Per your last sentence, did you mean to ask "SHOULD they?" Truth be told, I don't think we're missing the point at all. We're simply not buying into yours for a couple reasons. In summary, you are suggesting that Christian couples in this country SHOULD wear wedding rings in order to avoid what you consider gives the appearance of evil (not wearing wedding bands) because you believe that the general populace automatically and generally assumes that said couples are unmarried if they don't have wedding rings on.mrbilliam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:40 amI fear people are missing the point, either intentionally or not... I am not sure.RZehr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 10:32 pmHe must not have known them all that well.mrbilliam wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:50 pmI knew a missionary couple in a city that was asked by a Wholesale Box store employee while addressing the husband (playfully) "When are you going to make an honest woman out of her".
He said this as he knew them for years, seen them for years, but didn't think they were married as they have no ring. In the American culture, married people most often wear bands. In this case, the appearance of evil would be anti-scriptural, and the man seeing this couple for years figured they were fornicating.
This was an Anabaptist couple that was married for many years. What do we do with this?
It's not about him knowing them well or not. It's the fact that married people in the USA are recognized by the wedding band. It does not have to be an expensive one. By Jesus's own mouth he proclaimed the Father gave the prodigal son a ring, symbolizing something special.
Are Anabaptists just wiggling and squirming their way out of this verse, putting it off, or trying not to recognize what happened in order to continue the "system"? I've heard directly from the source people mis-judged by outsiders of "shacking up" basically, who were married. It gives the appearance of evil.
Do Christians give the appearance of evil to strangers or people they talk to some? My answer would be no.
A. Most of us disagree with your generalized assumption based on our own experiences.
B. More importantly, most of us seem to disagree with your gratuitous and inappropriate stretching of the parable in question to support your premise (equating a 1st century cultural seal of authority with a wedding band).
Again, even the Romans also accused the early Christians of having orgies because they met behind closed doors. I'm not opposed if someone's conscience leads them to wear a simple ring, honestly. But attempting to lay the guilt blanket from your personal conviction onto all conservative Anabaptists is pretty disingenuous, imho. There will always be misassumptions, the answer is not to constantly try to meet whatever standard satisfies the assumptions of an unregenerate world, but to walk in integrity. I'm not opposed to a couple wearing simple rings if they find a legitimate situation where it would bring protection or clearness of conscience, but this parable bit is just downright shaky grounds, if not altogether inappropriate, to push all Christians couples to embrace wedding rings.