MAORI LIBERATION THEOLOGY - PART ONE

A generation ago I asked a kaumātua why our tūpuna had almost universally embraced Christ and turned away from ngā Atua Māori in all but form, and if, in his opinion, that had been a good thing?

Māori Marsden was a graduate of the Ngāpuhi wananga as well as of St Johns Theological College, and he knew his stuff, both in terms of Christianity and ngā Atua Māori. His answer to both questions was long, interconnected and somewhat complex, so I apologise to his whānau in advance for any injustice they may perceive I do in this summary of it.

He said the reasons our tūpuna became Christians included the parallels between the Old Testament Jehovah, the New Testament Jesus Christ, and the Polynesian Io; the kinship they felt with the house of Israel; the clearer separation they found in Christianity between ‘good’ and ‘evil’; the similarities between the Christian and Māori stories of the Creation; the clearly defined concepts of the Fall, Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection; and the written word of the Bible. These were all seen as upholding and enhancing the underlying principles of Mana and Tapu so important to tikanga Māori. So Christianity was embraced and accepted by our tūpuna and by himself as a natural spiritual progression for our hapū to make. But he also said that the form of Christianity brought to these islands by Pākehā was ‘broken-legged’ (divided between warring factions of Europeans). And while liberating us on one level, it had also added to our division which was then seized on by the Crown in its drive to rule us. In short, Christianity was definitely a tool of colonisation.

Being an inveterate questioner I then asked him if personal conviction, as opposed to political considerations, had had any part in the conversion of our tūpuna to Christianity? His answer was instant and his look intent, ‘They were people of deep spirituality and intelligence. Make of that what you will, but never doubt that they were excited by the new religion and were fired to make the leap of faith.’

Today Christianity is being increasingly abandoned by the Pākehā and Māori alike. Even amongt those who still hold to its outward forms, many have become ‘Godless Christians’ who treat its theology like a menu from which to pick and choose, and its head, not as God, but as the maitre’d who delivers the menu.

Disillusioned by the wide gap between Pākehā professions of faith in Christian principles and their lack of principles when dealing with us, many Māori have turned to other faiths. Others seek to reinstate ngā Atua Māori as our primary religion. And some have given up on God totally to embrace materialism wholly. Invariably the result is a far cry from the ‘deep spirituality and intelligence’ of our tūpuna and their ‘fired leap of faith’ as described by Māori Marsden.

For materialists, no God or a maitre’d God may be fine. But for anyone seeking liberation, that will not do at all. In fact, if we don’t address God with deep intelligence, spirituality and faith, will we even be fit for the liberation for which we are striving?

Next week I’ll continue exploring this vexed issue.

LAWLESS MĀORI LEADERS

The closest Pākehā term there is for tikanga is ‘law.’

It’s not necessary to be steeped in tikanga Māori to live by it, anymore than it’s necessary to be steeped in Pākehā law to live by that. In fact, given that there are currently almost 2000 separate Acts in this country, I’d argue that it’s simpler to live by tikanga Māori. However I would also concede that it’s not necessarily easier.

That is a debate I’m happy to have at any time with anyone. However what is not open to debate is that Māori leaders who operate outside of tikanga pose a problem for their whānau, hapū and iwi.

To illustrate; within any whānau, hapū or iwi we have a problem if our leader makes a habit of abusing women or children, has the sexual morals of an alley cat, can barely get through the day without a toke, regularly puts the opinions and needs of others before ours, thinks they know better than us what is good for us, has an ego bigger than our national debt, is prone to doing deals and selling us down the river, and refuses to take our instruction.

We especially have a problem if we do nothing about the problem.

Given our paradigms of collectivism and whakapapa, the impact of such serious tikanga violations by our leaders radiate through and across the generations, and they often take their uri with them.

Tikanga violations may eventually be forgiven, but they can never be tolerated, particularly by our leaders. If we turn a blind eye, we as good as say to the world that their violence, infidelity, addiction, corruption, egotism or whatever, is OK. Worst of all, we condemn that leader to their weakness and become complicit with them in all they do.

To stop the damage, we must apply tikanga to bring an erring leader to account and give them a chance to take corrective action or be removed.

If we want to confuse and diminish our whānau, hapū or iwi, all we need do is appoint, follow and tolerate lawless leaders. If we don’t want those outcomes, then we need to do the opposite.

Tikanga or kaore he tikanga. It’s just as simple as that.

THE PRE-EMINENT UNIT

Inside a hapū the whānau have always been, and still remain, the pre-eminent unit.

Inside an iwi, the hapū have always been, and still remain, the pre-eminent unit.

With grateful acknowledgement to Tepania Kingi of Ngāti Whātua who first articulated it on paper, I have adapted his words to show how that works in Ngāti Kahu under the following tikanga:

• Whānau aggregate to form hapū which in turn aggregate to form iwi.


• The authority that resides at each level of this social order is conveyed to the next via a leadership representative.


• Hence, whānau leaders engaging with other whānau leaders is a hapū level engagement; hapū leaders engaging with other hapū leaders is an iwi level engagement; iwi leaders engaging with other iwi leaders is a waka level engagement. Up here in Te Hiku, unlike Tainui and Te Arawa, we have a lot of different waka. So we don’t do the waka level thing often, and if we do, it’s only under our own iwi waka.


• For engagement to be effective, it must be level to level i.e. iwi to iwi; hapū to hapū; whānau to whānau. The only exception to this is when engagement occurs as part of the aggregation process i.e. own whānau to own hapū to own iwi and vice versa.


• For the structure to maintain its integrity, the ‘chain of authority’ must be followed i.e. whānau to hapū; hapū to iwi – iwi to hapū; hapū to whānau. • At all levels of engagement there must be authority to engage. At the waka level, iwi leaders engage with other iwi leaders by virtue of the authority vested in them by their hapū leaders. At the iwi level, hapū leaders engage with other hapū leaders by virtue of the authority vested in them by their whānau leaders.


• The authority that each representative brings to their level of engagement is non-transferable. Hence no hapū leader could purport to represent another hapū leader, likewise with the whānau leaders, likewise with the iwi leaders. This often creates a conundrum for external parties seeking to engage with the largest collective possible, preferably of iwi. Generally, external parties tend to presume that engagement is with a collective whole rather than a collective of independent participants. While this may appear to be a subtle difference, it can become a significant hindrance to engagement if it is not made clear that the collective incorporates a number of independent authorities rather than maintaining a ‘single’ overarching authority.


• Any information shared with the collective must also be shared with the individual members of the collective – particularly those not participating in the collective.


• Anything produced by the collective can only be described as ‘collective’ if it has 100% support of all of the individual participants. And, even then, it can only represent the collective participants i.e. the iwi, hapū or whānau leaders, not the actual iwi, hapū or whānau which, by virtue of tikanga, retain the authority to represent only themselves and no others.

Next week I’ll continue this theme by looking at what happens within the whānau, hapū and iwi when leaders presume to speak for others without a clear mandate.

SWISS CHEESE LOGIC, SMORGASBORD ETHICS

I like swiss cheese and smorgasbords because they’re generally tasty and light to eat. But as metaphors for logic and ethics, they stink. Whenever I see or hear swiss cheese logic and smorgasbord ethics at play along racial grounds, the stench is particularly strong.

A case in point is the use of myths about Moriori to prove that Māori are not indigenous to Aotearoa, and to support the Crown’s confiscation of the takutaimoana.

Moriori are genetically and lingusitically Māori. In 1835/36 when their rohe was invaded by Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, all three iwi had a shared language and common laws, except in one respect – Moriori weren’t permitted to kill, while their invaders were. You may shudder at the ferocity of Ngāti Mutunga / Ngāti Tama, but you can’t logically accuse them of breaking their laws.

However, the swiss cheese logicians and smorgasbord ethicists can and do, and here’s how they roll. They first ignore the Crown’s utter disregard for its own law against theft. Then they apply that law retrospectively to Māori who had no such concept. Next they recall that Māori were cannibals, and follow that up with claims that Māori were not the first race here, and massacred their predecessors. Finally they say that all this proves Māori are not the indigenous people of this land, and therefore the Crown is justified in seizing the takutaimoana for the general public.

Strip away their holey logic and carefully selected ethics, and the guts of their message to Māori is, “There are now more of our type of people in these lands than your type, so we can get away with pretty much anything we do to you, and you may as well shut up about it.”

But the problem with relying on being the majority as your moral compass is that, unlike true ethics and logic, the numbers can and do change often and unpredictably. And they don’t travel well.

Try transporting our majority into Japan or China and how do you think they’d fare claiming ethical ownership of those nations’ foreshores and seabeds? Reckon they’d dare to apply their law and logic to the cultures and histories of India or Indonesia while trying to claim the resources of those lands?

The facts are that their predecessors tried those tricks in those very countries throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and they all got booted out after the numbers swung against them. I’ll bet you anything they complained about the “poor me” attitude of the indigenes they’d oppressed, mourned the loss of multi-culturalism, and wept into their nightcaps over the natives’ failure to appreciate that, at heart, they were all one people.

You know I feel kind of sorry for those whose logic is full of holes and whose ethics are based only on their dwindling majority. It can’t be comfortable for them.
Oh well, they can always comfort themselves temporarily with a slice of swiss cheese and the occasional smorgasbord.