#still digesting

At first I thought what was condemned and misunderstood about this book by contemporary, modern day African writers was the purpose of the book. That it by all intents and purposes was a book meant for the Africans, the whimsy of writing out our own experiences, tradition and religion from an unpainted perspective. The initiation of a white antagonist changed the whole dynamic. Suddenly what was meant to expand on the imagination of an African, developing community is retrospectively portrayed as backwards and misguided. I did not mind the brutal portrayal of a religious community if it was not juxtaposed against a "merciful", "superior" practice that diminishes the substance of these peoples lives. The substance of the development they could have propelled or ushered into their own community through time and internal conflict. But it was more a horror than anything else, if not for the storyline then the effect and message behind it.

I wish this book was not praised as an example of African literature that so distinctly paints us through the eyes of the conqueror, masked by the narrative perspective of the African man. If there's any good it has done it was to raise a generation of writers who wished to dispel its notions. We were a complete people before the colonisation of our nations with knowledge and practice that was not based on superstition. Though no history book may tell the story of the conquered without bias, there is no question of our complete existence that demanded the erasure of its dignity. Through language, through religion, through education, the colonial conquest was a brutal appropriation of our unique futures and identities. Chinua portrayed this well and somehow still managed to diminish the personhood of the African. Inviting the acceptance of uninformed criticism empowered by the origins of the author. All of a sudden the historic crusade seems justified in the correction of a murderous people. A disappointing revelation. Thank God for the Chimamanda's, Tsitsi Dangarembga's and Akwaeke Emezi's that would follow after this legacy. To read into an African experience that enforced the heart of an existing people, a complex people, a widely discerning people.

Edit:

via:  - 1 Peter 2:13-17, 4:1-5, 5:5-11 - Tim Keller - mid-sermon scribbles

Still reflecting on some of the points made in today's sermon, so I thought I'd share them: Everybody's in a codependent relationship with something or someone.  It's called your meaning in life.

Freedom is not an absence of restrictions; it's finding the right ones.

Liberating restrictions are those that fit with your design. >> We thrive under certain restrictions (e.g. a fish that thrives in water and would die on land, a man who has to restrict his diet to maintain his health). >> Liberating restrictions are those which allow us to reach all the fullness of our potential.

If there is a God who created you for himself, than you aren't built to have your allegiance to anything else - full allegiance and obedience to God is the water (from the fish example) your soul is searching for.  

Giving our highest allegiance to God >> brings freedom from uncontrollable emotions and desires (another translation for "evil human desires" in 1 Peter 4:2 = "excessive desire"). >> saves you from the anxiety and paralyzing fear in circumstances.

Everything you trust in besides God is like a broken cistern (Jer. 2:13).

I have a freedom I need to access.

Love relationships always add constraints to your life. >> Someone's quote during an interview: "You're obviously less free when you're in love with someone, but fortunately you're not in love all the time." >> But when do you feel most alive?  When you love and are loved. >> So are those constraints really constraints on freedom or constraints for freedom? >> Freedom as modern society describes it is essentially selfishness, and selfishness ultimately destroys love. >> The most liberating restrictions are the restrictions of love.

The quote that blew the Pepperony tag wide open. I bet money RDJ wrote that line himself.