The Pharisee in the Pulpit: How Fijian Christianity Lost Sight of the Mirror
In many of our churches across Fiji, a peculiar faith is preached. It is a faith more concerned with the geography of Jerusalem than the geography of the human heart. It speaks more of a chosen people in a distant land than the divine spark in the person sitting next to you. Unknowingly, it has become more aligned with the Christianity of the Pharisees—whom Jesus condemned—than with the Christianity of Jesus Christ himself.
The central tenet of this modern Pharisaism is external validation. Where the historical Pharisees clung to strict adherence to Mosaic law as a sign of holiness, some expressions of Fijian Christianity; influenced by colonial and political Zionism, display a fervent focus on a physical Israel, future prophecies, and outward rituals. This faith is built on a foundation of otherness: the holy land is there, not here; salvation history happened then, not now; God’s chosen are them, not us.
This is a profound departure from the radical, unsettling message of Christ. It rebuilds the very walls of separation that His ministry sought to dismantle. The apostle Peter experienced a revelation that shattered this paradigm: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). The early church concluded that the covenant was for all of humanity through faith. There are no exclusively ‘chosen people’; we are all God’s people.
When asked to name the greatest commandment, Jesus did not say, “Pledge allegiance to a foreign state.” He said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart… and love your neighbour as yourself.” He insisted the entire law hangs on this. Everything else is commentary. This commandment is universal, directed at every human being, without exception.
The transformative power of Christ’s teaching is that it demands we stare into the mirror. “The kingdom of God is within you,” He said (Luke 17:21). It is not a remote destination to be visited, but a state of being—cultivated through compassion, humility, and justice, right where we are.
The colonial introduction of Christianity to Fiji often came with a Pharisee’s handbook. It taught us to externalize God—to see Him as a distant, white patriarch whose favour was earned by rejecting our own world, our Vanua, our ancestors. It was a theology of displacement, convincing us our sacredness was elsewhere, white and that we were secondary in a divine plan. How can this be? In doing so, it committed the error Jesus condemned: prioritizing external abstract ritual over “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23).
The irony is profound: we venerate a man born in Bethlehem, who broke Sabbath laws to heal the sick and ate with sinners, yet we often practice a religion of exclusion, judgment, and meticulous outward observance that reinforces the very barriers He died to tear down.
True Christianity is not about looking to the Middle East for a sign of salvation; it is about looking into the eyes of your neighbour and seeing Christ. It is the recognition that Na Kalou na Vanua is not heresy but a profound truth—that the divine is immanent, present in this world, even right here in Fiji and within us. When God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,” He was describing a spiritual capacity for love and moral consciousness granted to all. God is a mirror of our highest being. To know God is to know ourselves truly and to choose love.
The challenge for Fijian Christianity is a choice: Will we continue down the path of the Pharisees, seeking holiness in external lands and rigid doctrines? Or will we embrace the liberating message of Christ himself—that there are no chosen people, only a chosen path: the path of love? The kingdom of God is within, demanding we see the divine in our own reflection and in all we meet.
Real Christianity is not an escape from the world, but a courageous engagement with it, beginning with the person in the mirror. It asks not, “Do you support the right nation?” but “Have you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and loved the unlovable?” The answer—the state of our own hearts—is the only Zion that truly matters.
It is time for Fijian Christianity to have the courage to look squarely at its own reflection.
The images from Gaza haunt the conscience of humanity: endless columns of desperate families fleeing under bombardment, children sleeping in rubble, parents starving themselves to feed their offspring, and the constant, grinding terror of displacement after displacement. According to recent UN reports, over 250,000 people have been displaced from Gaza City in just the past month alone, adding to the nearly two million already displaced throughout the territory. As I write these words, countless Palestinian families—including an estimated 1,000 Palestinian Christians—are being forced from homes that have become uninhabitable ruins, joining what the International Displacement Monitoring Centre identifies as one of the largest displacement crises in the world today.
From a Christian perspective, this catastrophic human suffering demands more than political analysis; it requires theological and moral reflection rooted in our deepest convictions about human dignity, divine compassion, and justice. How might Jesus of Nazareth—the Palestinian Jew who knew the trauma of displacement as a refugee in Egypt—view what is happening in Gaza today? What does the forced displacement of an entire population reveal about the state of Christian witness in the world? This question beckons us beyond simplistic binaries and comfortable religious nationalism into the uncomfortable territory where faith meets solidarity with the crucified peoples of our time.
Biblical Landscapes of Displacement
The narrative of forced displacement is tragically familiar within Scripture. The Hebrew Bible tells countless stories of exile and displacement—from Adam and Eve expelled from Eden to the Israelites dragged into Babylonian captivity. God’s people knew the anguish of being driven from their land, the terror of living under occupation, and the bitter tears of displacement. The Psalmist captures this trauma vividly: “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion” (Psalm 137:1).
These stories were not mere historical artifacts to Jesus; they formed the spiritual imagination of his Jewish identity. When Matthew’s Gospel tells us Joseph fled to Egypt with Mary and the infant Jesus to escape Herod’s slaughter of innocents, it places God himself in the position of a displaced person. The Incarnation thus includes the experience of forced migration—God becomes a refugee, sanctifying the experience of those who flee violence today. This theological truth should fundamentally shape how Christians view Gaza’s displaced millions: in their faces, we encounter Christ himself, who identified with the displaced and marginalized so completely that he said, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).
How Would Jesus View Gaza’s Displacement?
Based on the gospel accounts, Jesus would likely respond to Gaza’s suffering with three distinct postures:
1. Radical Identification with the Suffering
Jesus consistently demonstrated what Palestinian theologian Munther Isaac calls “Christ in the rubble”—the Christ who identifies not with powerful rulers but with victims buried under the debris of violence. In Gaza today, Christ is present in the child buried under concrete, the mother mourning her family, the father searching for bread. Jesus’ ministry was characterized by this intentional solidarity with those on the margins: the sick, the impoverished, the ritually unclean, the occupation-weary residents of Galilee. His compassion (literally “suffering with”) was not abstract pity but gut-wrenching identification . As Graham Joseph Hill writes, “The cross holds no nation; it holds brokenness, and it holds both Israelis and Palestinians”.
2. Unflinching Truth-Telling
Jesus would undoubtedly name the realities in Gaza with prophetic clarity. He would condemn Hamas’ horrific attacks on October 7th that killed approximately 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds hostage. But he would also condemn the disproportionate response that has left over 65,000 Palestinians dead, mostly civilians, and created famine conditions. Jesus never remained silent in the face of injustice, whether confronting religious leaders about their hypocrisy or driving money-changers from the temple. His example challenges us to speak truth without partiality, recognizing that “we cannot apologize for truth: and yet we must not weaponize it. We must speak truth rooted in lament, not in tribal vindication”.
3. Rejection of Dehumanizing Theologies
Jesus consistently challenged religious frameworks that justified ignoring human suffering. He healed on the Sabbath, touched the unclean, and ate with sinners—all acts that privileged human need over rigid interpretations of religion. In Gaza, Jesus would undoubtedly reject theologies that privilege one people’s security over another’s right to exist, or that use Scripture to justify endless violence. He would confront what Munther Isaac identifies as the “matrix of coloniality, racism, and theology” that enables the current violence . His ministry reveals a God whose compassion is “indiscriminately available to all”, not a tribal deity who takes sides in human conflicts.
The Crisis of Christian Conscience
The tragedy of Gaza’s displacement is not merely humanitarian; it represents a profound crisis of Christian conscience. While millions suffer, many Christians have remained silent, defensive, or openly supportive of policies that lead to civilian casualties and mass displacement. This failure stems from what Palestinian Christian Dr. Fares Abraham identifies as “the absence of Christ-honoring compassion during these darkest moments of our humanity”.
This moral failure has theological roots. For decades, certain strands of Christian theology—particularly forms of Christian Zionism—have uncritically supported Israeli policy while minimizing Palestinian suffering. This theology often spiritualizes away Palestinian rights and interprets biblical prophecies in ways that require unquestioning support for the Israeli state. As the Gaza war strains these theological models, even evangelical scholars are questioning whether their frameworks have “exhausted a group of evangelical Bible professors pursuing unity on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.
The result is what Munther Isaac rightly calls complicity: “The denial is so loud. It’s nothing short of complicity” . When we fail to name atrocities—when we hesitate to call out the killing of 17,000 children or the deliberate creation of famine conditions—we become like the religious leaders who passed by on the other side in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan . Our silence echoes that of German Christians who largely failed to protest the Nazi persecution of Jews—a historical parallel that should unsettle every Christian conscience.
Beyond Bunker Mentalities: Toward a Cruciform Compassion
Christian response to Gaza’s displacement requires moving beyond what Graham Joseph Hill calls “bunker mentalities” that shrink our moral imagination . Nationalism, he argues, “shrinks the heart. Tribal identity makes vacuums in compassion.” Instead, we need a spirituality that embodies what the ancient Christian tradition called orthopathos—right emotions—particularly the virtue of compassion.
Table: Elements of Christian Response to Gaza’s Displacement
Theological Concept
Traditional Response
Transformed Response
Compassion
Pity from a distance
Identification with suffering
Solidarity
Charity for those like us
Justice for all oppressed
Land Theology
Exclusive divine promise
Shared homeland for all
Security
Military protection for one
Human security for all
Peacemaking
Absence of conflict
Presence of justice
This compassion is not mere sentiment but what the Latin root (compati) literally means: to suffer with . It moves beyond sympathy (“feeling for”) to identification (“suffering with”). This compassion becomes incarnational—taking flesh in concrete action:
1. The Spiritual Practice of Lament
Christian tradition offers us the language of lament—the spiritual practice of grieving honestly before God. Lament refuses to rush to resolution or theological justification. It sits in the dust with Job, weeps with Jesus at Lazarus’ tomb, and cries out with the Psalmist, “How long, O Lord?”. Lament creates space to “weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15), holding the cries of Gazan mothers alongside Israeli survivors of Hamas’ attacks. This lament must include both Israeli and Palestinian suffering, refusing to play a morbid calculus of comparative victimhood.
2. Prophetic Truth-Telling
Following Jesus requires naming injustices without partiality. We must condemn Hamas’ violence and call for the release of all hostages while also condemning Israel’s disproportionate tactics, blockade, and creation of famine conditions. This includes using accurate moral language—even when it makes us uncomfortable. When evidence mounts from numerous Holocaust scholars, genocide experts, and international bodies that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide, Christians must have the courage to name this reality.
3. Concrete Solidarity
Compassionate orthopathos must translate into orthopraxy—right action. This includes supporting humanitarian efforts, advocating for ceasefires, demanding our governments stop supplying weapons used against civilians, and welcoming displaced people. It means pressuring governments to “open windows for water, food, and medicine, without strings attached”. As Hill powerfully states, “We don’t bless bombs. We bless bread. We don’t sanctify oppression. We wash feet”.
4. Theological Reformation
We need to develop theological frameworks that transcend the partisan divides that have captured Christian witness. This requires rejecting the “us versus them” binary thinking that contradicts the inclusive vision of the gospel. As the Christians in Conversation on the Middle East group has modeled, we need spaces where “self-critique” and genuine listening can occur across theological divides. This theological reformation must center the image of God in every human being—Israeli and Palestinian alike—and recognize that authentic Christian hope “lies not in political solutions but in the Prince of Peace who will one day make all things right”.
The Courage to See Christ in the Rubble
The forced displacement of Gazans represents one of the great moral crises of our time—a crisis that demands Christian response rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus. This response begins with recognizing what Palestinian theologian Munther Isaac calls “Christ in the rubble”—the Christ who identifies with victims buried under the debris of violence . It continues with embracing a compassion that suffers with those who suffer, and it culminates in courageous action that protects life, demands justice, and refuses to choose between victims.
The way of Jesus—the way of the cross—invites us to stand in the crack where grief meets hope. It calls us to reject nationalistic idolatries and tribal loyalties that shrink our hearts. It challenges us to embody what Graham Joseph Hill calls “cruciform ethics” that “doesn’t shy from calling out abuses but does so without rhetorical weaponry”.
As the world watches Gaza’s displacement with either horror or indifference, Christians face a choice: will we be chaplains to power or sanctuaries for the broken? Will we bless bombs or bless bread? Will we sanctify oppression or wash feet? The answer will determine not only the credibility of our witness but the fidelity of our discipleship.
In the end, the question is not whether God is present in Gaza’s suffering—the Incarnation assures us God is profoundly there, buried in the rubble with the suffering. The real question is whether we will have the courage to join God there.
“Grief cracks the heart open wide enough to carry courage.
We stand at a crossroads of history and hope. Our journey as a nation has brought us far, yet the path to a more perfect union stretches before us, demanding our courage, our integrity, and our collective will. This journey is not mapped by foreign ideas but charted by the unique contours of our Vanua, our people, and a simple, profound idea that can define our future: that the term ‘iTaukei’ remains the exclusive and honoured name for the First People, the guardians of the Vanua, the owners of the land and resources, their heritage safeguarded by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga. And that the name ‘Fijian’ belongs to every single citizen of this nation.
This is more than semantics; it is the decolonization of our identity and the foundation of our covenant. It grants the iTaukei the unequivocal recognition and security we deserve as the indigenous people, while offering every citizen – whether their ancestors walked these shores for millennia or arrived through the trials of girmit – the unequivocal belonging they crave under the shared banner of a common nationality. To be ‘iTaukei’ is to speak of ancestral identity. To be ‘Fijian’ is to swear allegiance to a common destiny.
This foundational recognition is the first and most critical step toward reconciliation. For the Indo-Fijian community, it means moving beyond mere acknowledgment, to a deep, respectful understanding of we, the iTaukei as the First People. It is to honour the sanctity we hold of our Vanua – that profound, spiritual connection we have to land, resources, ancestry, and heritage that is not merely a concept but a living, breathing reality. The Bose Levu Vakaturaga is not a political relic but the steward of this soul, a vital institution that embodies custom, social structure, and a direct link to the ancestors. To understand this is to understand the very bedrock of our iTaukei identity.
From this place of security and respect, a powerful, reciprocal belonging can flourish. It enables the iTaukei community, confident in the protection of our unique heritage, to extend the hand of unconditional family-hood, to fully integrate every citizen as an indispensable partner in our Fijian story. It is the only way an Indo-Fijian can truly say, “My home is here, my roots are deep, and my future is Fijian,” without reservation.
Yet, this covenant of mutual recognition is not tested in grand declarations but in our daily actions. It is broken by the stereotype in a boardroom where an Indo-Fijian business owner, perhaps clinging to a misplaced sense of cultural superiority, overlooks iTaukei talent, perpetuating harmful myths about work ethic. This is not just a bad business practice; it is a failure to invest in the nation’s full potential and a rejection of the shared community the Vanua represents. True, inclusive prosperity is the only prosperity that will last.
Conversely, the covenant is shattered when an iTaukei individual, burdened by historical grievance, unleashes that pain upon an Indo-Fijian citizen with a hateful shout. This act is a betrayal of the very values of the Vanua, which teaches veilomani (love and compassion) and veirogorogoci (respect). It denies the fundamental truth that the Indo-Fijian community has no other home; their roots are deep in Fijian soil, and their future is irrevocably tied to ours.
This project of nation-building extends beyond social harmony to our economic sovereignty, where our communities have distinct but interconnected roles and responsibilities. True belief in Fiji is measured in more than words; it is measured in where we choose to invest our prosperity. The practice of transfer pricing, where wealth – predominantly from successful non-ITaukei businesses – is shifted abroad, drains the lifeblood from our economy. This is not merely a business decision; it is a choice between investing in Fiji or abandoning it. It is a betrayal of the very community and nation that fostered that success.
This internal abdication stands in stark contrast to the external faith shown from afar. The immense remittances sent home, primarily by iTaukei workers and those living abroad, represent a powerful stream of investment and a profound vote of confidence. These funds, earned through sacrifice and hard work, are a lifeline of love that directly supports families, builds homes, and fuels local economies across our islands. If our iTaukei family abroad believes in us so fiercely, how can those who prosper on Fijian soil every day believe any less? This diaspora are our ambassadors and champions, demonstrating daily what true commitment to Fiji looks like. Their contribution, and that of the Indo-Fijian diaspora who also invest and remit, fortifies Fiji’s standing as a regional power, a status earned by the hard work of all our people.
Our journey toward a more perfect union, is further complicated by the tensions that exist not just between our communities, but within them. We are not monolithic blocks. Within the iTaukei community, deep fissures exist, mirroring global divides. There are tensions between the fundamentalists and the secular, vividly illustrated in the fierce debate over support for Israel and the proposed embassy in Jerusalem. This is not a simple foreign policy issue; it strikes at the heart of religious identity, political alignment, and modern versus traditional worldviews, creating a schism as complex and passionate as that within Israel itself.
Similarly, the Indo-Fijian community carries the enduring legacy of the subcontinent’s partition. The historical fractures between India and Pakistan continue to weave their way into modern Fiji, manifesting in cultural, religious, and sometimes political undertones, that influence community dynamics. These internal divisions are not signs of weakness; they are the realities of a living, breathing democracy. They are the many roads that one bus must travel on the route to nationhood. They make the need for a unifying, national identity – Fijian – all the more critical.
This is precisely why we must banish extremism of any shape or form into irrelevance. Our effort to build a more perfect union requires a conscious citizenship that embraces complexity, rejects purity tests, and seeks the common good. It demands that we champion the cause of iTaukei aspiration not as a threat, but as the just and necessary foundation for true peace. It demands that iTaukei leadership and society open the doors of belonging so wide, that every citizen feels an unconditional sense of home. It demands that our economic choices—from the largest corporate boardroom to the smallest market stall—are made with a single, unifying purpose.
We are not without a blueprint for this complex work. Look to the spirit of Suva Grammar School, a microcosm of the Fiji we strive to become. On its grounds, the distinctions of background fade into the shared identity of being an Old Scholar. iTaukei, Indo-Fijian, and every other community stand side-by-side, united by a common experience, mutual respect, and a collective pride. The school did not erase their identities; it layered upon them a greater, shared identity—that of a family. This is the model we must scale to the nation.
A more perfect union is within our grasp. It is a Fiji where the iTaukei heritage is honoured without question, where every citizen belongs utterly as a Fijian without reservation, and where our economic choices are made for the collective good. It is a nation that acknowledges its internal complexities but is not defined by them.
Our children and grandchildren will not ask us how much wealth we accumulated for ourselves. They will ask what we built for them. They will ask if we were brave enough to confront the hard truths, to invest in the difficult conversations, and to choose the collective “us” over the comfortable “I.” Let us bequeath them a nation united in spirit and thriving in fact—a true testament to our covenant of Viti, built on the powerful, inclusive truth of two honoured names.
1 Understanding the Theological Distinction Between Biblical and Modern Israel
The core of Christian fundamentalist’s argument rests on a theological conflation of modern Israel with biblical Israel—a position that numerous Christian scholars and theologians have robustly challenged. Modern Israel is a secular nation-state established in 1948 through geopolitical processes, while biblical Israel represents a covenant community within God’s salvation history . The New Testament itself demonstrates that God’s promises to ancient Israel, find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, through whom blessings extend to all peoples.
Theologically, Romans 11 speaks of spiritual grafting into God’s covenant people through Christ—not political support for any modern nation-state. The Apostle Paul’s metaphor emphasizes the inclusive nature of God’s salvation available to Jews and Gentiles alike through faith, not ethnic or national affiliation. This understanding prevents the theological error of equating modern state policies with divine endorsement.
2 The Ethical Imperative: Principled Non-Alignment in the Face of Injustice
The Pasifika Conference of Churches (PCC) advocates for principled non-alignment—a position that engages all parties while refusing to remain neutral in the face of injustice . This approach reflects Jesus’s command to “love your neighbor” (Matthew 22:39) by prioritizing human dignity, international law, and civilian protection over partisan political alliances .
Reverend Bhagwan and the PCC have explicitly condemned all forms of violence—including Hamas’s initial attack—while emphasizing that criticism of the Israeli government’s policies does not constitute antisemitism. Their statement affirms: “We grieve every life taken and reject every hatred—antisemitism, anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobia”. This balanced position recognizes the historical suffering of Jewish people while acknowledging the current plight of Palestinians.
The PCC’s call for Palestinian recognition at the UN General Assembly stems from the same commitment to self-determination that Pasifika nations have sought in our own decolonization journeys. This consistency is what Reverend Bhagwan means by an “Ocean of Peace”—a vision that demands ethical coherence rather than selective application of principles .
3 The Pasifika Context: Why Fiji’s Embassy Decision now is Problematic
The Fiji government’s decision to establish an embassy in Jerusalem at this time, contradicts international consensus that the city’s status should be resolved through final-status negotiations . The PCC has cautioned against this move precisely because it prejudges Jerusalem’s status and potentially normalizes ongoing violations of international law .
Prime Minister Rabuka’s claim that this is “not a religious decision” but rather “strategic engagement” rings hollow when considering Fiji’s own peacekeeping history in the region. Fijian soldiers have witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of conflict, including the 1996 Qana massacre where Israeli shelling killed 106 Lebanese civilians sheltering at a UN compound. This historical context makes Fiji’s diplomatic move particularly morally troubling.
The PCC’s critique is not about rejecting dialogue with Israel but about ensuring that engagement serves peace with justice. As Reverend Bhagwan notes: “We cannot talk about the killing of thousands of people, unarmed civilians, children, the destruction of humanitarian spaces and at the same time talk about relationship with the countries that are perpetrating this violence” .
4 Conclusion: Toward a Consistent Christian Witness
Christian support for the modern state of Israel is not a theological imperative but a political choice—one that must be evaluated based on its alignment with Christian values of justice, peace, and human dignity. The Pasifika Conference of Churches offers a theologically robust and ethically consistent framework that:
Distinguishes between biblical Israel and the modern state of Israel
Affirms the equal worth and dignity of both Israeli and Palestinian people
Advocates for peace based on international law and human rights
Rejects all forms of violence and discrimination
This approach honors Christianity’s Jewish roots while recognizing that the church’s primary allegiance is to God’s kingdom—not any earthly nation. As Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Our call as Christians is to bear witness to this alternative reality where peace is established through justice, reconciliation through truth, and security through equal rights for all .
Rev. James Bhagwan and the Pasifika Conference of Churches, exemplify this prophetic witness—one that speaks truth to power while extending compassion to all affected by conflict. This is not abandonment of Christian roots but rather its fullest expression.
Pasifika Talanoa by a traveled ITaukei Fijian 