Pope Francis often uses the term "ideological colonialism" to describe what he sees as the wrongs being forced upon developing countries and indigenous populations by the governments of the more developed countries and those persons and organizations representing these governments. The efforts criticized are most often being introduced under the guise of development. The topics and specific efforts most offensive to the pope (and the only ones that are sufficiently offensive in so far that they merit his repeated criticism) are matters related to human sexuality, sexual ethics, reproductive health care, and gender identity.

It is my sense that ideological colonialism speaks to a much broader sphere of influence and socio-cultural conflict. It refers to any institution and the mores which underpin such an institution, being forcibly or voluntarily introduced into a novel setting, that is, a context wherein alternate structures already exist and thrive. This includes such things as: the concept of private property, hierarchical and patriarchal structures of social organization, language and the conceptualization of the real and the imagined in terms specific to an individual language. This is in no way an exhaustive list.

A January 10, 2018 article by Deborah Jian Lee in the on-line publication Religion Dispatches titled "Christians of Color Are Rejecting 'Colonial Christianity' and Reclaiming Ancestral Spiritualies" speaks so eloquently to that which up to now has been for me only a troubling and poorly formed thought.

It is the tenet of this author that Christianity as it has developed over the course of the past 1,500 years has itself become a vehicle for and an essential component of ideological colonialization. What is even more troubling is that this has occurred only after Christianity itself had been the object of cultural appropriation. It then became and continues to be one of many tools utilized by Christian Euro-American nations in order to colonize the balance of the globe--imposing even Christianity now revised back upon many of those from whom it had been previously appropriated.

The article supports this view of second millennium Christianity with the following quotes:

“...[Christianity is] a tradition founded by people of color, [a] scriptural guidance for activism, and a retethering to history…”

“…[Christianity, as it] filtered through predominantly white communities and erased a crucial detail from Christian mysticism’s history: that its forebears were men and women of color.”

 “Across the wide sweep of colonial history, the systematic demonization and erasure of local religion served as a key strategy to empire building.”

“...belief is over-emphasized in the Euro-American religious reality, where doctrine supersedes correct action or practice.”

The task at hand for persons and communities of color is one of "...decolonizing their Christian faith from white patriarchy and capitalism." The article describes how that has been done and might continue to be pursued by faith communities and also by individuals--as a more singular activity. The section titled "Dogma vs. Dream Time" is particularly insightful. I can only hope that the former bishop of the local Catholic diocese reads this article. He may then no longer feel okay with disparaging liturgical dance within the context of his homilies.

Here is a link to the cited article for your enjoyment and thoughtful consideration.

 http://religiondispatches.org/christians-of-color-are-rejecting-colonial-christianity-and-reclaiming-ancestral-spiritualities/

Old-Man-Living-Alone Homemaking Hint #1

     Faced with the prospect of and driven by the desire for pea soup for lunch, I approached the cupboard, which also holds various dinnerware despite the paucity of its name, for a bowl. As I made my move, my eye caught the image of the breakfast cereal bowl and spoon sitting in the sink. I had dutifully rinsed it out and placed it in the appropriate location so that it would get washed with lunch and possibly even supper dishes. Why reach for new and clean when reasonably clean and readily available will do? The pea soup itself (Homemade, I can proudly affirm.) was leftover from a previous meal, so why not use a leftover bowl? You know, it worked. Single occupancy households can utilize convenience in a way not permissible in larger households unless one resorts to some degree of subterfuge.

     Stay tuned. Homemaking Hint #2 may expound on a tried and true recipe for microwave flat-bread pizza. More trials need to be completed, before the truth be told.

I'm thinking of developing a new and particularly contemporary literary form. It is to be called redaction. I will use the term consistent with its secondary meaning related to censorship and not relative to its primary meaning of edited or abridged.

The idea is to intersperse a standard text with blacked out portions. These black-outs would be of varying lengths and placed randomly in the test. One may argue that this supposedly novel literary form is already in vogue as seen in so many documents released by governmental authorities. I plan to take it one or more steps further. I am proposing that the text actually makes readable sense even with the blacked out areas. Readers will also be encouraged to edit the text by adding words and phrases that they determine to be a likely versions of that which has been blacked out.

I will try to draft an example to show folks just how this might work.

Original with redactions [.................]:

"Following several [..................] weeks of bitter and unseasonably [............] cold weather, we [.................] have now enjoyed a few [...........] days of more moderate [..............] and even seasonal [...............] temperatures [............................................................................................] accompanied [.............] by the usual [......] snow flurries."

Becomes:

"Following several [death defying] weeks of bitter and unseasonably [--while living in an unclothed state--] cold weather, we [find ourselves still alive only to] have now enjoyed a few [memorable and carefree, yet hunger-filled dark nights of] days of more moderate [speech with little or no meaningful emotional expression] and even seasonal [yet only to be frequently called in question] temperatures [quite indicative of a bout of Australian flu in season, which finds itself ] accompanied [by the unusual ringing in one's ears and a craving for scrimp on the barby and] by the usual [rainbow colored] snow flurries."

The latter sort of reads like a government document. Does it not?

I fully realize that the question I am about to pose may easily become the poster child for the esoteric question of the month, but I shall proceed even in face of that threat.

Is "pro multis" the new "filioque?"

For several years now, the phrase "pro multis," which is found in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, was translated into English and several other European languages as "for all." This translation dates to the 1960's with the introduction of the vernacular following the Second Vatican Council. During the past decade, there has been an increasingly assertive effort to translate this phrase as "for many." This later translation has become the sanctioned version as the Church hierarchy struggles to standardize the translation into European languages including English.

As this discussion is played out on the stage of the Roman Catholic Church and within the Catholic press, I am reminded of an earlier dispute over a phrase and a thousand years of irreconcilable differences. The First Council of Nicaea in 325AD established the form for the Profession of Faith, which became known as the Nicene Creed. It was later amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Late in the sixth century, the phrase "filioque" or "from the son" was added by Latin speaking churches. In 1054, it was formally incorporated into the Creed to be used within the Latin Rite or Roman Catholic Church. The dispute, which resulted from this unilateral revision by one branch of Christendom, resulted in the Schism of 1054. This is essentially a revision of text and not a revision of theology. This division between the Western and Orthodox churches persists to this day. Ingrained in almost 1,000 years of history, it appears that it will persist another 1,000 years.

I find it difficult to understand how a sound theological basis can be offered in defense of the correctness of the "for many" and the error of the "for all." The four gospels have difference versions of these words. Scholars are of the opinion that the Latin language does not differentiate between the phrase "for all" and "for many." One also needs to remember that Latin is the third or more translation of the original allegedly spoken by Christ. If the Christian message has any universality, then "for all" would certainly seem to be preferred.

I realize this is but one example of the dynamic equivalent vs. literal interpretation dispute within the Catholic Church which is approaching something akin to a Fifty Year War and which promises little more than mutually assured destruction or an arms' race which consumes precious resources much in demand elsewhere.

I recently finished reading Christopher Hitchens' last book, Mortality, which was written during the nineteen months between his diagnosis with esophageal cancer and his death.

I found several quotes well worth the effort of jotting down.

"...body turns from being a friend to being a foe:..." (p. 40)

"...I don't have a body, I am a body." (p. 41)

"...in this year of living dyingly..." (p. 54)

"...every passing day represents more and more relentlessly subtracted from less and less." (p. 71)

"Body turns from a reliable friend to more neutral treacherous foe..." (p. 91)

I read this book as a family member/caregiver of one, as Christopher is wont to say, "living dyingly" and engaged in "a long and brave struggle with mortality," rather than as more commonly stated "living with cancer" and "battling cancer." I prefer Christopher's choice of words.

When is a promise not a promise?

When it is a statement of intent cloaked as a promise.

The appearance of a promise don't always communicate that which it may appear to communicate.

Appearances can be deceiving or misconstrued.

Exercise caution.

Take care.

Promises made yesterday may be kept tomorrow or in the days after tomorrow.
An optimistic stance may best be coupled with a ready proactive component.

Some days the only take home is an honest effort.
And that effort isn't always mine.

A friend gave me a copy of Jon Meacham's book entitled Thomas Jefferson, The Art of Power. I am finding it a slow read as it is taking more and more self-encouragement to keep moving through it. I am some 350 pages into 514 pages of text. A friend pointed out that the book includes 215 pages of notes and bibliography--clear evidence that it is a scholarly piece. There are ever so frequent citations of letters and other works written by Jefferson and his contemporaries. I am beginning to think I could use a Dictionary and Grammar of Colonial English to more fully understand the text. It reminds me of reading Shakespeare, where the text would be annotated with definitions and translations into contemporary English.

I will return to T.J., but for now I am tackling Wendell Berry's The Art of the Common Place, which is a collection of his agrarian essays edited by Norman Wirbza.  The Big Question in much of the conservation literature is "Why wilderness?" Aldo Leopold, Sig Olson, and Edwin Dahlberg have all answered this question in their own way. Wendell Berry offers a perspective I have not seen any where else.

Here is an excerpt from Berry's essay entitled "A Native Hill."
"I come into a wild place. ... Sometimes I can no longer think in the house or in the garden or in the cleared fields. They bear too much resemblance to our failed human history—failed, because it has led to this human present that is such bitterness and a trial. And so I go to the woods. … I enter an order that does not exist outside, in human spaces. … I am less important than I thought, the human race is less important than I thought. I rejoice in that."

These words made me think of why it might be that I take comfort in sitting on the edge of really big water. There is water all the way to the horizon except where it is interrupted by heights of land on islands at varying distances. My field of vision excludes any and all visible evidence of human activity. My field of vision encompasses only "a wild place." In the hours of the early morning there are few if any sounds of human activity to my rear that encroach in and upon this scene and its impact on my senses. It is in this place that I realize that I am not all that important. The lake has done and will continue to do very well without me. Should the lake rise up on its own accord as it is wont to do, I have had and will continue to have clear evidence of my powerlessness. The lake is peaceful and caring, as well as violent and deadly. These descriptors in all their breadth and width and physical manifestations enjoy absolute moral impunity. Qualifiers, such as "good," "bad," and "no-never-mind," simply do not apply and can not be made to apply. It is in such a wild place that I learn who I am and have the occasion to rejoice modeling the example of Wendell Berry.