c. 1999 Religion News Service

(Kathleen O’Brien is a columnist for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.)

UNDATED _ I have a friend who is an important part of my life. We talk several times a week, and I can’t count the number of times she’s bailed me out of problems big and small.

My heart is full of gratitude toward her, which at this time of year usually translates into a present. However, that would force her to get me a present in return _ thus turning me into a chore.

She’s a busy woman, and so am I. So when the holidays come around, our present to each other is that we don’t exchange presents. She doesn’t shop for me; I don’t shop for her. She doesn’t bake for me; I don’t bake for her. No wrapping; no wrapping.

We have achieved that most blessed of holiday states: Gift Parity.

In this case, that translates into no gifts whatsoever. But as they say, it’s the thought that counts.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are people whom I gladly shower with gifts each year. In return, they gladly shower me. More parity, and for equally fine reasons.

The slightly different version of parity, as near as I can determine, was demonstrated by an acquaintance and his brothers. After years of inept and sporadic gift-giving, one brother suggested they simply exchange bottles of liquor.

This went on, successfully, for several seasons until another brother pointed out it would be far more efficient if they each simply bought themselves a bottle of liquor and kept it. Problem solved.

It doesn’t exactly say “Christmas” to me, but hey, I’m not one of the brothers.

Certain broad classes of people are exempt from any consideration of Gift Parity. The elderly, for instance. At this stage of life, their job is to receive and your job is to give. Period.

Children, as well, form their own large pool of exemptions. At Christmastime, we should all be temporary communists: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In their case, Gift Parity is measured not in dollars, but in thought and effort _ which they should be encouraged to exert, at even a young age.

Given life’s changes, with each passing year one is required to scan the landscape for any newcomers who might possibly show up with an unanticipated present. The new boss, the new neighbor, new step-cousin-in-law, the new whatever _ the potential trouble spots are numerous. You narrow your eyes, weighing the possibilities, wondering, “She wouldn’t … would she?”

Nothing’s more annoying this time of year than to have someone thrust a gift at you when you have nothing to offer in return. Or to receive an unexpected package that arrives from across the country on Dec. 23 _ with no time left to reciprocate. These are situations when you politely exclaim, “Oh, you shouldn’t have!” while murderously thinking, “But dammit, you did!”

And then there are those annoying people who change the rules every few years without telling you, one year showering the entire family with costly gifts, the next year sending a single baby present.

These complaints may seem Scroogelike at first glance, but we beg to differ. There is one crucial distinction: Scrooge objected to unwanted giving. The objection here is to unwanted receiving.

True enough, they do say it is more blessed to give than to receive. But carry it too far and you’ll regret it next year, when you are inundated with cinnamon-scented potpourri from people you barely know, and have no one but yourself to blame.

AMB END O’BRIEN