflections must lead to self-reflection and self-reflection to action in the world, thus defining one’s being in the world! The power of a story lies precisely in its ability to transform its hearers, even as the hearer heeds to the injunctions of the story and embodies it in her practices. Narratives, ancient or modern, take on scriptural status, as far as their transformative power to induce a change in their readers continues to grow beyond their historical confines, effecting change from one generation to another. Such narratives have the power to be embodied in the here and the now, even in our lives today.

So, what does it mean to say ‘no’ in our highly agency-conscious diverse society?

The word ‘no’ definitely has a negative connotation in that it signifies disagreement, non-participation, and non-compliance.

In our multicultural and diversity-sensitive world, ‘yeses’ are often privileged over ‘noes’ in the name of ‘diversity’, ‘rights’ and ‘tolerance’, as there is a premium on the values of agreement, participation, compliance and political correctness.

However, there appears to be a huge difference between May-Jo’s ‘yes’ and diversity’s current cry for a ‘yes’.

Through their ‘yes’, May-Jo gave a resounding ‘no’ to the universal expectations of their society and said ‘yes’ to the particular and unique calling on their lives. It was a true celebration of individual autonomy and agency, in that they chose to say ‘yes’ irrespective of the prevailing social mores and acceptable behaviour of their society.

However, it appears to be the reverse in our world that celebrates diversity. Diversity’s demand for ‘yes’ today is a demand on society as a whole for a universal ‘yes’ to certain forms of life and has unfortunately turned coercive in that it does not allow for a ‘no’. ‘Noes’ are taken to be politically incorrect and increasingly illegal. In diversity’s demand for a ‘yes’ there is a thrust on a universal social behaviour framed by present social conditions and expectations, and there is no celebration of particularity. Diversity’s demand for a universal ‘yes’ goes against the very grain of what diversity stands for and thus is implicitly paradoxical. The vocabulary of ‘diversity’ is one of universalism and does not celebrate historical uniqueness and callings.

So, what can diversity learn from May-Jo’s affirmations and negations?

A true ‘yes’ to diversity will have to entail a ‘no’ to all forms of universality, including its own demand for universal acceptance. Diversity is a celebration of diverse unique callings. It is truly about individual autonomy and not social universality. It does not think about a collective universal voice – national or institutional but celebrates all individualities – individuals of all diverse kinds. Replacing one universality with another is not a celebration of agency and autonomy or diversity. Diversity is concerned about the individual rather than commonality, even when the individual goes against the accepted universal. That is what May-Jo did and we continue to remember them from one Christmas to another.

What does the ‘no’ protect? It is the protection of the individual calling from the tyranny of universal compliance. Everything individual that truly makes us human – our relationships, our identity, our morals and our callings. Thus, an implicit ‘no’ is an explicit protection of these values that make an individual truly human.

That is why the stories of Mary and Joseph have eternal value and continually endure the onslaught of history. They have survived the attacks of time and age and continue to thrive because in them there is a celebration of what is truly human – the agency to say ‘no’ and ‘yes’. Therefore, as long as humans remain, these stories will continue to inspire and encourage every reader and command hearers towards being authentically human.

So, don’t be afraid to say ‘no’ this Christmas.

Insights from the Great Indian Wedding for the Sabarimala Debate

The great Indian wedding is over, the crackers have died down, the pujaris have left, and the guests are slowly driving away. It’s three in the morning, tiredness is settling in, and yet at centre stage, surrounding the new couple are a group of close friends, besties, who continue to shower their love for this new couple with their songs and dancing. The couple continues to smile, although with decreasing participation, and yet the relentless exhaustion of the events of the past few days refuses to be shaken away.

So, how should the besties continue to shower their sincere love for the couple they so love? Should they continue their music and dance in celebration, or should they show their love by understanding and submitting to the internal logic of the Indian wedding that gently demands an end to the celebration so that finally, after months of engagement and formalities between families and the performance of various rituals, the couple is now able to legitimately celebrate their wedding by themselves?

Loving the couple is to respect this internal logic of the great Indian wedding, and to discern how celebration looks like at its different stages. There is a time for the elephant ride, and a time for the crackers, as well as a time for quietness including non-participation. Sometimes celebration is done best by withdrawal and non-celebration, especially at three in the morning on the wedding night. Failing to submit to this internal logic of the wedding even through genuine showers of love, makes the celebration awkward – joy will soon leave the building. If the celebration is truly about the couple, then simply put, their story and time, needs to be celebrated and perhaps in doing so, one might need to stifle and even restrict one’s own performances of celebration.

But we already know this! To an extent, at three in the morning, if a friend is still enthusiastic, you gently tell them to calm down and wind up. We do this all the time, probably in every wedding of your bestie. By doing so, you preserve and enrich the celebration of the love of the couple.

So then, how should we celebrate and venerate the love story of Malikappurathamma and Ayyappa in the temple of Sabarimala? How should we devote ourselves to the celebration of this great Indian love story? If our visit to this temple is truly to celebrate this great love story, then should we not submit to its internal logic? Would true love and devotion require one to restrict from celebrating? Would my presence in spite of being a sincere expression of my love and devotion yet become a distraction making the celebration awkward? What would true devotion and love for these deities require of us?

Just like in the case of the wedding, even in this instance, perhaps you already have your answer.

Rembrandt by Two Brushstrokes

This poem was jointly written from two spatial locations in 2010. My friend SYR and I were having a Skype call and we co-wrote this with each of us contributing the alternative line. One could think of 'authorship' and 'authorial intent' in this textual form as well as the ambiguity of origins. However, perhaps what holds this piece together is its internal coherence or as some may say the lack of it!

I see Rembrandt in his dark corner, playing spray with his colours

The colours on the floor spelled purple and blue,

One was for me and the other for you

I pick up the purple and out of it grew a great form, a beast from nowhere

The dark and the evil how to the light compare

Larger and larger grew the beast, spewing blood red passion and yellow streaks

Smaller grew the universe yet people danced happily, even as the other world grew closer

Across the blue canopy, people gazed at the marvellous blend of colours

How all of us now merge with all of them, there is no war, but so much valour

Blue and purple of the yonder world, now mingling freely within our love torn worlds

In the meeting of the ages, in the joining of the forms

Colours flowing freely, the dark becomes light

The dragon seems further even as love grows stronger

The knowledge that was revealed, in that moment so unfamiliar

That darkness and light can be close and so clear

There is no struggle like in our old world that was so dear

The paradoxes concoct to form a new hemisphere

Dawn and dusk, the in-between times

In the new world, the ones which hold our lives

But only to guide you when you were losing sight

Where light loses its colour and darkness gains might

Desire and pain holding hands, a harsh smile sweeter than a bitter pill

Always there, never besides, always within

Saab, Mumford, 01 August, 2010

What makes 'scripture' Scripture?

While there are several disadvantages and even 'evils' of social media, one cannot ignore some of its blessings. Family members far-flung in our global village would have lived in isolation or with little communication with one another, had it not been for social media such as Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram which provide great platforms to connect and knit families together. Whatsapp group chat is one such platform. My family on my mother's side has a group named after our rather impressive grandfather, with 38 members in it covering 3 generations. It was great excitement the first three days of being part of the group as I got to 'see' nephews and nieces whom I had never met in real life. But as the sun never sets on the global village, the notifications came in regularly 24 X7. Being new to the WhatsApp group feature, and not knowing how one could turn off notifications, one morning at 2:45 am, I sadly left the group. However, whenever there is an important theme being discussed, group members would share with non-members to keep us abreast of the family dasein.

On a Saturday morning, even as I was 'video calling' my sister, she kept disappearing and reappearing, only to let me know that she was, even at that moment, part of a very important discussion on the family group. Ambidexterity aside, on asking, she said that they were having a heated discussion on LGBTQ rights to adopt children. On the one hand were the evangelical right brandishing Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 and Leviticus 18 & 20 while on the other hand were those who were arguing for equality for the LGBTQ community. The discussion had progressed from quoting scriptural texts to debating how 'scripture' should be understood and appropriated for our time and generation. And more precisely, how is it authoritative for our lives today? Hearing about the discussion provoked several thoughts within me and not being part of the group, I thought I will write it out as a blog post, and maybe in the process, discover for myself, how scripture and its authority be understood in our age.

The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' have been used within different religious traditions, I would argue, to primarily distinguish people based on their understanding and acceptance of scripture. A conservative is one for whom the scripture is a text that is entirely given by God and therefore must be literally followed. While on the other hand, the liberals range from those who deny its historicity to those who affirm its historicality, interestingly, with both of them loosening the text's authority for our present lives. However, it must be said that no one is a complete conservative or a liberal. Conservatives, still have their preferences and unique 'take' on scripture, which will inevitably make them prioritize some parts of scripture over others. Equally, the liberals too can be passionate about and champions of some cause, thus, validating some scripture over others. So irrespective of if one is a conservative or a liberal, the question still remains - how should we understand scripture and its authority today?

Scriptural texts have been understood to have their origins in God and as divinely given, and hence it is claimed to be authoritative. While the historical reliability of scriptural texts can be proved to some extent, it would be hard if not impossible to prove the 'divine origins' or 'revelation' of any religious text and therefore must be relegated to the domain of faith. However, what can be proved and stated confidently is that the final form of revelation as scripture has a 'textual structure'. In other words, all scriptures are texts. So leaving aside inspiration, revelation and divine origin for a moment, we can have a reasonable discussion on texts and their authority over human communities. 

Scriptural texts are not the only texts that have authority over human communities. Constitutions and laws too are texts that have authority in the public space, and academic texts in educational institutions. So, what makes certain texts authoritative? But before we answer this question, we must be clear what we are presupposing when we talk about the authority of texts. We are presupposing a living historical community of humans that directly or indirectly give their consent for a certain text to be instituted as authoritative. I can imagine the text that Moses brought to the community of Israel in the wilderness and instituted it to be commandments that are to be followed and obeyed. Similarly, the Prophet Mohammad brings the Quran text to his people as an authoritative text. Buddha's words, Krishna's words, Mahavira's words, Guru Nanak's words, and many other important people's words have been brought to living communities of people and instituted as authoritative texts. And most importantly, the living community accepts the text's authority and gives its consent to be subjected to its injunctions, in other words, 'to live by it'.

We need to push this line of thinking further to uncover what influences the historical living community to accept and give consent to these texts to become authoritative. If it was merely coerced by someone in authority, then either positively (through obedience) or negatively (through disobedience) its authority would still not have been established, because, inherently the text is not accepted by the community. Although an external facade of obedience or disobedience is maintained, there is no respect for the text. On the other hand, many texts, even those that may have at one point had scriptural authority, have been merely ignored with no one taking any notice of it. In the history of Israel, we do know of times when such was the case for the texts instituted by Moses. The book of the law was lying in the temple 'without authority' during the reign of king Josiah, who finds it during the spring cleaning of the temple and once again institutes it to his living community.

Thus it appears that an authoritative person's recommendation along with the living community's consent is essential for any text to become authoritative. Now, why would a living community give consent for any text to be authoritative over them? Not because they have been coerced to do so, but rather because primarily the text authentically addresses them and their historical situation. It is a text that speaks to them. It is a text that has something important inscribed in it to say to a community of people. The community recognizes the importance of what the text says and then agrees for it to be instituted as authoritative and have rule over their lives. Without this process taking place, either directly or indirectly, or representatively, there is no way for a text to become authoritative and gain prominence in a community. The text has something powerfully relevant to say to the community. I claim that this same process happens even today in our own lives. The real authoritative texts that govern us and our lives, coming either from the government, or from the doctors, or from our place of work, or even from the religious institutions we are associated with, all of them have something important to say to us and we recognize its importance and value and allow ourselves (by giving consent) to come under its authority. I can think of prescription-texts, work contract-texts, and many other kinds of texts that we submit to because we recognize that they have something to say to us, specifically to our life and situation. We submit to the tax-text of our country (some may argue that our submission is coerced!) but of course, not to the tax-text of another country where we are not residents and obligated to pay tax. As the other text does not speak to our historical situation.

Once instituted as authoritative, these texts begin to have a life of their own and their power increases with each 'reading' and 'interpretation'. In other words, they become scripture for that historical community. These texts get passed on from one generation to another, and it is presupposed that its authority will continue to hold sway. However, as communities move over time, their situation changes, and sometimes, at least a part of the authoritative-text stops speaking to the new community's context and situation. The values, living conditions, and social structures change, including a change in the language itself. It is the mismatch between the injunction of the text and the life of the living community that births the conservatives and the liberals, where one seeks to affirm the scriptures blindly even often without complete understanding, and the other seeks to disrobe the text of its authority. Inversely, if there are conservatives and liberals, then, one can confidently conclude that a mismatch is already at play. So the debate in my family WhatsApp group confirms the mismatch between text and community.

So how should a contemporary community respond to historically authoritative texts that have stopped speaking to the current context of the community? While the conservative and liberal views are two kinds of response, I would like to propose a third way forward, and I want to state it as - reinterpret to reappropriate to reinstitute. No text is set in stone. Texts are symbols and hence, have to be interpreted through reading. The first step for a text to become authoritative is for it to be read by a living community. Secondly, even as it reads, the community must make sense of or reinterpret the text for its situation and context. Some texts can be so far away from the current context of the community that they fail to be embodied, and take the status of legends, myths and fantasies, unable to be realised by the living community that reads it. Thirdly, those texts that are able to be reinterpreted and continue to make sense of the life of the living community that reads it should be reappropriated into community life. What does this mean? It is like establishing a stairway, like Jacob's ladder, between the lived world of the community and the world of the text so that the community members can walk back and forth between these worlds. On the one hand, the world imagined by the text reaches to embrace the community, while on the other hand, the community reaches out to embrace and live within the imagined world of the text. That is why the consent of the living community is at the heart of instituting a text as authoritative. Once the text is reinterpreted and reappropriated, then it is reinstituted as authoritative over the community. This reinstitution through 'consent giving' is accomplished through the communication lines and the power structures that hold the community together. This instituting can then be even formalized so that it becomes a legal text with consequence for those who disobey it.

One could say that if an ancient text successfully goes this process in a living community, then that text gets the status of scripture. These scriptural texts possess inherent semantic density, or weightiness whose articulations have the power to overcome the distance of time. They have survived the test of time by constantly being renewed through reinterpretation and reappropriated by consequent living communities who are historically cut off and distanced from the text's 'divine origin'. Every generation needs a prophet or a king like Josiah, who will renew the authority of the text by reinterpreting it so that it addresses the living community in their lived world. Once the living community sees itself addressed by the renewed and reinterpreted text, it is able to reappropriate it unto itself. It is able to 'see' itself through the reinterpreted text and give consent to it to have authority over their lives. It is this giving of consent, that I am calling as the 'instituting' of authoritative texts. I know I have been talking about community, but this act of reinterpretation to reappropriation to reinstitution can be done individually as well and often it is done by powerful leaders on behalf of the community and then the community follows the example set by the leader and reinstitute the texts on to themselves.

One way of looking at the debate between the conservatives and the liberals is that the very presence of conservatives and liberals prove the text's weightiness and that the text had not fallen by the wayside of history. And if the text is indeed weight-worthy, then, it should not be quickly discarded. Discarding only begs for new texts and the same cycle will continue for every text. Therefore, maybe this middle path of reinterpretation, reappropriation and reinstitution could be explored so that the renewed text says words of comfort, encouragement, direction, and injunctions to our present lives and community.

If a text has prevailed through history and has been renewed from generation to generation, and has seasoned the storms of time, then, of course, it is a special text, perhaps, a scriptural text. And perhaps, its power to prevail comes from its divine origin. Perhaps, it is because it is indeed the word of God that it has been able to continue to speak to communities over time. And who are we to claim otherwise?

So what does this understanding of scripture mean for the LGBTQ debate? Well, why don't you try and work out the third way for it!