Baptism etiquette
jac...@employees.org
expected of the hosts/parents. For example:
- How are invitations issued? Is a verbal (telephone) invitation acceptable?
If not, then I would probably issue hand-written notes to each guest. I've
obviously spoken with the godparents and verbally invited them. Should I also
send them a written note?
- In addition to the godparents, are there others that you are supposed to
invite? Just close family? Any family or friends who have expressed mild
interest?
- Are there expectations or requirements about what happens after the baptism?
Are the parents expected to host some type of get-together that includes food
and/or drink? If so, do you indicate this in the note/invitation?
Here is my thinking about the subject, but perhaps I'm way off base:
I'd like to keep the baptism fairly small and, since attending will require at
least 1 hour travel time each way for most of my family, I'd like to invite
only those who I know really want to attend. I don't anyone to feel pressured
to attend, especially if they're not really interested.
(Example: My sister is vocally anti-religion and tends to be a grumbler about
what she considers to be impositions on her time; however, she might feel
obligated to attend her nephew's baptism. She would come and then complain
about "having" to attend.) Perhaps this is not my worry, but the guest's?
Is it an etiquette offense to invite only certain family members but not
others?
Personally, I would just like to invite my parents, my husband's parents, and
the godparents. Is this fine? I welcome any advice about keeping the entire
affair small and low-key without offending any family members.
Jackie
userb3
>I'd like to invite
>only those who I know really want to attend. I don't anyone to feel pressured
>to attend, especially if they're not really interested.
>
> (Example: My sister is vocally anti-religion and tends to be a grumbler about
>what she considers to be impositions on her time; however, she might feel
>obligated to attend her nephew's baptism. She would come and then complain
>about "having" to attend.) Perhaps this is not my worry, but the guest's?
>
>Is it an etiquette offense to invite only certain family members but not
>others?
I think you extend the invitation to your family, but make it known
that if they are uncomfortable or unable to attend that you will
understand.
My inlaws are of a different faith than I am. They have occasionally
invited me to attend religious functions, but usually make it clear
that "we will understand if you're not comfortable attending."
--
userb3
Music and art education produce better mathemeticians, better scientists, better historians, and even better athletes.
Support art education today.
Ericka Kammerer
"jac...@employees.org" wrote:
>
> I am looking for information about baptism etiquette and what is generally
> expected of the hosts/parents. For example:
>
> - How are invitations issued? Is a verbal (telephone) invitation acceptable?
> If not, then I would probably issue hand-written notes to each guest. I've
> obviously spoken with the godparents and verbally invited them. Should I also
> send them a written note?
Having it in writing is a Very Good Idea. Otherwise, people
are likely to get the details wrong and show up at the wrong time
or in the wrong place or whatever. You can handwrite notes or you
can even use those fill-in-the-blank invitations (they're perfectly
fine).
> - In addition to the godparents, are there others that you are supposed to
> invite? Just close family? Any family or friends who have expressed mild
> interest?
You can invite whomever you like. In some families, the
baptism is a very quiet affair and only close family and very
close friends come. In others, the whole community gets involved.
Ask older family members to find out what's customary in your
families. You might choose to buck tradition, but it's always
a good idea to know you're doing that before you find out via
a rash of cranky relatives calling ;-)
> - Are there expectations or requirements about what happens after the baptism?
> Are the parents expected to host some type of get-together that includes food
> and/or drink? If so, do you indicate this in the note/invitation?
I doubt it's absolutely *required*, but I can't remember the
last baptism I heard of that didn't include *something*. It could
be anything from going out to lunch after the service, to tea and
cake after the service, to an elaborate party with all sorts of
precious things to eat.
> Here is my thinking about the subject, but perhaps I'm way off base:
>
> I'd like to keep the baptism fairly small and, since attending will require at
> least 1 hour travel time each way for most of my family, I'd like to invite
> only those who I know really want to attend. I don't anyone to feel pressured
> to attend, especially if they're not really interested.
Just remember that it's not your job to decide *for* other
people what they want to do with their time. If *you* would like
them there, invite them. They are grownups and they can perfectly
well decline the invitation. Taking it upon yourself to save them
from their inability to say "no" when they don't feel like doing
something is insulting to them. You don't want to paper the
neighborhood with invitations to people you barely know, but
you might be surprised how many people would enjoy coming.
> (Example: My sister is vocally anti-religion and tends to be a grumbler about
> what she considers to be impositions on her time; however, she might feel
> obligated to attend her nephew's baptism. She would come and then complain
> about "having" to attend.) Perhaps this is not my worry, but the guest's?
Absolutely. In the case of your sister, I would assume you
talk to her on a semi-regular basis. You could send the invitation,
but them mention to her that it's coming and that you certainly
don't want to impose on her and would understand if she doesn't
feel like participating in a religious institution she's not
fond of, but you just didn't want her to feel like you were
freezing her out.
> Is it an etiquette offense to invite only certain family members but not
> others?
With things like this, it *tends* to run along natural boundaries.
E.g., if you invite aunts/uncles then you invite *all* the aunts/uncles,
or at least all the aunts/uncles who live within a certain radius
or something like that. If you invite the one that lives five miles
south but not the one that lives five miles north, enquiring minds
might wonder why and come up with all sorts of harebrained speculations.
> Personally, I would just like to invite my parents, my husband's parents, and
> the godparents. Is this fine? I welcome any advice about keeping the entire
> affair small and low-key without offending any family members.
This would work fine in some families. The question, though,
is whether it will work fine in *yours*. Really, the only way to
find out is to ask around a bit. Some people see infant baptism
as a rather private event, and others see it as a big deal that
they'd expect to be involved in.
Good luck,
Ericka
Auntie Mandragora
> I am looking for information about baptism etiquette and what is generally
> expected of the hosts/parents.
Baptism is a religious ceremony and there is no such thing as a
"host" at one, no more than there is at a wedding in a church.
> - How are invitations issued?
Best of all (and warming to the cockles of Miss Manners' heart)
would be an engraved invitation sent by snail mail (or, if you
are feeling frisky, liveried footman):
John Doe and Mary Roe/are pleased to announce that their
son/Idris Sellongal Smith/born 15 December, 2001/will undergo the
rite of Holy Baptism/at the Episcopal Church of Christ and All
Saints/1233 Santa Perdita Way, Vallejo, California/on Saturday,
February 2, 2002/at 3:30 pm in the Lady Chapel//The parents would
be honored by your presence//A reception will be held at Burning
Tree Country Club immediately following.
Miss Manners might have a thing or two to say about this exact
wording [in particular, it might be more appropriately issued by
the godparents], but I think it's close to right. Check her
recommendations for announcements/invitations for bar mitzvahs
which have a similar significance in that they represent the
formal welcoming of a young one into the fold of believers.
> Is a verbal (telephone) invitation acceptable?
In a pinch, yes, but your second suggestion:
> If not, then I would probably issue hand-written notes to each guest.
is much better, being more formal. Baptism is a very serious
religious rite, not to to be treated lightly or in an offhand
manner. Formality is appropriate. [Remember Miss Manners' comment
that formality is not unfriendly.]
> I've
> obviously spoken with the godparents and verbally invited them. Should I also
> send them a written note?
Since, technically speaking, godparents sponsor the child's entry
into the community of believers, they are essential participants
in the rite; be sure that they fully understand that their
presence is not a "please" but a "must".
> - In addition to the godparents, are there others that you are supposed to
> invite? Just close family? Any family or friends who have expressed mild
> interest?
That's entirely your call. I would suggest that you avoid making
the occasion an extravaganza, however.
> - Are there expectations or requirements about what happens after the baptism?
> Are the parents expected to host some type of get-together that includes food
> and/or drink? If so, do you indicate this in the note/invitation?
Again, that's your call. If I were in your shoes, I'd simply
phone up the clergyman performing the rite and ask his advice.
> Here is my thinking about the subject, but perhaps I'm way off base:
>
> I'd like to keep the baptism fairly small and, since attending will require at
> least 1 hour travel time each way for most of my family, I'd like to invite
> only those who I know really want to attend. I don't anyone to feel pressured
> to attend, especially if they're not really interested.
Remember: it is not exactly an invitation to a party...
> (Example: My sister is vocally anti-religion and tends to be a grumbler about
> what she considers to be impositions on her time; however, she might feel
> obligated to attend her nephew's baptism. She would come and then complain
> about "having" to attend.) Perhaps this is not my worry, but the guest's?
I'd think that it would be fair to restrict your
announcements/invitations to only those who are themselves
believers, sensu lato
Your sister doesn't become a guest until the reception; if she's
anti-religion, she really doesn't want to be in church to witness
a rite that she probably thinks is completely wrong-headed.
Perhaps, since the overall flavour of the occasion is religious,
you should leave her out entirely. If she objects later on, just
tell her that it was a *religious* occasion.
> Is it an etiquette offense to invite only certain family members but not
> others?
I'd say no it isn't because of the religious nature of the event.
For the same reason, you wouldn't invite your Jewish friends
either.
> Personally, I would just like to invite my parents, my husband's parents, and
> the godparents. Is this fine? I welcome any advice about keeping the entire
> affair small and low-key without offending any family members.
That's perfectly fine, but if you have good friends in the
congregation, they would probably be gratified to be there too.
Thinking this whole thing over, let me suggest a modified
approach:
1. Keep the baptismal rite itself small. Invite only believing
members of the family and members of the congregation with whom
you are friendly. Have a very small reception in the church hall
afterwards -- punch and simple sandwiches would be quite
adequate.
2. If you still feel the urge to celebrate on a larger scale, in
a few weeks, throw a party -- a real live party with proper
invitations, a real blow-out, or even just a simple house party
-- to celebrate the child's arrival. Call it a "child-warming" if
you are so inclined; it would be an event at which everyone you
know could make their first acquaintance of the child.
I think separating the strictly religious aspects from the purely
social ones will work much better all round.
Note that in all this I've assumed an infant baptism. If the
baptizee is teen-aged or adult, then taking Miss Manners' model
for bar mitzvah invitations is even more appropriate, but with
one difference: it is the custom at bar mitzvahs to shower the
new Jew[1] with gifts galore, whereas this is not done at
baptisms afaik. Also, I don't think bar mitzvahs involve anyone
in a role corresponding to the godparents -- but I may be wrong.
One last comment: isn't baptism usually a more-or-less public
rite performed in the presence of the congregation as an adjunct
to normal Sunday services? Are we completely off track here,
perhaps?
[1] Auntie couldn't resist the alliteration. No offense intended.
--
Auntie Mandragora
Andrew J. Grgurich
Where is this baptism taking place? At your home or in church?
If in church, as part of a regular church service or separately?
You may wish to talk to your clergyman and find out if its expected
to be a public ceremony. If so, just let people know when it's going
to be.
In any case, it's supposed to be a solumn religious ceremony, not an
occasion for Family Feud. It you invite someone & they don't come, so
be it. AJG
Karen Wheless
> > also send them a written note?
>
> Since, technically speaking, godparents sponsor the child's entry
> into the community of believers, they are essential participants
> in the rite; be sure that they fully understand that their
> presence is not a "please" but a "must".
This varies in different churches and denominations. In the church
where I was baptized (a more liberal one) the godparents were not an
essential part of the ceremony, and were briefly mentioned as "aiding"
the parents. The parents were the ones who were named as sponsoring the
child, not the godparents. In other churches, the godparents are very
important, but this varies from one denomination to another.
The formality of a baptism also varies from one denomination or another.
In some, it's a small ceremony at the end of a regular church service
and isn't ceremonial at all - I've seen them as a five minute ritual in
between the collection and the final prayer where the parents bring the
baby up, there's a quick sprinkle and prayer, and then they sit down
again - and in others they are a big deal with hordes of relatives,
major refreshments, etc. And having those of other religions present
also varies - I've been welcomed at both baptisms and bat mitzvahs even
though I'm not a member of either church.
Karen
Ericka Kammerer
Auntie Mandragora wrote:
> Miss Manners might have a thing or two to say about this exact
> wording [in particular, it might be more appropriately issued by
> the godparents], but I think it's close to right. Check her
> recommendations for announcements/invitations for bar mitzvahs
> which have a similar significance in that they represent the
> formal welcoming of a young one into the fold of believers.
The form is usually a bit different from that of a bar/bat
mitzvah. Basically, baptisms are usually community church events.
The primary invitation is to the party/luncheon/whatever after
the ceremony (which invitations should be issued by whoever is
hosting the event). I've often seen the invitations issued
to the party with a notice enclosed as to the time and location
of the baptism itself for those who wish to attend the ceremony.
> Remember: it is not exactly an invitation to a party...
I would actually disagree with this. There are two things
going on here. One is the baptism itself, which (in most cases)
is a public event which simply requires one to notify others of
the time and location. The other is the party, which does require
an invitation like any other party.
> > (Example: My sister is vocally anti-religion and tends to be a grumbler about
> > what she considers to be impositions on her time; however, she might feel
> > obligated to attend her nephew's baptism. She would come and then complain
> > about "having" to attend.) Perhaps this is not my worry, but the guest's?
>
> I'd think that it would be fair to restrict your
> announcements/invitations to only those who are themselves
> believers, sensu lato
This varies a lot too. Many people choose to have a
party that is open to anyone who wants to celebrate this
big event in a child's life. In those cases, if a guest
is not a believer, he or she may come to the party but
skip the actual rite. Whether this seems reasonable
depends on the particular church and family and guest.
I know some families for which baptism is a closed event
(rite open only to church members) that is followed by
a private celebration only among believers. I know other
families in which the religious rite is attended by guests
with a wide variety of beliefs, and the party afterwards
has even more people at it. It just depends on how the family
approach it. Sometimes baptisms are considered a major
cause for celebration in a family and may be the first time
that the baby is really presented to lots of family and
friends--the baby's first social debut, in a way ;-)
> One last comment: isn't baptism usually a more-or-less public
> rite performed in the presence of the congregation as an adjunct
> to normal Sunday services? Are we completely off track here,
> perhaps?
Again, depends on the church. All will do private
baptisms under at least some circumstances (e.g., emergencies).
Some usually do baptisms as part of a regular service.
Some do baptisms as part of special services (i.e., once upon
a time some churches only did baptisms on high holy days--my
firstborn was baptized with *great* fanfare at the Easter Vigil
service). Some churches (particularly if there are lots of
babies about) do regularly scheduled mass baptisms outside of
Sunday services so as to avoid overloading the Sunday services ;-)
Some churches arrange for baptisms on a case by case basis
outside Sunday services (my second was baptized by himself
immediately following a Sunday service). Frankly, I've seen
a whole lot of variation on this, as well as on how people
celebrate the baptism with family and friends after the
service.
Best wishes,
Ericka
meirman
I apologize for almost a whole post so far distant from baptism, but
as you know, once I get started I have a hard time stopping.
In alt.fan.miss-manners on Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:49:25 GMT
toto...@mail.pacificcoast.net (Auntie Mandragora) posted:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:04:08 GMT, jac...@employees.org
>(jac...@employees.org) wrote:
>
>>
>Miss Manners might have a thing or two to say about this exact
>wording [in particular, it might be more appropriately issued by
>the godparents], but I think it's close to right. Check her
>recommendations for announcements/invitations for bar mitzvahs
>which have a similar significance in that they represent the
>formal welcoming of a young one into the fold of believers.
Ok, I'll put in my 4cents also. For the record, born Jews have no
ceremony for entering into a fold. Born Jews are Jews from the moment
they are born. But when a girl is 12 years old or a boy 13, they are
responsible for their own transgressions. Prior to that, their
parents were. This is true whether they mark the day or not. Belief
is not relevant.
For a boy, at the age of 13 he qualifies to be part of a minyan, the
ten males needed for a quorum if one wishes to do some of the parts,
and he is old enough to fulfill the congregation's requirement to read
publicly from the Torah on Saturday, Monday, and Thursday. It also
takes substantial learning to do a good job of that. This is the
basis for family and friends to attend the same shul as he on the day
he first does this. But he could have become bar mitzvah up to 6 days
earlier or even much more.
You may well meet Jews who don't know this stuff, but I'm right
nonetheless.
(The boy is the bar mitzvah, and the girl is the bas/bat mitzvah, and
when the terms are used to describe occasions, it is short for
"bar/bas/bat mitzvah celebration".)
Regarding "joining the fold":
Converts over the age of 12 and 13 have three or four steps to become
Jews. Study and acceptance of the commandments take place over a long
time. As to the last one or two steps, men have either circumcision
or a stab at it (pun intended), and finally both have immersion in a
mikvah, usually an indoor pool of rain water. Because they are naked
for this last step, not too many people are invited! Actually it's
private but they could wait outside. I'm guessing converts and their
close friends go out to eat afterwards and there is probably a party
later, maybe even that night.
No matter what the age of a convert, he or she is a Jew when he
emerges from the mikvah.
Converts under the age of 12 and 13 have to affirm their conversion
when they reach those ages. Continuing to live as a Jew is considered
an affirmation, and certainly participating in an observance of
celebration as the bar mitzvah boy or the bas mitzvah girl is an
explicit affirmation and the closest thing I can think of to what's
referred to at the top of the post.
FTR. Jews generally don't refer to themselves as believers, and
although not mentioned here, rarely refer to Judaism as a faith.
Belief in G-d is only a small part of Judaism. They might speak that
way if they are trying to talk to non-Jews in their language, or if
they're very assimilated.
>> I'd like to keep the baptism fairly small and, since attending will require at
>> least 1 hour travel time each way for most of my family, I'd like to invite
>> only those who I know really want to attend. I don't anyone to feel pressured
>> to attend, especially if they're not really interested.
This is a well known problem in Judaism, and in certain cases people
are only told of what is happening and not invited, so that they
shouldn't feel the very obligation you're referring to. I don't think
bar/bas mitzvah services or parties are one of those occasions
however. I guess we didn't send invitations to anyone outside of town
except family and maybe very close friends, most of whom were old
enough to know they didn't have to come. 50+ or more. In that case
they are sent more as souvenirs for the recipients.
>Note that in all this I've assumed an infant baptism. If the
>baptizee is teen-aged or adult, then taking Miss Manners' model
>for bar mitzvah invitations is even more appropriate, but with
>one difference: it is the custom at bar mitzvahs to shower the
>new Jew[1] with gifts galore,
Every family close enough to be invited to the party would give one
present. Some of these people would give birthday presents anyhow,
although there is big dropoff in birthday presents from uncle/aunts at
after bar mitzvah age. :) In some income groups it may be the
practice to give big presents, but it's not a custom. Except in the
way I think some girls get more or bigger presents for a Sweet 16
birthday than they do for others.
>Also, I don't think bar mitzvahs involve anyone
>in a role corresponding to the godparents -- but I may be wrong.
You are right.
I apologize for almost a whole post so off-thread and so far distant
from baptism, but as you know, once I get started I have a hard time
stopping.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
meirman
<mei...@invalid.com> posted:
>
>Converts under the age of 12 and 13 have to affirm their conversion
>when they reach those ages. Continuing to live as a Jew is considered
>an affirmation, and certainly participating in an observance of
>celebration as the bar mitzvah boy or the bas mitzvah girl is an
>explicit affirmation and the closest thing I can think of to what's
>referred to at the top of the post.
I don't know why I tried so hard to find something that met the
standard of a public occasion at which one becomes a Jew. When people
go to the bar mitzvah celebration of kid who was a convert, they don't
think "Here he is becoming a Jew". They think "What a wonderful boy or
girl. His parents must be so proud", like they do for all the other
kids. I've never heard of a kid with a proper conversion and
upbringing who changed his mind then.
"Raise a child in the way that he should go, and when he is older he
will not depart from it." Of course this applies to lots of things.
:) Congratulations Jackie, on your new? baby and his baptism.
Diedrich Kohl
> - Are there expectations or requirements about what happens after the baptism?
> Are the parents expected to host some type of get-together that includes food
> and/or drink? If so, do you indicate this in the note/invitation?
I'm pretty sure I recall reading in MM that at least some sort of
light refreshment afterwards is traditional -- e.g., even just punch,
coffee/tea, cookies. (For what it's worth, such has been the case
with any baptism I've ever attended. The most substantial thing I've
ever encountered is some of those little two-bite quarter-sandwiches.)
However, sure, provide a meal instead if you're inclined. For example,
perhaps you think it would be a nice idea given the travelling that
many of your guests have undertaken.
In the "light fare" case, you could put "refreshments following" on
the invitation if you want, but I don't think it's really necessary;
a "please join us afterwards" can just be announced at the service.
However, if you're providing a meal, then definitely the invitation
should note that (e.g., "Lunch following at The Fish and Loaves pub").
The point of putting something on the invitation is so that guests
will know what to expect and plan re time commitment (how long will I
be there?) and food arrangements (do I need to plan to eat beforehand
or afterwards?).
Disclaimers:
- Let us not quibble over the semantics that one is not "invited" to
a religious service. By "invitation", we mean "that thing on paper
that one sends to people to notify them about an event in the hopes
that they will want to attend".
- Perhaps the custom may vary by religion, and somebody can correctly
pipe up and cite the example of Religion X in which it's considered
a grievous sin to soil the body with any comestibles until the next
sunrise; I'm not a theological expert. But I do have the impression
that in general, attendees will expect to mill around and visit for
at least a bit afterwards and receive at least some refreshment.
===== Rick =====
jac...@employees.org
>>> Remember: it is not exactly an invitation to a party...
>
> I would actually disagree with this. There are two things
>going on here. One is the baptism itself, which (in most cases)
>is a public event which simply requires one to notify others of
>the time and location. The other is the party, which does require
>an invitation like any other party.
I agree with Ericka here. I recognize that the baptism is *not* a party, just
like a wedding ceremony is not a party. However, in both cases it seems that
guests are generally provided refreshments or a meal during some type of
post-ceremony "celebration."
>> I'd think that it would be fair to restrict your
>> announcements/invitations to only those who are themselves
>> believers, sensu lato
>
> This varies a lot too. Many people choose to have a
>party that is open to anyone who wants to celebrate this
>big event in a child's life. In those cases, if a guest
>is not a believer, he or she may come to the party but
>skip the actual rite.
I can see both sides of the coin here. I know for a fact that some people that
I invite are not believers, but they care about my family and our beliefs. I
welcome them to join us.
>> One last comment: isn't baptism usually a more-or-less public
>> rite performed in the presence of the congregation as an adjunct
>> to normal Sunday services? Are we completely off track here,
>> perhaps?
>
> Again, depends on the church.
This will be a private baptism peformed by a Catholic priest. Two children
will be baptized, my son and his cousin.
Thanks to those who responded. It's becoming clear to me that most of my
etiquette concerns surround the "celebratory" aspect that follows the
ceremony. I will invite close family members, but make it clear that if
they're uncomfortable attending the ceremony they are welcome to come
afterwards.
Auntie Mandragora
wrote:
> I apologize for almost a whole post so far distant from baptism, but
> as you know, once I get started I have a hard time stopping.
[clear discussion of what makes a Jew a Jew]
No need for apology.
Your message was entirely to the point, clearing up a number of
misunderstandings on my part.
Still, all these events that consist of (serious religious
element) + (celebratory party) would seem to have about the same
requirements in terms of language, who to invite, etc.
--
Auntie Mandragora
meirman
toto...@mail.pacificcoast.net (Auntie Mandragora) posted:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:07:17 -0500, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
No problem there. I suppose that's why I skipped that part.
Auntie Mandragora
<dri...@telussWith1S.net> wrote:
> - Let us not quibble over the semantics that one is not "invited" to
> a religious service. By "invitation", we mean "that thing on paper
> that one sends to people to notify them about an event in the hopes
> that they will want to attend".
I must disagree with you, because making the distinction leads
(in a pretty obvious way) to the appropriate wording for the
piece of paper you mail out.
The most common analogous event is (wedding + reception), and you
will note that Miss Manners is very careful, in her suggested
wordings for variants on the paper, to distinguish between
inviting guests and announcing a religious rite. IIRC, she gives
quite a number of suggestions for different combinations of
wedding announcement and reception invitation because people do
all sorts of different things: small weddings followed by huge
receptions, vice versae, turned inside out, and so on.
Don't ask me why I got all mixed up with bar/bat mitzvah stuff,
which most closely resembles Christian confirmation (a ceremony
not universally practiced).
--
Auntie Mandragora
dcb
(Auntie Mandragora) wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:04:08 GMT, jac...@employees.org
>(jac...@employees.org) wrote:
>
>> - In addition to the godparents, are there others that you are supposed to
>> invite? Just close family? Any family or friends who have expressed mild
>> interest?
>
>That's entirely your call. I would suggest that you avoid making
>the occasion an extravaganza, however.
I think that baptisms are very solemn ceremonies. As this is a
Catholic baptism we're talking about, it is a Rite in the Church and a
very important part of the person's life.
A huge party and extravaganza following the Rite is completely
appropriate and can be a great deal of fun for all involved. The
guest of honor may not notice, but that's ancillary. The true
importance is the acknowledgement that the community of believers is
welcoming a new member.
Surely this is a cause for celebration.
--
Help the women of Afganistan
http://www.rawa.org/
"You despise me, don't you?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Diedrich Kohl
> The true importance is the acknowledgement that the community of
> believers is welcoming a new member.
Considering that the "guest of honour" target of this religious rite
is unwitting, involuntary, and belief-incapable, I believe you had
better choose terms other than "member" and "believer"! It would seem
to apply more accurately to the rite of confirmation in Catholicism,
or baptism of older individuals in some other religions.
(Not that I don't know what you mean. However, there's been a fair
amount of discussion about this sort of religiously-related semantics,
including "believer", so it seemed a relevant point in that context.)
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> FTR. Jews generally don't refer to themselves as believers, and
> although not mentioned here, rarely refer to Judaism as a faith.
> Belief in G-d is only a small part of Judaism. They might speak that
> way if they are trying to talk to non-Jews in their language, or if
> they're very assimilated.
Re "believer":
As you apparently recognize, this term is generally taken to mean
"a person who believes in God". As such, it accurately applies to you.
So I'm puzzled as to why you eschew it? Granted that "belief in God"
only partially characterizes the nature of Judaism (for that matter,
the same could be said of ANY religious-related ideology), but the
word doesn't CLAIM to serve such a function. It's like my avoiding
referring to myself as "blond" simply "because that's only a small
aspect of what I am". It seems to me that you're confusing the notion
of a denotative term versus an attributive term, and criticizing the
latter simply because it's not the former. And doesn't avoiding a term
imply the opposite -- i.e., NONbeliever?
In any case, it was just used in this thread to mean "people who are
of the same religious ideology as that of the ceremony in question";
thus we had the issue of "believers" versus "nonbelievers" attending.
(And it was used religion-nonspecifically.) I'd agree with you that it
wasn't the best choice of words in this context -- and something like
"members" vs "nonmembers" would have been more appropriate. (Although,
I'm sure we all understood the distinction that was being referred to.)
But this is a different argument from the more-general one that you're
making, which is what mainly caught my interest.
Re "faith":
This term has many different senses of meaning; one of them basically
is "religious-related ideology/views". (E.g.: "people of all faiths".)
As such, Judaism is clearly and most certainly a "faith" in the sense
of meaning in which the word is being used. It seems unreasonable to
me to reject its usage, apparently just because some different sense
of meaning of the word has some characteristic that you feel isn't
really appropriate to Judaism. It's like objecting to referring to a
religious ceremony as a "service" (e.g., "I attended the service")
because another sense of meaning is "presenting with a subpoena".
Presumably you have some valid reason for feeling that some sense of
meaning of "faith" isn't appropriate for Judaism, and I don't seek to
challenge that (whatever it is; and it doesn't matter); the point is
that the meaning under consideration has nothing to do with that and
doesn't imply anything about it. Again I'm puzzled why you eschew it.
Overall, I don't see how either of these words is inappropriate in
any way (inaccurate, misleading, misrepresentative, inconsistent) as
applied to Judaism. You characterize this issue as "trying to talk to
non-Jews in their language"; but rather, it seems to me that the issue
here is simply talking to people in English using commonly-understood
English words. Do you consider that being "assimilated"?
So what would YOU suggest, then, as a common, universally-acceptable,
universally-understood term to refer to a person's religious-related
ideology/views/tenets, that would apply to everybody and all possible
variations of such views? (And note that "religion" is out, because
not all people consider themselves to subscribe to a "religion").
Obviously nobody is going to adopt my cumbersome "religious-related
ideology/views/tenets", so what would you consider appropriate?
If I were in charge of English, I would certainly not pick "faith" --
if for no other reason than I would prohibit words with multiple
different senses of meaning. However, the point is that we have to
make do with what we have and what *is* commonly used and understood.
(Please note that this is an English issue, not a religious issue nor
in particular a Judaism issue. There is no challenge whatsoever here
to anything relating to Judaism per se. I would make exactly the same
challenge to somebody who made your arguments about atheism.)
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:30:10 -0800 (PST), "Diedrich Kohl"
> <dri...@telussWith1S.net> wrote:
>> - Let us not quibble over the semantics that one is not "invited" to
>> a religious service. By "invitation", we mean "that thing on paper
>> that one sends to people to notify them about an event in the hopes
>> that they will want to attend".
> I must disagree with you, because making the distinction leads
> (in a pretty obvious way) to the appropriate wording for the
> piece of paper you mail out.
We aren't in disagreement. What you say is quite true, and obviously
an important point. My intention was to point out exactly that issue,
while noting that "invite" and "invitation" had been used nonstrictly
in people's posts (including mine). I suppose I should have phrased
it more along those lines.
I realize that your point focuses on the wording, not the terminology.
But now that the issue has come up, what *is* the correct terminology
for the thing that you send out describing an event that incorporates
both a religious service and a social gathering, in the hopes that the
recipient will attend; and what is the act of sending it called? The
typical example, of course, is a wedding. An "announcement/invitation"?
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> I'd think that it would be fair to restrict your
> announcements/invitations to only those who are themselves
> believers, sensu lato
>
> Your sister doesn't become a guest until the reception; if she's
> anti-religion, she really doesn't want to be in church to witness
> a rite that she probably thinks is completely wrong-headed.
> Perhaps, since the overall flavour of the occasion is religious,
> you should leave her out entirely. If she objects later on, just
> tell her that it was a *religious* occasion.
Maybe, maybe not. The religion might have a policy of only members
attending (though this strikes me as rather unusual?), but assuming
not, I think it really depends on the person whether he/she wishes to
attend the ceremony and/or the aftergathering.
Marriages and funerals are also serious religious ceremonies in most
(all?) religions, but people's attendance is solicited regardless of
their religion (if any). They attend because they care for the people
involved and wish them well, which is a religion-neutral motivation.
In the same spirit, maybe non-baptism-endorsers may also be welcomed
and may wish to attend. Whether this thinking is religiously "proper"
or not, I submit that there's at least some social/secular aspect to
the occasion (as indeed there is with any sort of religious service).
Attending a religious service that differs from one's own ideology
doesn't necessarily constitute participation in or endorsement of the
religious doctrine involved.
I think there's also a clear risk of offending nonmembers by excluding
them; sometimes people like to at least be asked even if they choose
to decline. I tend to agree with Ericka that one should leave it up
to the potential attendees and not try to anticipate their response
or preusurp their option. One might or might not guess correctly.
There might be a stronger (though I'm still not sure conclusive) case
for excluding nonmember attendees from something like a confirmation
or bar mitzvah or adult baptism. However, baptisms of infants seem
somehow to be in a different category, like weddings and funerals.
(I know, this is strictly incorrect and inconsistent from a religious
perspective, but nonetheless I think it's the popular perspective.)
With the sister in particular, since she's close and her views are
well-known, I also agree with Ericka that the thing to do is to send
her an announcement/invitation, but also phone, coincident with its
arrival, and mention to her that they'd understand if she wouldn't be
comfortable attending. Surely sisters can be frank with one another?
===== Rick =====
aMAZon
Diedrich Kohl wrote:
Indeed, this was the case at the baptism of my daughter. Her
grandmother has many friends who do not share our faith, but they were
invited to come to the service and the reception following. The friends
came, primarily to celebrate the new arrival.
It was nice having such a large "claque" at the church. There were
something like 5 babies baptized that day, and my kid had the largest
"fan club".
> I think there's also a clear risk of offending nonmembers by excluding
> them; sometimes people like to at least be asked even if they choose
> to decline. I tend to agree with Ericka that one should leave it up
> to the potential attendees and not try to anticipate their response
> or preusurp their option. One might or might not guess correctly.
If the folks have a particular objection to the ceremony, they can, of
course, decline.
My husband's co-worker invited us to the bris of her son; while that
is not our particular tradition, we were honored to have been invited.
> There might be a stronger (though I'm still not sure conclusive) case
> for excluding nonmember attendees from something like a confirmation
> or bar mitzvah or adult baptism. However, baptisms of infants seem
> somehow to be in a different category, like weddings and funerals.
> (I know, this is strictly incorrect and inconsistent from a religious
> perspective, but nonetheless I think it's the popular perspective.)
>
> With the sister in particular, since she's close and her views are
> well-known, I also agree with Ericka that the thing to do is to send
> her an announcement/invitation, but also phone, coincident with its
> arrival, and mention to her that they'd understand if she wouldn't be
> comfortable attending. Surely sisters can be frank with one another?
>
> ===== Rick =====
One would think so.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Auntie Mandragora
Go check your Miss Manners books. In the case of a wedding, the
paperwork consists of two pieces: a wedding *announcement* and a
reception *invitation*. Of course, this isn't invariable: you can
put both parts on one piece of paper and people do quite often
and with Miss Manners' approval; but that piece of paper then
serves a double function.
The reason for the distinction is that a wedding is (generally
speaking) a public affair and anyone can attend, but the
reception is a private party.
Keeping this distinction in mind helps the weak-minded remember
what appropriate behavior is: no dirty jokes out loud during a
church wedding, but these can be assayed at the reception.
(There's an old custom of the groom's friends standing around
under the bridal bedroom window shouting obscene suggestions and
singing dirty ditties. The Romans did similar things, so this
isn't anything new: it's really very, very old.)
--
Auntie Mandragora
Diedrich Kohl
> My husband's co-worker invited us to the bris of her son; while that
> is not our particular tradition, we were honored to have been invited.
And that good example quite pointedly sums up the perspective that I
think many people on both sides (celebrants and attendees) may have.
As does your other example concerning the attendance of nonmembers at
the baptism of your daughter:
> The friends came, primarily to celebrate the new arrival.
Thanks for the real-life illustrations; they add much.
===== Rick =====
Diedrich Kohl
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 07:51:35 -0800 (PST), "Diedrich Kohl"
> <dri...@telussWith1S.net> wrote:
>> I realize that your point focuses on the wording, not the terminology.
>> But now that the issue has come up, what *is* the correct terminology
>> for the thing that you send out describing an event that incorporates
>> both a religious service and a social gathering, in the hopes that the
>> recipient will attend; and what is the act of sending it called? The
>> typical example, of course, is a wedding. An "announcement/invitation"?
> Go check your Miss Manners books. In the case of a wedding, the
> paperwork consists of two pieces: a wedding *announcement* and a
> reception *invitation*.
I did realize that; I was just wondering if there was any "proper"
term to refer to the combined paperwork -- because even if strictly
correct, I doubt if many people will usually bother differentiating.
"Dear, did you mail the wedding announcements and invitations yet?" or
"Oh, look, we've been notified of cousin Myrtle's marriage ceremony
and invited to a reception following too". They know to WORD the
paperwork appropriately (or at least the engraver does, hopefully),
but I don't think they REFER TO IT appropriately.
===== Rick =====
Auntie Mandragora
<dri...@telussWith1S.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:01:49 GMT, Auntie Mandragora wrote:
> > ...In the case of a wedding, the
> > paperwork consists of two pieces: a wedding *announcement* and a
> > reception *invitation*.
>
> I did realize that; I was just wondering if there was any "proper"
> term to refer to the combined paperwork...
"Announcement" or "invitation"; no one cares what you call it.
Even "thingie".
But, by gum, it better be worded right or Auntie'll be there
shaking his cane at you and ringing the bell on his walker in
protest...
--
Auntie Mandragora
Mirhanda Sarko
I believe you are both mistaken. From Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly
Correct Behavior:
"The purpose of wedding invitations is to invite people to attend the
wedding. Invitations are sent before the wedding to those whom you wish to
attend, and announcements are sent after the wedding to those whom you wish
to inform." (P. 332)
Mirhanda
--
To email me, please use azziza at bellsouth dot net
You live on the edge?
Well, I fell off some time ago.
Diedrich Kohl
> I believe you are both mistaken. From Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly
> Correct Behavior:
>
> "The purpose of wedding invitations is to invite people to attend the
> wedding. Invitations are sent before the wedding to those whom you wish to
> attend, and announcements are sent after the wedding to those whom you wish
> to inform." (P. 332)
But this is quite a different issue and type of "announcement". The
point stands that one cannot properly "invite" people to a religious
service because one is not the "host" at such an event. Hence the
wording must be different ("The honour of your presence is requested"
rather than "You're invited"). You'll find this point also somewhere
in the MM tomes. Logically, then, this aspect of the paperwork cannot
properly be an "invitation".
However, it would seem that everybody refers to it as such anyway.
Including apparently Miss Manners, judging from your excerpt.
===== Rick =====