Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Good call, Cary, if necessarily harsh. I am exhausted by the christenings of babies of nonreligious people. What is the point? Almost within a week these sacred oaths (if you're a believer) are forgotten and the family is not in church. My sister calls such events "The 'The' Festival" -- you have to have "the" church, "the" robe, "the" hall, "the" caterer, ad nauseum, because rituals performed for the sake of ritual must follow cookie-cutter patterns. There is so little feeling, emotion, or honesty (shame on the Church for its participation in this sham) that you feel just a bit fraudulent participating.
I say the woman is lucky to get a sneak preview of the hell that may very well be awaiting her come time for a church wedding. Grab the kid and head to Las Vegas, lady, because if your in-laws are this whacked over the christening, imagine the wedding!
How can you tell from reading the letter that the LW is not religious? I think Cary, that you are a little confuddled about Christianity and its rituals. Let's get the facts straight.
Many Christians have premaritial sex. You can be a Christian and "sin." Which is what the LW might be.
And per most churches, they are doing the "right" thing by making up for their "mistake" and getting married, and pledging their marriage to God.
And Christening/Baptism has nothing to do with the parent's maritial status, but rather has to do with having the child being "recognized" as a Christian and the parents agreeing to raise it within the religion's beliefs. And I don't gather that the LW is raising the child as a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu. So even if it will be raised as "Christian-lite," (major holidays only) a christening is certainly in order.
It has to do as well with the soul of the child, and having God recognize it as a Christian one in the afterlife.
Some diehards would say that the soul won't enter heaven as easily if it is not baptized/christened with the mark of Christ. (Now it is arguable that a baby does not have any "sins," and will just slide into heaven anyway).
For a guarantee, some would christen a baby just in case the child were to tragically die in infancy. Whether the parents are married or not is irrelevant for the sake of that child's soul. The parent's are making this choice for the child, that s/he will be raised as a Christian.
"Confirmation" is the ceremony where the child/young adult is of age to make this choice for him/herself, usually as a young teen.
How about the phrase "we contacted the church" to let them know they were interested in the whole christening thing? That's not proof these people aren't religious?
Plus the whole "met a nice guy, moved in, had a kid, are engaged" patter suggests a casual approach to this whole family thing that makes me think this lady isn't Christian in the formal sense, at least.
Keep beating that bible if it makes ya happy, tho.
I'm not beating a Bible, nor did I say these were my personal beliefs.
But the ceremony does have a theological basis behind it, and most pastors would be more interested in saving the new child's soul than denying baptism because the parents weren't married. That would be a sin on the part of the pastor, yes?
There are plenty of "casual" Christians. Why in the world are children still getting baptized, yet church attendance is way down? It's the Christian-lite insurance policy for the afterlife.
LW says the reception is small, perhaps, but christenings must be a big deal in her family if some family member other than the parents "desperately" wants to be there. I guarantee you that no one in my family has ever felt a desperate need to be at the christening of anyone.
So LW should just recognize that this is a big deal, and as such, it will not be a time for peaceful rejoicing, especially if out of town guests are coming. As with a wedding, if you want a baptism to be relaxing and under your control, you call up the celebrant and ask if he can fit it into his schedule at a convenient time, show up with your closest friends and relatives who can make it, and then everyone goes out for brunch afterwards. Cary's advice is dead on -- If it's a big deal, and especially if you go out of your way to make it a big deal, you shouldn't complain about the family drama and the hassle of it all.
No one, including Cary, as yet seems to have addressed the LW's problem. Instead they are all moralizing about Christian vs Christian-lite, etc.
Tell the family members that while you invited them to the event you did NOT invite them to be your houseguests. You can send or e-mail them information on reasonably priced accomodations nearby, and that is the end of your duty. I also have no idea why you would spend one moment of stress worrying about their wants for the ceremony. Are they footing the bill? If not, there is NO discussion, NONE. Demand some respect and you'll get it. And LW also never mentions the fiance after the first paragraph. Does he have an opinion here?
If the level of communication is as bad as it seems from the letter, heaven help the marriage (if they get to that point).
If at all possible, the LW and BF should pay for a room (or two) at the hotel where the in-laws are staying and tell the sibs "Sorry, we couldn't possibly be good hosts right now so here's the hotel". Repeat as necessary. Give no specific details about why right now is not a good time; specifics allow people to argue with you. I promise that this will be money well spent.
Secondly, find something for them to do that you are OK with. Maybe have them put together a scrapbook or decorate the front yard; something that you are OK with letting them do as they want without oversight (maybe the front yard isn't such a good idea, come to think of it). Tell them how thrilled you are that they can do it because otherwise it wouldn't be done. Keep them busy with something that you don't feel you need to control (and I don't mean control in a derogatory way, you have the right to arrange this ceremony as you see fit).
When the sibs want to make suggestions that you don't want to take, instead of saying "Hell NO!" or whatever variant you're considering, smile and say "That's something to think about" or "I'll give that some consideration". You are not obligating yourself to do anything but the person making suggestions feels that he or she has been taken seriously.
You're going to be stuck with these people for a long time, so you may as well start getting creative about dealing with them. And save a bottle of champagne to drink after they leave.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
