Dear Editor,

Fa’afetai tele lava to the two courageous EFKS prodigies for the thought-provoking discussion on what appears to be a perpetual 'state of spiritual v material tension' within the EFKS. The two different vantage points of views from which the two approach the topic make for very stimulating reading. I enjoy their writing styles and compassion, just the kind of material for reading, as the flock assemble and reflect at their annual convention in Malua.

The writers emanate from the same 'mother church' but probably were placed on different sides of a multi-vector institution. Like the two writers, I am also a product of the same church (from Matautu, Falelatai and Leulumoega 1954 to 1962), and then from age 8, I got thrown into other denominations; the Pacific Islands Christian Church in Karangahape Rd, Auckland, which in 1969 became the Pacific Islands Presbyterian Church, and through marriage, entered another fascinating denomination, and another competitor, the Catholic church in Suva. Sorry, I digress.

In addition to being willingly seduced by this very interesting and courageous conversation, I was reminded of a USP history field trip conducted in Samoa about ten years ago (2017). As an aside to the field trip, I introduced the group of Pacific Island students to the Malua Theological College to discuss the question with the church historians. Why does the EFKS persist with the practice of publicising freewill gifting to their church?

Having attended almost all different Christian denominations (and non-Christians) around Pasifika, the only church that religiously calls out regular gifting for their alofa and various atina’e is the EFKS (I've yet to check Rev. Aisoli and the Metotisi parishes).

The church history professors then teaching at Malua (Rev. Drs Latu Latai and Aukilani Leavaise’eta-Tuiai) informed that that was something they had also been investigating as part of their internal self-reflection with a view to modifying the practice due to its "intimidating if not inhumane" nature and consequences, especially on the materially poor.

And what was the outcome of their investigation? The 'Au Toeaiina (Committee of Elders) were against any suggestion to modify it. They insisted on maintaining the practice 'ole lauina ole alofa ma atina’e', and they were perfectly right. Because it fitted with the local 'tu ma aga'. Locals get a sense of satisfaction from competing in almost everything at the village level, from the most elegant looking village to the most fabulous structure for their falesa, fale komiti, fale a’oga and faife’au, all for the name (not so much of a God or deity) but of title, family and village, in other words, it was a matter of personal, family and village pride.

This had a long history. From the early days of palagi Misionare, once the Misi got wind of the competitive nature inherent among the locals, they quickly adapted that spirit into church affairs, so competitive gifting became the number one earner for bringing in fagu'u, fala, siapo and locally manufactured artefacts which were then sold for money to import material that were not locally available.

And since the turn of the 20th century, the local artefacts have transitioned completely into cash, lots of it. And today, the public 'lauina ole atina’e or alofa' or of public gifting is perhaps by far the most lucrative money spinner for the church. There is a rich literature on this topic, including the infamous paper prepared by the late veteran Oka Fau’olo to mark the millennium and read by Rev. Lale Peteru and many others from Theological Colleges and Universities in Samoa and Pasifika.

In a recent field trip to Safata, my co-collaborators included deeply committed and reflective faife’au. When reflecting on the upcoming Fono, one revealing quip is that about 75 to 80 per cent of the Fono’s time is spent discussing money. The issue is not new but certainly it will be worth investing some of this in research and seminars by our upcoming young scholars at colleges, universities and village parishes.

The Toeaiina, bless them (our dads and grand-dads were in these positions), are simply continuing the practice that our palagi forefathers introduced in the 1830s and maybe after almost two hundred years of diligently following our palagi spiritual ancestors, perhaps our Toeaiina wise men (and women?) could reconsider decolonising and recolonising century-old practice before EFKS enters the third centenary of celebrations.

Looking forward to more wonderfully stimulating, courageously honest and passionate conversations for the love and betterment of all Samoans.

Manuia le Fonotele.

Morgan Tuimaleali'ifano