Towards Some Foundations of a Systematic Māori Theology He Tirohanga Anganui Ki Ētahi Kaupapa Hōhonu Mō Te Whakapono Māori
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Towards Some Foundations of a Systematic Māori Theology He tirohanga anganui ki ētahi kaupapa hōhonu mō te whakapono Māori by Henare Arekatera Tate A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Melbourne College of Divinity 2010 ii ABSTRACT This thesis is an exercise in foundational theology written by an indigenous Māori theologian of Aotearoa New Zealand. In the first chapter, the writer engages in dialogue with other theologians about the nature of contextual theology, particularly when viewed from an indigenous viewpoint. The thesis proposes that indigenous Māori theology is theology developed by Māori for Māori in the first instance. In the second instance it is for all those who share the same land and context, and thirdly for all others. The writer then seeks to create some systematic foundations based on a series of concepts deeply rooted in Māori culture and history, namely: tapu, mana, pono, tika, aroha, tūranga and kaiwhakakapi tūranga, whakanoa, hohou rongo and te wā. A chapter is dedicated to each of the above concepts, with the exceptions of pono, tika, aroha, which are treated in a single chapter. Each concept is linked to form a foundational systematic theology. The writer addresses both kaupapa (principles) and tikanga (process, method) as foundations whereby such a theology can proceed. The writer intends this work to provide a resource for himself and for other indigenous theologians, to articulate more specifically theological works that are culturally relevant to Māori, and that contribute to wider theological discussion. iv HE KUPU WHAKAMIHI, HE KUPU WHAKAPAI He korōria ki te Atua i runga rawa, he maungārongo ki runga i te whenua, ki ngā tāngata hiahia pai. Ka kake ngā mihi whakapai ki te Atua, ko ia hoki te tīmatanga me te whakatutukitanga o ngā mea katoa. Ko ia te mātāpuna o te ora, o te tapu, te kaihōmai i ngā mea pai katoa, te kaihanga o te ao, te kaiwhakaora me te kaiwhakatapu i te tangata me ngā mea katoa kua hangā e ia. He korōria ki te Atua i ngā wā katoa. Ka huri ngā mihi ki a koutou ki ngā tūpuna, ki ngā mātua me ngā tini mate o te wā. Whiti atu koutou i te mate ki te ora. Hoki atu ki te kāinga e kiia nei ko Hawaiki-nui, kei te Ao Tua-ātea, arā, kia tae atu koutou ki te aroaro o te Matua-nui-i-te-rangi. Noho mai i roto i te aroha nui me te aroha noa o te Atua Matua ekore nei e taea te whakaaro, ekore e taea te kōrero. E au tō koutou okiokinga. Ka hoki mai ki a tātou ki te hunga ora, tēnā koutou e noho mai nā i ngā marae maha o te motu, i ngā taumata nohoanga o kāinga tahi, o kāinga rua. Ko ahau tēnei ko Pā Henare Tate, he uri nō Te Rarawa, he kōkopu nō Hokianga, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te wā, arā, i te whakaotinga o tēnei mahi tuhituhi kōrero pā ki ētahi taonga whakawairua o tātou o te Iwi Māori. Ehara i te mea koia rawa ēnei ko ngā kōrero, kāhore kē atu. Heoi anō, he whakamānu waka kau tēnei, he mahi wāwāhi ngaru. Tukua kia piki mai ōna kaihoe hei hoe i te waka nei ki runga i ō tātou moana ariki–kia ora rā tātou katoa. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ka mihi ahau, i te tuatahi, ki tōku kaiarataki. I first acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. John Dunn, of the School of Theology, University of Auckland, whom I thank for his constant encouragement, support, inspiration, insightful comments, and patience beyond measure. I wish to thank and acknowledge The Melbourne College of Divinity, Australia, for the opportunity to begin and complete this work with them, and for their patience. I also wish to thank and acknowledge the Catholic Institute of Theology, Auckland, for their generous support and positive encouragement and, likewise, the School of Theology, The University of Auckland. I acknowledge Theresa Paparoa, Mark Hangartner, Fay Robertson, Albert Robertson for their secretarial and technological assistance, Joan Parker (RNDM) and Susan Healy for final proof-reading. Very special thanks to Magdalen Sheahan (DOLC) for her tireless efforts of painstaking editing. I also thank the following: members of my immediate and wider whānau, close associates and friends from around the country and from abroad; all those from Taitokerau, Auckland and elsewhere who have been on various courses I have facilitated, and who, through their evaluations, have helped develop and sharpen the material that is now contained in this work. Finally, how can one recognise, let alone assess, the inspiration and gifting roles of tūpuna (ancestors) and mātua (parents, elders), and taonga tuku iho (gifts handed down) from them? Some of these tūpuna and mātua were alive at various stages of my journey, while others had already passed on. Ko wai o rātou kāhore i whakatikatika haere i te ara (who of them did not help clear and arrange the pathway)? I runga i te pono, i te tika me te aroha (on the basis of the principles) of integrity, rightness and love, I acknowledge all who have contributed in small or great ways. Kia tau ki runga i a koutou ngā whakapai a te Atua (may the blessings of God envelop you). vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page i Abstract ii Statement of Originality iii He Kupu Whakamihi, He Kupu Whakapai iv Acknowledgement v Table of Contents vi CHAPTER ONE―TOWARDS AN ENCOUNTER BETWEEN MĀORI AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 1 1.1.0 Introduction 1 1.2.0 Introducing Māori 2 1.2.1 Brief history of foreign evangelisation of Māori 3 1.2.2 The Māori people now 5 1.3.0 The writer 6 1.4.0 The purpose of the thesis 6 1.5.0 Indigenous theology and contextual theology 7 1.5.1 Indigenous theology 8 1.5.1.2 Inculturation and the Gospel 10 1.5.2 Māori indigenous theology 12 1.5.2.1 Current discussion 13 1.5.2.2 Definition of Māori indigenous theology 14 1.5.2.3 Criteria for Māori indigenous theology 16 1.5.2.4 Kaupapa 16 1.5.3 Māori theology and contextual theology 18 1.5.3.1 Frank Rees 18 1.5.3.2 Robert Schreiter and Stephen Bevans 22 1.5.3.2.1 The translation model 23 1.5.3.2.2 The anthropological model 25 1.5.3.2.3 The praxis model 26 1.5.3.2.4 The synthetic model 27 1.5.3.2.5 The transcendental model 28 1.5.3.2.6 The countercultural model 30 1.5.3.4 Conclusion 32 1.6.0 Tikanga—methodology 33 1.6.1 Tikanga applied to individual chapters 36 1.7.0 The foundational concepts of the thesis and their relationships 36 1.7.1 Atua, Tangata, and Whenua 36 1.7.1.1 Atua 37 1.7.1.2 Tangata 37 1.7.1.3 Whenua 38 1.7.2 Ten further foundational concepts 38 1.7.3 Diagram of the foundational concepts of the thesis, and their 39 relationships 1.8.0 The structure of the thesis 40 vii CHAPTER TWO―TAPU 42 2.1.0 Introduction 42 2.2.0 Word usage 42 2.3.0 Definition of tapu 44 2.4.0 Section One: Tapu restrictions 45 2.4.1 Definition of tapu restrictions 45 2.4.1.1 The purpose of tapu restrictions 46 2.4.1.2 The source of tapu restrictions 46 2.4.1.3 Tapu restrictions in relation to Atua 46 2.4.1.4 Tapu restrictions in relation to tangata 47 2.4.1.5 Tapu restrictions in relation to whenua 47 2.4.2 Conclusion 48 2.5.0 Section Two: Te tapu o—tapu as relationship of being 49 2.5.1 Definition of te tapu o 49 2.5.1.1 Te tapu o is the tapu of being in relationship 49 2.5.1.2 Beings in relationship are manifested, addressed, enhanced, sustained and restored 49 2.5.2 Te tapu o te Atua 50 2.5.3 Te tapu o te tangata 52 2.5.3.1 Te tapu o te tangata considered in his or her links 52 2.5.3.2 Te tapu o te tangata considered in his or her links with other tāngata, and thus with whānau, hapū and iwi 53 2.5.3.2.1 Whanaungatanga relationship structure 54 2.5.3.2.1.1 Heke Tika relationship 54 2.5.3.2.1.2 Tuakana-Teina relationship 54 2.5.3.2.1.3 Karanga or named relationship 55 2.5.3.2.1.4 Hunaonga-Hungawai (in-law) relationship 55 2.5.3.2.1.5 Implications and applications of the four relationship models 56 2.5.3.2.2 Whānau, hapū and iwi relationship groups 57 2.5.3.2.2.1 Whānau 57 2.5.3.2.2.2 Hapū 57 2.5.3.2.2.3 Iwi 58 2.5.3.3 Te tapu o te tangata considered in his or her links with whenua 58 2.5.3.3.1 Tangata whenua 59 2.5.3.3.2 Hunga kāinga or iwi kāinga 59 2.5.4 Te tapu o te whenua 60 2.5.4.1 The relationship of whenua with Atua in terms of creation 60 2.5.4.2 The relationship of whenua with Atua in terms of providence 60 2.5.4.3 The relationship of whenua with tangata 62 2.6.0 Section Three: Te tapu i—tapu as being-in-itself 64 2.6.1 Justification for the use of the term ‘te tapu i’ 64 2.6.2 Definition of te tapu i 67 2.6.2.1 Te tapu i is primarily being-in-itself 68 2.6.2.2 Te tapu i encompasses existence 68 2.6.2.3 This existence is intrinsic to te tapu i 68 2.6.2.4 Te tapu i is dynamically ordered towards totality and fullness 68 2.6.2.5 Te tapu i is understood as source and fulfilment of all other tapu 69 2.6.2.6 From te tapu i emanate extensions of tapu 69 viii 2.6.3 Te tapu i te Atua 70 2.6.4 Te tapu i te tangata 72 2.6.4.1 Te tapu i te tangata in relation to Atua 72 2.6.4.2 Te tapu i te tangata with regard to tāngata 73 2.6.5 Te tapu i te whenua 76 2.6.5.1 Te tapu i te whenua in relation to te tapu i te Atua 78 2.6.5.2 Te tapu i te whenua in relation to tāngata 78 2.7.0 Conclusion 79 CHAPTER THREE―MANA 80 3.1.0 Introduction 80 3.2.0 Word usage 80 3.3.0 Definition of mana 84 3.3.1 Mana is spiritual power 84 3.3.2 Mana is authority 85 3.3.3 Mana is prestige and status 86 3.3.4 Mana derives from tapu as its source 86 3.3.5 Mana is either power in potentiality or power in operation 89 3.3.6 Mana is tapu centred 89 3.4.0 Section One: Te mana o—mana as power in operation 90 3.4.1 Definition of te mana o 90 3.4.2 Te mana o te Atua 90 3.4.3 Te mana o te tangata 91 3.4.3.1 Expressions of te mana o te tangata 91 3.4.3.1.1