# Are wedding rings agains sinful? (A violation of the regulative principle?)



## Arch2k (Apr 9, 2005)

I have read many places mentioning the fact that the puritans regarded wedding rings as "badges of popery" and the like. I have only read one argument in favor of this (aside from the verses in scripture that address modest apparel). The arguement is that the wedding ring is made to be a sign of the coveanant of marraige that is not warranted in scripture, and therefore sinful. 
Does anyone know of any resources on this subject? 
What puritans taught this and where?
What are your opinions?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 9, 2005)

Just more 17th century polemics, In my humble opinion. I fail to see how the regulative principle regulates something that does not have to do with worship.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 9, 2005)

Actually (gasp) I concur that the RPW cannot properly be applied to a feature of a marriage ceremony since it is a civil affair not a worship service (though it may have elements of worship, including vows). Thus, I find the Puritan stance against wedding rings inconsistent with their view on marriage ceremonies. I see nothing wrong with wedding rings because the Second Commandment is not applicable here.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 9, 2005)

For clarification, are you saying that the RPW does not apply to family/private worship? I don't see a wedding as "public" worship, but family/private maybe?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 9, 2005)

Personally, I do believe the RPW applies to public, family and private worship. (There are obvious differences between each setting, but the Second Commandment applies to all worship.) I do not believe wedding ceremonies or funerals and such fall into any of those categories, although there is some overlap with some elements. 

Weddings fall under the purview primarily of the civil magistrate because marriage is not a sacrament or peculiar to the church but common to all mankind. 

Obviously, though, the church has an important role in the marriage of believers (I commend the Westminster Directory for Publick Worship's  treatment on marriage for further study). 

In other previous threads, I have provided much documentation to show the Puritan thinking behind this perspective (ie., that marriage is primarily a civil affair). 

That being the case, the RPW cannot apply to a marriage ceremony, thus wedding rings are not thereby regulated or prohibited. 

I see Puritan opposition to wedding rings as a rare inconsistency in their theology.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 9, 2005)

The RPW is directly and fully applicable to _public_ worship. God has specifically ordered this one area above all others, explaining *exactly*to us what he will be pleased to receive from our hands. Since he so cares, must we not then do exactly what he has called for, all what he has called for, and only what he has called for?

Certainly, there are aspects of the RPW which apply further, for example one still cannot worship God properly with an "image" just as long as it happens outside of public worship. In that sense our "other" worship is still governed by the Word. But there is no way that the rest of our "continuum of life," lived out before the face of God, falls so thoroughly under its limitations. 

Here's an illustration: could someone go to see a performance of Handel's "Messiah" and not engage in "private worship"? How about listening to it on the stereo? If he didn't, wouldn't that be a violation of the 3rd commandment? But the performance of Handel's "Messiah" can hardly constitute a proper worship service, or even a portion of a (VERY) looooong service, to say nothing of the propriety (or lack thereof) of choirs in worship.

Some parts of our individual worship life, and to a lesser extent our family worship as well, are as unique and variable as individuals and families that make them up. But we are still recognizable as _Christian soldiers,_ and _Christian families._ Then, as we move up to our corporate gatherings, we are the public, visible, inexorable advance of the kingdom (army) of God against the kingdom of Satan. We are a disciplined, precision drilled, functional unity. That is what the display of our public worship ought to be.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 9, 2005)

The Westminster Assembly in their preparations of the Directories for Publick and Family/Private Worship clearly differentiated between aspects that were appropriate for one but not the other (such as preaching the Word, which is confined to lawful ministers in public worship). 

But in no way did they give credence to the idea that the RPW was overthrown in stated times of family or private worship. 

It is one thing to glorify God when reading a Christian poem or hearing/singing along to a Christian song. Handel's _Messiah_ is a classic example. Praise God for this composition! But let us not think that it falls under the purview of public, family or private worship. 

With respect to _stated_ times of worship of any kind, God's Word does not authorize us to compose our own songs or innovate methods of worshipping Him. The proper ordinary elements of worship remain the same (prayer, reading God's Word, singing psalms). 

Again, compare the Westminster Directories for Publick and Family/Private Worship. 

It is important to emphasize that the RPW does all apply to all stated times of worship whether corporate (public), family or private, because otherwise anything goes outside the church, and God's Word simply does not authorize that. The principle that He alone determines what worship is acceptable is applicable in all circumstances, not just in church. 

On the other hand, the RPW is not applicable to all aspects of life and certain events or occasions which may contain religious elements (such as vows at a wedding or in a courtroom, or singing a Christian hymn, etc.) do not thereby make the occasion a stated time of worship to which the RPW applies. 

An image of God, however, is sinful at anytime or place, but God has so decreed in His Word that He cannot be thus represented, it would be a teacher of lies. 

The RPW does not apply to all of life, even occasions that call for us to glorify God (that is a general duty in all of life). In one sense, all of God's moral law applies all the time, but in another sense, each of God's commandments has reference to specific issues involving our relationship to God and man. 

With respect to weddings, to say the RPW applies is to turn the event into a worship service, which then makes it primarily a church matter rather than a civil matter, and that is a direction the Reformers and Puritans did not want to go, since it leads back to Rome.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 9, 2005)

> E.L. Hebden Taylor, _The Reformational Understanding of Family and Marriage_, pp. 8-9, 14:
> 
> Luther denied that marriage was a sacrament and said that two conditions must be present for a sacrament: it must have been specifically instituted by Christ and must be distinctively Christian. Marriage does not qualify in either respect. Luther also taught that marriage is part of the natural order and hence it cannot be included in the sacramental system of the Church and that a religious service is not necessary for a valid marriage.
> 
> A great attempt was made by the Puritans to continue the work of the reformation of family and marriage begun by Luther and Calvin. Thus they tried to establish it upon a civil rather than religious basis by passing an Act of Parliament in 1644 which asserted that 'marriage to be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God but common to mankind and of public interest to every commonwealth.' The Act added, 'notwithstanding, that it was expedient that marriage should be solemnized by a lawful minister of the Word.' A more radical Act in 1653 swept away this provision and made marriage purely a civil matter to be performed by the Justice of the Peace, the age of consent for man was established at sixteen years, and for a woman at fourteen.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 9, 2005)

In my recent study of this issue, I note that Puritan opposition to wedding rings was based on several areas: 1) "heathen" origin, 2) association with Popish views of marriage as a sacrament, and 3) distaste for jewelry or other "ostentatious" items. I personally think such opposition is an over-reaction, unless specific homage is given to its "heathen" or Popish associations, or indeed it is a matter of ostentatious pride. Anything can be abused, but I do not see wedding rings per se as sinful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 9, 2005)

Andrew, 
I think its far too neat a thing to claim that a religious music piece (or poem as you mentioned) doesn't constitute stated worship in any way, which is what I think you have to say if the strict and full RPW gets thrown wider than I would, even over family and individual worship. I question whether your understanding of the RPW's applicability (as expressed) could ever allow one devoted to the RPW to write "the Messiah" or even "Paradise Lost." Do you see what I'm driving at? It's too convenient for an individual to say, "OK now I'm worshipping; OK now I'm not." When do we ever _stop worshipping_ asindividuals, really?

We both agree that all of life _isn't_ worship. and the RPW doesn't apply outside of it's sphere. And, its true that we are limited in all our worship by the Word's standing bounds. We both wrote as much above. It's just my point that the individual's private worship and his life aren't so easily cut and dried. Yes, we may set aside (or state) our personal worship times (now, or in an hour, or tomorrow at 6 A.M.).

But how can a person not worship God, and the _more_ as his mind is progressively engaged in the subject, when he's listening to "the Messiah?" Do you stop yourself short, and say, "oops, I went too far, God is offended?"

I don't think we are disagreeing too much, and certainly not on the subject of weddings and rings, but ... I think the RPW as the RPW deals specifically with public worship, and once you start adjusting it (as even you admit) for other occasions, its no longer the RPW. Its the RPW-Adjusted.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> In my recent study of this issue, I note that Puritan opposition to wedding rings was based on several areas: 1) "heathen" origin, 2) association with Popish views of marriage as a sacrament, and 3) distaste for jewelry or other "ostentatious" items. I personally think such opposition is an over-reaction, unless specific homage is given to its "heathen" or Popish associations, or indeed it is a matter of ostentatious pride. Anything can be abused, but I do not see wedding rings per se as sinful.



Thanks alot Andrew. What resources did you use to study this?


Here is another question: Wedding rings are often said to be "signs" of the covenant between the man and the women. In my thinking today, I had to ask myself "Ok, God created the covenant (not sacrament) of marraige, did HE give it a sign/seal?" Does (gasp) sex constitute a "sign/seal" of the covenant between a man and a women? If so, does a wedding ring somehow undermine the real sign and seal?

Just thinking out loud...

(BTW, the Westminster Directory is very good....when I get married, I would like the minister to follow it.)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Andrew,
> I think its far too neat a thing to claim that a religious music piece (or poem as you mentioned) doesn't constitute stated worship in any way, which is what I think you have to say if the strict and full RPW gets thrown wider than I would, even over family and individual worship. I question whether your understanding of the RPW's applicability (as expressed) could ever allow one devoted to the RPW to write "the Messiah" or even "Paradise Lost." Do you see what I'm driving at? It's too convenient for an individual to say, "OK now I'm worshipping; OK now I'm not." When do we ever _stop worshipping_ asindividuals, really?
> 
> ...



Bruce,

I appreciate your comments but with due respect I think your argument against the RPW applying to private worship is confused. On the one hand you say "when do we ever stop worshipping as individuals?" and on the other you acknowledge that "We both agree that all of life _isn't_ worship. and the RPW doesn't apply outside of it's sphere." 

The RPW does not, in my view, apply to the enjoyment or creation of art, which is what we are speaking of with respect to _Paradise Lost_ or _Messiah_ or any other such edifying work. As I said before, it is one thing to glorify God in all spheres of life; the sphere of worship is different, however, from the sphere of art. What I am saying is that we have not Biblical warrant to bring the sphere of art into the sphere of worship and assume that God will accept it. Let's not confound the spheres - the RPW applies to worship, not art. As you said, the RPW does not apply to all of life, but it does apply to stated times of worship, period. Thus, every person I know who adheres to the RPW appreciates godly art in its proper place and glorifies God for giving talent to men like Handel and Milton. But we draw a bright line between what is acceptable in life general and what God has authorized for his own worship. To say that the RPW does not apply to family or private worship is to draw another sort of bright line, one that has no warrant in Scripture, in my view.

Again, look at the Westminster Directory for Family Worship. Does it say, compose some hymns for your family or private worship? No? It is content to stick with the elements of worship which God has commanded (which are the same for public worship, minus those elements which require church government, ie., preaching, sacraments, etc.). Why? Because the Divines knew that they had no warrant to suggest new elements of worship to individuals and families apart from those they had already identified from Scripture in the Confession's chapter on religious worship. 

Bruce, I think we are in agreement in practical terms as you suggested. However, I think it is important to separate the RPW as applied to stated times of public, family and private worship from every other time of life when we are always generally to glorify God in all that we do. Otherwise, we get a really vague definition of worship and that simply begs for the RPW to be applied to all of life.

[Edited on 4-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Jeff,

My research on wedding rings has been a product of my more general research on marriage and what constitutes a Biblical marriage ceremony. There are a lot of resources on the internet today which trace the history of wedding traditions and customs, including Puritan opposition to having weddings on the Lord's Day or the use of wedding rings, etc. 

There has been no doubt a lot of superstitution attached to wedding rings. If a couple chooses not to use a wedding ring as a symbol of their love, I see no Biblical reason to object. There is no command to use wedding rings in Scripture. In fact, no marriage ceremony is ever spelled out for us in Scripture. However, I see the ring as a thing adiaphra in itself, and as long as one does not make into more than it should be, I don't think that it's abuse can justify its prohibition. And if, as I argue, the wedding ceremony is not a stated time of worship to which the RPW applies, then it is left to individual consciences and preferences as to whether rings are exchanged. 

Did you know that Puritans in colonial America exchanged wedding thimbles instead of rings to provide something that was meant to be practical instead of "mere" outward adornment? 

I personally do not see plain and simple wedding rings as vanity, but rather simple tokens of marital love. 

Here are some historical resources that touch upon Puritan objections to the wedding ring, and other related issues.

The History of the Wedding Ring

Wedding Ring Traditions

Wedding Ring Study


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 10, 2005)

Thanks much Andrew


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 10, 2005)

For those who are interested, I also found this article from Puritan News Weekly: here


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Ok, I hate to interject with nonsense here, but what in the world is wrong with the subject Title of this thread?





That's just my depravity in action!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Actually (gasp) I concur that the RPW cannot properly be applied to a feature of a marriage ceremony since it is a civil affair not a worship service (though it may have elements of worship, including vows). Thus, I find the Puritan stance against wedding rings inconsistent with their view on marriage ceremonies. I see nothing wrong with wedding rings because the Second Commandment is not applicable here.



Andrew agrees with me???? Either he is sliding into heresy or I am growing into a better understanding of Reformed theology! j


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> For clarification, are you saying that the RPW does not apply to family/private worship? I don't see a wedding as "public" worship, but family/private maybe?



Who are you responding to, Jeff? I missed the connection between wedding ringsnand family worship somehow.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



 heh heh

[Edited on 4-11-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I guess I just have questions on if a wedding would be considered merely a civil idea, or a part of a "worship service." The Westminster Divines included it in the Directory of Publik Worship, so that makes me wonder, but then again, it makes sense to put it under the civil arena (with elements of worship).

It is something I will need to study.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 11, 2005)

Jeff,

I think from the sources I have given earlier, it should be apparent that the Westminster Assembly viewed wedding services as primarily civil and not religious affairs. The British Parliament followed their lead by later turning responsibility for wedding services over to justices of the peace. Note the use of the term "solemnization" as applied to weddings in the Directory of Publick Worship. There are other occasions referenced in the Directory that are clearly not worship services (funerals, visiting the sick) and so with marriage the first paragraph on weddings explains why a minister would be involved at all even though marriages are common to all mankind, not just Christians.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 11, 2005)

Thanks Anderew


----------



## Davidius (Feb 12, 2007)

In a class I'm taking right now, we learned that marriage didn't come under the jurisdiction of the church in any significant way until it was declared to be a sacrament by the RCC in the 11th or 12th century. I found this interesting because I read a book last semester entitled "Domestic Relations in 17th Century New England" in which it was written that after the number of sacraments had been cut back down to two, the Puritans held the view described in many comments above that marriage is primarily a civil issue.

My question is: did the Puritans still hold "wedding ceremonies" in churches or were couples declared husband and wife by the civil magistrate without any part being played by ecclesiastical authority? How does the concept of marriage not being an institution falling primarily under ecclesiastical authority weigh on the idea of a wedding ceremony? Should I and my future wife (Lord willing) just take a trip to the courthouse to be declared husband wife and then have a party somewhere?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 13, 2007)

David,

I would recommend reading the Directory for Public Worship on the subject. I think the balance given therin answers your question(s) well.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 13, 2007)

Wouldn't the use of a wedding band only be a violation of the RPW if the church _required_ the wedding band? I don't recall where the WCF or the BOCO requires a wedding band to validate a marriage. 

My understanding of the RPW was a regulation on what the church could requirer a member to do in worship. Thus, the church may not impose any elements of worship not required by Scripture - but leaves a member free to worship in ways that does not violate his conscience. 

We do not burn incense in worship, not because it would be inherently sinful to do so, but because to do so could violate the conscience of some members and it is not required by Scripture.


----------



## ADKing (Feb 13, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Thus, the church may not impose any elements of worship not required by Scripture - but leaves a member free to worship in ways that does not violate his conscience.
> 
> We do not burn incense in worship, not because it would be inherently sinful to do so, but because to do so could violate the conscience of some members and it is not required by Scripture.



This isn't an entirely correct statement of the issue. It _would_ be sinful to burn incense in worship not because it might violate the consciences of some but because God has not commanded it for NT worship. What is not commanded is forbidden. If every single member of your church thought incense burning was OK, it would still be forbidden because God has not authorized it.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 13, 2007)

ADKing said:


> This isn't an entirely correct statement of the issue. It _would_ be sinful to burn incense in worship not because it might violate the consciences of some but because God has not commanded it for NT worship. What is not commanded is forbidden. If every single member of your church thought incense burning was OK, it would still be forbidden because God has not authorized it.



But that does not make it a sin. And it's not a matter of authorizing forms of worship, but requiring them. It is forbidden that the church require the burning of incense. The sin is committed by the church in requiring what the bible does not. The bible does not requirer us to eat meat, or watch TV, or play music during worship. But none of these are a sin. The bible says we should not force other people to do things that violate their consciences. The RPW is not a principle that helps one determine what forms of worship are sinful. It limits what forms of worship the church may impose on it's members. The RPW does not make sense otherwise. 

Some might argue that incense burning is authorized. Others would say the musical instruments are not required. I would say incense should not be burned because the bible does not requirer it, and anything the church requires should be required by Scripture. Not simply "authorized". To paraphrase, all things are permitted (authorized), but not all things are profitable (required).


----------



## ADKing (Feb 13, 2007)

Civbert said:


> But that does not make it a sin. And it's not a matter of authorizing forms of worship, but requiring them. It is forbidden that the church require the burning of incense. The sin is committed by the church in requiring what the bible does not. The bible does not requirer us to eat meat, or watch TV, or play music during worship. But none of these are a sin. The bible says we should not force other people to do things that violate their consciences. The RPW is not a principle that helps one determine what forms of worship are sinful. It limits what forms of worship the church may impose on it's members. The RPW does not make sense otherwise.
> 
> Some might argue that incense burning is authorized. Others would say the musical instruments are not required. I would say incense should not be burned because the bible does not requirer it, and anything the church requires should be required by Scripture. Not simply "authorized". To paraphrase, all things are permitted (authorized), but not all things are profitable (required).



You are of course free to hold this opinion, but might I suggest that this is not the historical definition of the RPW as embodied, for example in the WCF. In the understanding of historic reformed theology and the Westminster Standards what is not commanded (in worship) _is_ forbidden, not only for the church to impose but for anyone to engage in. But we are getting far afield from the topic of this thread, so I will bow out. Peace.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 14, 2007)

ADKing said:


> You are of course free to hold this opinion, but might I suggest that this is not the historical definition of the RPW as embodied, for example in the WCF. In the understanding of historic reformed theology and the Westminster Standards what is not commanded (in worship) _is_ forbidden, not only for the church to impose but for anyone to engage in. But we are getting far afield from the topic of this thread, so I will bow out. Peace.


I believe you are right on all accounts. I am still working to make sense of the RPW (which I agree with in general) and I think my understanding may not correspond to the historical one. And yes, we are getting off the topic. So I too will bow out and save this tangent for another time. 

Thanks for the interesting discussion.


----------

