Question:
> What is the reasoning behind the ettiquette rule that if you are having > a wedding in a house of worship, on your invitation one requests the > "honour of your presence", but if you are *not* having a wedding in a > house of worship you "invite" or ask them "to share your joy", or some > other such wording? Why is it that you can only be "honoured" if a > formal religion is involved? > I have looked everywhere for the reasoning behind this and can only find > many references to the rule, but no explanation as to what purpose it > serves.
It’s purely conventional, and the meaning of the convention has shifted over time. It used to be, as recently as 30 years ago, that "honour of your presence" was used for ALL wedding ceremonies, regardless of venue. Sixty years ago, it was usually spelled "honor" in the U.S. The requirement to use the British spelling was a bit of fanciness added around the time of WWII (yet English etiquette is to use "pleasure of your company" for all weddings). The reasoning that "no one is the host in God’s house" is a post hoc explanation for a rule that was arbitrarily changed by etiquette gurus and/or popular usage. Most congregations have "hospitality ministers" or "ushers" or similar on ordinary worship days precisely because the church is *also* the home of the congregation and its members are expected to act as hosts to visitors. (But etiquette tends to be surprisingly blind to theology or pastoral ministry.) The purpose it serves these days is to differentiate church weddings from non-church weddings, so that HCs can have fusses about how their non-church weddings are just as meaningful, formal, and important as any church wedding. 
Seriously — certain permutations of wedding etiquette are, as Foucault would say, disciplinary structures on the bride and groom, to keep them nervous and in line. Wende
Response:
> The purpose it serves these days is to differentiate church weddings from > non-church weddings, so that HCs can have fusses about how their non-church > weddings are just as meaningful, formal, and important as any church wedding. > Seriously — certain permutations of wedding etiquette are, as Foucault would > say, disciplinary structures on the bride and groom, to keep them nervous and > in line.
All too true–and if etiquette doesn’t offer enough of this, family, friends, and community are all to quick to step in to provide appropriate rites of passage! Seriously, though, even when something comes about arbitrarily, after a while, it often takes on a life of its own and creates its own "reality." When the balance of expectations tips one way, more and more expectations tend to pile on! Best wishes, Ericka — The return address on this message works, but it goes to an account I weed out only on occasion. To send me email, send to my first name dot my last name at home dot com and watch the spelling
Response:
> What is the reasoning behind the ettiquette rule that if you are having > a wedding in a house of worship, on your invitation one requests the > "honour of your presence", but if you are *not* having a wedding in a > house of worship you "invite" or ask them "to share your joy", or some > other such wording? Why is it that you can only be "honoured" if a > formal religion is involved?
You’re going at it backwards, which is why it doesn’t make sense The standard wording for *any* invitation is "pleasure of your company." However, when you’re inviting someone to an event at a house of worship, it is considered presumptuous of you to set yourself up as a host in God’s house. In God’s house, He (She? is considered the host, possibly along with His representatives (the clergy). So, when you are inviting people to an event at a house of worship, you are expected to show appropriate humility and not use the form that suggests *you* are the host, and instead of requesting the pleasure of their company, you request the hono(u)r of their presence. In other words, the traditional wording for a house of worship is *not* an attempt to confer additional honor on a ceremony sanctioned by a major religion. It’s just a way of acknowledging that you aren’t hosting that event, you, like everyone else in attendance, are only there to witness the event. This is also why wedding ceremonies in houses of worship are traditionally open to the congregation–since you’re not the host in God’s house, you don’t get to decide who can or cannot be there. You just get to ask your nearest and dearest to come. If the primary part of the invitation were issued for the reception (say, if you were inviting more people to the reception than the ceremony, so you had the big invitation for the reception and enclosed ceremony cards for those who were also invited to the ceremony), you would use the "pleasure" wording even if the ceremony were in a house of worship, because you *are* the host of the reception. Does that make sense? Ericka — The return address on this message works, but it goes to an account I weed out only on occasion. To send me email, send to my first name dot my last name at home dot com and watch the spelling
Response:
What is the reasoning behind the ettiquette rule that if you are having a wedding in a house of worship, on your invitation one requests the "honour of your presence", but if you are *not* having a wedding in a house of worship you "invite" or ask them "to share your joy", or some other such wording? Why is it that you can only be "honoured" if a formal religion is involved? I have looked everywhere for the reasoning behind this and can only find many references to the rule, but no explanation as to what purpose it serves. -Margie to Frank Aug 25, 2001
Comments