Come to Mexico for a Great Vacation ... at Starbucks?

Playa del Carmen's Beaches

I've complained before that people come down for vacation to Mexico and in reality see nothing of Mexico.  But forget about culture, history and tradition.  We know 95% of tourists simply don't care about that stuff. But what about the wide, beautiful beaches that made places like Playa del Carmen and Cancun so famous?  It's the same story.

This afternoon my family and I went down to the beach. Weaving our way through the crowded Fifth Avenue (the main tourist street, running parallel to the beach, a block or two away) we saw crowds of mostly non-Mexican tourists (including many Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc.)  A block and a half later, after about 2 minutes of walking, we arrived to the beach.  I would say about 90% of the people were Mexicans - a complete turn around from the trendy main drag, filled with stores and restaurants that you could easily find in any major North American city.

We arrived in the mid afternoon when it was still warm and sunny, and stayed until the early evening when the sun had gone down.  I waded in the water with my kids, and later went into the water alone, floating on my back and looking at the stars and moon above me.  It was absolutely beautiful!

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder; why do all these Americans, Canadians and Europeans spend so much money to come to come to the beach, and then not go to the beach?  The big selling point here in Playa del Carmen is the beaches, which are some of the world's most beautiful - so beautiful and relaxing, in fact, that they made me (a former and very decided hater of beaches) fall in love with beaches.  Yet instead, they go to drink beer at a bar.

It's not only downtown.  I've been to resorts and seen pictures of others, where it's the same story.  The pools, beach clubs, restaurants and tennis courts are full of people and alive.  If there are lounge chairs or canopy beds down where the sand begins, an adventurous spirit may wander down.  But the actual sand of the beach is empty of northern tourists, and you would think there's something wrong with the water, since no one's in it (even now in the middle of "winter" the water is comfortably warm; these tourists wouldn't know that, though.)

So, just my same question again - why would you spend all the money to come down here, and instead of enjoying some of the most beautiful beaches to be found, go to Johnny Rockets and Starbucks?

Mexican Beer for Christmas Eve

Noche Buena Beer and A Nativity Scene

Mexico has special beer that’s only sold for a month or two before Christmas. It’s called “Noche Buena” which is both the name for Christmas Eve, and for the poinsettia flower. It’s a dark, bock-style beer with a strong, semi-bitter flavour, and it’s an important part of Mexico’s Christmas Eve celebrations (traditionally taking place at midnight, so technically on Christmas Day.)

Smashing the Seven Deadly Sins, and Other Observations about Piñatas

A little girl, destroying the seven deadly sins.

Recently I heard of an interesting explanation for the Mexican tradition of piñatas at posadas (see also my post from two days ago: "Why didn't you tell me you were the Virgin Mary?") Traditional piñatas have seven points on them, which represent the seven deadly sins.  The piñata is smashed during Advent and at Christmas to represent the victory over sin that Christ's birth promised.

Of course, to the children and adults hitting the piñata, the only thought in mind is breaking it open to rush for the falling candies, but the idea is out there.

So, here are some pictures of the piñata from our recent posada.  The piñata in the pictures has 5 points, but right after we had a larger one with seven points.

By the way, notice how I'm standing between the child with the stick and the other children, who seemed oblivious to the fact that a passionately swinging stick meant to smash a piñata could hurt them.  A neighbour later told me that these attempts at organization and safety showed how "European" or "American" (i.e. not "Mexican" or "Latin") I was.  Apparently an injured child is part of the routine.

"We try to control the kids, but they just don't listen," is the usual explanation.  I guess destroying sin has its price.  Since there were no injuries, it looks like this year I spoiled part of the tradition! (Needless to say, everyone was happy about that part!)

My son, giving it all to put a hole in the piñata.

Kids rushing for the candies falling from heaven.  See the rewards of battling sin?

All the neighbours from our street for a group photo.

“This Church Has Air Conditioning!”

Reposted from “Imagine,” my blog about religion that I cancelled this summer.
I assume that if your church has an space for announcements below it’s name sign outside of the church, this space should be reserved for one of the most important messages that your church has to offer the public.

I’ve seen everything from offers of eternal life, to threats of eternal damnation, to communal welcome messages, to verses of scriptural consolation.  The one that caught my attention the most was a church that I saw a couple of weeks ago with the following message in big, bold letters, outshining even the name and denomination of the church:

“This Church Has Air Conditioning!”

So has this particular church simply thrown in the towel - have they given up on the idea that they have truth to offer?  Or do they truly feel that the most powerful point they can offer the community is a comfortable climate?  Is it perhaps a kind of bait, and when unsuspecting people enter to enjoy their climate-controlled worship, they’ll hit them with the big one?

Physical comfort seems to be one of the key items of attention in church growth these days.  I remember hearing the principal of church growth set forth in my childhood church that once a church reached 70% spatial capacity, it would need to expand, open new service times, or start new branches; at 70%, new people would simply stop coming, or current members would leave due to the lack of elbow room.

While I suspected the integrity of this theory all along, I rejected it flatly as an invalid formula for true church growth when I saw a church that had 5 Lord’s Day services packed to the brim with people standing up, and even standing on the steps and yard outside the church where speakers had been installed.  The church is located in a hot climate and has very little “comfort” except for the large open windows and high ceilings; definitely no air conditioning.  A branch church is currently under construction, and it seems it will be packed full the moment it opens.  I have also heard of another church group which had very poorly designed buildings with low ceilings and bad ventilation which was experiencing similar problems; the churches were simply over-full despite lack of comfort and rapid opening of new church buildings. Also no air conditioning, and well over 100% full.

Conclusion; while I certainly have nothing against air conditioning and elbow space, neither have anything to do with church growth. 

I hope that the the air conditioning invitation I saw was simply excitement over a newly installed feature, and would soon be replaced with a more meaningful message.  Unfortunately, it wouldn’t surprise me if this was really the most important item they felt they could offer their community.

"Why didn't you tell me you were the Virgin Mary?"

Would your recognize the Virgin Mary?

This weekend, I participated in my fourth Mexican "posada," which is a communal re-enactment of the scene where Joseph and Mary arrive to Bethlehem and look for a place to stay, which take place during the 9 days before Christmas.  The re-enactment is followed by a party where a very traditional hot fruit punch is served to all those who participate, along with snacks, a pinata and other elements of Mexican festivities (=loud music & tequila.)

In the Mexican re-enactment, a group of neighbours and friends from the community get together, light candles, and show up at the door of a the person hosting the party.  The people outside with candles play the role of Joseph and Mary (it doesn't matter how many people there are)  and the people inside are the innkeeper.  The re-enactment is in the form of a song where each "role" sings short verses in response to each.

Joseph asks for a place to stay, the innkeeper sends him away, threatening a beating if doesn't leave.  Joseph implores him for the sake of his pregnant wife and finally, 12 verses later, convinces him to let them in.  Everyone enters singing joyfully of the night Christ was born.  I've been to some (like last night) where a prayer is said, then the punch is served, etc.

Last night I especially noticed Joseph's final method of convincing the innkeeper:

"My wife Mary is Queen of Heaven, and will be the mother of the Word Divine."

The interesting part is actually the innkeeper's response, after so vehemently denying them service:

The festivities beginning, just after the re-enactment (my posada last night)

"Are you Joseph? Your wife is Mary? Enter, pilgrims. I did not know!"

If he had only known that it was Joseph and the Virgin Mary!  My first reaction to this is probably typical of a more reasonable Northerner; "What a silly little song! As if the innkeeper would've known or cared who Mary was."

Besides no mention of such a dialogue in the Bible, the idea that the innkeeper could've known who Mary the Queen of Heaven was is simply absurd and anachronistic.

But then I had a second thought. From what I understand, these plays are part of a long-standing Catholic tradition of re-enacting the Gospel, still very much alive during Advent and Easter time in Latin America and other some other Catholic areas.   On one hand, there's a cultural element here; everyone knows who the Virgin Mary is.  I'm guessing that one of the original purposes was to present these key stories to an illiterate population.  These re-enactments pull the events out of history and put them into Mexico in the current day and age where it only makes sense that all Joseph would have to do is identify his wife as the Virgin Mary.  The recognition of her roles and titles would also serve to teach and reinforce these concepts in addition to the story.

A Posada (not mine, just a good picture)

Purely for the sake of speculation, there might be something more to this.  The idea of "showing what happens" was (and is?) also the main idea behind religious icons, according to Pope Gregory I (6th century) among others.  I have also heard the Mass described in a function of "reenactment."  Both icons and the Mass show "historical events" in eternal terms, not merely placing the past into the present, but actually showing eternity within the framework of time. (The reason why icons of John the Baptist show him with his head firmly attached to his shoulders, but also holding his own head on a platter at the same time, and the reason why the Mass seems to "repeat" Christ's death and resurrection; it is not "repeated" but is eternity reflected in the framework of time.)

Perhaps there is an element of this idea behind the Catholic reenactments and the Mexican Posadas; in eternity, the innkeeper would know the significance of the event that's about to happen (the birth of Christ), and Mary would not be a simple Jewish girl from Galilee - she would already be The Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God (as is believed in Catholicism) and it would be necessary to recognize her as such.

I'm not sure if I'm taking this idea too far, but this "anachronism" becomes much more interesting when considered in these term.

Can my kid watch that TV show?

Do you check what your kids watch at their friends' house?

Today, my wife and I entered a new phase of parenthood; for the first time we had to address the question of whether a T.V. show that the neighbours' kids were watching was appropriate for our 4-year-old son.  Ever since infancy, we had been selective about what he watched, and time has always been limited (he doesn't watch T.V. or movies every day, and the ones he does, it's max. one movie or the equivalent.)

But today, the neighbor's kids (who deserve a few blog posts of their own, and from now on are getting a special label on this blog) showed up at the door and asked if our son could go to their house to watch a certain T.V. show.  Their mother pays almost no attention to what they do. (Today, for example, she left them playing outside, and went to visit a friend, locking the door to keep the house safe.  The kids were out on the front lawn, outside of the safely locked house.  This was after the T.V. incident.)  So now the question wasn't just about what we select, but also about evaluating what other people select and approve of.

To be honest, when my wife shouted the question up the stairs, it caught me off guard, and I realized that I had forgotten that as a parents we would not only have to guide our son in the process of choosing his own movies and T.V. shows, but also in the process of deciding whether his friends' shows were acceptable or not.  Knowing how the neighbour family worked, my first reaction was to assume it probably wasn't a good idea.  But since I was working at my computer I took a minute to look up the T.V. show in question.  (It's a pretty common show which I recognize from quite some time ago, but I couldn't remember much about it.  I'm not going to mention the name of it here, because this post isn't about that show in particular, but the idea in general.)

The general consensus (from internet reviews) seems to be that the show is moderately violent, promotes some airy-fairy moral values and is generally low quality (some pre-teens called it "cheesy.")  For this reason it got high ratings from "parents and educators" (I didn't waste my time to check who these "parents and educators" were.)  Presumable, since the violence isn't severe that and some commentator can cut and paste some moral values out of the plot, that makes a crappy T.V. show good for kids.

If you haven't already guessed, I find this criteria less than compelling.  First of all, it is STILL VIOLENT, even if it is "acceptable" violence. Secondly, lower violence is NOT the only criteria that makes a kids show good (this erroneous way of thinking is why Barney has made it so far in the world.) Yes, part of the criteria my wife and I use for T.V. shows is that they're not violent.  But we also count positive criteria.  We also consider whether it teaches anything positive either in terms of morals or education ("teamwork" because the heroes work together to rip the bad guy to shreds doesn't count)  and entertainment value.  If you exclude entertainment value, there's no reason whatsoever for T.V. or movies; even "educational" kids programs are made to entertain to some degree - if not, you could just use a book and pictures and probably get better results.

Back to the main story, after a quick review, I said no, not only because the show seemed poor both in terms of values and quality, but also because I remembered that my son had already watched a movie today.


So, we have now begun our role of teaching our son how to evaluate the shows and movies his friends choose, helping him to develop strong values, but avoid vast tyrannical prohibitions at the same time.  The good thing is that now, at 4-years-old, it's fairly cut and dry - we just say "yes" or "no" according to what we know is better. I know the hard part will come later.

[This idea is actually closely related to that of the 3 posts ago: A Trip to the Library – Educational or Entertaining?]

How do You Show Reverence?

I while back I think I posted about the difference between how we northerners tend to see morals (prohibitions) and how Mexicans tend to see morals (positive actions.)  (I can’t find the post now – maybe it’s just something I told someone.  If I find it, I’ll share the link.)

 

A closely related idea is how we see reverence. I recently saw a review of a movie (“The Greatest Miracle”) which attempts to depict the spiritual events which take place in the Mass.  The writer took issue with the fact that in the movie, the characters were getting up and moving around the church during mass, even approaching the sanctuary.  The movie takes place in Mexico, and I realized that this issue was actually connected to the fact in Mexico, people have a different concept of reverence.  The following are some comments I made about the review:

 

While Canadians who arrive late for Mass I think would try to sneak into the back pews unnoticed, I’ve seen Mexicans arrive very late DURING MASS and walk right up to the steps leading to the altar to genuflect and cross themselves before sitting down. (During the movie, the angel actually complains about a family that arrives late.)  They also get up and move around during Mass more readily.  I think there are two factors involved in this.  One is that Mexicans have slightly different idea of reverence; Mexicans can go to great lengths to show outward signs of reverence (crossing themselves, genuflecting, bowing, fully participating in the appropriate prayers), but not feel they are being irreverent by changing places in the church during Mass. In fact, if you just finished confession, you will always be moving to your “normal” spot, and (in my experience) this happens every Mass when 2 priests are available. … Mexican morality (and reverence) is more heavily based on active outward signs (bowing, etc.) more freely expressed, not only the prescribed time, while we Anglophones tend to focus on prohibitions (you shouldn’t get up or make noise during mass, you shouldn’t show up late, etc.) I suspect a balance of the two is necessary (I’m too new to Catholicism to say if either approach is more correct than the other), but I’ve seen enough of Canadian and Mexican culture to know that this factor is definitely related to how each culture views “reverence.”

 

The second factor of people moving around is that in Mexico Catholicism is the default religion.  In the U.S., Canada and many other places, Catholics are a minority - a large minority, but for all but 2 days of the year, the only people who show up for Mass are the more devout Catholics.  This means these devout few will be more dedicated to showing reverence and respect through silence and staying still.  In Mexico, since it’s the communal religion, anyone and everyone - devout or not, sometimes even non-Catholic - shows up for mass.  This means that you’ll have non-devout people in the Mass who may not understand or value reverence.  So why do they go then?  Because it’s the only place where you go to experience God more closely.  Some people think they have to go, even though they are not devout.  In many parts of Mexican culture, it’s almost just automatic.  It’s what you do.  So while you have some devout and reverent people who don’t feel it’s irreverent to move about, there are also plenty of non-devout Catholics who simply don’t know better or care much about reverence.

 

Closely related is that I’ve seen people in Mexico who just happen to be wandering by, or feel down on life, and stop in for a prayer - during Mass or not.  Sometimes they stay for the whole Mass, other times they leave when they finish their own prayer.  In fact, this is the whole context of the movie; it’s just that the story conveniently has the three main characters show up just as mass is beginning.  If you imagine a real culture (like Mexico) where people will tend to go to the church as a refuge in times of personal turmoil, it’s not always going to work out so “neatly” that they show up just on time for mass.

 

Just to be clear, I agree with our northern ideas about reverence.  Also it’s not that every Mass in Mexico has noisy distractions and lots of people moving around (depending on the specific community, there are churches that wouldn’t have this at all), but what I saw in the movie looked “normal” in the context of Mexico, and I think it helps us to understand why they made the movie that way.

 

So, how do you think reverence is shown most appropriately?  Silence/prohibitions?  Outward signs and visible affection? Both?  Or maybe not at all?

Catholic Church in Decline in Canada?

I'm re-posting this from my other blog, "Imagine," which I'm deleting. 

There seem to be two fairly strong (and false) ideas present in Canada these days.  One is that Christianity is loosing footing among the younger generation; the other is that the Catholic Church, along with other traditional churches, is in even greater decline than Christianity as a whole, loosing numbers in droves to more contemporary churches and atheism.  I would argue that both of these ideas are based in manipulation of numbers to give the illusion of decline, presumably to suggest a lack of integrity or relevance.

Consider these stats about Catholicism and Christianity in Canada:

About Catholics:

• The population of Catholics in Canada between 1991 and 2001 GREW 4.5%, which is less than the population growth of 9.8% but nevertheless significant growth.
  
• In strict numerical terms Catholics grew by almost 600,000 - a number larger than the population of most cities in Canada.  Interestingly enough most "statistical" articles (including Stats Canada) present this as a decline.  How does growth of 600,000 people represent decline?
  
• By actual numbers (i.e. not percentages), Catholic growth outdid the #2 Christian group by over 5 times.

About Orthodox:

• Interestingly, the #2 group (in terms of straight numerical growth) was Orthodox Christians who grew by 107,000.
  
• The numerical growth of Orthodox is phenomenal when seen as a percentage; it was by far the highest percentage growth with 28%.

The only exception is "Christian, not included elsewhere" which grew by 110%; this stat can't be compared in itself since it refers to all miscellaneous groups, rather than one single group.  However, it's important to note a few points.

• One is that numerical growth in this "misc" category (425,000) was still well below that of Catholics.
  
• Another is that I believe this growth reflects the rise of many new, smaller denominations, and also the ever more popular non-denominational movement.
  
• Finally, it shows the fact that Christians in Canada are not so much abandoning their religion, but rather changing denominations or moving to a non-denominational concept (I think I read an article pointing this out about the U.S.)

Five months ago, I thought I was joining a church in sharp numerical decline, especially in a country like Canada, only to find out the exact opposite is true.  As these stats show, it's simply absurd to claim that all traditional churches are in numerical decline in Canada. Some traditional Protestant groups are definitely in numerical decline (for example, Anglicans and Lutherans), but  Catholics and Orthodox definitely aren’t.

Just to be clear, I don't believe that size, growth, or lack of either are necessarily important indicators of a church's integrity; I don’t believe that being “big” or “small” is any reflection of a church’s integrity.  I am presenting these statistics only to show that the idea is false that the most traditional churches are in numerical decline, and that this imagined decline indicates some faulty approach or lack of ability to connect with the current generation.

However, I do believe that these stats show the beginning of an important and positive shift in Canadian Christianity.

My next post will be about the role of immigrants in this pattern.

Stats from: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census

A Trip to the Library – Educational or Entertaining?

When I was visiting a library in Halifax this summer, I overheard a German family discussing some videos that the pre-teen children were choosing.  The parents were looking over the case of a video somehow related to Shakespeare – I’m guessing it might have been that version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio.

“Is this really educative?” asked the mother. (She said “educative” rather than “educational.”)
The father took the case. “I don’t think they have anything to do with Shakespeare these days,” he observed.
They proceeded to discuss the item in terms of morality, quality, entertainment and educational value.

Listening to the conversation, I realized two things; one is that this is probably a good thing; the other is how rare this kind of care is among parents these days.  In the whole week I spent in that library, this was the only family in which the parents were actively engaged in the values of their children’s choice of material.  Everything about it would be foreign to so many people; encouraging kids to go to the library, going with them as a family, reviewing and discussing the material they choose, caring, talking to them about it, knowing something about it …

For me, it was as though the conversation was from another world.  Where I live in Mexico, libraries are few and far between, and the few that exist are way underused. It would be a miracle that parents even encourage their kids to go to a library, let alone care what their kids are doing there.  When my wife and I arrived to Canada, she was simply overjoyed to have a good library right in the community, within walking distance.  While I think there’s a better culture for visiting the library, but I suspect it’s much more for entertainment than for learning. I also suspect that few parents actually supervise and discuss the educational, moral and quality value of what their kids choose.

With only a 3-year-old, I it’s not much of a task to review the content of the books yet. That’s coming in a few years.  I suspect one day we’ll be that odd family in the library who actually cares about all of that stuff.