The announcement that the Government has cancelled the Methodist Church's August's annual Conference and AGM at Lomanikoro in Rewa is regrettable, but comes as no surprise. The decision will win Government no new friends but, unless Church leaders can this week convince PM Bainimarama otherwise, Government really had little other choice. The catalyst for the decision, taken to avoid "instability in the country," is thought to have been an anti-Government "plan of action" submitted to the church by Rev. Manasa Lasaro.
For weeks now elements within the church, led by Lasaro and the Taukei faction, and without, have been pressing for direct action against the Government. Different forms of confrontation have been proposed by the church sub-committee headed by Lasaro, in more than one pulpit around the country, and in increasingly provocative calls by anti-Government bloggers. The actions proposed include a Methodist-led nation-wide petition, mass marches, work stoppages, calls for an uprising within the military, and the "removal" (whatever that might mean?) of Bainimarama. If each of these acts can be likened to a single grenade, the Annual Conference, at which political as well as religious matters would be discussed, could have released a mega-bomb.
The Methodist Church in Fiji is a highly politicized body that has always discussed political affairs at its conferences, but this time it would have been from a very different standpoint. Previously, most of its leaders supported the "Rabuka" 1987 coups, supposedly conducted to protect ethnic Fijian rights. One of these leaders was Lasaro. (The moderate Rev. Josateki Koroi, who opposed the 1987 coups, was replaced as President in 1988. Laraso continued as General Secretary.) They supported the "Speight" 2000 Coup, though here again church leadership was divided between the Taukei faction and the moderates, until the moderate leaders were removed. In the 2001 elections the Church adopted Qarase's SDL party as the church party, and its members in parliament called once again for Fiji to be declared a Christian theocracy. Others called for non-ethnic Fijians to be denied citizenship. The "Bainimarama" 2006 Coup -- the first not seeking Fijian paramountcy and the perks for sections of the Fijian elite that go with it-- is the first coup it has opposed.
The statement issued following last Thursday's extraordinary Standing Committee meeting of the Church is a neatly balanced mix of religious ideals and political dynamite.
"The Church must be steadfast in its role of being God’s instrument for God’s word, truth and justice, and that regardless of the threats, cajolement and the cost, the Church has to stand up and continue to speak out for moral, spiritual and Christian values ...
"Given the current political crisis, the Church must be a voice of hope supporting the desire of people to escape from political oppression and uncertainty, the freedom of the poor from poverty, underdevelopment and marginalization so they may secure for themselves a better life." One senior Minister added: “We have already given our life for Christ. If we are forced into a position of making a choice, we have no option; as the Church martyrs in Rome chose Christ over the emperor, we too must do likewise.”
Moderate Methodists reflecting on this statement may ask why a standing committee prompted by Lasaro thinks one church is entitled to speak on behalf of all Christians, and indeed of all people, on a political situation in which the country is deeply divided, while, presumably, holding the Government (whose leaders include Methodists) responsible for the country's historic poverty, underdevelopment and marginalization. And why it has been so silent on these matters in the past.
Less moderate Methodists will welcome the statement no matter where it leads. The Solivakasamablog, for example, asked its readers: " Which method do you prefer to remove Bainimarama?" Here are the suggested answers and their support: "Have all the people rise up against him, and take him out!... 27%; Make a deal with the CIA 8%; One brave person..... 5%; ...support ...the Methodist church by mass gathering and march towards military camp and close it down. 60%."
Another blog calls for an army uprising. Yet another writes of Methodist strength and how it can unseat the Government
Nothing has been suggested by Methodist leaders or bloggers about dialogue, accommodation, compromise, looking for something good in the Government's agenda, finding some peaceful way forward. No thought is given to possible self-interest, probable racism, and more Christian modes of conflict resolution. Everything is seen as black or white. Bainimarama is black and nothing he wants is "good." All his opponents are highly moral democrats. The only way forward is confrontation, whatever the costs, in this small country, where so many people know each other, and where memories will linger for generations, making loving your neighbour an even more difficult task.
Some Methodist Leaders: a Very Big Question mark
The Christian, and particularly the Methodist, church occupies a unique position in Fiji. It is the repository and major beneficiary of both Fijian traditional values and a colonial heritage that entrenched those values. The Church, respect for chiefs and "being Fijian," and the State are seen as one. Attack one and all could collapse. A major reason why some Fijians oppose Bainimarama, and what he says he's trying to achieve, is because he has "detached" the state from this trilogy, and in so doing has threatened their privileged position, and the perks that go with it.
Such people (the so-called Taukei element within the church) hold that their church and their values are the only true values in Fiji (non-Chistians presumably have no worthwhile values.) They are lukewarm to the ecumenicalism of Interfaith Search Fiji and the Fiji Council of Churches. They were instrumental in founding the racial, "born again," fundamentalist Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji (ACCF). Unlike most Methodist leaders in other countries, they have no honest interest in democracy (or civil rights) except when it suits them to uphold their position.
Many people have good reason to oppose Bainimarama but these people are not among them. They oppose Bainimarama for exactly the same reasons they supported the Rabuka and Speight coups: to retain power and privilege in the name of protecting ethnic Fiijian rights.
Rather than joining such leaders, Methodist should replace them with leaders who hold true to the teachings of their Church founders, and past leaders such as the Rev.Josateki Koroi, the Rev.Paula Niukula and the Rev.Ilaitia Tuwere.
Methodist comprised 35% of Fiji's population and 54% of its Christians at the 2007 Census. Over 90% of its members are ethnic Fijians. Important as they are, many people have left to join more fundamentalist churches. Since 1996 Fiji's population has grown by 8.9% but Methodists by only 3.3%. By comparison, Catholics at 10.3% have held their own, Seventh Day Adventists have grown 45.6% (to 32,308) and Assemblies of God by 53.8% (to 47,778). Inspired by Charles Wesley's hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers," church leaders no doubt hope their current stance will persuade some to return to the fold.
* Taukei. Ethnic Fijian. In a political context, an extreme ethnic Fijian nationalist who demands total Fijian paramountcy in all areas of Government. Photo: Methodist Centennial Church, Suva. Fiji Live.
5 comments:
How can moderate Methodists oppose the Taukei element if there is no annual congress? Is there another mechanism for bringing about change in the leadership of the Church?
Re your comment that government really had little other choice but to cancel the AGM/Conference, are you saying that they should have done it? If yes, where is the right to assembly - a basic human right? Has it gone the same way as the right to freedom of expression and media freedoms?
I find it really hard to agree that these basic human freedoms should be withheld (or that it is reasonable to do so). Is this what you are saying or am I mis-reading/mis-interpreting your position?
The church has had over 20 years to remove Lasaro from leadership. I doubt it would do so at Lomanikoro. But your general point is well taken.
However, I cannot accept the right of a highly politicized church to act as it has, or to freedom of assembly irrespective of consequences. Lomanikoro could result in serious mass violence. I hope church leaders will meet with Bainimarama and that both parties will find some way for a "peaceful" conference to be held.
This is one area where the Bainimarama regime cuts off it's nose to spite it's face.
Allow Lasaro a public platform in a free media and several things will happen:
1. He'll spend more time promoting his views and less time conspiring
2. His views will attract reasoned and vigorous opposition, giving people the opportunity to hear more than one voice. (As it is the only opposition comes from the regime mouthpieces who have little credibility when it comes to well-reasoned debate)
3. The likes of Lasaro will be less able to don the shroud of the 'righteous oppressed' if they're given a public hearing.
As much as I detest the current regime, we cannot allow the Methodist Church in it's current incarnation to claim any sort of precedence in any efforts to replace the current government with one that has a properly proven popular mandate.
So let them bray, publicly. It will quickly become obvious that they are merely noisy, empty vessels. Rather than God-anointed saviours who have an viable vision for Fiji.
I do not think the Methodist flock of Fiji is as stupid and gullible as many make them out to be.
CrozWalsh: I have read your comments carefully and I think they constitute an excellent starting point for discussion; I also commend your other blogger too.
However, a few points need to be added:
1. A meeting of the whole Conference will not lead to radical actions as you have suggested. The past Presidents whom you have named as possible agitators have both moved on in their own way: one is relatively sidelined with very little influence among the body of talatalas; the second has been profoundly influenced by courses in reconciliation and peacebuilding that he has attended.
Remember that at last year's Conference, the members voted for moderate leadership.
2. The Annual Methodist Conference represents the opinion of the whole church and its decisions are taken after much debate and always in a conservative manner. This would be even more the case if the Rewa gathering were allowed to go ahead. Church leaders would be seeking a peaceful way forward by which the current crisis might be resolved.
3. The current leadership of the Church: Tugaue, Tuikilakila and Banivanua represent some of the best and brightest minds in the church today. They are well-educated and have inherited the more inclusive model of church life that was espoused by the founding President, Setareki Tuilovoni, a pathway that was also followed by Niukula, Mastapha and Tuwere. True, there are taukei elements within the church (and in such a broad church that cannot be avoided) but those elements are not represented in strength among the decision-making bodies of the church today.
We need more of these blogs of articles to be put out as a lot of people are unaware of the truth about Lasaro's coup in 1987 and Kanailagis outburst in parliment on issues of Taukeism. Most methodists themselves just cannot imagine that these two Talatalas have these tendencies when it comes to church and politics. The more they know, the less it is a surprise.
Post a Comment