Crowdsourcing Cultural Awareness: An invitation to partner with me on two projects.

“The Golden Rule” – By Norman Rockwell

Hello, my name is Kevin Gonzaga and I wanted to briefly inform you about two projects I am simultaneously working on regarding cultural awareness and invite you to consider partnering with me on them by contributing content.

The main project…

Currently I am working at the University of North Dakota with the department of Pathology. I am working on a grant from the Department of Justice to develop online training materials for death investigators around the United States.

Death investigators are the people responsible for determining the official cause of death when it is unknown.  While some cities have professional coroners and medical examiners who fulfill this role, this is not the case in all areas of the United States. Some states have very few trained death investigators and as such at times the death investigator of record might be a local volunteer firefighter or veterinarian as this is the most qualified person available.  The Department of Justice is aware of problems this can cause and the online training they want developed is an attempt to raise the professional skills of those who may act as death investigators throughout the United States.

The specific aspect of this training I am developing includes cultural concerns and cultural competency. Because funerals are almost without exception associated with religious rites, in a multi-cultural society like ours it is very easy for death investigators to offend the deceased’s family unintentionally as they have contact with the deceased and usually very little cultural awareness. The purpose of the training I am developing is to ensure that death investigators are aware of this risk of offense, are thinking culturally throughout the performance of their duties, and are equipped to work with families to ensure that the body is handled with as much cultural and religious integrity as possible.

The training I am building has two basic sections: recorded lessons and video interviews. 

In the recorded sessions I provide information and training regarding cross-cultural work in general. The video interviews will be available to the death investigators to watch for additional information more specific to one cultural or religious group they have or might encounter in the course of their duties.  The interviews will be with cultural and religious leaders of various communities as they discuss their specific mortuary rites, concerns about death investigations, and about their culture and/or religion in general.

My side-project…

At the same time I am using this opportunity to work on a side-project of mine. In the interviews I am asking the question: “What are three things you wish everyone in the U.S. knew about your culture/religion?” I will incorporate these answers into the training but I I also plan to use the answers I receive to create a mini-documentary of sorts that will highlight the cultural diversity of the United States and hopefully raise awareness and appreciation of other cultures.

My dilemma…

While I have the time and resources to perform some of these interviews myself I am attempting to be as comprehensive and inclusive with my videos as possible.  For example, instead of recording an interview with one Native American elder, I want many different interviews representative of different tribes in order to respect the fact that North America is home to over five hundred different Native American tribes and they are not all the same.  In a similar way, instead of recording an interview with one Muslim leader, I want to interview many different ones to reflect the fact that Islam has different religious sects and cultural groups within it. In short, I want as many different interviews and voices as possible and this far exceeds the time and resources I have available to me.

How you can contribute…

This is where I hope you come in. While I cannot interview everyone I want to, I can receive contributions from everyone who wants to contribute. If you are (or know of) an internally recognized authority within your cultural/religious community (an elder, pastor, imam, cleric, priest, rabbi, religious leader, etc.) that could speak on these issues I am inviting you to participate. I have developed simple but specific instructions so that anyone who wants can record an interview along the same guidelines as what I need for both of my projects. This footage can then be submitted to me, after which I will do all necessary editing and most likely incorporate it into both of my projects. My hope is that by receiving such contributed footage  I will be able cover far more cultural and religious groups and sub-groups that I would ever have been able to do on my own.

All that is needed to contribute to these projects is a video-recording device (even a good webcam might work), a quiet well-lit, quiet place to record, a willing interviewee, the instructions and a USB storage drive that the footage will be uploaded to and mailed to me on. (I will most likely be able to provide the USB drive and the appropriate envelope and postage.)

Making it your own…

While for the purposes of this training I need some very specific questions answered, I am also very interested in what you want others (not just death investigators) to know about your culture and religion. As such, the instructions for this video and the project as a whole have been designed with a place for you to share about your culture/religion far beyond mortuary rites. So while the required content may only take 20 minutes to cover, if your interview includes fifty minutes of additional cultural/religious information, stories and history it will also be made available to death investigators. Such additional contributions are indeed encouraged..

So how can you get involved?

If you would like to support this project but cannot directly participate, please just get the word out via social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

If have any questions, if you know that you want to participate or know of someone who you think would be interested in contributing, please contact me at:

kevin.gonzaga@med.und.edu

Thank you for your time and for contributing to these two projects.

Sincerely,

Kevin Gonzaga

The last several months and the last several years…

Salt flats in Utah I saw as I started a large transition in my life.

About the last several months…

Last Summer I wrote three of what I consider to be the best and most honest pieces I have ever written. (They can be accessed here, here, and here)  They were the fruit of a sober reckoning with my past and my present, which had been growing like a crescendo for years.

I wrote those pieces during another episode of depression in which I had very intentionally isolated myself from friends and family, was considering suicide, and even refused to go to the graduation ceremony for my Masters program.

Many things have changed since I wrote those words in that dark place.

I began taking antidepressants and have done well on them.  I reconciled with my family.  I moved two times. I continued the trajectory that I was already on, which took me further and further out of the orbit of Christianity and the Church which had previously been the center of my life. I started working out at the gym regularly and got in the best shape of my life.  I have seen many friends get engaged and married. I worked at a group home for foster care youth for several months.  I applied to two PhD programs in Clinical Psychology and was rejected by both.

In the midst of all these big and small changes, perhaps the most important is that I have refocused and solidified what I believe to be the purpose of my life.

In the three pieces I did last summer I provided a quotation from Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and author of Man’s Search for Meaning, in which he wrote:

What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task.

In his book, Dr. Frankl elaborates that what humans need to have meaning in their life is such a task that they fill they, and only they, can work towards with their life.  This was born of his experiences in the concentration camps where such scraps of meaning were all that left to motivate men who had lost literally everything else, to continue to struggle to survive.

At the time I had lost sight of the tension I was called to but not even a month later, after driving back down to Pasadena from the trip where I had a major reconciliation with my parents in Modesto, my desire to and my thoughts about working in Native American communities long-term resurfaced strongly after being dormant for some time.

Whatever else happens or changes, whatever I come to believe about God or faith, I know that working to address issues of injustice and inequality in Native American communities makes the most sense of a lot of unique aspects of my life and it is something I have freely chosen to commit myself to.

(Me being me, this also culminated in another long blog post.)

This renewed resolve led me to where I am currently, Grand Forks, North Dakota. Right now I am working in the Seven Generations Center of Excellence at the University of North Dakota as a research assistant working on a grant with our pathology department and the Department of Justice. I am gaining research experience, writing, and learning this year as I prepare to reapply to PhD programs in Clinical Psychology.

Sometimes this move still feels surreal and I have to remind myself that I cannot simply hop into my car and visit friends and family like I have been able to for the last several years. I have only been here a few days and already I have realized that some of my preconceived notions about what life here would be like were wrong, for better and for worse. Regardless, I’m here now, and I’m pretty sure I’m in it for the long haul.

But what of the last three years?

As I enter this new season of life I cannot help but reflect a little bit on the last season of life which was tumultuous to say the least.  Words fail me and maybe that is okay because I think a friend who walked with me through those years perhaps said it best.

As I prepared to leave for North Dakota I visited with many friends and one wrote me a very dear letter. In it were the following words:

“I have watched as you confronted your past head on with a tenacity that brought with it moments of reprisal. You did not hesitate to seek truth regardless of what is looked like and for this I am so proud of you.  You are courageous Kevin Gonzaga! I know this because I watched as you struggled interpersonally in your relationship with God, romantic hopes, past agonies and an unclear future.  But, even in the midst of all that chaos, your willingness to open your heart and home to the Fuller student body made you a catalyst without our community.”

This short paragraph managed to succinctly name the challenges I faced in the last season of life and the responses to them I very intentionally chose. I chose to explore my relationship with God and others, even the parts that scared me. I chose to be vulnerable with my heart romantically, even after being hurt, and being disappointed many times since. I chose to be open and honest about what was going on.  I chose to make sure I was creating a welcoming place (in my heart and home) for everyone, especially those who did not fit in anywhere else, regardless of what was going on with me.

These decisions were deliberate and they were not always easy to follow through on.  Sometimes I wondered, like I imagine many people do, if these choices I made for myself and the small sacrifices I made for others over the last several years had gone simply unnoticed. My friend’s words reminded me that they were not forgotten or unnoticed which was an unexpected comfort and affirmation as I prepared for another major transition in life.

In fact, unexpected words like these, from this friend and others, are what have buoyed my spirits and kept me moving through some difficult times in this last season of life.  May I learn to be equally generous with words of encouragement to others and regard them as a meaningful act in and of themselves with no agenda other than to lift the spirits of those around me.

Dear AG Conservative

 

 

Dear AG_Conservative,

Our little Twitter exchange (above) left me unable to tease out my point within the confines of Twitter, so I wrote you a short post.  

My initial reply was something to the effect of “The same could be said about the last couple of Presidents…” followed by my clarification and example that I, as someone who was anti-war/pro-peace was demonized as unpatriotic under the previous presidency.

My point in bringing this up is that under the current two party system, no matter who we elect, there is someone in office who is most likely pissing off the other half of Americans by pursuing policy they do not agree with. People from opposing parties will characterize their enemies as villains and there will be gloating by those who win.

Welcome to life.

As for my example regarding the Dixie Chicks, my main point was that being anti-war was not popular post 9/11, especially early on. Perhaps even less so than being pro-gun ownership after Sandy Hook. The Dixie Chicks were just one infamous/famous example of people getting hammered for being against the Iraq War. As someone who eventually took a strong stance against the Iraq War (and war in general), Bush’s pursuit of wars was certainly not representative of my wishes, and I knew from the treatment of other and the reaction I received to my own opinions that I was not seen as patriotic, nationalistic, or violent “enough” to be a good American. 

Did Bush call me personally and refer to me as un-American?  No.  But do you suggest that there was no such sentiment at the time circulating around in the Media, on Facebook, in the News, etc. even if alternative viewpoints were also presented?

Does this make sense?

For the record, I think the Constitution has really gone out the window in both of the last two Presidencies and am highly critical of both Obama and Bush. I am for sensible gun legislation and for the private ownership of firearms, even assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Sandy Hook, Mass Shootings, and Gun Culture in the U.S.A.: Why (as a gun owner) I am for sensible gun legislation.

The tragedy mass shooting at Sandy Hook was not caused by one thing.  As soon as the shooting happened everyone (including myself) got on their soap box and focused on one aspect of the tragedy.  Everyone pointed to their favorite culprit and suggest what they were focused on was what “caused” the mass shooting.

This is short-sighted and incorrect.

The situation that led to Adam Lanza walking into a school and methodically killing a large group of people, mostly children, was enabled by the intersection of parenting, personal responsibility, a culture of violence in the U.S., gun control, mental illness and many other factors.

However, in light of the predictable arguments regarding gun control this tragedy has sparked, and the Presidents words today and the arguments against his suggestions, I thought it would be a good time to explain why I am a gun owner that is for sensible gun legislation/regulation/control.

But what do I mean by sensible?

There are two extremes when it comes to gun control and both are ridiculous.

One extreme is represented by those who want to abolish or severely restrict firearms. The notion is that tragedies like Sandy Hook and gun crime in general could be avoided or limited by more restrictive gun legislation.

The problem with this stance is that illegal activities are not just stopped by the letter of the law. Law-abiding gun owners would be restricted, loop holes would be found, and criminals would still disobey gun laws. Additionally it should be noted that there are many firearms owners who do not commit crimes. I myself have owned a gun since I was eighteen and my closest run into the law was a speeding ticket while in college. (And that one time I poached in Canada.  But we don’t talk about that.) Ultimately this extreme stance does not address the roots of gun-crime. Poverty, a culture of violence and other issues that drive the violent actions guns are used in are not addressed and cannot be addressed by gun legislation (or at least not gun legislation alone).

The other extreme is represented by people who act as if any gun laws are a violation of the 2nd Amendment and one step closer to the U.S. government banning guns and turning into a dictatorial regime. The NRA and other powerful lobbies actively work against any gun legislation. I fear this is done regardless of the actual merit of these laws because this would in some ways restrict the flow of the supply and demand that impacts their bottom line of firearm companies.

The problem with this stance is that I believe any responsible person that is for gun ownership will recognize the incredible lethal potential of modern firearms and that some sort of regulation is probably appropriate to ensure public safety and proper use as best we can.  Is it really reasonable that an average law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own and operate a military weapon that can fire hundred of rounds per minute with no check on their criminal background, their mental health or their competency with such firearms?

I believe a middle ground in regards to gun legislation is sensible and desirable. I think we can have our cake and eat it to. Examples of such legislation would be mandatory background checks for all firearms sells and gun licenses, not dissimilar to driving licenses.  For example a basic license would allow for the possession, sale and operation of traditional low-capacity long-guns used for hunting, a next level would allow for handguns, and a higher level would allow for assault style weapons.  Each license could require more stringent checks and training.

Why I am for such legislation…

I love guns, I am a gun owner and I am totally fine with people owning firearms, including assault weapons.  Some pro-gun activists might wonder why I am for gun legislation in general and the ones I have outlined above, which some would find reprehensible. It’s actually simple really.

The fact is many things have changed since the Colonial Era and the drafting of the Constitution and the 2^nd Amendment. Two of these changes are the main reason why I am for sensible gun legislation.

First, firearms have advanced to the point where they are far more dangerous than the muskets the average citizen used to use. Modern firearms have incredible destructive potential and are incredibly lethal. In many states firearms, including assault weapons, are in the hands of civilians with little to no training. Assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, anti-material rifles and other powerful weapons are legally owned in a number of states. Their danger does not mean their owners are violent or criminal, but it does mean that there are citizens with access to firearms that are incredibly dangerous.

Second, gun culture in the U.S. has changed dramatically. In the old days firearms were part of the fabric of everyday life for many citizens.  People grew up being mentored in their use, their safe handling and a necessary respect for their lethal nature.  However, while in some parts of the rural U.S. this culture still exists, generally speaking what people know about guns, the gun-culture we have, comes primarily from the movies, T.V. and video-games where guns never run dry, misfires never happen, children never accidentally shoot themselves and people re-spawn back to life after 15 seconds.

The sum total of this is that people have access to firearms, including incredibly powerful ones, without a pervasive gun culture that ensures proper guidance in regards to their lethal nature and their safe handling.

Ergo, the need for sensible gun legislation…

All thing considered, as a gun owner, and as someone who is completely fine with people owning firearms, I am for sensible gun legislation that avoids the extremes and the errors associated with them.

Now such legislation is not a silver bullet.  Criminals will still be able to get guns through clean proxy buyers. Gun crime will still occur as this legislation will not address issues related to poverty, the drug economy, domestic violence, and other issues that contribute to gun crime.  Mass shootings will probably still occur.  These restrictions will probably at best cut down on some gun crime and accidental shootings. But I should remind people there is no perfect set of gun laws that can categorically prevent events like Sandy Hook from happening.  The reason is what happened at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and other mass shootings are multifaceted tragedies that have to do with more than just firearms.

Imperfect as it may be though, I believe such middle ground legislation is in the best interests of our society as a whole both those that choose to own firearms and those that choose not to.

A reminder for those of you still contemplating whether or not to join a #J11 rally tomorrow…

I’ll be attending the Los Angeles rally outside the Canadian consulate again and I invite anyone in the are to join me. The address is 550 South Hope St. and we will be going from noon to 3:00 pm.

Now, as a general rule I never tell other people what to do with their lives, even when friends ask for direct advice.  I think the best I can do is help people understand their situation or themselves in a new light.

However, for those of you who are still deciding whether or not to attend a rally tomorrow, I will take this opportunity to remind you of some things I think could help you make a decision.

If you go, you might have to be outside and endure cold. But let me remind you of the First Nations on and off reservation that lack adequate housing, even in winter, due to intentional chronic under-funding by the governments of Canada and the United States.

If you go, you might have to miss a meal. But let me remind you that Chief Theresa Spence is in far into her hunger strike and has drawn up her will in preparation for death.

If you go, you might have to spend time away from loved ones. But let me remind you of the many First Nations who will never see their loved ones again because they lost them to suicide, preventable diseases, substance abuse disorders, the jail system or murder (many of which remain unsolved).

If you go, you might have to miss a day of work.  But let me remind you of the staggering unemployment rates in First Nations communities.

If you go, you might be arrested.  But let me remind you of the over-representation of First Nations in the Canadian “justice system.”

If you go, you might be criticized by friends, co-workers, members of the media or complete strangers.  But let me remind you of the racism, stereotypes and unjust accusations and criticisms First Nations have had to and continue to face in Canada.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

(TLDR Version: Get your ass to a rally tomorrow!)

Would Jesus Colonize You?: Why all Christians, including PM Harper, should oppose Harper’s agenda towards First Nations. (Pt3)

The Gospel is inherently anti-colonial yet many Christians throughout the centuries have been complicit in it.

Colonialism is still alive and well today, even if we hide it better.  It is also still against the Gospel and the Way of Jesus. It is sadly also still being supported by many Christians who, for a variety of reasons, still insist on actively or passively supporting colonialism.  A current example of this is the colonial actions being taken by the government of Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party.

But what is really going  on in Canada and how is it colonial?

What is the Harper’s agenda towards First Nations?

The Conservative Party in Canada, led by PM Stephen Harper, has been pursuing new policy measures and legislation that seriously impacts the First Nations (what we in the U.S. would know as Native Americans) of Canada. Many of these changes have been unilaterally made without consulting the First Nations.

These new policies and legislative measures are ostensibly an attempt to “help” First Nations and reform the current systems through which the First Nations and the rest of Canada interact.

In reality, these are a thinly veiled way for Harper and the Conservative Party to pursue their agenda towards the First Nations. Harper and the Conservative party want to further colonize and exploit the First Nations people for their personal benefit and the benefit of other (Non-First Nations) Canadians. While that is reductionistic, it is accurate.

While fully explaining how these policies are colonial in nature and detrimental to First Nations  is beyond the scope of this post, and has been done better by others, I do want to highlight at least three points.

First, the Conservative party’s policies and legislation are encouraging the privatization of reservation land. This change is allegedly being made to encourage entrepreneurial ventures by FN and increase the economic well-being of First Nations reservations.  However, private land ownership is a very Western concept tied to the whole capitalistic system. Both are not native to First Nations who hold to a very different relationship to the land. Any move towards privatization of land and the lowering the level of consensus necessary to sell of reservation land is to enable reservation lands to find their way into the hands of non-Natives (eliminating the reservation parcel by parcel) and for the disruption of the use of the land by First Nations.

If you are skeptical on this point please research the Dawes Act and the impact it had for the Lakota. While you are at it, please consider why explicitly colonial legislation from over a century ago bears a strong resemblance to legislation being passed by the supposedly more progressive and benevolent Canadian government.

Second, this privatization goes hand in hand with changes to the Navigable Water Act which will remove federal protection of various waterways. Combined, these will ultimately allow energy and mining companies to operate easier on and through First Nations land with less accountability regarding environmental destruction. For what is easier for a company who wants to extract resources from First Nations land, to deal with a tribal council considering tribal land, or dealing with individual families and persons who are deeply impoverished? Is it easier to work around two layers of protection, federal and provincial, or just one?

Third, the new “results-based approach” to treaty negotiations introduced by the Conservatives will allow the government of Canada to strong-arm First Nations at the treaty table by leveraging the threat of walking away from the negotiations (taking federal funding the First Nations need to survive with them) if the First Nations do not agree to the government’s terms. Both the U.S. and Canada have used the tactic of “Starve or Sign” before when making treaties with First Nations and Native Americans. This is just the most recent example.

In summary, Harper’s agenda is a blatant example of contemporary environmental racism, intentional marginalization of a minority group, and colonialism perpetrated by the government of Canada against the First Nations people. It is an attempt to dismantle the sovereignty of the First Nations, force assimilation, and open up previously protected land to exploitation, pollution, and destruction by Canadian companies.

But what is all this for?

All government deception and self-deception aside, this is all being pursued for the sake of corporate profits, job generation, energy independence and the homogenization of Canada. This is ultimately for the benefit of Harper and the Conservative Party and non-First Nations Canadians.

The energy and jobs will, at least in the short-term, benefit many Canadians who will never step foot on a First Nations reservation or be directly impacted by the environmental destruction. This will also benefit the Conservative government and PM Harper. Some of the corporate profits made will undoubtedly be returned via campaign contributions. Additionally the Conservatives can use job creation and energy independence to help shore up votes in the coming elections.

What’s a Christian to do?

The marginalization, exploitation and attempts at forced assimilation in these new legislation and policies are diametrically opposed to the commandments of God, the manifold calls for justice in the Bible, and the desire for all cultures to come to worship the God of Israel as they are. In light of this reality, the active or passive support of the Harper agenda, including Bill C-45 and other such measures, by Christians is unthinkable.

How does the current generation of Christians want to be judged by history?

Now Stephen Harper himself, many members of the Conservative Party, and many Canadians who voted for his government and support his policies are all Christian.

Some are ill-informed and ignorant in regards to the Gospel, how these policies impact First Nations, colonialism or all of the above. Some are very comfortable enjoying colonial privilege and would rather use a variety of go to stereotypes about FNs. Most I think are just scared. The economy has made the general population of Canada far more scared of keeping their jobs and maintaining their lifestyles than whatever negative impact this legislation might have for Canada in the future or the fact that it violates treaties they are only dimly aware of.

Whatever reasons they might have, Christians need to seriously consider how we want to be remembered by history. Do they want to be remembered like we remember those former Christians who endorsed slavery, colonialism, sexism, racism, and homophobia, or do we want to be remembered as those who worked to end such things? Canadian Christians especially must seriously consider if they will sit on the sidelines, actively support the Harper agenda or stand in solidarity with the First Nations.

In light of the fact that we will be judged by how we treat the least of these (Matt 25) I believe standing in solidarity with the First Nations is the only choice that will not be embarrassing when we give an account to God for actions and inaction.

Would Jesus Colonize you: If so, then what gives with Christianity’s role in Colonialism? (Part 2)

If the Gospel is anti-colonial, why have Christians been so complicit in colonialism?

I have argued that the Gospel is inherently anti-colonial. Combine that with the non-violence Jesus taught, practiced and expect us to follow (which thoroughly undercuts the main tool colonial empires employ), the repeated calls for Israel to provide justice for the marginalized, the poor, the downtrodden and the weak (which are often those who are victimized by colonial enterprises), it is unthinkable that a follower of Jesus would support colonialism.

However, history is filled with examples of Christians actively supporting and even providing spiritual sanction and backing to colonialism. Perhaps this can be most clearly seen in the Western European colonialism.

The expansion of European powers across the world was not just sanctioned but supported by Christians. It has been a thoroughly Christian enterprise from Columbus to present day. Both Protestant and Catholics were instrumental in driving colonialism forward. For example, Christians provided theological backing to the enslavement of Africans and the theft of land in both Africa and the Americas.  This assuaged any sense of guilt or remorse some may have had.

It appears while Jesus would not colonize you, Christians certainly will.  How did this come to be?

The Caricature of the Gospel at the foundation of Christianity

The simple reason for this is that the Gospel many Christians follow and many people are familiar with is wrong.

The standard Christian Gospel says that humans are bad and sinners. God condemns all sinners to Hell unless their sins are forgiven.  In the old days people made sacrifices to make up for their sins and appease God but then Jesus, the Son of God, came and died once and for all for humanity’s sins.  Now if someone prays to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, then they are forgiven of their sins and after they die they will go to Heaven, to enjoy paradise with God, instead of Hell where everyone else will go to be tortured and endure punishment forever.

While some Christian sects articulate it differently, or are incredibly obsessed with various other aspects of Christian practice or theology, when pressed and distilled, this is the Gospel at the heart of their faith.

Two major problems with this Gospel

While this Gospel is widespread and goes back centuries, there are two major problems with this Gospel.

First, this “Gospel” is not in the Bible.

As I have said previously, one simply does not find Jews looking for a Messiah that would bring individual salvation apart from temple sacrifices. In fact the Bible says very little about Heaven and Hell and the Jewish conception of the afterlife is very different from the one envisioned in this “Gospel.”

The Bible verses that are commonly used to support this Gospel only appear to provide support if one already understands the words in play according to this “Gospel.” In other words, you already have to come in assuming this “Gospel” is true in order for the scriptures to support it.

The widespread historic nature of this “Gospel” is due to the fact that when something grows widely believed, it is rarely examined or criticized.  New members follow the herd and those born into the faith know nothing else.  Those who question too much quickly find themselves ostracized socially or even officially by the Church.

Second, this “Gospel” is very thin. 

This “Gospel” is primarily (only?) about assuring one’s final destination by praying a prayer and/or getting baptized. One’s personal salvation, and the personal salvation of others is to be a Christians primary concern and it is apparently God’s primary concern as well.

This thin focus allows the rest of your life (how you actually live, how you relate to other people, how you relate to the land, how you engage in politics, how you handle money, etc.) to be run according to one of hundreds of competing ideologies in our world.  Instead of following the Way of Jesus in these matters or consulting the rest of scriptures which do touch on many of these topics, safely assured of their personal salvation, Christians who believe in this “Gospel” can pretty much do whatever they want. Because this ‘Gospel” is so thin, it is easily co-opted and used for a variety of purposes, including colonial ones.

Historically speaking the result is that this caricature of the Gospel has dominated Christianity for some time, and this in turn has allowed Christianity to be dominated by a variety of interests, including those diametrically opposed to the will of the God of Israel as clearly expressed in scriptures many times.

A Co-opted Gospel Turned Colonial Engine

For centuries this caricature of the Gospel has been spreading and it has been spreading hand in hand with Western European culture.  For centuries Christianity and Western culture have been heavily involved with one another and the result is the lines what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Western European have been blurred. Christians have assumed many aspects of Western European culture are Christianity.

Practically what this means is that Western European missionaries, to Africa, Asia and the Americas have been spreading not just this caricature of the Gospel but Western European culture as well. Where the Gospel goes, so does Western dress, Western relationships to the land, Western languages, Western ideas of governance, Western ideas of family, etc. In this way those that receive the Gospel also experience their culture being replaced by Western culture, sometimes overtly sometimes covertly. Colonialism came through the Church where it did not come through the State, but usually it came through both.

So what does this all mean for Christians today? Is there colonialism going on today and what should followers of Jesus do about it?