“Not my God”–Challenging the Usage of ‘Te Atua’ as Māori Terminology for the God of Christianity

Abstract

The usage of the term ‘Te Atua’ for God within Māori contexts has been largely accepted and unchallenged, yet its appropriateness is questioned due to its colonial origins and misalignment with Māori epistemologies. This paper explores the disqualification of ‘Te Atua’ as a Māori term for God through historical analysis and Māori scholarly perspectives. By applying a Kaupapa Māori research rubric which aligns to four statements—1. The source is related to being Māori; 2. Is connected to Māori philosophy and principles; 3. Takes for granted the validity and legitimacy of Māori, the importance of Māori language and culture; and 4. Is concerned with the struggle for autonomy over our own cultural well-being—this paper argues that the term ‘Te Atua’ fails to meet these criteria. I propose that in accordance with Māori epistemologies, we can discern alternative terms for the blanket term ‘God’ that resonates with whakaaro Māori. This paper is a response to the recent Māori language translations of scripture, advocating for the re-indigenizing of the reo Māori bible to make it relevant to an increasingly non-Christian Māori audience and calls for a reimagining of Christianity that is authentically Māori.

1. Introduction

The term ‘Te Atua’ for God in Māori iterations of the bible and Christian practice is a largely accepted tradition. It can be found in modes and forms of karakia (spiritual recitations) Karaitiana (Christian) in both faith and secular environments. It has been, for the most part, uncontested and largely uninterrogated as an inherited artefact. For whatever reason, whether it is received positively or negatively in Māori spaces, the term ‘Te Atua’ is widely accepted and connected to ideas of the Christian God. The term has, for the most part in the view of the Christian, been utilized in spaces both justice-oriented towards Māori mana motuhake and the continued denigration and dispossession of Māori. For the non-Christian Māori, especially since the publication and rigorous reading of Dr Ranginui Walkers ‘Ka Whawhai Tonu Mātou’, Christianity and God/‘Te Atua’, have become polarizing concepts.

In Aotearoa, the reclamation of te reo Māori (the Māori language) as a movement has in recent days become a battleground of faith. The reclamation journey of te reo Māori necessitates an education regarding ‘atua Māori’ which, Christians, both Māori and non-Māori, balk at. This is due to their Christian education in its regard towards the concept of atua Māori, which is steeped in the historic demonification of Māori epistemologies alongside the supposed repatriation of the term atua (little a) to Te Atua (capital A) for Creator God. The goal of this essay is not to argue for atua Māori,1 as that would require its own symposium. What will be examined is the usage of ‘te Atua’ as it stands, an incorrect and currently problematic adoption of a Māori term, and the requirements towards a possibility of crafting or finding a better term that is aligned with Māori ways of knowing. Additionally, my interest in this topic is due to my positionality as a Ngāpuhi academic who has a continuing faith in critical elements of the Christian faith but grows increasingly critical of its integrated colonial fictions.

2. What Disqualifies ‘Te Atua’ as a ‘Māori’ Term for God?

Fortunately, Māori ways of knowing and pursuing knowledge today have established themselves within the academy in contradistinction to the early days of colonization. What I will be using as a model retroactively for disqualifying the term ‘Te Atua’ as a Māori term for the God of Israel is Smith’s Kaupapa Māori research rubric2. According to Smith, if something is to be considered ‘Māori’ in research, it must align with five interrelated points: “1. (It) Is related to being Māori; 2. Is connected to Māori philosophy and principles; 3. Takes for granted the validity and legitimacy of Māori, the importance of Māori language and culture; and 4. Is concerned with ‘the struggle for autonomy over our own cultural well-being.’”(Smith 2012, p. 187). To examine how this rubric can be applied to the term being examined, we must first begin with the origins of the term.

According to the Bible Society of New Zealand, the earliest recorded occurrence of the usage of ‘te Atua’ as a translation for God is in 1827, within the first translated scripture, ‘Kenehi’, which is the book of Genesis translated into te reo Māori by missionaries Henry and William Williams (The Bible in Māori n.d.). William Williams and his descendants also wrote and subsequently edited ‘A Dictionary of the Maori Language’ over a span of years.

In an early edition of the Dictionary, the Williams’ define atua to mean God, with no other possible explanation (Williams 1852, p. 9). With later editions of the dictionary, additions are sown onto the same explanation, namely, demons, or ghosts, regarding spiritual beings with agency, with the following majority of definitions imbuing the term atua with evil or malicious intent3. It is quite interesting that they, the Williams brothers, chose the word atua to define God when the majority of the later additional definitions attributed to atua do not do so. In a close examination of early (although contemporary to the Williams’) manuscripts, both Pā Henare Tate and Fr Dennehy, Catholic theologians, make some intriguing discoveries regarding the usage of the term atua that reinforce the later Dictionary editions definitions.

Tate states that, according to Dennehy, there are 188 references to the word atua in the Grey Manuscripts he studied. Only 6 references out of 301 apply atua to Ranginui (Sky-Father), and 1 out of 131 to Papatūānuku (Earth-Mother). In only 6 instances out of 875 are the tamariki (children) of Rangi and Papa referred to as atua. Dennehy continues by saying that the most frequent usage of the word atua is in reference to either atua ngau, or atua kahu4, malicious spiritual beings, to which he concludes:

“The conclusion drawn from this study is that the term atua is applied in a spiritual sense to many different beings and objects, and only rarely to the higher spiritual powers such as Rangi, Papa and their offspring. More frequently it is applied to the lesser spiritual powers which were thought to be more active in interrelating with people, namely, the tribal deities, ancestors and harmful spirits which cause sickness and other misfortunes.”

(Dennehy 1991, pp. 12–13)

What this shows is that the Williams, despite their best intentions, did not do due diligence in the matter of translation. They relegated a term that, as Best defines it,5 is primarily for lower-class ‘gods’ (Tate n.d., p. 270 see footnotes 4 and 5), to the Creator God. In this way, the term is disqualified due to a lack of research and required knowledge in the first instance. The approach they took stands in direct conflict with point 2 of Smiths rubric: “Is connected to Māori philosophy and principles”.

Secondly, albeit related to the first, is the undeniable fact that, when the Williams chose the term, regardless of their good intent or supposed mastery of te reo Māori, they were not a: knowledgeable in Māori philosophy but also b: not privileging Māori ways of knowing, which is point 3 of the Smith rubric. Instead, as unwitting participants in the ancient beast known as colonization, they exercised all their power towards bending a shallow knowledge of Māori words to colonial ideas in an invested attempt to civilize Māori for conversion6. I will make a sweeping reductionist statement for the sake of time: being colonizers automatically disqualifies them from the rest of the points.

3. What Is Atua in Contrast to ‘Te Atua’? Another Ground to Disqualify the Term

Elsdon Best, a complicated tauiwi (non-Māori) ethnographer of Māori, defines atua by dividing them into four tiered classes starting from A through D (Best 1995, p. 139). As a note, although Best’s classification is incorrect from a Māori worldview, he is an unfortunately common source of ‘Māori knowledge’ as it is accessed to this day and is one key source for the culturally denigratory attitude towards atua Māori. Best’s reflections on the term are thus.

Firstly, class A has Io the Supreme Being. Class B: the departmental ‘gods’; Rangi, Papa, and their offspring. Class C: Tribal Gods and other more widely known lesser gods and lastly, Class 4: family gods; deified ancestors and cacodemons. Relating Io, as atua, to the concept of ‘Te Atua’ is comparatively plausible by way of theological attribute, but is epistemologically and, to some, doctrinally problematic (Best 1995, p. 144). This is due to the main application of the term atua being for the lower-tiered ‘gods’.7 Although it was not Best who applied the term gods to atua, his definition and reasoning for the term are the most popularly applied ones to this day, alongside other recorders of Māori things, ensuring the denigration of Māori epistemologies by their civilized, Christianized, betters to this day.

Fortunately, Fr Bernard Dennehy directly refutes Best’s claims and even provides correction to Williams, stating:

“Despite the earlier claim that “atua” are divided into four classes―the Supreme Being, departmental gods, tribal and district gods, and family gods, a closer examination of manuscripts and of recorded karakia reveals different levels of meaning and emphasis (Dennehy 1991, p. 37). Rangi and Papa are rarely referred to as atua in the manuscripts studied. It is the same for the tamariki (children) of Rangi and Papa, whereas tribal and district deities are clearly spoken of as atua. Ancestors, some of whom were deified, are also included in this category.”

(Dennehy 1991, pp. 12–13)

In summary, so far, the term ‘Te Atua’ for God is unqualified due to, firstly, the lack of qualification by those who commissioned it (non-Māori) and secondly through its lack of historical usage for such ‘god’-like beings, describing often beings that, as Best regards them, are closer to human activity. Although research provides insight regarding a Māori understanding of atua, the usage of the term, coupled with stratagems of benevolent colonization, has forced two camps of thought. On one hand, the term as it was ‘popularized’ over the last 200 years has defined ‘te Atua’ to refer to the Christian God. On the other hand, coupled with the reclamation of te reo Māori and other Māori artefacts, it defines itself as ‘atua Māori’ for the atua originating from pūrākau (oral histories) Māori. This distinction can be heard in Christian spaces when defending its use for God, and in Māori spaces when defending its use for atua Māori. This need for distinction comes specifically from the denigrating narratives crafted by Christian institutions regarding atuatanga (knowledges concerning atua) after the term was hijacked and used to oppress Māori ways of knowing8. Fortunately, contemporary Māori theologians and academics have crafted authentically Māori definitions of atua for us to examine, in order to definitively settle whether the usage of the term is correct or not for Christian purposes (as they stand).

4. What Are Atua Māori According to Māori Scholars?

What attributes and characteristics define atua Māori as they are understood today? Theologian Dr Wayne Te Kaawa defines atua thus:

“My own definition of Atua is ‘an ancestor who was present at the creation of the universe and actively involved in completing the events of creation.’”

(Te Kaawa 2020, p. 73)

Te Kaawa succinctly makes two easily agreed upon points. Firstly, that atua are ancestors9. All pūrākau Māori regardless of waka (ship of origin) or tipuna (ancestor) relate and connect the human person though genealogy to creator beings, namely: Rangi, Papa, and their offspring10. The second point he makes is their presence, proximity, and participation in ‘completing the events of creation.’ What good this reference provides is a renegotiation of the term atua in referring to Māori ‘gods’ as they have been titled for the sake of denigration by colonizing systems. Te Kaawa also refers to Dr Aroha Yates’ work to find further examples regarding atua in research.

“Dr Aroha Yates-Smith found that the word Atua is not used in isolation and is associated with other words that include, ariki (hereditary chief), tipua (extraordinary being), kaitiaki (guardian), ariā (physical emblem of an Atua), tapu (a state of restriction) and mana (prestige, authority). Yates-Smith also found that Atua were not restricted to supernatural beings in creation stories but found examples of people being elevated to Atua status. From my own study of karakia (prayer), waiata (song), whakapapa (genealogy) and pūrākau (origin stories) words associated with Atua also include, tupuna (ancestor), taniwha (water creatures), tohunga (expert) and kura (treasure)” 11.

Te Kaawa, in combination with Yates, determines that the term atua is also generously applied to people (ariki and tipua), animals (tipua and kaitiaki), places, and things (aria)12. Therefore, the application of the word atua to anything ‘godlike’ and its baggage are complicated, to say the least, when applied to atua. Furthermore, in defining atua, here are some of the most common attributes (excluding Io):

• Anthropomorphic.13
• Gendered.14
• Creators through copulation.
• Spiritual and corporeal.15
• Purposed.
• Excepting Rangi and Papa, all atua have parents and whakapapa.

There are three obvious characteristics to me that stand in contradistinction to the Christian God. Firstly, the process of creation, which is also tied to point number two—being gendered. In almost all the long versions of pūrākau concerning creation, atua created things in pairs, one male and one female, through intercourse. Although different iwi and waka have different details regarding who creates what, the only instance of creation outside of the practical norm is that of the human, of which the first one is female. To create her, they (ngā[plural] atua) all contribute portions of their essence. However, there is no instance of creation from nothing or something alone, and there is always communion or community. The prior form of creating does not emulate modes of creation as we understand them by the Christian God. However, regarding the doctrine of creation and the genesis narrative, the creation through community does somewhat have relevance, although outside the scope of this paper.16 The third point is that all atua, even Rangi and Papa in accordance with particular mātauranga-a-iwi (location-based Māori epistemologies), have parents, which God does not. Therefore, combining all of the information we now know about atua, it was without a doubt irresponsible of the Williams’s to colonize the word atua for their God of the bible. As a parting gift, all the above terms, although unsatisfactory for God, work well for Jesus, which if you would like to know more about read Te Kaawa’s Doctoral Thesis.

5. If ‘Te Atua’ Is Incorrect, What Term Should We Use?

I must preface this section by admitting I am not a reo Māori expert17. We have people who are professional translators and language experts that far exceed my language capabilities. However, I am fluent in te reo, have a bias towards a Māori worldview, and am deeply concerned about a workable Māori theology for the future, from a Māori cohort and perspective. Lastly, my current thesis is primarily concerned with re-examining Christianity from a Māori perspective concerning atua Māori. These are the strengths and limitations I bring to the proposals that follow.

Because ‘Te Atua’ is now like the ‘baby’, ‘out with the bathwater’, what are some authentically Māori concepts or processes that may lead us to a satisfactory, if not authentic, Māori epistemology-driven terminology for conveying the idea of God?

5.1. Find a Suitable Term, Like Tapu

One possibility is replacing the word ‘God’ in all its occurrences with the word ‘tapu’18. For an example of making the argument for its usage briefly, I will use Pā Tate’s imagery19. It is not a thorough examination of the term’s viability, as that work requires more rigor than is accessible here. However, it is sufficient in making the proposal for the usage of an alternative, tūturu (authentic) Māori term proposition. He says the following:

“Te tapu i te Atua is thus intrinsic to Atua, in the sense that it comes from nowhere else.

Secondly, from te tapu i te Atua emanate all other created realities with their own tapu i a rātou.”20.

In this excerpt, he is using Atua, capital ‘A’, to communicate that it is God he is talking about. He comments on the intrinsicality of tapu to God. He draws quite heavily on Io language to make the point; however, the phrase that captures the idea for me is the first line. Ngapuhi scholar Māori Marsden presents a reasonably comprehensive whakapapa of the Ngapuhi creation story which includes the birth of fundamental metaphysical concepts like mauri and hau. However, there is no conception point for tapu. It is in that space Tate positions tapu, at the very beginning, within the parentless creator. A summary of Tate’s tapu asserts:

A.

Tapu creates, provides, and maintains purposeful connections and direction.

B.

Intrinsically all things with whakapapa have tapu and bear its likeness.

C.

Tapu is the source of mana. Mana as power in operation “acts either to create or produce (from existing material), further beings with their own tapu, or form the tapu of others.

D.

In every case the mana deriving from tapu acts to manifest, address, enhance, sustain, and retore its own tapu and the tapu of other beings until the goal of possessing tapu in its fullness is reached.” (Tate 2014, p. 78).

Alongside all of the Io creator names (a useful introduction to the concept of Io is accessible in the book Cruickshank 2010, Chapter 3), the argument for tapu for creator becomes a viable one on the premise that a: it is already linked (however unhelpfully) to the idea of holiness, b: it is commandeering a term that has viability when placed outside of its day-to-day function, in a pre-creation narrative, and c: it is, to a large degree, still authentic to its correct function. Re-negotiating tapu for creator, lastly, could possibly be a more palatable, less colonial theology-bearing concept than an Io replacement.

The other option is using Io as a replacement for God but falls into the same category as using atua for large portions of the Māori community.

5.2. Translate the Different Names of God from the Original Language to Māori

This method, although probably the most arduous, would be the most fruitful. It maintains the integrity and intention of the original texts, whilst also making those ideas authentically available to a Māori audience. The benefits of this approach far outweigh the benefits of utilizing a better ‘stand-in’ word for ‘God’ due to what the name/title of God offers to any given context. Characters bearing multiple names, or titles, is consistent with pūrākau Māori methodology, with most if not all atua Māori possessing multiple names/titles that pertain to different contexts21.

Some examples of this application to the Christian God could look like:

• Jehovah Sabaoth = Te Ariki (the leader of armies),
• Jehovah Jireh = Te Ūkaipō (the source of sustenance to a fetus), and
• Jehovah Shalom = Te Hohounga a Rongo (the peace-bringer)22.

For the first example, the imagery ‘Te Ariki’ (Elected leader of leaders) draws upon for me is that of the army general. It was not a constant title but one afforded to an elected individual by various Rangatira (leaders) of hāpū (sub-tribes) for war23. For the second, ‘Ūkaipō’ evokes the imagery of the womb. It is a place of warmth, of encompassing love, and of effortless nourishment. For the third, ‘Hohounga a Rongo’ is a ritual process that settles conflict between two warring factions, whether physical or conceptual. These terms are unsatisfactory if analyzed with knowledgeable scrutiny; however, the process should be evident. There is scope for this type of work.

In such a way, the source content’s intention and imagery are maintained, whilst evoking as closely as possible the same imagery and intention from within the new context. I believe this approach would be the most beneficial but also the most time-consuming.

5.3. Create a New Term That Means God or Use Transliterations

I understand the real possibility that implanting kupu (words) Māori and horopaki (context) Māori may ‘over culturize’ the text. I should point out that this is already fundamentally an issue with the English texts; however, I believe that if the above approach is not viable, that this one should be how we go about it. In this way, the integrity of what is currently in circulation remains in-tact without extra theological effort, and a whole generation of worshiping Christians, Māori, and otherwise will not feel the need to defend the prior usages of ‘Te Atua’. Additionally, I would hope that if this were to be a process undertaken, that it would only ever be a temporary measure and not a replacement for the above process. I am hesitant to offer any examples. However, I will offer up a re-terming utilized by the indigenous peoples of North America where they will, in an application of decolonization, use the term ‘Creator’ instead of God, due to its relevance to their epistemologies (Woodley 2022, pp. 47–49). I have heard some people using the term ‘kaihanga’ (creator) in their prayers, possibly as a result of such application. This practice would, in application, be more aligned with point 5.1. However, a term being created to replace atua would fulfill such a role and hopefully be satisfactory. Ultimately, I feel that I am unqualified to even make an offer of an example for this process even though it is a viable possibility.

6. Conclusions

To conclude, I want to propose, somewhat outrageously to my theological friends, that indigenous faith modes require indigenizing faithfully holy texts. I personally applaud that the beginnings of a work the new reo Māori translation of some biblical texts, which have not been available prior, offer a chance to renegotiate indigenous biblical hermeneutic. Looking ahead, if we, in Aotearoa, want God to be relevant to an increasingly non-Christian Māori audience, we must firstly own our inherited sins and be held accountable to them–including our misappropriation of Māori terms like atua. Let us interrogate what have been traditional modes and practices of Christian faith, and faithfully interrogate what good, if any, it offers to Māori today. From there, let us find courage and energy to create, to propose, to wānanga, and to dream of presenting the Creator in ways authentic to our indigenous experience. Let indigenous peoples use indigeneity from within themselves to tell the narrative, not as it has been constructed and consequently interpreted by colonists. We can begin to create a reality of a Christianity that does not simply embrace Māori with colonial arms but is authentically Māori. To that end, let us begin again, with the term renegotiating inherited terms like ‘Te Atua’.