In God's Image: The Metaculture of Fijian Christianity.

In God's Image: The Metaculture of Fijian Christianity. In God's Image: The Metaculture of Fijian Christianity By Matt Tomlinson The Anthropology of Christianity, 5. Berkeley, Lus Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2009 Pp. xiii + 249 + maps, figures, tables and illustrations. Price: US$21.95 The anthropology of Christianity in Oceania is coming into its ownand this is a valuable addition to burgeoning literature on the subject.Upon analysing attitudes towards past, present and future among FijianMethodists on Kadavu Island, Tomlinson's basic thesis is thatFijians think more highly of their past than the present. The fact thattheir traditional system has lost its old superiority makes themanxious, and Christianity functions among the Kadavuans as a way ofconfirming their loss yet renewing their strength for a 'newlife.' Tomlison bas been patient in his attention to thematic discourse insocio-religious contexts (particularly in his listening to sermons andtalk at kava sessions), and he has worked hard to see how his findingsrelate the sometimes turbulent politics within 'establishment'Fijian Methodism, especially considering its leaders divergent responsesto political crises (the coups). Adapting Greg Urban's theory,Metaculture is taken to be group reflection on culture, so the attitudesresearched were created images of the course Fijian life had taken andthus whether this course was for better or for worse. Tomlinson might be seen to expand on impressions already developedby Winston Halapua, in his general work on Fijian indigenous outlooks inTradition, Lotu and Militarism in Fiji (2003), yet to fill them out infine detail 'at the village level.' Tomlinson is also familiarwith the interpretation of Melanesian Christianity, especially developedby Robbins in his Becoming Sinners (2004), as paradoxically generatingnew 'inner' problems for indigenes and then solving them by'salvation.' His version of Fijian Methodism is that itgenerates this paradox, for it takes away the golden age of chieflypower but gives back the putatively compensating blessing of the way toeternal life, including victory over the satanic forces of sorcery. Now, apparently not well known to Tomlinson, the issue of attitudesto the past have long been a matter of interest to (ethno-)historians(as distinct from anthropologists) in Melanesia. In my years of researchon these matters, along with various colleagues, I have had to issuenotes of warning in this connection, because there are alwaysmethodological 'tricks for young players' to be learnt in oralhistorical research. It is very common to find villagers in Papua NewGuinea showing nostalgia for a 'golden age" in the past (cf.Tomlinson, pp. 3, 5, 95, etc.). The trouble is, this is usually not thetime of pre-Christian tradition, but a point of an idealizedrapprochement between 'noble traditions' and introducedmissionary 'light.' When the nostalgia is expressed, then, itis typically about the preservation of high principles of(non-bellicose) honour and values (reciprocity, group cohesion underrespected leadership, cooperative activity, etc.) combined withChristian virtues of peace, love and friendship (most significantlyacross previously dangerous boundaries). When criticism over the presentsituation is voiced, consequently, it is typically about both thebreakdown of the best and noblest in tradition and the originalexperience of corporate religious change (when, after varying lengths oftime, such change came to a given lineage, clan or tribe). The onlytrouble about Tomlinson's useful study is that he dues not clarify(maybe not even grasp?) the distinction between 'loss' of aconceived pre-contact tradition and of conceived 'immediate contacttradition(s).' Having made much of Buell Quain's generalization thatMethodist missionaries 'arrogated power to themselves' andtherefore undermined the political power of the chiefs (p. 11), forexample, and quoting at length a 'nativistic' voice (a FijianA.M. Hocart interviewed in 1912) lamenting the increase of diseasebecause the 'Vu Gods' of the local lands have been forgotten(pp. 159-60), Tomlinson leaves the impression that for Kaduvan Fijiansthe loss is of the old indigenous tradition tout simple, and thatMethodist church life brings comfort from that anxiety. I think this isconfusing. In my research on Viti Levu, the nostalgia is strong withrespect to the immediate post-contact symbiotic reinforcement of chieflyauthority, ecclesial structure, and social activities (kava drinking,fetes, etc.) on either side. The anxiety of most present-day MethodistFijians is precisely about the break-up of this comforting nexus, due tothe perceived threat to the power of the Great Council of Chiefs byLabour Party (including ethnic Indian) political success; due to thedivision within Methodist Church leadership over the perils of amulti-religious, multi-cultural society (Manasa Lasaro, earlier on) asagainst the celebration of an open society (Ilaita Tuwere); and due alsoto the more vocal presence of other denominations and charismatic forcesstarting to eat away at Methodist church numbers. The old days are over,and these were days when Fiji's ancient greatness and post-contactspiritual 'prestige' in Melanesia were renowned. Fiji somehowavoided the worst colonial impositions and was the first Melanesianisland group to achieve independence; Fijians have been missionaries farabroad since the 1880s, and after 1966 housed one of the mostprestigious theological colleges in our region. Today Fiji is much moreturbulent, difficult to read, and a reason for many local anxieties. Garry Trompf University of Sydney