My research explores, in the inner lives of Pacific women, how their relationship with God can affect their wellbeing, and how their image of God relates to their relationship with their parents.

How we name, visualise and describe God is most often directly correlated to our relationships with attachment figures such as a caregiver or parent.

The way we talk about God and how we perceive God is also influenced by our upbringing, religious involvement and commitment, religious artwork in churches, museums and on social media.

Pacific peoples see religion and spirituality as important for wellbeing, alongside relationships with the physical environment, family, and culture.

Yet there is much we don't know about religious belief in the Pacific.

The disciplines of Christian theology, indigenous studies, psychology, and sociology are yet to adequately investigate specific religious practices, their theological basis, and how this affects mental wellbeing for Pacific peoples.

For my doctoral studies in theology I had the chance to speak with, and learn from, 64 young Pacific women in Tamaki Makaurau about how their images of God and cultural identity affected their mental wellbeing.

I met young mama who were working and studying at the same time, women who were deeply immersed in their language and cultural reclamation journey.

I met women who had been clinically diagnosed with a mental illness, women who were angry at the church, yet also those who wholeheartedly were serving in the church.

I met women who, when faced with a physical illness equally sought traditional Pacific healing methods, Western medicine, and prayer.

In our talanoa (free discussion), we laughed, cried, untangled our family and village connections, and talked about how church communities in Aotearoa might better engage with Pacific congregations to talk about and support mental wellbeing.

What struck me is how much Pacific women carry - emotionally, socially and psychologically. They need to navigate how to express their cultural identity in a Western, secular context.

If they aren't fluent in their native tongue they could be mocked by their wider extended family, unable to understand conversations and so feel inadequate.

They must also fulfil their families' expectations of what it means to be a Pasifika woman, whereas their male family members may have more social freedom. They may be responsible for caring for family members, as well as having to study and work.

And they feel obliged to succeed because that's what our older generations moved to Aotearoa for - educational opportunity, more employment options and a different future.

These young women were also grappling with what their Christian faith meant to them in light of being able to learn more about our cultures before colonisation and the harm churches caused in their compliance with racist colonial regimes.

• Dr Therese Lautua is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Department of Theological and Religious Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Auckland.
• First published in Newsroom

The number of Maori identifying as having "no religion" in the census between 2006 and 2018 increased from 36.5% to 53.5%. Maori affiliation with Christianity has fallen from 46.2% to 29.9%.

Are Maori simply rejecting Christianity? Or are they rejecting all supernatural phenomena, including traditional Maori beliefs?

Our research examined the apparent rise of Maori atheism. We found the colonial history of religion was a driving force for Maori who identified as atheist or having no religion.

We also found Maori atheists said they experienced discrimination for their lack of religion, and their "Maoriness" was questioned within their community or work.

The "no religion" category in the census captures a range of worldviews, including people who say they are spiritual but not religious; agnostics - people who are uncertain about the existence of a higher power; and atheists - people who do not believe in the existence of god(s).

Multiple reasons for leaving religion

As part of our research, we spoke with 16 Maori aged 30 to 65 who did not believe in god(s). All but four were raised in religious households.

Some emphasised lingering intellectual doubts as the reason for rejecting religion. As one participant explained:

Others said they left for moral reasons.

These included a perceived hypocrisy among churchgoers, immorality of religious leaders, and the role of religion in spreading harmful views about women and LGBTQ people.

Most participants, however, framed their rejection of religion as an expression of resistance against the colonial systems of belief.

In fact, participants' ideas of "religion" were primarily shaped by their experience of various Christian denominations and their knowledge of the Christian missionary history in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Accordingly, most of the people we spoke with viewed religion as a colonial tool for the oppression of Maori people and culture. Another participant noted:

Others argued that the God of the Bible is not indigenous to Aotearoa, but rather a creation myth from the Middle East and therefore inherently irrelevant to Maori people.

Dissatisfaction entwined with colonial history

The interview responses show Maori rejection of Christianity seems to be largely aligned with anti-colonial movements, Maori protest movements, and the decolonial feminist movement.

For most participants, "atheism" equated to non-belief in the existence of God and the rejection of monotheistic traditions, specifically Christianity.

In other words, being a Maori atheist did not necessarily mean the rejection of all supernatural beliefs.

While some individuals were confident in their non-belief in all supernatural phenomena, others were either ambivalent towards certain wairua (spirit, soul) beliefs or emphasised the need to understand Maori beliefs as metaphors for a way to live.

What it means to be Maori is changing

The emergence of "non-religious" as a growing sector of the Maori community poses both challenges and opportunities to the ideas of what it is to be Maori and the development of New Zealand.

If we see ourselves progressing as a "bi-cultural" Treaty/Tiriti-enhanced nation, it stands to reason we need to be able to identify the two cultures clearly.

But there is the opportunity to develop more quickly without identity "membership" based on religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

Within the community, there is a spectrum of views about the significance of religious or spiritual beliefs to Maori identity.

On one end, there are those who ask whether it is even possible to be Maori if one is not "religious" or "spiritual" in some shape or form.

At the other, there are those who distinguish between culture and religion, and argue Maori development can be more easily enhanced if one is freed from the constraints of religious belief.

The former speaks to a "traditional" and conservative view of being Maori; the latter to notions of changes in cultures, the impact of the colonial experience, modernisation, and different ways of being Maori.

Our research highlights the diversity of non-religion among Maori, which is neither reflected in representations of Maori (for instance in education), nor considered in Maori-Crown relations.

While there is little difficulty in identifying the Crown in Treaty negotiations, the emerging "no religion" sector of the Maori community adds new layers of complexity to who the Treaty partner is. Importantly, is being spiritual or religious a prerequisite to being a Maori?

• Masoumeh Sara Rahmani Lecturer Study of Religion, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
• Peter Adds Professor, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

He says papal decrees - called bulls - supporting the "Doctrine of Discovery" (the Doctrine) provided justification for "both political and personal violence against indigenous peoples."

He wants "a public acknowledgment from the Holy Father of the harm these bulls have done to the indigenous population."

The Doctrine draws from a series of papal documents dating back to 1452.

These were also included in future documents: Indigenous peoples were read the Spanish conquistadors' "Requerimiento", proclaiming their land belonged to Spain and demanding they abide by the monarchy's and the pope's authority.

"This particular doctrine has been used to justify both political and personal violence against Indigenous nations, Indigenous peoples and their culture — their religious and their territorial identities," Lucia says.

As recently as 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that repurchasing traditional tribal lands does not "unilaterally revive (the tribe's) ancient sovereignty" over it.

"I've been trying to bring attention to this question of why the church, if it really wants to seek restorative justice, can't just issue apologies," says David McCallum SJ who alerted Lucia to the historical facts.

A papal bull from Alexander VI's in 1493, for instance, gave Spanish explorers the freedom to colonize the Americas and to convert Native peoples to Catholicism.

Lucia says last US spring when the US bishops' conference (USCCB) discussed ministry to Native Alaskans and Native Americans, he asked about residential schools for indigenous children and the Doctrine.

These schools' legacy has been in the news lately after hundreds of unmarked graves were found at three former schools in Canada.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked Francis to apologize — on Canadian soil — for the Church's role in this.

Up to 60 percent of Canada's 139 residential schools were run by the Catholic Church. An Indigenous delegation from Canada will meet Francis in December "to foster meaningful encounters of dialogue and healing."

The USCCB says it is watching the investigation "closely", pledging to "look for ways to be of assistance." However,

Lucia says he hasn't had any reaction from it about his concerns.

Although the Church rescinded the Doctrine centuries ago, this doesn't address the "enormity of the trauma and generational impact" the teachings had on Indigenous peoples, says McCallum.

There have been various Indigenous delegations to Rome - one in 2016 - to press the Vatican about the Doctrine.

"There have been responses ..., but they're not taking responsibility for anything," says Steven Newcomb, the Shawnee/Lenape co-founder of the Indigenous Law Institute, who led the 2016 delegation.

Numerous Protestant religious groups have rebuked the Doctrine, as did the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which called on Francis to rescind the Doctrine in 2014.

"Simple apologies are not sufficient," Newcomb says. "There needs to be a real reckoning."

Lucia agrees: "Even as a Church we are called to conversion. I think this might be one of those conversion moments."

Source

• Religion News Service
• Image: Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse

He loved God.

And he had "nothing but love for the Sentinelese people."

Chau, a young missionary from the United States, was killed on Nov. 17 while illegally attempting to invade the land of the North Sentinel Islanders, an indigenous group protected from all outsiders by the Indian government.

When he landed on the island, he was shot and killed by arrows fired by the Sentinelese.

After his death, people — including indigenous Christians — flocked to social media to consider what our attitudes toward this situation should be.

Were the indigenous peoples protecting themselves or attacking?

Was Chau a missionary or a coloniser?

The threat of outsiders

For a young Christian man who "had nothing but love for the Sentinelese people," where was the line between love and colonisation?

Perhaps it was the line of law drawn around a protected indigenous group that risks being wiped out by outsiders.

Outsiders, including missionaries like Chau, whose presence threatened their culture and their well-being, bringing the risk of outside influences and disease.

For many Christians, the need to protect indigenous groups conflicts with their mission.

Growing up in the Southern Baptist Church, I was taught that there were two types of people in the world: saved and unsaved, reached and unreached.

According to the Joshua Project, there are 7,076 people groups in the world that are "unreached," meaning that "few identify as Christians or have knowledge of Christianity."

Missionaries, therefore, must take Jesus to the lost of the world, to share his love with those who have no knowledge of the infallible Holy Bible.

This missionary mindset was one I carried throughout much of my early life.

Even though I was born in Indian territory and grew up on Native land, in our home we practiced evangelical Christianity more than our traditional Potawatomi ways.

Even as an enrolled citizen of my tribe, I did not understand that the Christian faith I practiced was the same kind of faith that colonised my own ancestors.

Christianity and decolonising

As an adult, I'm decolonising, asking if it's possible to practice Christianity and follow Jesus in a different way.

That means I must question the mission of the church to convert the "unreached."

In the process, I'm learning that even people with good intentions can become tools of oppression within evangelical institutions and still call it love.

Chau was a product of this kind of Christianity, and the problem with this kind of "love" is that often under its veil there lies deceit, assimilation and colonisation.

The incident with Chau is a case in which a people group stood up against this kind of message, and it's important that we understand why.

We can take a quick look at the history of America and see why a people group would oppose outsiders who come in the name of Jesus.

Missionaries and colonisers often worked hand in hand, leading to genocide, colonisation and assimilation done in the name of Jesus.

One instance was Indian boarding schools, designed to "kill the Indian, save the man," which stripped Native children of culture in order to make them into civilized, white Christians.

The Doctrine of Discovery gave European Christian explorers and missionaries the right to dominate the people of any land they deemed "undiscovered," all in the name of God.

Ironically, missions work, which sometimes ends in the total annihilation of a people group either literally or culturally, is simply seen as doing the good work of Jesus.

So, pastors stand at the pulpit on Sunday mornings, quoting Romans to their congregations: "And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'"

Churches see missionaries as heroes who bring salvation.

Congregations throw parties to send out those who are called, they lay hands and pray, they ask for the lost to have eyes that are open to the work of their gospel.

Yet, they seem unaware that indigenous peoples see them as invaders who bring destruction, or are indifferent to their point of view, because as Christians, they are the ones whom God has called, so they must be on the right and honorable side of history.

And there's a whole industry that promotes the heroic nature of mission work.

According to the International Journal of Frontier Missiology, money that goes toward unreached peoples (unlike reached people groups who are already Christians) is estimated at $450 million per year.

The Traveling Team, which calls itself a missions conference on wheels, uses language to romanticize the work of reaching those who are deemed unreached throughout the world, as if a mighty, holy adventure awaits.

Chau a martyr

It is no surprise that Chau's death is seen as martyrdom or godly sacrifice in many churches.

To indigenous peoples, it is no surprise that Christians believe they have the sacred right to go into places inhabited by indigenous peoples like the North Sentinel Islanders.

We know what it means to have our lands invaded and our people killed off by disease brought by those who purported that they were simply bringing the love and power of Jesus with them.

So, in light of John Allen Chau, the North Sentinel Islanders, and the gospel according to the American church, we need to have a conversation about what love is, and what colonisation is, and the fact that they are not one and the same.

• Kaitlin Curtice is a Potawatomi author and speaker.
• First published in RNS. Reproduced with permission. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.
• Image: Kaitlin Curtice

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the United States is calling on Pope Francis to clarify and repudiate any remaining legal status of what is known as the "Doctrine of Discovery".

The LCWR also wants the Pope to issue a pastoral statement to courts of settler nations, urging them to change laws derived from the doctrine.

The Doctrine of Discovery is a series of papal bulls, or decrees, which gave Christian explorers the right to lay claim to any land that was not inhabited by Christians and was available to be "discovered".

If its inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they could be enslaved or killed.

The Doctrine of Discovery remains influential in legal circles and, since 1823, has been enshrined in US law.

It is often cited as a way of arguing that nomadic Native American Indians occupied the land, but did not own it.

In 2005, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the doctrine in a land-claim ruling against the Oneidas nation.

Late last year, 13 Catholic groups, including the Loreto sisters, officially asked the Pope to rescind the decrees.

"When I learned about it, I was horrified," said Loreto Sister Maureen Fiedler, who has sent a letter to the Pope on the subject.

Her order marked its 200th anniversary by challenging "the papal sanctioning of Christian enslavement and power over non-Christians".

US indigenous groups have sought to overturn the doctrine since at least 1984.

In its 2007 Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations condemned policies like the Doctrine of Discovery.

If the Church was to disavow the doctrine, it would remove a legal argument against tribal land claims, said Oren Lyons, a faith keeper of the Turtle clan in the Onondaga nation.

The Vatican has said that later bulls and papal apologies show the Church no longer supports the doctrine.

"The wrongs done to the indigenous people need to be honestly acknowledged," Saint John Paul II said in 1998.

He also delivered a sweeping apology in 2000 for the Church's mistreatment of groups, including indigenous peoples.

Sources

• Huffington Post
• New York Daily News
• Image: Legends of America