COMMENTARY: By Senia Burr
Mr Gavoka, with respect, you do not speak for the “entire Pacific Islands” when you say the Pacific identifies with Israel because the relationship is “biblical, ageless and real”.
That statement is historically careless, theologically shallow and politically dangerous.
Christianity came to Fiji through the Wesleyan Methodist tradition in the 19th century, long before the modern political State of Israel was established in 1948 and before Christian Zionism became the powerful political theology it is today.
- READ MORE: Shameful move by Pacific Islands Forum undermines decolonisation and justice
- Aisake Casimira: How Christian Zionism has become hitched to the chariot of empire
- An Ocean of Peace is not built on occupation
- Other Israel in the Pacific reports
To suggest that Fijian Christianity has always carried some automatic political identification with the modern State of Israel is simply not true.
There is also a very important distinction between Christianity and Christian Zionism.
Christian Zionism is one particular interpretation of Scripture. It is not Christianity itself, and it certainly does not represent every Christian theologian, denomination or church.
The World Council of Churches (WCC) has repeatedly warned against using Scripture to justify occupation, domination or the denial of Palestinian rights. In fact, just this year in Suva, WCC general secretary Reverend Professor Dr Jerry Pillay addressed Pacific church leaders directly and warned that Christian Zionism can selectively use Scripture, neglect justice and mercy, justify territorial claims and undermine Palestinian rights.
So perhaps before politicians start telling the Pacific what Christianity supposedly demands, they should listen to people who have spent their lives studying theology.
Consider Palestinian Christians
There are pastors, bishops, biblical scholars and theologians who have studied Christianity for decades, in seminaries and universities, who absolutely reject the idea that supporting every action of the modern Israeli state is somehow a Christian obligation.
The WCC itself has called interpretations of religion that justify occupation, violence or dehumanisation a distortion of faith.
And let us not erase Palestinian Christians from this conversation.
Christianity was born in the Middle East. Palestinian Christians are among the oldest Christian communities on earth. They live in the land of Christ’s birth, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, and the WCC has specifically recognised their ongoing experience of occupation, displacement and discrimination.
So when someone says the relationship between “the Pacific” and Israel is simply biblical, I ask: what about the Christians of Palestine? Are their lives, their churches, their land and their theology suddenly irrelevant?
Even within the Pacific, your claim is already contradicted.
International law standards
Pacific Conference of Churches general secretary Reverend James Bhagwan has publicly challenged this very position, saying the Pacific must apply the same standards of international law everywhere and cannot speak about the suffering of one people while ignoring another.
That alone proves that there is no single “Pacific Christian position” on Israel.
The real danger here is when politicians take a highly contested theological interpretation and present it as though God has already settled their foreign policy for them. That is not theology. That is politics wearing religious clothing.
Faith should make us more concerned about justice, mercy, human dignity and the protection of the oppressed. It should never become a convenient excuse for abandoning critical thought or international law.
You are free to hold your personal beliefs, Mr Gavoka.
But please do not turn your personal theology into the voice of the entire Pacific.
The Pacific is larger, wiser and far more diverse than that.
Senia Burr is a Fijian digital creator and campaigner for human rights and against social injustice. This commentary was first published as a social media post.
