Are Christian women aware they are breaking God's law by wearing gold wedding rings to church?

Favorite Answer

You have to ask yourself, "what is the purpose of his writing that?"

Our scriptures are more than just "what they say" - you have to use your God-given intelligence to discern their meaning, otherwise you run the risk of becoming overly fundamental--or worse--extremist...

While we don't know for certain who was in attendance in the little gatherings that were called the early churches, we do know that some early christians were very rich, and some were very poor. So we can safely guess that some were showing up very decked out in rich garb, having their hair done way up and wearing many distracting articles. It could be that this type of *show* made some of the lower classes feel their need.

But even more importantly, since these were new christians, I have to wonder if Paul was trying to point out that they were no longer to be so concerned with ourward appearance (not that it's wrong) but that making a REAL EFFORT to work on the INNER PERSON was what was called for and *required*

At this point you'll note that plenty of Christians around today don't make that effort to work on the inner person, despite how well or how shabbily they may be dressed - they would also be missing the point.

The verse you're speaking of is I Tim 2: *9* btw, not 8 - but that's pretty close.

If you keep reading you'll see even more peculiar writing. Paul tells Timothy that women have to be silent in church, that they can't teach, he points out the hierarchy (that Eve came from Adam and that Eve was the one who was decieved). Then he says the unbelievably CONFUSING statement that *Women will be saved through CHILDBEARING*

Now what the heck is THAT supposed to mean, huh?

On the surface it looks like women are generally supposed to keep gags in their mouths, all women preachers are invalid, women are the sole reason for sin in the world, and that if a woman isn't able to have children - too bad, it's off to hell for her!

But I think we all know that CAN'T possibly be correct. And if you hang around in church long enough, you'll notice that "women will be saved through CHILDBEARING" verse is never, ever mentioned.

Here's some history: No one felt the need to be uber-literal about the bible until about a century ago. There was a rise in scientific information, the age of reason came into play and we had the era of modernism which led Christians to deeply struggle with what to believe. This is when "fundamentalism" was born. The early fundamentalists (who've *evolved into those hyper-evangelical right wing conservative types) decided that all scripture had to be taken "literally". Six days of creation meant six actual days - no braids meant no braids, etc... As you can see, even they have become slightly more moderate. Most evangelicals are not found covering their heads, keeping mum in the church, or going completely without make-up. But they don't even know why they're fundamentalists or what it means to be a fundie - they're simply following a "tradition" of sorts--albeit a new one, and one they're not even aware of in terms of tradition. That literal stance has prevented them from observing that they are now traditionalists.

This gets confusing, doesn't it?

I'm a Christian, and I'm also like a scientist in terms of how I'm handling these questions my faith raises - that's how I know about the origins of fundamentalism, etc... I've been researching.

I have many more questions and I'm sort of on a hilarious quest to find answers so that I'll actually know how to carry out this bizzarre faith of mine.

Right now I'm trying to look at orthodox Christianity, to see if oral tradition can shed som light on some of the other sketchy scriptures (such as women are to be saved through CHILDBEARING--good grief!). I wonder how the old faith handles that scripture. Did you know Eastern Orthodox Christians are relatively new to both North America and Western Europe? It's because they were shut up in the East under the Ottoman rule.

THere was a hugh shism between them and the Romans during what was known as the "re-writing" of the nicene creed. That produced the "Roman Catholics" who went from being loosley organized, to having an extreme hierarchy with a pope on the throne at the top (no offense to Catholics - I realize I'm hadnling my words a little carelessly with my coliquialism). Many centuries later there was another shism which we refer to as the Protestan reformation. Could it be that the protestants might have wanted to get back to the "old way" if only they could have reached the "old church' that was kept tucked away by the Ottomans during that time?

Could it be that fundamentalism is a twig off a protestant branch which stemmed from a catholic limb, which came off the trunk of orthodoxy, which hopefully has Christ as its root?

I don't know. That's one of my current hypotheses. I'm still looking into that. I hope my answers will help explain some of this fuzzy interpretation we have!


Edit: to addres the wedding band specifically ... I'm not sure which culture produced the wedding rings, or if it was a cultural thing to begin with. But that's not totally what matters, right? The fact is, it has *become* our culture to wear them. There isn't anything wrong with keeping one's cultural traditions. I think that's what all the fuss is about between pagans and Christians when early Christians were moving west and talking about their beliefs with early pagans in western Europe. There seemed to be a combination of Christianity with pagan belief.

A lot of the time it's assumed that Christianity *forced* those ancient pagans to (drumroll) convert. Maybe they did in some cases, but I find it hard to believe that they'd still allow for things like mistletoe, and unification of the two paths in symbolism if they were actually saying the old customs were dead wrong.

I can't picture myself (as a kind, loving and accepting person) doing anything of that sort either. I wouldn't convince an athiest to believe what I do and then tell them they have to drop all cultural, familial, and societal modes of life and celebration. I wouldn't ask them to drop all *outward* signs of the person they used to be, or the heritage they came from. Those things are FINE! It's the inner person that needs to shine :) As a christian person, my faith has led me to understand that nothing changes for the better in this world unless I start with myself. In my own personal experience with God, I've seen that I couldn't clearly see *my own self* enough to change the right things without some real spiritual help from above, from someone who knew me better than I knew myself. And it wouldn't have made any sense to start with all the outward things: wedding rings, dress codes, etc... First I needed to see what was really going on with me and where I needed to heal as a human being before I could even know whether my outward appearance was appropriate or not :)

And you know what? I DID change the way I dress a little bit. But it wasn't in terms of dressing more conservatively. I discovered *myself* I was shown that I was a really unique person who loves fun colors and loves antique looking jewlery and it was no longer a matter of *trying to look good* but adorning myself according to my inner nature -- and on the inside I'm kind of a spunky gal :) So the questioning of scriptures like that has actually led me to really cool answers, answers that I wasn't expecting, answers that were beneficial to me as an individual. They never tell me to judge what another person is doing. They seem to suggest that I can still keep growing and becoming more and more alive as long as I keep an open heart and mind and I'm looking toward the light, not the dark, demeaning, disparaging judgemental attitudes toward others......Show more

Yes wife they are but since when can a woman resist sprucing up to be admired ? Most women I know of enjoy the attention even those who pretend to be offended . I have even known some who would go so far as to risk extreme health issues rather than lose the admiration of others this is human nature and rooted in survival instincts . For millenniums if a woman lost the interest of men she became expendable it is only within the last hundred years that this has changed for the better for women ....Show more

I know this is probably going to sound like cherry-picking, but my wedding rings are very modest. The diamonds are tiny, and it's a family heirloom, nothing flashy. I think that Paul was referring to people, in particular women, wearing flashy jewelry.

I think also that that was more about people who went to church just to see what everyone else was wearing, which church-goers even today do. This is wrong. Wearing some jewelry is not wrong. Wearing a huge amount of expensive jewelry in order to show off is wrong.

Besides, let's keep in mind that God looks at a person's heart, not their outward appearance.

Edit: And my rings are also white gold. :)

Good question, though, really. (((RedQueen)))...Show more

I don't understand why anyone would care whether or not a woman wears a ring. If I was a Christian I'd just be glad to get folks in the door of the church. However, I'm not, so I try to look beyond attire & into the heart w/out judgment....Show more

I believe the key word in this passage is "will." The NIV translates it to want.

The Greek word for "will" is "boulomai". It means be willing, be minded, be disposed. This word can be related to the Greek word "thelo" or "willing".

For an example of "thelo" read Matthew 8:2:
A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."

It is pretty clear that Paul was not giving a command to these people, but a suggestion that they should dress modestly (if they are willing). Is it wise for women to dress modestly? Absolutely, however God is not concerned with legalistic rules about dress apparel, but rather with the condition of the person's heart.

1 Samuel 16:7
But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."...Show more