The
Ritual of Reconciliation in Thai Culture: Discipling
New Converts
Ubolwan
Mejudhon, D. Miss.
Academic
Dean of Muangthai Cross-Cultural Communication Center
and founder of Muangthai Church in Thailand
Published in Global Missiology, Contextualization, July
2005, www.globalmissiology.net
Robert
Schreiter’s Definition of Reconciliation:
A.H.
Mathias Zahniser’s Theory:
Exegesis
of the Thai Ritual of Reconciliation:
Exegesis
of the Biblical Concept of Reconciliation:
The
Christian Ritual of Reconciliation, Kama and Ahosikarma:
The
Effectiveness of the Christian Ritual of Reconciliation, Kama and Ahosikarma:
A Thai pastor complains, “When our church gets one weak
Christian. We get two hundred strong enemies from the new convert’s social
networks.”
What this Thai pastor says is a plain fact. In
Thailand, a Thai becomes a Christian in secret. The church and the seeker
do not let the parents know about the searching, being afraid that the parents
will stop the seeker from attending the church. Then, one day, out of the
blue, their son or daughter announces his or her conversion to Christ.
Having no emotional shock absorber, the parents are enraged. The
conversion brings shame to them. The neighbors gossip that they did not
bring their child up well. The convert challenges their authority by
making an important decision without acknowledging them or asking for
advice. The parents worry for their child. They have no idea about
the new social network their son or daughter is having fellowship with. They
know nothing about Christ. The announcement brings bewilderment to the
parents and relatives.
Moreover, the church trains the new convert to witness
aggressively to their parents and relatives. The aggressive witness
causes anger because the convert violates the values of hierarchy and smooth
relationships, as well as accepted social roles and status. The parents
and relatives listen to the new convert’s testimony, patiently, until they
reach a boiling point. Then they hit back, hard. As a result, the
new convert takes refuge in the church community. Yet, the missing
relationship is too great. Though the church community is strong, it
cannot provide the support the convert needs. The church has thus gained
one weak Christian while, through the convert’s angry relatives, it has gained
many strong enemies.
It can be seen from its history that Thai culture is very
kind and generous to all religions. Thailand has accepted primal
religion, Hinduism, and Buddhism for more than two thousand years. The
believers of these faiths lived in peace. King Rama V (1868-1919) issued
a law out of love toward missionaries that they were free to preach the
gospel. At the present time, the government gives money to missionaries
to preach the gospel to the Thai (Mejudhon
1994:1). It is a myth among Christians that Thais are against other
religions. Usually, parents allow their children to learn about other
faiths. Religion is good, from the Thai’s viewpoint. The Thai learn
about other faiths from primary school to high school.
The royal academy of Thailand records that the king is the
protector of all religions (The Royal Academy 1995:783). This evidence
should rid Christians of the fear they have of the seekers’ parents. In
fact, Christians should get to know them because Thai culture is a
relationship-based culture. A relationship provides a shock absorber and
lessens anxiety for the parents when they know about the conversion of their
children.
Suntaree Komin, a Thai scholar, conducted
empirical research among the Thai. She found nine Thai value
clusters: ego orientation, grateful relationship orientation, smooth
interpersonal relationship orientation, flexibility and adjustment orientation,
religio-psychical orientation, fun making, education
and competence orientation, interdependence orientation, and achievement-task
orientation (Komin 1993:133). Christians violate the
grateful relationship orientation, smooth interpersonal relationship
orientation, flexibility and adjustment orientation, and the interdependence
orientation when the new converts abruptly tell their parents of their
conversion. The Thai like the proverb, “slowly but surely.” They
hate abrupt changes. Change is a slow process for them. They have a
saying, “slowly, slowly change” (koy-pen-koy-pai), “I need time to prepare
my heart and my mind” (tong-tiam-toi-tiam-jai). The Thai concept of time is cyclical (Feig 1989:23-24).
When new converts witness aggressively to their parents and
relatives they violate their value of confrontation avoidance, as well as their
culture’s value of hierarchy, which Feig considers as
an important characteristic of the Thai’s (Feig
1989:37,76). While doing so, the new converts are usually under the spell of
the ‘theology of redemption,’ according to which their parents and relatives
are lost and will be in hell. Out of love, they are even more aggressive
as their parents and relatives respond to their witness kindly and in
quietness, or even with teasing remarks out of humor. As days pass by,
new converts are more aggressive in witnessing. They overlook the
ego-orientation value of their parents, who have strong self-esteem and strong
self-identity as Thais. In order to keep their children meek and quiet,
the parents fight back by scolding and criticizing. When the children
talk back, their parents are enraged and ignore them, acting as if the children
do not exist. Then the new converts withdraw
into Christian communities and their other relational ties are broken.
As a result, these new converts lose their identity as Thais,
which inhibits their spiritual growth. It seems to me that if converts
were to remain bonded to their natural community—that is, to Thai culture—it
would affect their identity as well as their bonding to Christian
meaning. Because this does not happen, I believe that Christian churches
in Thailand have many weak Christians.
As for the parents of the new converts, although they ignore
their children completely, as Thai parents, they love them dearly. They
long to bond with their own children and know what is going on in their lives
so that they can help. This is an important duty of Thai parents, but
they cannot do so as long as they feel that the church is stealing their
children away. According to the parents, they invested their lives into
their children, yet their children now belong to Christian churches which have
invested nothing in them. The result leaves an open wound for the Thai
families because Christians violate Thai values and break the family’s
relational ties. The letter recorded below is from Nantachai
Mejudhon’s mother, written to him from Thailand when
she learned of his conversion while he was living in the States.
May 22, 1972
My Dearest Son,
Your
last letter is the most important letter of my life. I read your letter
at the office and in the bus and then at home in secret, afraid your younger
brother would know about it. Usually, I allow him to read your letters as
they inspire him. I have read your letter more than ten times now.
I am glad that you have found peace and joy. Now that you are grown up
and have a good education, you can think and make decisions on your own.
I have tried to analyze your comment “I am still a good Buddhist in the way
that I practice his teaching. I still respect and love Lord Buddha.”
I am trying to use this statement to comfort myself and put myself in the
Buddhist middle way. Yet, I am confused and I ask myself, “Can he enter
the monkshood again as he once did? Can my son still make merit as he
once did? Does he have to give up all these rituals when he accepts
Christianity?”
Why
do you write to me, “Please don’t be sorry?” What about this religion
could change the deep relational love between mother and son? I accept
that I am too stupid to study and make experiments to find the truth like
others. Even in the religion in which I worship and which I have
respected from birth for more than sixty years I cannot find the truth
yet. How could I find the truth in another religion? It is
impossible.
I
now accept this suffering because I have a lot of bad karma. I can no
longer find peace and joy in my life. I have fought against all kinds of
fate and shed my tears many times. I will try to quench my suffering,
saying to myself, “It’s my karma.” The fate of
karma predestines our life. Through suffering and pain, I will accept my
karma and try my best to do good. I will try my
best to do the mother’s duty in this life, so that I don’t have to suffer in
another life. I think in my humble capacity. This world, this life
is uncertain. That is the truth of truth.
Anyhow,
I congratulate you, my son. Yet, I would like to plead and beg of you not
to announce your new religion to any relatives. I plead with you not to
be baptized like some others until you return and meet me, because I need your
help in solving some problems. Please heed my requests in this
matter. Good luck, my son. May you have peace and joy in our Lord
Buddha’s teaching. May you think about the grace of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangka, if you can?
From Mother,
Tipparat Mejudhon
P.S.
I am frustrated and wonder how far this religion sets limitations and
disciplines for other religions. Is it possible for this religion to get
along with Buddhism in worship and rituals or is absolute separation the only
possibility?
The wounds caused by broken relationships can no longer be
ignored. I believe the ritual of reconciliation in the Thai culture
provides an answer for the dilemma mentioned above. This paper presents,
in four parts, Thai culture’s ritual of reconciliation as a discipling
tool for new converts. The first part has been introductory. The second
part is a theoretical framework for the ritual of reconciliation. The
third part deals directly with critical contextualization proposing a way of
creating a Christian ritual of reconciliation for bonding new Christian
converts with their families. The last part is the conclusion.
In order to understand this paper, we need to understand
three important definitions: the definition of “reconciliation,” the definition
of “ritual,” and the definition of “critical contextualization.” I will
present “reconciliation” as it is defined by Robert Schreiter.
I will explain “ritual” (within the context of rites of passage) using A. H.
Mathias Zahniser’s thought as a framework. I
will use the theoretical frameworks of Schreiter,and Zahniser to
analyze the Thai ritual of reconciliation. Finally, Paul G. Hiebert’s theory of critical contextualization and Suntaree Komin's nine Thai value
clusters will serve as a guideline for inventing a Thai Christian ritual of
reconciliation. They are authorities in contextualization.
Robert Schreiter’s Definition of Reconciliation:
Robert Schreiter is an eminent
Catholic scholar who has written many books about social reconciliation.
He presents his idea about the definition of reconciliation as follows:
There are at least three understandings of reconciliation
that come close to the genuine meaning of reconciliation but distort and even
falsify its true sense. These three are reconciliation as hasty peace,
reconciliation instead of liberation, and reconciliation as a managed process.
(1997:18)
Many people misunderstand “reconciliation” as hasty
peace. They perform reconciliation to
cover over problems. We need to understand the real meaning of
“reconciliation.” Robert Schreiter explains that
reconciliation is a long process. Reconciliation does not require victims
to quickly forget their pain and suppress their memory of a history of
violence. Schreiter thinks that to trivialize
and ignore the memory of victims is to trivialize and ignore human identity. To
trivialize and ignore human identity is to trivialize and ignore human
dignity. In this long process of reconciliation Schreiter
believes that only certain people have the moral authority to issue the call
for reconciliation. Reconciliation demands special grace and kindness
from victims. Oppressors cannot initiate it. Therefore,
reconciliation is more likely to come from the victims in the situations, not
from the wrongdoers. Reconciliation requires time for starting a new life
for both victims and oppressors if reconciliation really takes place between
them.
Moreover, Schreiter affirms that
reconciliation goes hand in hand with liberation—without liberation, there will
be no reconciliation. Schreiter states, “If the
sources of conflict are not named, examined, and taken away, reconciliation
will not come about. What we will have is a truce, not a peace” (1997:
23). He believes that true reconciliation must meet conflict and confront
its cause. Schreiter points out that
reconciliation is not a managed process. Reconciliation is
spiritual. It is God who reconciles. It is God’s grace welling up
in one's life. Reconciliation is more of an attitude than an acquired
skill or strategy. Schreiter implicitly
suggests that forms of reconciliation should be designed to fit various
cultural contexts. He explains, “By making reconciliation a skill it is
accorded the highest (read: most scientific) form of rationality. But to
reduce reconciliation to the technical-rational is to devalue it in other
cultures” (1997:27). Robert Schreiter's
framework for the definition of “reconciliation” is summarized in a schematic
representation below.
A.H.
Mathias Zahniser’s Theory:
A. H. Mathias Zahniser,
the John Wesley Beeson Professor of Christian Missions, firmly believes that
Christians can utilize symbols and ceremonies in making disciples across cultures,
especially in times of crisis and transition. He points out four reasons
for his belief:
(1) at times of crisis and transition people revert to
traditional religious practices; (2) at times of crisis and transition people
are ripe for bonding to meaning; (3) the discipling
done at times of crisis and transition will help individuals, families, and
their communities deal with daily, more ordinary needs in Christ; and (4) at
times of crisis and transition outsiders need the loving service of the Christian
community of faith. (Zahniser 1997:107)
In order to understand Zahniser’s
ideas, we should look closely at some definitions: the definitions of
“ritual,” “symbol,” “rites of passage” and “liminality.”
Scholars and anthropologists define “ritual”
differently. Victor Turner, a renowned anthropologist, defines ritual as
an aggregation of symbols (1968: 2). I think any ritual is rich with
symbolic objects, symbolic actions, symbolic time and place. Victor
Turner views rituals as performances. These rituals transform lives of
ritual participants. Moreover, rituals reveal major classification,
categories and contradictions of cultural process (Grimes 1995: 148).
As rituals are an aggregation of symbols, Turner also
recognizes that symbols are the “molecules of ritual” (1969:14). Of the many definitions of “symbol,” I personally like
Paul Tillich’s. He says, “Symbols point beyond themselves, in the power
of that to which they point (1997:77).” Tillich recognizes that symbols
are powerful—that the forms of symbols contain powerful, important and deep
meanings. These deep meanings justify the use of symbols. The
national flags and national anthems of our countries are just such symbols, and
they powerfully affect the hearts and minds of people.
Rites of passage are important rituals in all culture.
Victor Turner explains rites of passage as follows:
Van Gennep himself defined rites
de passage as ‘rites which accompany every change of place, state, social
position and age.’ . . . Van Gennep has shown that
all rites of passage or “transition” are marked by three phases:
separation, margin (or
limen, signifying “threshold” in Latin), and aggregation.
The first phase (of separation) comprises symbolic behavior signifying the
detachment of the individual or group either from an earlier fixed point in the
social structure, from a set of cultural conditions (“a state”), or from both.
During the intervening “liminal” period, the
characteristics of the ritual subject (the “passenger”) are ambiguous; he
passes through a cultural realm that has few or none of the attributes of the
past or coming state. In the third phase (reaggregation
or reincorporation), the passage is consummated. (1969:94-95)
A. H. Mathias Zahniser puts the
explanation about rites of passage of Gennep and
Turner into the schematic diagram below (1997:92).
According to Zahniser,
A rite of passage enables initiates to make a transition
from one clearly defined position in society to another. These rites
usually accompany the change from nonbeing to being in birth, from childhood to
adulthood in puberty rites, from the single to the married state in marriage,
and from life to the status of ancestor in the funeral. (1997:92)
In rites of passage, liminality or "threshold" is very
important. Initiates are in a gray area of life that causes them to
deeply think and feel. This experience encourages them to grow
spiritually and socially. Many Buddhists novices weep in the ritual
process of monk ordination and many Christians experience God's presence when
they are baptized. Zahniser also advocates
anthropologist Kenneth Tollefson’s saying about the
power of the rite-of-passage structure as a “pedagogical opportunity for
promoting personal development and spiritual growth” (1990:315). Tollefson believes that liminality
provides educational opportunity. The initiates experience the state of
marginality which helps them reflect on the past and the future. The
process of reflection encourages cognitive dissonance which stimulates the
initiates’ reorientation of self-understanding and perception of suitable
social obligation and behavior. The state of liminality
is very important for the structure of the rites of passage.
Below is a schematic presentation of
my theoretical framework concerning the ritual of reconciliation.
Here, I utilize Schreiter’s theory about the
definition of reconciliation, and Zahniser’s
schematic presentation of rites of passage abstracted from Arnold Van Gennep and Victor Turner.
Now, I will elucidate a concept of “critical
contextualization.” Paul G. Hiebert makes many
suggestions in his book Anthropological Reflections on Missiological
Issues (1994). I will discuss their bearing on contextualization as
follows: (1) exegesis of the culture; (2) exegesis of Scripture and the
hermeneutical bridge; (3) critical contextualization’s demand for a critical
response; (4) new contextualized practices; and (5) checks against syncretism.
Hiebert explains exegesis of culture:
The first step in critical contextualization is to study the
local culture phenomenologically. Local church
leaders and the missionary lead the congregation in uncritically gathering and
analyzing the traditional beliefs and customs associated with some question at
hand. (1994:88)
He also describes exegesis of
Scripture and the hermeneutical bridge:
The leader must also have a meta-cultural framework that
enables him or her to translate the biblical message into the cognitive,
affective, and evaluative dimensions of another culture. This step is crucial,
for if the people do not clearly grasp the biblical message as originally
intended, they will have distorted view of the gospel. (1994:89)
Hiebert explains that critical contextualization requires a
critical response from local Christians in the light of their new biblical
understanding. They should make decisions toward the new found truths;
then Christian leaders will be able to help locals practice a new ritual that
expresses the Christian meaning of the event. Hiebert
suggests four criteria for checking against syncretism: that critical
contextualization be biblically based; that believers
be guided by the Holy Spirit; that the church acts as a hermeneutical community
in contextualization; and that evangelical theologians from different cultures
participate in discussion.
Using Paul G. Hiebert’s theory of
critical contextualization I will proceed to exegete
the Thai ritual of reconciliation. Then I will present the exegesis of Scripture
and the hermeneutical bridge of etic and emic Christians concerning the biblical meaning of
“reconciliation.” After this, I will briefly present a critical response to the
ritual of reconciliation among Christian communities in Thailand.
Following this, a Thai Christian ritual of reconciliation will be
illustrated. My new contextualized practice will then be ready for checks
against syncretism.
Exegesis
of the Thai Ritual of Reconciliation:
The Thai naturally participate in rituals of reconciliation
through rites of passage: e.g. through monk ordination, funeral rites,
conflict solving process, eloping and a lot more. With the help of Schreiter and Zahniser’s theory
of the ritual of reconciliation, in order to find out its meaning and structure,
I will analyze an example of the Thai ritual of reconciliation as it is
recorded in a famous novel “A Child of the Northeast.” Recorded below is
an event concerning a couple in the NorthEast of
Thailand who committed fornication:
Early the next morning, when it was still dark as midnight,
Koon awoke to hear a woman yelling at the top of her voice, right outside their
house.
“Put down your ladder, Koon’s papa!”
It was Auntie Kao, who was the wife of Uncle Yai and the mother of Kamgong.
“Open your door,” she yelled. “The water buffalo?”
Koon’s mother called out, opening the door and leaning out.
“Where is it now?” Koon’s father asked.
“Still in Kamgong’s bedroom,” she
said. “And her Papa is standing outside the door with his long knife.”
His parents leaned out the doorway, and there was a hasty
discussion. Koon soon understood that the water buffalo was Tid-Joon, son of Uncle Mek, and
that he had been in Pi Kamgong’s bedroom the whole
night. Just before dawn, at the hour when the rooster was about to hop
from his perch, Pi Kamgong had called to her mother
that Tid-Joon was in there, and had been with her the
whole night.
At once, her father had jumped up and grabbed his long knife
to stand guard in front of his daughter’s door, so that Tid-Joon
could not jump down from the house, leaving Kamgong
up there, as daughters sometimes were left.
Koon’s father sent Auntie Kao off to fetch Tid-Joon’s mother and father. Then he dressed and
went to tell Auntie Bua-si and Uncle Kem. They were more distant relatives, but in any
important family matter, all of the family gathered—which was to say, almost
the whole village.
“Mama, will Tid-Joon live
with Pi Kamgong now?”
“Yes, son.”
“Why don’t they have a wedding, and invite people to eat lop and drink whiskey?”
“Because they are so poor. When two people marry this way, it is called chu sao.
Kamgong’s Papa says that he does not like Tid-Joon, and that Tid-Joon has no money. But
that is not really true. The important thing is that Kamgong
is the only child in the family who still lives at home and can help Uncle Yai and Auntie Kao. That’s why Kamgong
needs a little help herself . . .”
“So Tid-Joon
went over there last night and sneaked into her bedroom and helped her?”
“Er . . .”
The sun still had not risen when they reached Uncle Yai’s house, but Koon could see the dim shapes of many
people clustered in the yard. Four of five of the oldest people in the
village were up on the porch, chatting quietly with Koon’s grandmother.
When they climbed into the house, Koon was very relieved to
see that Uncle Yai was not standing in front of Pi Kamgong’s door with a long knife, but sitting calmly enough
on the kitchen floor and smoking a cigarette. And he was amazed to see
that Tid-Joon’s father had arrived already, and was
sitting and smoking with Uncle Yai. He did not
see Tid-Joon’s mother.
And there was Pi Kamgong, the
cause of all the trouble, sitting next to her mother, sitting
hunched over and staring miserably at the floor.
“All right, everyone is here now,” Koon’s father said.
“It is time for Tid-Joon to
come out of the bedroom.”
The door opened slowly and Tid-Joon crept forward. He crawled to his father’s side
on his hands and knees, and sat hunched over just like Kamgong,
staring at the floor.
Koon was astonished. The swaggering young man he had
seen at the well was not swaggering now!
“What do you all say to our mother speaking first?”
Koon’s father asked. No one replied. They all turned toward the old
woman, and waited respectfully for her to speak. Koon’s grandmother
looked at Kamgong and Tid-Joon for a moment, then at the others. She said,
“A man and a woman become husband and wife in one of three
ways. One, the man asks for her, and there is a wedding ceremony.
Two, they run away together. Three, chu sao . . .”
“So what is to be done now?”
Uncle Yai asked angrily.
Koon’s grandmother raised her hand.
“If Tid-Joon
asks forgiveness of our family, and of the spirits of our ancestors, that is
enough.”
She looked sternly at Uncle Yai
and said; “Everybody in the village knows that Tid-Joon does not have a thing to offer but his apology, so
that will have to be enough!”
“Our family accepts the whole blame,” Uncle Mek said, “because Tid-Joon is our son, and he did wrong. But if the other
family calls for some payment, I do not know what we will do, because we do not
have anything, and that is the truth. There is nothing of value in our
whole place but three baths and a chicken.”
They talked until the sun began to rise, and it was then
that Tid-Joon’s mother appeared, carrying a tray on
which she had placed one folded pakomah, some
flowers, and the family’s three baht. Tid-Joon sat up straight, for the first time, and Koon noticed
the movement of the powerful muscles in his shoulders, arms and chest as he
took the tray from his mother and crept on his knees toward the elders.
He bent low before Uncle Yai, and before Auntie Kao;
then he crawled toward Koon’s mother and father, and bowed before them.
“And before our grandmother!” Uncle Yai said gruffly, and Tid-Joon quickly crawled to
Koon’s grandmother, and touched his head to the floor before her.
Koon’s grandmother smiled down at him, and dabbed at her
eyes with a square of red and black cloth.
“This Tid-Joon
is a good boy,” she said. “This boy has gone to the temple to be a monk
in his time, and he will be a good husband and a father until he is an old
man.
“Tid-Joon,
listen to me. If you are a poor man, then you make merit with your good
heart, and with the strength of your body.”
Tid-Joon looked up, smiling gratefully at these sweet words
from his bride’s grandmother, and it was at the moment that Tid-Hod,
the drunk, came struggling up the house ladder with the chicken under one arm,
and stood steadily on the porch.
“Kamgong! What is this, letting that big water buffalo into the garden?
Ha ha ha!”
“It is my karma, Tid-Hod,”
said Kamgong in a small shaky voice, not raising her
head.
Tid-Hod
sat down, leaned back on one elbow, and said that as soon as he had heard about
this bad water buffalo, he had gone out and gotten a chicken for Tid-Joon to cook for his bride’s
ancestors. “After we make some lop from the chicken,” he said, “and after
the ancestors have had their share, we will all take a few bites ourselves.”
Tid-Hod
picked himself up and went off with Uncle Sang, Auntie Si-nin’s
husband, to kill the chicken and make the lop. It took them only a few minutes, and soon Koon’s grandmother was lading chicken lop
into a tiny bowl.
She put this bowl into a tray with some betel leaves,
prettily folded and sprinkled with water, and the three baht from Tid-Joon’s family. She carried the tray from the
kitchen, and called Tid-Joon
and Kamgong to follow her into Kamgong’s
bedroom, where she made them kneel down and ask forgiveness of Kamgong’s ancestors, so that they could have a happy life
together, and then she led them out to sit facing the people who by now filled
the house, and also the porch.
“Tid-Hod brought a chicken for lop,” she told
them.
“Will there be enough rice for all these people?” one old woman asked.
“There will be enough,” said Auntie Kao, Tid-Joon’s
mother. “Our neighbors have come, bringing four boxes.”
Koon sat beside his father, sniffing the air hungrily.
When six small bowls of chicken lop were set down between four boxes of rice,
the people all reached forward politely, quickly rolling balls of rice and
dipping them into the delicious food. (Boontawee
1994:84-90)
The events portrayed here illustrate a transition in the
lives of Kamgong and Tid-Joon from the status of single to the status of married,
through fornication. They separated themselves to secretly enjoy their
desire. The first state of separation was abruptly ended when Kamgong called at dawn to her mother acknowledging Tid-Joon’s presence in her bedroom.
Then the liminality elucidates
itself driving Kamgong and Tid-Joon into “threshold.” They were not single; yet they
were not married either. They brought shame to both families and
relatives. Kamgong’s parents became
victims. Tid-Joon
polluted their virgin daughter without paying a dowry. Both Kamgong and Tid-Joon committed a cultural sin. They also committed a
religious sin, breaking the third precept of Buddha. The spirits of Kamgong’s ancestors were violated. The spirits could
punish the whole clan of Kamgong and Tid-Joon. In liminality, Kamgong and Tid-Joon lost their old
status. However, during, betwixt and between in these events, both of
them probably learned about the difference between pollution and purity, as
well as the importance of community. They probably reflected a lot about
their past and future as they were confronted publicly by the victims of their
sins.
Note that the victims initiated the process of
reconciliation. It was a long process because the victims did not
suppress their pain and anger. They pointed out the cause of the
problem. The father wanted to liberate himself from shame, the loss of
identity and the loss of dignity. Grandmother was the authority of the
ritual of reconciliation. I believe that through God’s image left in each
victim, they could forgive Kamgong and Tid-Joon. Yet, they also
humiliated both oppressors. Thai culture demanded that both oppressors
bow down to their victims’ feet—the most humiliating of actions—signifying the
submission of ego and oneself to the victim.
The ritual objects are humble and simple: a piece of
cloth, a small amount of money and flowers. A piece of cloth is a gift the Thai
give to elderly people in sacred times such as festivals and ceremonies.
Money represents a dowry. Tid-Joon’s dowry,
three baht, was all that his family had. Flowers represent
friendship. Liminality ended when the victims
forgave their oppressors and grandma blessed them. Then Tid-Joon and Kamgong
were reintegrated into a new status as a married couple. They reconciled
to the victims and to the Buddhist precept of purity. They also
apologized to Kamgong’s ancestors’ spirits.
After that, celebration of the new status quickly followed.
This analysis reveals that the Thai ritual of reconciliation
follows Schreiter’s definition of reconciliation as
well as the structure of rites of passage. The only superfluous action
from the Christian perspective is the reconciliation to the ancestor’s
spirits. Apart from that, most of the ritual can be participated in by
Thai Christians.
Some more information about the ritual can be helpful.
This ritual of reconciliation is called the Kama and Ahosikarma
Ritual. Kama and Ahosikarma are archaic words
which come from Pali. Kama means “to ask for
pardon; to humbly apologize.” Ahosikarma means
“forgiveness of the offence is granted” (Thai
Royal Academy 1995:128, 925).
Perhaps these concepts come from myths in primal religion,
Hinduism, and/or Buddhism, being that these are the main strands of Thai
syncretistic religion (Sataanandha and Boonyanate 1993:6-12). Hinduism provides many myths
about humans who offended gods and, thus, had to be reconciled to gods through
sacrifices. Buddhism emphasizes reconciliation for broken human
relationships. The Buddhist myth of Buddha’s life tells about the great
thief, Ongkulimand, who asked for pardon from Buddha,
whom he wanted to kill. Buddha forgave him. Primal religionists in
Thailand worship spirits both good and bad. When Thai people offend these
spirits, they have to ask for forgiveness (Kama) and make an offering to
suspend the offended spirits’ chastisement.
Nowadays, the words ‘Kama’ and ‘Ahosikarma’
are frequently used in Thai language when relationships between persons are
being challenged. The word ‘Ahosikarma’ is shortened
to ‘Hosi,' being a vernacular expression. This
demonstrates that the concept of reconciliation is still very important in Thai
culture.
Exegesis
of the Biblical Concept of Reconciliation:
I will present here a meta-cultural exegesis of the biblical
concept of reconciliation. I will employ the theological work of Robert
S. Schreiter, a C.P.P.S. American Theologian, William
Barclay, a Scottish New Testament interpreter, Clearence
B. Bass, an American Professor of Systematic Theology, and my own work, that of
a Thai missiologist and theologian.
Schreiter also references a German theologian of New Testament, Cilliers Breytenbach:
Cilliers
Breytenbach has argued recently that the usages in
the authentic Pauline passages in Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5 are not
connected with the older biblical ideas of atonement, but reflect a more
secular usage, namely, a making of peace after a time of war. (1992: 42)
I think Breytenbach’s idea elucidates
human reconciliation in a way which can be easily understood by non-Christians.
Making reference to Latin American liberation theologian
Jose Comblin, Schreiter
notes:
Combining the references in Romans and 2 Corinthians with
the usages in Colossians and Ephesians, Jose Comblin
has suggested that a theology of reconciliation can be discerned on three
levels: a christological level, in which Christ
is the mediator through whom God reconciles the world to God’s self; an
ecclesiological level, in which Christ reconciles Jew and Gentile; and a cosmic
level, in which Christ reconciles all the powers in heaven and on earth. (1992:
42)
Robert J. Schreiter condenses the
exegesis of the New Testament texts regarding reconciliation into five
points: (1) it is God who initiates and brings about reconciliation; (2)
reconciliation is more a spirituality than a strategy; (3) reconciliation makes
both victim and oppressor a new creation; (4) the new narrative that overcomes
the narrative of the lie is the story of passion, death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ; (5) reconciliation is a multidimensional reality.
I have clarified the first three points in the “Theoretical
Framework” section of this paper, but have not touched on the fourth and
fifth. Schreiter beautifully interprets the
meaning of passion, cross, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. God
illustrated his passion when He incarnated Himself into the suffering, violence
and death of humanity through his death on the cross. Human blood brings
death; God’s blood brings life. Jesus’ resurrection heralds “new status”
for all mankind, both victims and oppressors.
Schreiter also notes that reconciliation goes beyond problem
solving. Reconciliation heals otherness and alienation, as stated in
Romans 9-11: God reconciles Jews and Gentiles. Reconciliation includes
all things in heaven and on earth (Colossians 1: 19-20, Ephesians 1:
9-10). Reconciliation, therefore, takes on a cosmic dimension. I
think Schreiter has given us a cornerstone for the
exegesis of the biblical concept of reconciliation.
William Barclay’s exegesis confirms the first four points of
Schreiter’s conclusion. Barclay believes that
God initiates reconciliation. It is completely by grace. The death of
Christ changes our status with God. Christ’s resurrection changes our
state. Christ’s justification puts us into a right relationship with God.
Christ’s sanctification affects our state. We can experience God’s continuous
saving grace (1975: 75-77). Barclay’s exegesis seems to emphasize a specific
dimension of reconciliation: that of God-man relationship.
Clearence B. Bass exegetes terminology
regarding reconciliation. The exegesis is much more detailed than that of
Barclay. However, the conclusion is the same in its lack of reference to
social reconciliation, individual reconciliation and cosmic reconciliation.
I, myself, exegete “reconciliation”
differently. As a believer from Asia, I
prefer to exegete the deep meaning of “reconciliation” from life stories.
In this paper, I want to explore the reconciliation process recorded in the
story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 37-47 and the story of Peter’s
reconciliation with Jesus in John 21. I see in these two incidents some
structures similar to Schreiter’s exegesis of
“reconciliation:”
(1)
It is God who initiated the
reconciliation. Probably, Joseph met God on the road to Egypt. He
was a changed man while in Egypt; God was with him (Genesis 39: 3, 5, 21,
23). Jesus is God who incarnated Himself into Jewish culture.
(2)
Reconciliation is more a
spirituality than a strategy. Joseph and Jesus encountered betrayal from
someone whom they loved. Both of them experienced pain, violence and
injustice. However, they forgave. They took initiative in the
reconciliation process. They confronted their oppressors. The
causes of problems were clarified.
(3)
Reconciliation makes both victims
and oppressors a new creation. Joseph’s brothers were changed.
Joseph was changed. Peter became a pillar of the early church.
Jesus, the Victim, became the Victor.
(4)
The new narrative that overcomes the
narrative of betrayal is the narrative of atonement. Suffering begets
life and liberation. Death brings life.
(5)
Reconciliation is a multidimensional
reality. Individual reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers
affects the clan and the nation. Peter’s reconciliation affects the
community, various nations, the world and the cosmos as the gospel spreads
out. Reconciliation is holistic. It affects the material world,
relational world and spiritual world.
(6)
Reconciliation confirms that God’s
image remains in all cultures (Genesis 1: 27). People had reconciled
through God’s image before Christ came.
It seems to me that the exegesis of meta-cultural
theologians provides strong ground for the claim that the Thai ritual of
reconciliation is biblical.
Through various seminars I have discussed the concepts envolved in the Thai ritual of reconciliation with
approximately one hundred missionaries to Thailand. Most agree that the
Thai ritual of reconciliation is biblical and it can be contextualized.
Thai Buddhists unanimously suggest that Christians use this ritual in discipling. Most Thai Christian leaders like the Thai
ritual of reconciliation. Though few missionaries express concern about
the use of symbolic objects, their use remains the only area of question.
We are now ready to look at the contextualization of the ritual of reconciliation
and its ability to bond new converts to their families.
On the basis of the frameworks and exegesis of Scripture, I
believe that the concepts of reconciliation in the Thai Kama and Ahosikarma ritual can be stepping stones in Thai culture
for the understanding of Christ as the Reconciler. I also believe that it
can heal the broken relationship between new Buddhist converts (as well as old
Buddhist converts) and their social networks. The contextualization of this
ritual into a Christian Kama and Ahosikarma ritual
must, therefore, be designed to help the new converts bond to their natural
social networks and Christ, the Reconciler. This study will now lay out a
Christian Kama and Ahosikarma ritual.
The
Christian Ritual of Reconciliation, Kama and Ahosikarma:
As a rite of passage, the Christian ritual of Kama and Ahosikarma is divided into three stages: (1)
separation, (2) liminality, and (3) reincorporation.
According to the figure above, the rite of separation and
the liminal stage take one year. Due to the
Thai’s value of grateful relationships and smooth interpersonal relationships,
and the Thai’s flexibility and adjustment orientation, the prolonged time
provides a shock-absorber, allowing the new converts to throw away their idols
and to tell their parents of their conversion to Christianity. These are
acts of separation from Buddhism. At the same time, the prolonged time
provides a shock absorber for the parents when informed by their children of
this important separation. During the liminal
stage, the prolonged time allows the initiates to be bonded to the meaning of
reconciliation to other persons, to God, to cultural communities, and to
Christian communities, thus allowing them to be both Thais and
Christians. This will result in a good identity for the new
converts. They will grow as Thais and Christians because they will have
good relational ties with their natural and cultural social networks, as well as
with their Christian communities. They will have sound identity and good
roots.
Due to the importance of this issue, I would like to
concentrate on the bonding of the new converts to their relatives in each phase
of the rite of passage in the Kama and Ahosikarma
ritual. I will discuss this bonding within the context of the ritual of
Kama and Ahosikarma as recorded in the event
mentioned above. Moreover, I will use the nine value clusters of the
Thai, their concepts of hierarchy, cyclical time and being, and their activity
as a framework for the stages of separation, liminality
and reincorporation.
There are five steps in the rite of separation: (1)
the religious dialogues between the new converts and their relatives about
Christ and the church, (2) the preparation for the new converts to understand
the concept of reconciliation, (3) putting away idols, (4) informing the
families of the conversion and (5) negotiating for confession and
forgiveness. The religious dialogue between the new converts and their
relatives is an important foundation for the Christian ritual of
reconciliation, Kama and Ahosikarma.
Religious dialogue demands trust, respect and love for
parents on the part of the new converts. According to the apostle John,
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear,
because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in
love. We love because He first loved us. (John 4:18-20)
This kind of attitude will help the new converts to
communicate their contact with Christianity to their parents from the very
beginning. This style of the communication will be effective only when it
fits Thai cultural values. The parents will feel respected, trusted and
loved if the new converts ask for permission to go to the church and report
what they learn from the church. The parents are willing to discuss
religion with their children about religions because the children’s behavior
indicates that they cherish the parents’ identity, their concept of hierarchy,
grateful relationship orientation, smooth interpersonal relationship
orientation and interdependence orientations.
The new converts should also encourage Christians who are
well aware of Thai culture to get to know their social networks. This
will ease the fear and anxiety of Thai parents and help them to have a clearer
view of Christians. They have various myths about Christians and
churches. These myths should be corrected through the Christians’
goodness.
The new converts must pay attention to their family’s problems
and needs. They must co-operate with their relatives to solve these
problems because collectivism is very important for the Thai. These
behaviors will prevent new converts from alienating themselves from their
relatives. They will also help bonding with relatives, and both sides
will be prepared for the religious separation. The meekness and the
vulnerability on the parts of the new converts will prepare their social
networks to negotiate in the liminal stage, as well
as the rite of reincorporation.
The liminal
stage creates deeper bonding between the new converts and their social
networks. The bonding is divided into three steps: (1) confession
and forgiveness, (2) the period of the probation, and (3) the baptismal
service.
The first step is the formal act of
confession, in which the new converts who bring shame to their immediate
families and relatives ask for forgiveness and bow down at the feet or their
parents. The meekness in communication, the sacred indigenous objects,
and the sacred ceremony speak to the hearts and minds of the Thai, allowing
them to respond positively to the new converts.
This ritual of confession and
forgiveness provides ways for the parents and relatives to vent their anguish,
anger, frustration, disappointment, and concern before they proceed further to
truly grant forgiveness to the new converts. Their forgiveness is the
action of reciprocity. When the new converts take the initiative to value
the interdependent orientation in Thai culture by asking for forgiveness, they
show respect for Thai culture and their parents’ pain. As a result, the
parents respect their decision to convert. A Thai poem states clearly the
importance of interdependency in Thai culture.
Tigers are tigers because of jungles;
Jungles are jungles because of tigers.
Soil is soil because of good grasses;
Grasses are grasses because of good soil.
(Praya Sri Sunthorn Woharn 1962)
Respecting interdependency creates bonds between new
converts and their social networks. The bonding will go deeper in the
periods of probation and baptismal service.
In the period of probation (Fig 6, No. 7), the families
receive back their authority over the new converts. They will set
criteria together with the local churches for the new converts to prove their
accountability in preparation for their baptism. Thai culture perceives
and defines ‘activity’ as being rather than doing.
Therefore, the families will require the accountability of being from the new
converts, and will be very happy that they can maintain their authority over
them. If the new converts submit themselves to the families’ authority,
there will be deeper bonding because Thai culture requires the authority to be
merciful to the submissive. As a famous Thai proverb suggests:
The meek bow down with burden;
They shall be blessed at the end. (Ngamdee 1993:36)
This bonding will prepare the parents and relatives for the
baptismal service. This is one of the most difficult times for the
convert and their families (Fig. 6, No. 8).
At this stage, liminality will
soon end for the new converts, but suffering is at its peak for the new
converts’ parents and relatives. The bonding will go deepest if the new
converts are sensitive to the pain of the parents because, from their
viewpoint, the baptismal service signifies a complete separation from Buddhism
and a full identification with Christianity. The children can comfort the
parents in attitude and in action according to the Thai value of grateful
relationship orientation. In Thai culture, gratitude is expressed through
obedience, serving and giving.
As the baptismal service approaches, the new converts should
dialog with their social networks about the concept of death and
resurrection. In doing so, they should use stepping-stones, such as
familiar experiences in daily living and familiar concepts in Buddhism. Eliade suggests that the moon symbolizes death and
resurrection (Eliade 1987:156-157). Professor Wit Wisawate lectured that, in Buddhism, life is a continuous
death and rebirth like electricity (Wissawate 1967).
This will help social networks to understand the deep religious meaning of the
ritual and they will be more appreciative because the Thai are religiously
oriented. They should be led to understand the ritual not as a departure
from Buddhism but as a fulfillment of Buddhist self-emptying. The
baptismal service should symbolize the perfect bonding to the concept of
self-emptying in Buddhism through Christ. The families should be invited
officially to attend the ritual. Now the process of this Christian ritual
of reconciliation takes us to the rites of reincorporation.
The rites of reincorporation are divided into three steps:
(1) the parents’ discourse, (2) the symbolic serving, and (3) the feast.
The bonding between the social networks and the new converts takes place in the
first step. The parents are invited to give words of wisdom, which urge
their children to fulfill their Christian duties to their families, communities
and nation. The Thai like participating in formal ceremonies because of
their value of hierarchy. If invited officially, they will usually agree
to participate in religious ceremonies.
The feast provides another chance for bonding. The
parents should be sat at the head of the table with their children, the other
elderly relatives and the church elders. The food being served should
symbolize bonding and blessings. The rites of reincorporation end in joy
and fellowship, but the bonding continues, as well as the discipling
of the new converts.
The bonding between the new converts and their social
networks is not a sideline. It is their lifeline and it lasts as long as
their life. If the bonding is life-long, the discipling
of the new converts will last, and the church will have both strong Christians
and good friends who are candidates for the kingdom. This indicates the
effectiveness of the ritual.
The Effectiveness of the Christian
Ritual of Reconciliation, Kama
and Ahosikarma:
The ritual is likely to be effective because it creates
bonding between the new converts and their social networks throughout the whole
process. As a result, the new converts are not cut off from their
cultural roots. The problem of their crisis in self-identity is solved
and discipling becomes possible.
The ritual trusts God, the parents and the relatives of the
new converts. Thais value ego orientation very highly, making respect and
trust very important ethical issues for them. Christians cherish the Thai
self-identity, self-esteem and self-respect.
This ritual accentuates six of the nine Thai value
clusters: ego orientation, grateful relationship orientation, smooth
interpersonal relationship orientation, flexibility and adjustment orientation,
and interdependence orientation, as well as fun-pleasure orientation. The
Thai will respond to this much more than to the old model of aggressive
evangelism.
This Christian ritual of reconciliation, Kama and Ahosikarma, fits the Thai’s concept of time and hierarchy,
allowing Christians to be viewed as humble, meek, gentle and vulnerable, each
of which is a religious model for Jesus’ disciples. This is an effective
way to win Thai hearts. As an ancient Thai poem says: “Be soft
as a silk thread and tie a tiger down” (anonymous).
This ritual of reconciliation has been tested in at least
three local churches. The results have been positive. People did
not detect syncretism in the contextualization of the Christian ritual of
reconciliation. I believe this ritual can be effectively used to heal
memories of pain, violence, injustice and oppression in war- torn countries
like Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
This study presents what is perhaps the core problem for
Christianity in Thailand: the relational bonds between new converts and their
natural social networks are broken; as a result, the new converts lose their
identity as Thais and become weak Christians; the parents and relatives thus
turn against the church and become strong enemies of Christian
conversion. This study has determined the cause of this problem to be the
violation of Thai cultural values. It has pointed out that Thai culture
uses the ritual Kama and Ahosikarma to heal such broken
relationships. This Thai ritual can be contextualized to become a
Christian ritual of reconciliation and resolve the problem mentioned
above. The study has demonstrated that the ritual is a rite of passage
and has given the ritual’s respect for Thai values as evidence for its
potential effectiveness. The study thus concludes that the Christian
ritual of reconciliation, Kama and Ahosikarma, can be
a means to solve the problem of the church gaining one weak Christian, yet many
strong enemies, with each new convert. It will provide an effective means
for helping new converts to be reconciled to their culture and to understand
“reconciliation” itself.
Barclay, William
1975
The Letter to the Romans. Pennsylvania:
The Westminster Press.
Boontawee, Kampoon
1994
A Child of the Northeast. Bangkok, Thailand:
Duangkamol.
Eliade, Mircea
1987 The Secred
& The Profane: The Nature of Religion.
San Diego: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Feig, John Paul
1989
A Common Core: Thais and
Americans.
Intercultural Press, Inc.
Grimes, Roland L.
1995
Beginning in Ritual Studies. Rev. ed.
Studies in Comparative Religion. Ed. Frederick M. Denny. Columbia,
S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Hiebert, G. Paul
1994
Anthropological Reflections on Missionlogical Issues.
Michigan:
Baker Books.
Komin, Suntaree
1993
Psychology of the Thai People Values
and Behavioral Patterns.
Bangkok,
Thailand: NIDA
Mejudhon, Nantachai
1994
"Meekness: A New Approach
to Christian Witness to the Thai" D. Miss.
Dissertation, Asbury Theological
Seminary, Wilmore, KY.
Ngamdee, Yinglak
1993
Supasit Kampangpey Lae
Samnuan Thai (Proverbs, Saying and Thai
Expressions). Bangkok, Thailand: Agsarapipat
Ltd.
Praya Sri
Sunthorn Wohan, Noi Archanyang Kun
1962
Kamklong Lokaniti (The Poetry of the Laws
of Life). Bangkok,
Thailand: Kurusapa
Publishing House.
Sataanandha, Suwanna and Nuangnoy
Boonyanate
1993
Rongroy Kwamkit Kwamchur
Thai (The Belief System of the Thai).
Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalanogkorn
University Publishing House.
Schreiter, Robert J.
1996
Reconciliation: Mission &
Ministry in a Changing Social Order.
New York: Maryknoll.
Tenney, Merill C (ed.)
1963
Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House.
Thai Royal Academy
1994
Pojananukrom (Dictionary).
Bangkok, Thailand: Agsorncharoentasana.
The Lockman
Foundation
1964
New American Standard Bible. U.S.A.: The Lockman
Foundation.
Tollefson, Kenneth
1990
“Maintaining Quality Control in
Christian Missions,”
Missiology 18/3.
Turner, Victor
1968
The Drums of Affliction: A
Study of Religious Processes among the
Ndembu of Zambia.
Oxford: Clarendon for the International African Institute.
1969
The Ritual Process: Structure and
Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine De
Gruyster
Wissawate, Wit
1967
“The Series of Lecture on Buddhist
Philosophy.” Bangkok, Thailand:
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn
University.
Zahniser, A.H. Mathias
1997
Symbol and Ceremony: Making Desciples Across Cultures. California:
MARC.
Editor’s
Note: This paper originally presented to SEANET, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 2003.