WAS VANRAMCHHUANGI RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING?

Last week, social activist and Human Rights and Law Network strongwoman Vanramchhuangi revealed an embarassing internal dysfunction within the Baptist Church of Mizoram in an article published by some newspapers in Lunglei.

Many wondered and even questioned why a social activist from a non-Baptist background decided to get involved in what is largely seen as an internal church denominational issue.

The article implied that women's rights and even human rights may be violated and made open suggestions to the leaders of the Baptist Church of Mizoram to reconsider their decision for the sake of the church. Furious may be too weak a word to describe the Baptist leaders' (and members') reaction to the provocative article. Nevertheless, in the footsteps of Christ who taught to "turn the other cheek", the Baptist Church of Mizoram has not responded to the public revelation of its uneasy internal affairs. According to one source, the church is planning to publish an official response through the Baptist Today, weekly journal of the BCM.

The issue Vanramchhuangi, or otherwise known as "Ruatfela Nu", highlighted was the follow up of the 2008 BCM Assembly resolution No.1.21.

The 2008 Assembly passed an agenda that recognised the challenges of a pastor's ministry in his pastorate without his wife. In the past, some of the pastors' wives have not been able to live with their husbands in their pastorates due to reasons ranging from health to children's education, work etc,. Church members, especially in the rural pastorates, have often expressed their desire to have their pastors accompanied by their wives for various reasons, some of which are clearly well grounded while some may be cultural.

The 2008 Assembly agenda proposed a solution to address what is believed to be a longstanding issue. Here's the actual resolution written in Mizo - "Sawt zawk leh tangkai zawka rawng kan bawl theih nan, Bialtu Pastor chuan a thawhna hmunah a nupui a hruai ngei tur a ni."

The Assembly, recognising the important role of a pastor's wife in the overall pastoral ministry, resolved to have a married pastor ensure that his wife accompanies him to his "workplace" on a permanent basis. In the churches of Mizoram, regardless of denomination, a pastor's workplace is either his pastorate or assigned church office.

The second part of the Assembly resolution makes provision for exemption on health grounds. If the pastor's wife is sick or not healthy and is unable to avail medical treatment from her husband's rural pastorate or wherever he may work, the pastor and his wife can request the Pastoral Committee to allow her to live where she may be able to maintain her health or medical assistance. The understanding is that the Pastoral Committee will look into each request and say "yes" or "no" based on the health and healthcare of the pastor's wife.

The third and last part of this Assembly resolution has become the most contentious and controversial one as it imposes strict penalty on non-compliance while it allows relaxation for non-government employees i.e., church employees. The rationale for this provision is the "need" of the church department where the pastor's wife works. Provisions for state or union government or other non-church employees were not made in the resolution.

"Kum 2015 hnu lamah chuan Pastor/Minister nupuite chu Sawrkar hna leh hna dang Full Time a thawh phal a ni lo ang a. Kohhranin Pastor/Minister nupui service mamawh tak takna a nei anih chuan, a mamawhtu Department chuan Pastoral Committee-ah a dil thei ang a, Pastoral Committee chuan a thu tlukna chu Executive Committee-ah a thlen ang."

According to some reports, a number of attempts have been made to make changes for a more pragmatic approach since the adoption of the agenda by the highest decision making body of the church in 2008. One such attempt is an agenda from the Serkawn Pastorate. The agenda implored the Pastoral Committee "to search for a better way of dealing" with the  divisive and controversial part of the resolution.

This agenda was considered and discussed by the Pastoral Committee in November 2014 but a decision was made to uphold the 2008 Assembly resolution with the following steps for implementation. According to the understanding and interpretation of the resolution by some senior pastors in the church leadership, pastorate resolutions (such as the Serkawn Pastorate resolution mentioned above) cannot be deemed valid for consideration by the Pastoral Committee as it would contradict the resolutions of the BCM Assembly. In other words, the lower decision making body cannot change the decisions made by the higher decision making body. In this case, it is the highest decision making body. The Pastoral Committee reaffirmed the subordination of the lower levels of decision making and the authority of the BCM Assembly which, as mentioned and according to the BCM Constitution, is the highest as far as decision making is concerned.

With that in mind, the Pastoral Committee affirmed or decided the following:

1) Notice shall be given to all concerned pastors, probationary pastors and ministers for them to comply with the 2008 Assembly resolution.

2) The 2008 Assembly resolution shall be effective from April 2015.

The Committee added two strikingly disciplinary overtones to the original 2008 Assembly resolution by stating that the intention of the Assembly resolution was for the pastors to either resign or self impose a suspension if they are not able to persuade or compel their wives to resign from their jobs.

The Committee further added that unless their wives are exempted by the Pastoral Department and they still donot have their wives accompany them to their pastorates, they will be considered "disobedient to [their] superiors" and will come under the disciplinary clause of the Service Rules Chapter 10(4) which states:

If an employee is not efficient in his/her work and is disobedient to his/her superiors, and does not mend his/her ways even after being counselled, his/her superior shall take the matter to the concerned Committee. If the Committee is convinced that his/her performance is indeed inadequate, then it may take action against the employee in any one of the following ways: 

(1) Reprimanding. 

(2) Transfer. 

(3) Withholding a part or the full amount of his/her salary. 

(4) Demotion. 

(5) Suspension. 

(6) Terminating Service. 

(7) Compulsory Pension. If he/she is suspended or fired, it should be reported to the Assembly or the Executive Committee. 

Now, back to the original story. Why did Vanramchhuangi come into the picture and where does she fit in?

The issue of human rights was mentioned by the social activist. This was taken as an insult to the church by many who consider the church to have certain immunities and protections and not necessarily bound by the laws of the land. Generally, within the church, a person's right is considered subservient to the will of God and, to a large extent, the will of the church. Any assertion of secular rights issues, even human rights issues are often considered unbiblical and against God.

It is an inconvenient truth that the Baptist Church of Mizoram, in chapter 3 of its constitution titled "OBJECTIVES OF THE BCM" clearly spells out the church's view on human rights even before Vanramchhuangi mentioned it in her article.

"The methods and means used for the fulfillment of its mission may defer from time to time and place to place, at present, the following aims and objectives are identified: ...

5. To build a harmonious, peaceful, progressive and sustainable society, and promote justice and freedom and defend human rights (fundamental rights)."

This clause of the BCM Constitution even affirms human right as a fundamental right which happens to be enshrined in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution -

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

All citizens shall have the right...to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

The Assembly resolution in 2008 that prohibits pastors' wives to work either in the government or non-government organisations is a violation of the highest laws of the Baptist Church of Mizoram --- the BCM Constitution --- and also the highest law of the land --- the Indian Constitution. Therefore, all discussions regarding the third part of the Assembly resolution stands invalid as far as the church is concerned and as far as the Indian law is concerned, the church is in violation of a well protected right which, when brought to a court of law, carries real penalties.

The Baptist Church of Mizoram, in its attempt to strengthen pastoral ministry, is charting dangerous and unwanted territory. It needs to correct the unconstitutional (both church and government) resolution by ceasing all decisions and recommendations flowing from that divisive resolution. It also needs to heal deep self inflicted wounds through godly leadership and prayer so that it can continue its mission without avoidable distractions.