Despite all the textual and
historical evidence that Jesus was born in the heart of a first-century Judaean
family home, and not a stable at the back of an inn (which is a western
cultural misunderstanding) a lot of people seem to want to argue that Mary and
Joseph would be forced to seek marginal lodging because both sides of the
family would ostracise an unmarried couple expecting a child.
There are cultures where shame trumps
familial ties, and cultures where familial ties trump potential shame. There
are cultures where both possibilities entwine. The argument that Mary and
Joseph would be ostracised makes choices that may not be right.
It also assumes that God was able to
prepare both Mary and Joseph, but did not prepare—by whatever means, including
the relationship between Mary and her family and Joseph and his family—their
wider families. This in turn is shaped by a very western, individualistic
understanding of our actions and agency.
Along the same lines, it also assumes
that Mary was godly, and Joseph a righteous man, but that in neither case did
the families they were raised in have any significant part in the formation of
their lives and character.
It is, in short, a conclusion that is
shaped by our cultural values and not theirs.
This is a story in which, again and
again, as we anticipate first the birth of John and then the birth of Jesus,
these children are welcomed into the heart of an expectant, if bewildered,
family.
No comments:
Post a Comment