Wading through the wedding rings

[Rico]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Thank you!

The slippery slope counts as a principle with me . . .

The vast majority of the secular people I know wear just the one wedding ring, or the set for the ladies. It is seriously not an issue and certainly not the cause for pride, vanity, jealousy and stumbling, at least among the secular/denominal men I know. Occasionally you'll meet somebody that has multiple rings or one on every finger, but then they've usually got other indicators about them that cause everybody to discern that there is a different class represented in that case.

It just makes me wonder if the Apostolic world is the only place where a simple wedding ring can get between a believer and his God.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not going to approach this any differently than I do other similar issues, i.e., what are your eyes resting on when you think about the issue. My test is this: Are you looking at God, wanting to live for him, give the issue to him, and please him fully, or are you looking at the things of this world, and attempting to decide which of them you can fit into your life without letting go of God?

So I'm sitting here looking at my wedding ring, and I think, this is not nor has it ever been the slightest issue for me. I wear it because my cherished bride gave it to me. I wear it to proudly show that I'm the one and only for my one and only. I wear it night and day. I don't envy the sculpted or jeweled bands of other men, because I frankly don't see the appeal. I find elegance in simplicity. I don't secretly desire a signet ring or such. I take it off when I use files and work on electrical devices. Otherwise, I just don't think about it.

I think I might feel hypocritical if I were take it off prior to a visit to a 'no-rings' church. I certainly don't know how I would explain that act to my children. "I'm still married to your mother even when we're visiting here." But I certainly wouldn't want to cause offense or others to stumble.

I'm trying to challenge my own paradigms, but I don't feel like I'm getting very far with this one. I've had my sins under the blood and the Holy Ghost for all these years, more years than I've worn the ring, and now, all of a sudden, *poof* I'm sinning by wearing a ring? I'm open minded but I'm still not sure I see it.

Brother, if you go 50 years or more doing something God never convicts you of, and then He ends up convicting you of it after all those years, would it make the conviction any more or any less from God?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

One of my points is that God-given personal convictions do NOT (generally speaking) cause "offense".
I read someone's signature here that says the difference between tradition and conviction is that the latter can be defended without getting angry. And of course, the FORMER is always going to be what is seen publicaly due to its very nature.

Really? Apparently you missed NLYP's post to Brother Epley. If there is one thing I can say about Brother Epley is that he truly does believe the things he believes. They are convictions for him. He said a true man of God should teach against the wearing of jewelry. I believe he said it because he truly believes it. But NLYP got offended.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I mean, if I am convicted to do something or live my life a certain way, I will not be offended (or at least very little) by others who do not have that same conviction.

However, if it is not TRUE conviction than I need the validation of others doing the same thing I am.

Ok. That makes a little more sense to me.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I said what I did to make the point that folks go around and around on ridiculous issues that make no difference to anything, while neglecting other more important issues. I know of no one who has come to Christ because of someone's position on rings.

Well said, this is another of the non-issues made into an issue, that makes Christians look stupid. Throwing rings off of a bridge??? Misguided carnality supposed to be spiritual. This type thread should not have enough interest to even get started, yet it goes and goes and goes......

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

Why don't we just cut through all the what you or I or they think, it quit simple really! "PEOPLE SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN DOINGS, BUSINESS AND STOP LOOKING TO OTHERS FOR ANSWER THAT ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE"!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I said what I did to make the point that folks go around and around on ridiculous issues that make no difference to anything, while neglecting other more important issues. I know of no one who has come to Christ because of someone's position on rings.

Sooooo, people's personal convictions are "ridiculous issues" to you? Sounds to me like you aren't much different than those who feel it's their way or no way at all, except on the other end of the spectrum.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Today, the emphasis has shifted to, "Let's talk about jewelry, hair, makeup, clothing." Jesus said that it's when we lift Him up that folks are drawn to Him. OPs shouldn't wonder why there is so few being drawn to Christ, when they have allowed themselves to be so preoccupied with the flesh instead of Christ.

Brother, honestly, I have only seen what you are describing online and at one church I attended. In that church's defense, there were plenty of other things that were emphasized all the time as well, such as prayer, study, fasting, strong worship, being an example to the world, etc. It seems that when it comes to online discussions standards dominate a lot of the time, but the same is not true in churches.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

You know I was going to post something else about how our society sometimes blames the victim, but decided to just ask....did you mean it? Did you really mean this how you worded it?

THEY cause others to stumble? I'd suggest if that was the case those others didn't have their mind on Jesus to begin with, but were looking at everyone else with a critical spirit to begin with...to stumble over someone wearing a wedding ring?

I wonder how Paul would deal with that
Php 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me has flourished again. Although you indeed did think, but you lacked opportunity.
Php 4:11 Not that I speak according to need, for I have learned to be content in whatever state I am.
Php 4:12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound. In everything and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

[Monkeyman]

I witnessed something once and it stuck with me for a long time. A very good looking gentleman who was from obvious wealth was waiting at a stoplight. A convertible sports car drove up next to him and the occupants of the car were two beautiful young women. I could see them start to try and get his "eye" and he ever so slyly put his hand in the air and rubbed his ring with his other hand, never once making eye contact with the flirty girls. I thought, what a great husband and I wondered if his wife knew what kind of MAN she was married to. They got the message that day that he was off of the market.

The day my wife takes OFF her ring, please send her a sympathy card for I am taking a dirt nap on the wrong side of the daisies.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You know I was going to post something else about how our society sometimes blames the victim, but decided to just ask....did you mean it? Did you really mean this how you worded it?

I sure did. I've seen it up close, and, unfortunately, I've been in the middle of it.

I spent a stupid amount of money on my wife's engagement ring. I wanted her to know that my offer was serious. I paid cash - not credit. Fast forward 6 or 7 years later. We've moved to a new town, and are attending a smallish church. In response to observing this ring, one of the ladies began trading her ring in on a slightly larger diamond each year. Another lady went nutso into debt to acquire a rock bigger than my wife's. It didn't seem right to her that a younger woman have a bigger diamond. She started to act very strangely. Her husband was the treasurer. There was a scandal regarding 'accounting irregularities' shortly after we had moved away.

THEY cause others to stumble? I'd suggest if that was the case those others didn't have their mind on Jesus to begin with, but were looking at everyone else with a critical spirit to begin with...to stumble over someone wearing a wedding ring?

If I hadn't bought that ring, if I hadn't moved to that town and that church, those people wouldn't have engaged in such wasteful and destructive activities. I suppose you could take the tack that all we did was bring a latent problem to the surface, but I don't enjoy being used in this capacity.

Alright Prax, I answered your questions. How about you answer mine from the original post?

There's a couple of other unanswered questions from earlier, too, Brother Epley and somebody else.