-and the more I see of people…
Admittedly, this brief Christmas Day offering is garnered, in the main, from other folks’ research, presentations and, perhaps, conclusions. So I’m being lazy. But with a purpose.
That aim is to remind you that Jesus the Christ, had earthly parents, quite besides His Divine Father. (No I’ll not discuss the debate about the Trinity here). Rather I share with you views I recently picked up about Mary and Joseph, mother and guardian of the Lord.
Months ago I had quoted the Jehovah Witnesses’ assessment that young Mary was thrust into many roles about which she had no clue. Of course her first and foremost role was that of the innocent virginal Mother of God – God the Son, that is. The Roman Catholics were quick to anoint her Holy and a Saint Mary in latter times. The Watch Tower piece also discussed her later role as a “single parent” when little was heard of her husband Joseph. She had to guide the unique boy-child when he would let her. She had to hide him and flee with him as refugee. The truth is that not very much is mentioned in the Christian records of these two parents relative to the activities of their Divine Son.
I often wonder whether Mary had a choice with respect to the child-bearing task she was assigned. Why was she chosen? What if she had objected, refused?
And why do I get the impression that she was aware, very early on, that Jesus was a son she would have minimum control over? He was given to finding older men’s company. He was missing for days but she quietly chided Him. Apparently Jewish mothers were not given to harsh or corporal punishment (?).
She would have experienced motherhood between, say, sixteen and near fifty, but scholars are unsure of these matters. (Unless recent research has passed me by.) My one other concern would be: how did she respond to Joseph’s status and reaction to his step-son? What do you think?
Poor Dad, Joseph
And what about the earthly Father of the Son of God? Joseph the carpenter/builder of Nazareth in Galilee? Poor man. What he had to go through, to tolerate accept and understand. Today’s men would have hardly accepted the status bestowed upon Joseph. Except, perhaps, for money!
A Joseph R. Fornierie has written copiously on what he perceives the character of Joseph had to be. Speculation, drawn from the limited biographical data available, has the researcher concluding that Saint Joseph had to be one of the most patient, understanding, and resilient, then enlightened fathers of all time.
Having chosen a lovely Jewish teenaged maiden to be his wife, younger wives seem to be in vogue in those times, the hardworking, matured artisan reluctantly stayed with his finance after she was tasked with bearing a mystery child. He never related to his betrothed because Jesus could not have been “tainted” with the sins of a mortal, human father.
After being persuaded that his fiancé was chosen for a higher calling, Joseph put aside his plan to “divorce” her quietly, as well as his manly ego. Quickly he seemed to have turned father in all its manifestations – guardian, husband, provider, role model and foster parent to a lad destined to be most of mankind’s Messiah and Saviour. What an historic role for a humble man who could find no better place for the child to be born and who had to flee, refugee-like from his own land.
I trust I’ve surmised and quoted enough for interested Christians to explore more – to find out more about the roles and lives of these two parents. After all, they were specially chosen, it seems. Would Jesus have been the same, whomsoever his parents were?
Loving animals tells something?
I don’t recall where or when I first heard the expression, but I have embraced it from a cynical perspective, discovering the intent and the message inherent in it.
It goes thus: “The more I see of people (or mankind), the more I love my dog”.
You’ll realize the skepticism and cynicism the observer was transmitting. That his/her observation of man’s behaviour, man’s inhumanity to man, makes him/her even lesser than animals who by contrast, given animals’ lowly niche in the animal kingdom. I agree! Animals don’t cause wars; they don’t scheme to take over other lands based on religion or race. Sure they have their turf conflicts but don’t/cannot resort to bows, arrows, M 16’s or nuclear weapons.
And I see male dogs being more attentive, better fathers for their pups than some human mothers and fathers are for their offspring. Some guys know not their children’s birthdays!
At another level, during a recent American vacation, I was again astounded by how other cultures love and treasure animals as household pets.
My daughter buys nearly as much food and medicine and toilet facilities for two cats, as she does for humans. Circe and Max are full-fledged family members. There are Pet Doctors, Hospitals and Cemeteries. There are numerous enforced laws for the treatment and protection of animals. I know we in Guyana have them too, but our culture does not accommodate wholesale love for animals – except amongst a minority. We race birds, mount cock-fights, brutalise horses and pelt frogs.
I must get closer to our society for the prevention of cruelty to animals next year. This I promise. Years ago, friends say, all dogs resident in Albouystown would scoot to find hiding-places around 2:00 P.M. Reason? Schools would dismiss between 2:30 and 3:00 P.M. Boys would be let loose on the streets!
Festive ponderings….
*1) The attorney is brilliant and accomplished; the prosecutor is inexperienced and the eye–witness is functionally illiterate. What Justice is possible? Up to the court?
*2) So why can’t a union express disappointment, even disgust, with a tribunal’s decision?
*3) Early next year there must be a comprehensive analysis of the role of sugar in Guyana’s economy over the next decade.
*4) There are nine (9) days left for this Christmas Season 2009. Agreed?
‘Til Next Week!
Comments? allanafenty@yahoo.com