First off—I don’t like “is it wrong” kinds of questions. In my observation, “is it wrong” tends to precede a statement or question framed for challenging the status quo without realizing the nuances to what is being asked.
Yet, the plain fact is there are too many issues in life we can’t help but have “is it wrong” questions about. So, as an effort to thoughtfully engage these kinds of questions instead of writing them off, I have decided to open an “Is it wrong…” column, per se, on the blog. Each week we’ll take a look at an issue we might wonder “is it wrong” about and unpack it.
This week, we’ll look at the wedding ring. Next week, it might be “Is it wrong to call a same-sex-attracted person ‘gay’?” The next could be, “Is it wrong to listen to secular music” or “Is it wrong to feel sexually aroused when I’m not married?”
We’ll address any “is it wrong” question plaguing our generation.
So if you have something you’re wondering “is it wrong” about, send me a note here and I’ll add it to my list.
For most “is it wrong” questions, there are deeper questions that also need to be asked. It’s not as simple as saying “no it’s not wrong!” or “Yes that is wrong!”
For this reason, I will write these posts intentionally avoiding necessarily answering the question. Instead, I want to provoke us to think deeper. I want us to consider with an open mind what God has to say (or not say) and allow ourselves to be led to a place of alignment with his Spirit—even when it might mean changing our own positions.
I grew up in the conservative Anabaptist church. Early on we would have been a part of the Midwest Conference. Later, in my teen years, we were independent or “nondenominational.” For the last ten years we’ve been kind of a quasi-Biblical Mennonite Alliance church—meaning that we’re associated with the BMA, and appreciate their input into our lives, but have a strong western/Los Angeles feel to our community.
If you want to know what that means, come and visit us. 🙂
I say all this to put on the table that I have clearly grown up (and remain) in a church tradition that opts not to wear the wedding ring. More than that, we are taught—from scripture—why it would be wrong.
But, as I’m sure every church experiences at one point or another, in recent years we have taken second and third looks at the issue, trying to figure out if it’s really who we are or not. After all, for most people we engage out here in LA, not wearing a wedding ring when you’re married is totally foreign to them. Why would we insist on them not wearing one—or worse, taking theirs off?
As we look at this question, let me first explain the teaching against the wedding ring as I understand it. Then I’ll explain some counterarguments, again according to how I understand them. I’ll do my best to give both sides a fair shake so you can begin considering on your own how you might answer this question. And then I’ll end with a few personal thoughts.
Here’s the deal: I don’t know that I have a position on this issue. Writing this article has been as much an exploration for myself as anything else. I hope it helps you as well!
Teachings Against Wearing the Wedding Ring
In 1 Timothy 2:8-10 Paul is expressing his desire that men pray, lifting holy hands, and that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, modesty, and self-control. Paul lists respectable apparel, modesty, and self-control in contrast to braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire (see 1 Timothy 2:9).
1 Peter 3:3-4 says,
Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
And Romans 12:2 reminds us to not be conformed to this world.
From my understanding, these passages have been the foundation for those who decide not to wear the wedding ring. If Paul said “not with gold or pearls,” than that probably includes a wedding ring made out of gold or pearls. If Peter said, “do not let your adorning be external,” than that probably means that we should not adorn ourselves externally.
And since the world does wear gold and jewelry and wedding rings—adorning themselves externally—than we should not; for we are not to be conformed to the world.
To many, it’s a matter of humility versus pride.
In Isaiah 3, God is speaking through the prophet Isaiah to an apostate Israel. Beginning in verse sixteen, he tells his people what he is going to do to them because of their pride: he will strike their heads with scabs; lay bare their secret parts; take away the finery of the anklets, headbands, and crescents; and he will remove the signet rings, nose rings, festal robes, mantles, cloaks, handbags, mirrors, linen garments, turbans, and veils.
There seems to be a connection in this passage between the build-up of gold and pearls and extravagant apparel, and the build-up of pride.
People who teach against wearing the wedding ring (as I experienced growing up) have a strong value for and commitment to obeying God. If scripture says it this clearly, we should clearly obey it. They long to be one with Christ, completely untethered from this world and in perfect unity with God.
To them, if we begin wearing the wedding ring we are disobeying clear commands of scripture. And disobeying clear commands of scripture leads to a change in hermeneutic. In other words, because we want to do something contrary to what scripture teaches, we will begin to interpret scripture differently so that it justifies our doing what we want to do.
At first blush, these arguments seem clear. And since I don’t want contradict God or his Word, why would I ever wear a wedding ring?
But then I hear some of the other side, and things can begin looking a little grey.
Arguments for Wearing the Wedding Ring
I like how Simon Fry begins his series of articles on the wedding ring, which you can read here. He starts by explaining what the wedding ring is not.
It is not a preserving factor in marriage. Wearing something that symbolizes that you are married does not have the power to keep your marriage intact. It is not for warding off ungodly men or women making improper advances. . .It is not even necessary to be worn as a reminder to the wearer of the commitment made to their spouse. If that is the only thing that reminds you that you are married, your vows most likely meant little to you and your marriage is probably on shaky ground already.
Sometimes when I listen to discussions about the wedding ring, these kinds of arguments hold the majority of the floor time. Yet one simple look at statistics of lasting marriages in the United States completely dismantles the concept that the ring has a kind of protective power over the marriage, as Fry denies above.
So for any argument in favor of wearing the wedding ring to hold water, it needs to go much deeper than how it might protect the marriage union.
The nagging question for me is, “What did women in the New Testament church do?” Some have suggested that it was custom to wear rings and scarves and other kinds of beautifying apparel. Therefore, there must be a cultural context to understand for when Paul and Peter were writing.
Some translations add “merely” to 1 Peter 3:3, or adjust it to communicate the concept that we should not depend on or be concerned about outward appearance.
For this reason, some people say the principle Peter is trying to communicate is that the beauty of the heart matters more than the beauty of our bodies. He’s not trying to say we can’t be beautiful on the outside; rather, he is simply emphasizing the importance of the inside.
Besides, they say, this passage doesn’t address the wedding ring—a symbol of marriage commitment. It’s really irrelevant to this discussion.
Furthermore, unlike people who teach against the wedding ring say, the Old Testament never actually condemns wearing jewelry or gold. God takes apparel away as the consequence for the pride, idolatry, and self-sustaining attitude of Israel—but he never condemns the jewels and scarves and long necks themselves.
Rebekah wore jewels (Gen. 24:52-53). The Israelites wore gold, which they used to be mold a golden calf. And God never condemned their use—he condemned the calf (Ex. 32).
Furthermore, Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 and mentions that when the father restored his lost son he “put a ring on his hand” (vs. 22). Jesus doesn’t even seem phased by it. Did he slip and permit something God doesn’t want us to do?
If Jesus is okay with rings, can’t we be okay with rings as well?
So who is right? Who is wrong?
Both sides use scripture to build their arguments. Both sides come from people who love God, value his Word, and are filled with his Holy Spirit. Yet both sides see two (or three or four) different interpretations.
And since there are so many different ways to look at it, is it really that important? Is it kind of a grey area we can let each other apply however we wish?
Can we simply listen to the Spirit of God and if he gives us peace about wearing it, we can wear it?
These are the questions I wrestle with as I sort through this issue. These are the questions we ask in our church as we process it together.
And while I don’t intend to speak for everyone—and I certainly don’t claim to have “heard from God” or thoroughly researched all the data—let me share some personal thoughts I’ve had as I’ve listened, researched, prayed, and listened some more.
My Personal Notes
It seems to me that there will always be people who want to do what they want to do. I can find these kind of people on both sides of this issue. Regardless of whatever data you put in front of them, they will do what they want to do.
They may want to wear the ring, or they may want to insist wearing it is sinful. At any rate, no generation will escape those who aren’t actually that concerned about following God, but more about expressing their own beliefs.
I say this because I agree that when we are trying to justify something that truly is sinful, while also trying to “stay right with God,” we end up changing our hermeneutic (way of interpreting scripture) so we can justify our actions.
But I do not agree that just because someone changes their actions means they are trying to justify sin.
Neither do I agree that changing our hermeneutic means we are trying to justify sin.
And a changed hermeneutic does sometimes lead to a change of actions.
But sometimes we need to change our actions. Sometimes we need to change our hermeneutic to actually be more faithful to God and his Word.
The Bible is a book.
Yes, the original manuscripts are direct words inspired by God himself as the Spirit “carried along” men of God while they wrote (2Pet. 1:21).
But they wrote.
They produced letters, stories, poems, prophecies, deep explanations, jovial historical accounts, and so many different types of literature. Their unique voices sounded through each piece they wrote, and everything they wrote had a specific intended audience. And each audience had situations they dealt with that were unique to their time.
And all of this—the voices, the audiences, and the situations—took place centuries ago and was recorded in ancient languages, which has been translated several times to get to our language today.
What I am saying is that we need to see scripture not only as a living message direct from God, but also as a literary work with a historical and cultural context.
It doesn’t mean we should be less confident in our understanding of scripture. But it does mean we should be more humble in our proclamations of what it says and more open to the fact that how we understand it might be wrong.
In light of this, it might be helpful to understand that our American culture is founded upon guilt versus innocence. We do everything we can to be innocent. When red and blue lights begin flashing in our rearview mirror, we wonder what we did wrong.
We are consumed with figuring out what is right and what is wrong. If we can justify something as being right (or at least not wrong), it gives us peace about doing it.
Middle Eastern cultures, which come from the cultures that would have made up the Bible, are not so much worried about guilt or innocence but about shame versus honor.
They do everything in their power to maintain honor. They’re willing to lie (which we see as wrong) if it upholds one’s honor and dignity.
The worst thing in life for Middle Eastern people is to be shamed (or shame someone they should honor).
In the west, we read scripture pulling out all the rights and wrongs. In the east, they read scripture pulling out all the honor and shame.[1]
This may explain why there are some issues that scripture doesn’t seem to “make clear.”
To us, clarity is knowing plainly what is right and what is wrong. But the writers of scripture and their audiences weren’t as concerned about doing what is right and not doing what is wrong as they were about living honorably and not shamefully.
In the research I’ve done, I find that jewelry stems from animistic backgrounds. It was often used to show ownership or to ward off evil powers at work. Therefore, it seems jewelry originates as symbols of bondage, not freedom.
Furthermore, early church writers such as Turtullian and Clement profoundly rebuked anyone who wore jewelry. Clement went so far as to say that a woman “having put on silk and purple, cannot put on Christ; adorned with gold, and pearls, and necklaces, [she] has lost the ornaments of the heart and spirit.”
(You can check out a couple articles on this subject here and here.)
What I cannot find, however, is hard data on the New Testament church (or even the Early Church) as to whether or not they ever wore an outward symbol of their marriage commitment.
Pretty much every culture has some kind of symbol expressing their commitment to marriage. No, it’s not a magical protective power—and it isn’t even necessary for reminding those committed of their commitment. Rather, this symbol serves as a practical outward expression of an inward reality. It tells the world, “I’m given, I’m committed.” Sure, plenty of people divorce and remarry—it’s not supposed to magically keep people from sinning. But it still serves a purpose of communicating one’s marital status to those around him or her.
Was there any such symbol in the first century church? Was there any such symbol in the cultures of the first century that the church did not participate in?
This could be important information because the wedding ring really is a new phenomenon since Paul and Peter wrote their letters. Could there be a modest, practical way for Christians today to take a cultural symbol and utilize it without “wearing gold jewelry”?
But what if we’re all missing something even deeper?
What if in our effort to do things right we have forgotten the gospel and gotten focused on externals?
What if in our understanding of freedom in Christ we have forgotten the gospel and gotten focused on things we once couldn’t do, but now can?
Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:14-16 that, “one has died for all, therefore, all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sakes died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh.”
This life is not about us.
It’s not about whether we are doing things just right or whether we have the perfect interpretation of scripture. It’s not about making sure we obey every nitty gritty command exactly as God intended us to obey them or else we will fall away from the security of God’s salvation.
This life is not about the fact that I’m saved by grace through faith. It’s not about being able to do things that I once couldn’t do, or about fitting in and being relevant to a culture much different than my own.
This life is not about me.
This life is about Jesus.
And quite frankly, I wonder, sometimes, how much of our denominations are about Jesus? How much are our church rules and church standards focused and enraptured with the reality of Jesus Christ and the connection we have with God because of him?
But I equally wonder how many of us are living our personal lives for Jesus as opposed to living them for ourselves? How many of us are willing to sacrifice privileges and material goods for the sake of glorifying Christ? How many of us are pressing into our relationship with him through prayer as opposed to spending lots of energy to maintain relationships with our best friends? How many of us are deriving our understanding of who Christ is from scripture as opposed to deriving it from the latest song that really spoke to our hearts?
I’m not asking this to be judgmental. I’m asking this because I know firsthand how easy it is to look to external things to make me feel secure and whole.
I get extremely anxious when I can’t see the money to pay next month’s rent. I become impatient with my boys when their need for my attention interrupts my ability to form an eloquent article. I feel insecure and lonely when my wife seems distant or expresses disappointment in something I am doing.
And all of this simply shows how externally, fleshly focused I really am—no matter how much scriptural data I can pull together to prove whatever points I’m trying to make.
Deep inside my soul I tend to approach every day wanting things for me and only me. In the words of Paul David Tripp, “I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want—are you uncomfortable yet?—I want. I want. I want. I want…”
I guess as I process the question of “Is it wrong to wear a wedding ring,” I find myself asking “Why do I want to?” Or “Why do I not want others to?”
In general, whether we’re deciding to wear a wedding ring or trying to get people to take it off, our generation seems to be lost of the gospel—of a deeper heart-transforming life.
If you ask someone what the gospel is, they are likely to answer something along the lines of Jesus dying for our sins and setting us free from death.
You probably won’t find anyone say it is the story of how we have been given the power to live for Christ.
Yet, the latter is a closer presentation of how the Bible portrays the gospel then the former.
I think it’s sad so many churches have rules about external things because most of those churches don’t do very well at leading people in the gospel. They tend to be better at making grey areas clear than at being clear about what the black and white areas really are.
So, I wonder if we began getting really clear on what is clear, would people be better equipped to sort through the grey areas for themselves?
One Final Story
Jose and Ana joined our church family in its very early days. Their children were some of the first in our kids clubs. As we got to know them, and they got to know us, we began seeing how God was (and is) transforming their lives and their family. It seemed they would make a wonderful pastor couple, so Dad (our lead pastor) asked if they would have interest in joining the leadership team.
They did and were excited to serve in such a way.
They are always serving. Our church is a house church and they host the services in their back patio. They work hard to pay bills and work hard to connect with and serve people. So, joining the leadership of the church was a fairly natural transition for them.
The only problem was, we are affiliated with the BMA, and Jose and Ana wore wedding rings.
Dad (our lead pastor) hates asking people to take their wedding rings off. He has hated that as long as I can remember, and he shared that with the BMA leadership as we joined.
When he pastored our last church, which happened to be unaffiliated, he didn’t ask people to take it off. Dad and Mom never wore wedding rings—they didn’t see the need to. But neither has Dad seen the need to ask people to take their rings off.
Until he joined the BMA.
He has appreciated the BMA, and wanted the connection with a larger body than just our small church out here in LA. But this one tiny obstacle presented perhaps his greatest challenge in church planting up to that time.
Here was a godly coupled primed for leadership and he’d have to ask them to take their rings off if they were to be pastors of a BMA church.
So Dad met with Jose and Ana one evening. He expressed his love for them and what he admires about them. And then, as gently as possible, he shared how if Jose would indeed become pastor they would have to take their wedding rings off.
He wasn’t sure how they would respond, but he was confident they would honor God.
It was tough for them both. To portray this event as being easy for Jose and Ana would not be fair to their journey. But Dad’s words to me as he recounted the meeting were that together they felt it was worth doing for Christ and his church. In tears, Ana lifted her hands and said, “anything to serve the Lord.”
I have heard Jose say since that if he were to start a church in Mexico he may not ask people to take their wedding rings off. His point wasn’t in bitterness to our church, to Dad, or to the BMA. His point was that even though his own view may be slightly different, he believes we need to honor the brotherhood of the church we are a part of. Since the brotherhood in our church has chosen to be a part of the BMA, we as a church ought to honor what the BMA holds as valuable.
I think this is at least close to what it looks like to live for Christ. Living for Christ means we are willing to submit to his body as well—which happens to the church we find ourselves a part of.
It’s not as easy as figuring out whether it is right or wrong to wear a ring. It is for more nuanced.
Where is my heart? Who am I living for? Why do I want (or not want) it? What are the brothers around me saying? Have I committed to a body that I ought to be honoring? Am I willing to honor it at the cost of it not being quite right?
As we answer these questions, I believe we get closer to the root of the issue behind whether it is right or wrong to wear the wedding ring.
These posts are naturally intended to generate discussion. I’ve shared my thoughts and observations; now I’d love to hear yours. You can share in the comments below.
[1] I got information on the concepts of guilt vs. innocence and shame vs. honor from Honor & Shame: unlocking the door by Roland Muller who spent his life working with Muslim people in the Middle East.
