A Tragic Wedding

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the sad love story of “Alfredo” and Lola, a tragedy that I watch play out every day of my life.  This weekend, on Saturday, January 7, 2012, this story took yet another tragic turn.

Lola’s aunt, being single herself, was worried that the family wouldn’t be seeing any grandchildren anytime soon, decided to obligate Lola to marry Ramon, her family’s preferred son-in-law, in an official wedding, assuming that this would somehow help in bring about the desired grandnephew or -niece.

“Alfredo” was invited to the wedding, and, against his will, his parents forced him to go and sit quietly in repressed suffering while he watched the love of his life first make vows she could never truly believe in her heart, and then sign a contract, vowing and promising to remain loyal to the chosen husband of her arranged marriage, implicitly renouncing and disowning the true love of her life (“Alfredo"), forever.

Poor “Alfredo.”  But such is life, and I only hope that he can overcome this tragic event in his life.  Just now I saw him in his house, downcast, almost expressionless, as though reality was no longer real.

For anyone who didn’t read the first part ("Forbidden Love"), “Alfredo” is my dog Simba.


Lola and Ramon are the neighbours’ two Chihuahuas.  The aunt is the owner’s 8-year-old sister, who really does believe that having a wedding would make the two dogs have puppies.  Eager for the puppies, she really did have a wedding on Saturday, which included a wedding dress and a veil for the “bride,” a bowtie for the “groom,” and the traditional Mexican elements of the “crown” (like a wreath made of flowers) placed on the bride’s head after the vows, and the rope that is placed around the newly married couple to symbolize the new-found unity.

There were also vows (said on the dogs’ behalf) and a marriage certificate (signed by inking and stamping the dogs’ paws.)  There was a reception where mole with chicken (a traditional Mexican dish, prepared by the girl’s mother) was served.

She also sent out hand-written invitations earlier in the week, one specifically to Simba, who really is in love with Lola. The rest is as told above.  (I’m not sure if I should say this publicly, but I saw the way Simba was looking at Lola during the ceremony, and I suspect that he thinks he still has a chance …)

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?]