A Wedding Gift is Still a Gift and Not an Obligation

“GIFT, n. [from give.] A present; any thing given or bestowed; any thing, the property of which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a donation.” - Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language (bold emphasis added)

http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20100521/LIVING/5230314/Wedding-gift-do-s-don-ts

Just a few hours ago, my mom read to me an article (please click on the link above to read it online) from today’s USA Weekend magazine. This article infuriates me, and I am compelled to speak out against the “expert” opinions therein and set the record straight. I am a bride-to-be, and I take offense at this article’s assumption that every bride-to-be {which, since I am one, includes me in this wrongful assumption} is so thoroughly materialistic and greedy. Am I the only one that read this article and was appalled at the entitlement mentality that was not only obviously apparent in the article, but was also, consequently, projected upon all brides-to-be? Please, please allow me to speak for myself by correcting the fallacies in this article, which made extremely presumptuous assumptions about ALL brides-to-be, because {all brides-to-be} currently includes me, and therefore this article’s assumptions are (at best, unwittingly) false and unfair.

My issues with this article are as follows:

#1. Saying that there is such a thing as “the latest gift-giving etiquette” is as absurd as talking about “the latest gospel of Jesus,” or “the latest version of the Latin language,” or, “the latest old-fashioned vintage style of clothing.” There is no such thing. There are no updates. The spirit behind all rules of etiquette (i.e., the golden rule--let’s recite it all together now: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”) is an absolute, universal truth, and thus, does not change with time or location. How it manifests itself may vary between cultures (i.e., men do not take off their hats in front of women anymore because men don’t wear hats very often anymore), but the spirit and motivation behind it does not vary. Ever.

#2. “... buying a nice shower gift doesn’t let you off the hook for a wedding present.” Since when are the wedding guests ever ON the hook in the first place? Who made up these rules listed under “The Shower” section of the article? Who cares about the percentage of the price of the shower gift versus prices of other gifts or whatevertheheck? Huh? I sure as heck don’t care! If you’re paying for the gift, YOU are the one who decides how much YOU want to spend on it.

#3. As far as the engagement party is concerned, the article claims that “expectations [of the bride and groom regarding whether or not they receive gifts at the engagement party] vary by region.” That might appear to be true on the surface (i.e., if you’re conducting a numerical, statistical survey) but on a deeper level, I disagree. I would argue that expectations do not vary by region; expectations vary by couple. Meaning that some couples have more of a “GIMME! GIMME! PRESENTS! PRESENTS!” attitude than others. Some people simply look at every party as another opportunity to accumulate stuff. By God’s grace, my fiancé and I shall NEVER have such a repulsively worldly and self-centered perspective. Shame on us if ever we do.

#4. No, you do NOT have to send a gift to the ceremony just because you received an invitation in the mail. The number of people my fiancé and I are inviting to our wedding is based on how many beloved friends and family members we hope to have surrounding and supporting us as we enter into this covenant and celebrating with us at the ceremonial culmination of our courtship. We are not going to add people to our guest list in the hopes that every invitation we send out will translate to another present, regardless of whether or not any additional invitee can attend. I would rather have my friends come empty-handed than not come at all!

#5. A survey (they did NOT include me in this survey, let me tell you!) taken by these ridiculous wedding experts and organizations apparently revealed that brides EXPECTED each guest to spend AT LEAST $70 on each gift! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? First off, since when is it the receiver’s place to dictate the giver’s price range? The problem is in the expectation at all. No one should ever really expect a gift, simply because that is generally a selfish mindset with no regard to things that are really important in life. (And the best and most important things in life don’t come wrapped up inside a box with a pretty bow on top--I promise you that.) Second, $70? Per person? Per gift? Seriously? What about my dirt poor friends? Of all the dozens or possibly hundreds of weddings anyone could get invited to in a lifetime, who the heck has $70 to spare for EVERY wedding to which a person gets invited? I sure don’t! I don’t make that kind of money! No really. I have never made enough money to justify spending $70 on one wedding present, so I certainly don’t expect that from anybody I know. (If anyone wants to, great, but seriously, nobody has to!) And for the people who are still in college when their friends get married, from where is all that money for friends’ wedding gifts going to come? What about when you don’t have a job (like a lot of people in this current economy)? What if you’re in college and don’t have time to work?

#6. Under “Destination Weddings,” there is an absolute flat-out lie. (Go ahead and read it now.) My response to that final point in the article: WRONG! This absolutely flies in the face of the REAL rules of etiquette (you know, the ones that don’t degenerate commensurately with a progressively more self-centered culture). You are NEVER obligated to give a gift. No matter what the occasion, who you are, who it’s for, where it is, how much money you have to spare, or why you’re giving, NOBODY is EVER required to give any gift. A gift, by definition, is A GIFT! Obligation, by definition, implies debt. Being given a gift by someone is absolutely not the same thing as being paid back for something you loaned to or did for someone else. An obligation is not a gift and a gift is not an obligation. (And by “not,” I mean “never.”) A gift should never be expected by a potential recipient, nor should an obligation to give ever be placed on a potential giver. Newsflash: Nobody owes you jack diddly. God owes you NOTHING. The fact that God Himself gave us Jesus as a gift we have the option of accepting was something that we never deserved, and thus, we were not owed it. God was not in our debt! God was not obligated to give us anything! Yet, out of His utter benevolence and love, He voluntarily offered us salvation. He wasn’t obligated, but He gave anyway. If He had been obligated, it would not have been a gift, and we would not have as much of a reason to be so thankful. My point in using the best example in the history of the universe is that any gift that is ever given is 100% up to the voluntary discretion of the person who is in the position of considering giving something. That is the bottom line.

By the way, relatively speaking, I’m not too excited about the presents I might receive at my upcoming wedding. I guarantee you, NOBODY in the world will top the wedding present God will give me: my wonderful husband-to-be, the love of my life, my soulmate and my closest friend, is the best wedding present ever. And in my heart, he’s absolutely priceless.

I Am Babysitter

I’ve been working as a certified professional sitter for a babysitting referral service for about a year now (but I’ve been working with kids younger than me in all manner of childcare venues since I was a kid myself). You know that your job as a sitter has crossed the line from “what you do” to “who you are” (and that maybe you do it a little too much) when...

1. You’ve got the Barney songs (yes, it turns out there’s more than one) stuck in your head.
2. Your body is not so much an organic being as it is a jungle-gym.
3. Your taste buds and corresponding opinions have developed in such a way that you now see macaroni & cheese, chicken nuggets, and baby carrots as constituting a well-rounded meal.
4. The parents’ instructions for using the television remote control are more complex than their instructions for taking care of their child.
5. You know you’ll have to put the kids down for a nap, so you run them as hard as you can a few hours before nap time... which unfortunately wears you out long before they get tired.
6. You have a car seat permanently installed in your car... and you’ve never had children of your own.
7. You’ve memorized “The Pokey Little Puppy” and “The Shy Little Kitten.”
8. You sometimes forget to talk normally to other adults and end up saying “Is you hungwies in your tummies?” before meals and “Ni-ni!” before going to sleep.
9. Your job perks include free snacks, i.e., “Help yourself to anything: this is the pantry, and the ‘fridge is in the corner.”
10. You get hired to watch the kids for a few hours so the mom and dad can--ironically--attend their parenting class.
11. You’d rather play Candy-Land than the Wii, because you’ve actually got a chance of winning against the kid at Candy-Land.
12. On a lucky day, the parents will order in the most rare and delicious of all foods for you and the children to dine on--pizza!
13. You answer to nearly every name and title under the sun--including Isabelle, Laura, Janet, Kelly, Teacher, Mrs., and Auntie--as long as it’s spoken by a remotely familiar child’s voice.
14. You bring the old, wooden, lackluster set of Tinker-Toys--which has broken and missing pieces--from your own childhood over for the kids to play with (who love your well-used Tinker-Toys anyway) and the parents ask you where you got them so they can go buy the shiny, new, plastic versions of Tinker-Toys for their kids.
15. The baby is teething and starting to eat baby foods, it takes longer to clean her head, her arms, her high-chair, her bib, her clothes, and yourself after her meal than it did to actually feed her.
16. You find yourself seething with jealousy when the child mentions how much fun the other sitter is when she comes over.
17. Having a child sneeze or cough (or worse) in your face doesn’t even faze you.
18. Nap-time is one of your favorite times of the day because you’re getting paid to relax with a book or in front of the TV.
19. You wish you got a nickel every time someone, upon learning what you do for a living, said, “Oh! I hear babysitters make very good money,” because then you’d be earning more than you’re currently earning at your job.
20. You keep a travel-size bottle of antibacterial lotion in your back pocket to protect kids from dirty germs and to protect yourself from the dirty kids.
21. You expend all your strength and patience just arm-wrestling the baby while trying to change his diaper without letting him kick you, roll over, or crawl away.
22. Of all the alleged “super” heroes in Pixar’s “The Incredibles,” Kari--well-prepared, enthusiastically dedicated, and faithful to the end--is your hero. http://video.yandex.ru/users/min-net05/view/779

... And when I say “you,” of course I’m really just referring to myself.

What to do with Enemies

Does a rival (or competitor) technically count as a type of an enemy?

Walking home the other day, I was thinking about rivals and about the perspectives I’ve always held about enemies. I had assumed that it was wrong—Biblically speaking—to even have enemies. Having someone in my life who I would actually label as an “enemy” seems so harsh and “un-Christian.” After all, Christians, by definition, are supposed to live as representatives of Jesus’ love. And having an enemy seems so hateful.

As I continued my train of thought, I recalled that passage where Jesus talks about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). What I find interesting is that Jesus did not say, “Don’t have enemies.” Instead, He assumed that people—maybe all of us on some level—already have enemies. Maybe it’s automatic. Maybe being in a state of contention with others is the default existence for humans. Regardless, in the passage, Jesus assumes that we already have enemies, and instead of saying we ought not to have them, Jesus simply says to love them.

In the same passage, Jesus tells us to be perfect as God is perfect. Why is this phrase found in a paragraph that talks about how we are to treat our enemies? What has our treatment of enemies to do with our imitation of the Lord?

Perhaps because God has enemies too. This leads me to believe that if God has enemies, then the having of enemies cannot necessarily be inherently wrong. But how does God treat His enemies? With love. Even when we—the humans He created—have individually and collectively rebelled against Him in pursuit of our own sins and established ourselves as His enemies, still, He has loved us (Romans 5:8).

After this ride on my train of thought, I’ve come to the simple conclusion that because God loves His enemies, we who are called to be as He is must love our enemies as well.

And yes, I think rivals—maybe even those with whom we are involved in friendly rivalries—ought to fall under the category of “enemies.”

SDG