FR MARTIN SIRJU
RC Cathedral
WITH THE disenchantment of Christianity over the last generation, there is now a return to or fascination with ancient European deities. Some have argued in this regard that the notion of "incarnation" – "God assuming flesh" – is nothing new and that the Jesus narrative is simply a reformulation of ancient myths. So too with "virgin birth."
In the light of these neo-pagan narratives, there are a few claims about Christianity which we ought to remember. First, God did not send another prophet: he came himself, in all his fullness but emptied glory (Phil 2: 6-11). He pitched his tent among us as a fellow human being (Jn 1:14) but was without sin.
Second, his foster-father Joseph was of noble line (King David) but he was not, nor his mother. All lived like Palestinian peasants. They were poor, not dirt poor, but poor. His father was a carpenter or stone mason. Archeologists describe Nazareth as a filthy place, according to Jesuit author James Martin, in his book Jesus. The Son of God knew what it was like to live in the dumps.
Thirdly, no deity of any mythology ever suffered the indignities of this Human-God – vilified, spat upon, beaten and tortured, crowned with thorns, carried his cross amidst a jeering crowd and crucified like a common criminal. He had no army, he rode no horse. He was born among the poor, with smelly shepherds being specially invited guests and was soon a refugee due to the megalomania of Herod.
What then are some of the implications that flow from this kind of incarnation? First of all, God becoming human implies the human dignity of all. Philosophy may speak of that dignity and law may defend it, but it does not confer it. Only intimate transcendence becoming human does. It is not by accident we remember that dignity most at Christmas when our social graces reach their peak.
Secondly, while the incarnation proclaims inclusivity – “I bring you news of great joy to be shared by all the people” (Lk 2: 10-11) – and Singing Sandra sang “he come for one, he come for all,” he sided with the poor, lived among them and was one of them. His own form of death was solidarity with the poor and the powerless.
Thirdly, this child became someone, which is part of the evolutionary thrust of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Jesus was in the business of becoming and the becoming of others and of communities, hence the proclamation of a "kingdom." Christmas points to that evolution but does not sing its victory nor ground for hope. Only the resurrection (Easter) does that.
What kinds of activity then should Christmas (fulfilled in Easter) impel Christians to undertake? One of them surely is the betterment and upward mobility of the poor. TT is a predominantly Christian country (I say this with utmost respect to the other religions) and it is a Christian party for the most part that has been at the helm of its democracy. Doesn’t the state of our present society contradict Christmas?
Dr Joanne Paul in an Express article (18/12/23) entitled “Beematie from Balandra” poi
