A
Few Personal Observations by Roger W. Coon
Former Associate Secretary
Ellen G. White Estate
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
| INTRODUCTION |
| |
1. |
Immediately
upon the adjournment of the 1986 Annual Council Session of the General
Conference at world headquarters in Washington, D.C., at 12 noon on
Nov. 11, the "year-end meeting" of the North American Division Committee
was convened (at 1:30 p.m.) to transact the business of this Division
of the world field. |
| |
|
a. |
The
first substantive issue to be discussed was the question of Division
policy concerning jewelry/adornment in general, and the wedding band
in particular. |
| |
|
b. |
The
"lively" debate of three hours duration focused largely
upon whether candidates for baptism and church membership should be
permitted to continue wearing a "simple"[non-jewelry] wedding
band if such had been their practice before. (1) [See Appendix
A] |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Some
14 years earlier the General Conference Officers and North American
Union Conference Presidents had met (on Oct. 2) prior to the opening
of the 1972 Annual Council, to consider how the church in North America
should relate to the growing practice of members wearing the wedding
band. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
They
reaffirmed their opposition to the wearing of ornamental jewelry (and
an action to that effect was taken subsequently by the 1972 Annual
Council). |
| |
|
|
(3) |
They
voted a non-binding Statement of "Counsel Regarding the Wedding Band
in North America" which: |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
Recognized that some conscientious SDA Christians felt that cultural
conditions in North America were substantially different from those
obtaining on this continent in 1892 when EGW counseled Americans
not to wear the wedding band, but added that she would not condemn
those living in countries where the custom was culturally obligatory
from so doing.(2) |
| |
|
|
|
(b)
Recognized that there existed no prohibition to the wearing of a
simple wedding band in the Bible, the writings of the Spirit of
Prophecy, or the S.D.A. Church Manual.
(c) Recognized an "apparent" consensus still existing in North America
which made little or no distinction between the wedding band and
ornamental jewelry.
(d) Urged SDA ministers to continue discouraging the wearing of
the wedding band among their church members in North America.
(e) Instructed SDA ministers not to perform ring ceremonies at weddings
of members in North America.
(f) Yet, finally, took "the position that a person who on the basis
of conscience feels Obligated to wear a plain wedding band should
not be denied baptism."(3) |
| |
|
c. |
After
more than "two dozen speeches, remarks, and declarations," many still
opposing any liberalization from the previous de facto total ban against
SDA church members wearing a wedding band in North America, a resolution
reaffirming the 1972 counsel statement was adopted as church policy
in North America, along with continuing explicit opposition to the
wearing of ornamental jewelry and an "appeal for a commitment to simplicity
in lifestyle . . . to halt the rising tide of worldly attitudes and
practices" of recent years.(4) [See
Appendix B] |
| |
2. |
Publication
of this policy, known to be controversial when it was adopted, resulted
in an expected hue and cry of opposition by ultra conservative elements
within the church, whose statements were generally characterized as
strident (if not bellicose and belligerent), highly emotional, and
not well supported factually. |
| |
|
a. |
Much
of the argumentation of the opposition was based upon four assumptions,
none of which is true: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
That
Ellen White, during her lifetime [1827-1915] consistently forbade
the wearing of any wedding band at any time and in any place within
the SDA Church, that she classed the simple non-jeweled wedding
band in the category of ornamental jewelry, and that she wrote extensively
and repeatedly against the practice of the wearing of the wedding
band. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
That
the General Conference, from its earliest days, adopted an official
policy against the wearing of any wedding band, and that this policy
continued until the 1986 action in Washington which overturned more
than a century of precedent to the contrary. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
That
the SDA Church Manual historically always reflected the GC
policy against wearing wedding bands, until it was forced to reverse
itself by the more recent liberalization policy. |
| |
|
|
(4) |
That
the wearing of a simple, non-jeweled wedding band in North America
is now no longer to be discouraged by pastors in that Division of
the world field. |
| |
3. |
What
are the demonstrable facts? |
| |
|
a. |
Ellen
White: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Recognized
that in her day the custom of wearing a wedding band was considered
de rigueur throughout the British Empire, Europe, and in many
other parts of the world—a cultural imperative—and she accepted
the status quo as applicable to SDAs in such places. |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
In this particular context EGW did not equate the wedding band with articles of
ornamental jewelry proscribed by Scripture.
(b) She reproved a Swiss SDA minister as being an extremist for
publicly urging SDA married women in his country to remove their
wedding bands because he viewed them as jewelry.
(c) She voiced no objection to the wearing of a wedding band by
her future daughter in-law, when asked counsel by the young woman
(an SDA) prior to her marriage to widower Elder William C. White
in Australia, in 1895; and the couple were subsequently married
in a ring ceremony in the State of Tasmania. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Wrote
once (and only once) on the subject, in 1892, in a testimony addressed
jointly to SDA church members and SDA missionaries from North America
resident in Australia, in which she: |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
Told the Americans they did not need to wear it in Australia because
it was not then a custom of imperative obligation in America,
and that Australians would understand that distinction; and
(b) Told Australians she had no disposition to condemn them (or
others living in a country where the custom was "imperative") if—in
such places—the SDA Christian could wear it in good conscience. |
| |
|
b. |
The
General Conference: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Has
never explicitly addressed the question of the rightness or
wrongness of SDA Christian church members wearing a wedding
band, as such; in countries where it is considered a matter of imperative
social, cultural obligation, it "had no disposition to condemn." |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
From 1925 through 1986 it has asked SDA ministers not to perform
ring ceremonies. |
| |
|
c. |
The
SDA Church Manual, reflecting the position of the General Conference
(for which it serves as the official "constitution"), has referred
to the wedding band in only two ways in its entire history: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
From
1932 to 1951 it reiterated the 1925 Annual Council action which looked
"with disfavor upon the ring ceremony" at, SDA weddings, and |
| |
|
|
(2) |
From
1951 to 1986—the most recent edition—it recognized that
in places where the wearing of a wedding band was deemed a matter
of imperative social, cultural obligation the church "had no disposition
to condemn this practice." [See Appendix C] |
| |
|
|
(3) |
The
Church Manual will not necessarily be affected by the 1986
NAD policy action because the CM speaks for the world church,
whereas the NAD policy seeks to apply an unchanged GC policy to the
North American field. |
| |
|
d. |
The
1986 NAD policy reaffirmed the recommendation ("counsel") voted by
the GC Officers and North American Union Conference Presidents in
1972, that in North America "we discourage the use of
the wedding band" in SDA churches; and that "discouragement" is still
the official policy of the church in North America. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
The
only thing that changed in 1986 was that the wearing of a simple wedding
band would now no longer be a bar to baptism and/or church membership. |
| |
4. |
For
the past two decades, especially, the question of "to-wear-or-not-to-wear"
has increasingly polarized congregations (especially in North America,
where the issue is most acute). |
| |
|
a. |
It
has threatened the life and vitality of the local church in many places. |
| |
|
b. |
Churches
have been sundered, with "a great gulf fixed" between two opposing
camps. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Members
often tend to defend their personal position to the death. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Such
tend not to listen to fellow members with opposing views, and to dismiss
out of hand evidence and arguments offered by such. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
The
result is two sides not talking to—but, rather, past—each
other, a virtual "dialogue of the deaf." |
| |
|
|
(4) |
And
they tend to consign opponents to hopeless oblivion. |
| |
|
c. |
As
a result, the topic has been artificially (and unnecessarily) inflated
to an importance vis-a-vis the subject of salvation, all out of proportion
to that which it properly deserves; and other important issues, of
greater significance, which should be discussed, are either
relegated to the background, or are not considered at all. |
| |
5. |
This
presentation, therefore, does not purport to be either the "General
Conference position," nor the "White Estate position." |
| |
|
a. |
Rather,
it represents the present thinking of one minister,
as he reflects upon experiences and problems with which he has had
to deal in the past 40 years of service to his church. I here speak
only for myself. |
| |
|
b. |
My
own personal policy—and practice—in North America,
for the past four decades has been consistently to discourage the
wearing of the wedding band by members and candidates for baptism
and membership, for reasons which I think are still rational, valid,
and compelling. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
And,
after having made the approach which I share later in this paper,
I have yet to be turned down for the first time! |
| |
|
c. |
I
have, however, increasingly resisted efforts of those who share my
conviction that compelling arguments may still be offered for the
non-wearing in North America, where such have gone about their
task: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
In
what (for me) is the "wrong" way, rather than the "right," and |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Using
what (for me) are "bad" reasons/arguments, rather than the "good." |
| |
|
d. |
Neither
I nor my wife have ever owned or worn a wedding band, though we lived
in another culture on another continent for 12 years, and though we
have both traveled and worked since on all six continents of the world. |
| |
6. |
In
this paper, therefore, we will examine, successively, |
| |
|
a. |
The
historical background of the issue among Adventism. |
| |
|
b. |
The
contribution of Adventism's prophet, Ellen G. White, on the subject,
from the perspective of both her teaching and practice. |
| |
|
c. |
Suggestions
for those who join me in continuing to seek to discourage the wearing
of a wedding band by SDA Christians, in North America, with regard
to what I view as: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
The
"right" way, rather than the "wrong," and for |
| |
|
|
(2) |
"Good"
reasons, rather than "bad." |
| |
|
|
|
|
| I.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE QUESTION |
| |
1. |
Seventh-day
Adventism arose in the middle 19th century in New England as a result
of the "Advent Movement" generated by William Miller, a Baptist farmer-turned-preacher
who heralded the return of Jesus Christ to earth, first, "about 1843,"
and later on October 22, 1844. |
| |
|
a. |
The
Millerites were almost universally ultra-conservative in their individual
life-style. |
| |
|
b. |
Most
(including Ellen G. White herself) came out of a very strict Methodist
background which frowned on jewelry, card-playing, gambling, dancing,
cosmetics, etc., as being "worldly." As such, many still heeded the
admonitions of Methodism's founder, John Wesley: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Review
and Herald editor James White published a long statement "On Dress,
From Mr. Wesley's Advice to the People Called Methodists." And in
it Elder White encouraged SDAs to plainness in all aspects of their
unique life-style.(5) |
| |
|
c. |
The
wearing of the wedding band seems not to have been practiced by the
earliest SDA founders and pioneers who for many years lived and labored
exclusively in North America. |
| |
2. |
In
the last half of the 19th century, however, the USA became a "melting
pot," as wave after wave of immigrants arrived on our shores, first
from Europe, then from other continents. |
| |
|
a. |
Such
immigrants, quite understandably, brought with them their former national
customs, including that of the wearing of the wedding band. |
| |
|
b. |
Some
of these were converted to the SDA Church. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Often,
out of deference to local customs and traditions, they would remove
the wedding band, lest anything be allowed to come in to mar the precious
unity of believers in Jesus. |
| |
|
c. |
SDAs,
responding to a growing awareness of their obligation to take the
Advent message to all corners of the world, began to send out missionaries,
first to Europe, then to other continents and island fields. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Here
they often came into contact with local national customs other than
their own (including—in some quarters—the wearing of the
wedding band by married women, and even men, as a matter of imperative
social obligation). |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Apparently,
in a desire to meet the spirit of the apostle (and missionary) Paul
(see 1 Corinthians 9:20-23) some SDA missionaries apparently adopted
the custom of wearing the wedding band. |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
And also, apparently, when
they returned home to North America they continued the practice, to
the growing concern and disapproval of their less-traveled fellow
believers. |
| |
3. |
The
question of the propriety of this custom within Adventism—in
North America, and in other places—was raised increasingly during
the succeeding decades of the 19th century. |
| |
|
a. |
By
the 1890s, Adventism's prophet and co-founder of the church, now residing
in Australia, penned her one-and-only statement of counsel upon the
subject. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
It
originally appeared as "Letter 2b, 1892," written on August 3, from
Preston [Melboume], Victoria. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
It
was addressed to "My Dear Brethren and Sisters." The context strongly
suggests that the immediate intended audience comprised: |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
Primarily Australian Adventists.
(b) Secondarily American Adventist missionaries in Australia.
(c) Ultimately the church back in North America. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
It
was first published July 21, 1895, by 0. A. Olsen.(6) |
| |
|
|
(4) |
And
it found final published form, in 1923, in the posthumous compilation,
Testimonies to Ministers, as the eighth (and final) paragraph
of a testimony with the overall title "Economy to be Practiced in
All Things."(7) [See Sec. II, below.] |
| |
|
b. |
The
wearing of the wedding band was here discouraged by Mrs. White, except: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
In
countries where it was seen to be a matter of imperative social obligation,
and |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Where
SDA Christians—in that context—could wear it in good conscience. |
| |
|
c. |
Mrs.
White did not (in this, her only statement on the question)
place the question on the level of the 10 Commandments (where no exceptions
to the rule are permitted, at any time, in any place). |
| |
|
|
(1) |
It
was not given the status of a black-and-white moral issue,
such as the total prohibitory ban against Sabbath-breaking, lying,
stealing, adultery, etc. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
This
is not to say, however, that there are no moral issues involved in
the total consideration of the question of wearing the wedding band. |
| |
|
d. |
While
in Australia, Ellen White's son, Elder William C. White, a widower,
remarried; and his mother expressed no objection to her new daughter-in-law's
wearing of a wedding band after their marriage. [See Sec. II, below,
for details.] |
| |
|
e. |
However,
Ellen White herself never wore a wedding band, either in America,
or in Europe (1885-87), or in Australia (1891-1900). |
| |
4. |
During
the 20th century the question of "to-wear-or-not-to-wear" became increasingly
a matter of agitation and irritation in North America. |
| |
|
a. |
With
the passage of each succeeding decade the numbers within the SDA church
who declared that the wearing of the wedding band had now become a
matter of imperative social obligation in America grew increasingly
larger and more vocal. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
And,
today, there are many who allege that, as far as the custom goes,
America in the 1980s is now at the point where Australia was in the
1890s. |
| |
|
b. |
Cross-cultural
currents continued to take many North American SDAS abroad to lands
where the wearing was held to be socially obligatory, and to bring
many non-North Americans to the New World, where—increasingly—many
if not most in local churches continued to resist the practice as
a form of "creeping compromise" with the world. |
| |
|
c. |
In
1930 an Australian SDA minister was elected president of the GC. Upon
arrival in the USA his wife continued to wear her wedding band. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
And
some in the churches felt this justified their adopting the custom. |
| |
|
d. |
Some
local churches (and even some local conferences) went so far as to
take matters into their own hands, and (illegally) pass restrictive,
punitive regulations to preclude wearers of the wedding band from: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Baptism, |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Membership
in the SDA Church, |
| |
|
|
(3) |
The
holding of local church office, and |
| |
|
|
(4) |
Employment
by any agency or organization of the SDA Church. |
| |
|
e. |
In
1969 the North American Union Conference Presidents in Council reviewed
the matter of "to-wear-or-not-to-wear": |
| |
|
|
(1) |
They
recognized "that custom in North America is changing somewhat." |
| |
|
|
(2) |
They
still felt, however, that the custom was not yet "obligatory" or "demanded"
by custom on this continent. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
They
therefore continued to "discourage" its use in their territory. |
| |
|
|
(4) |
They
requested SDA ministers not to perform ring ceremonies. |
| |
|
|
(5) |
They
suggested that among members who felt it to be all right to wear the
wedding band, they be counseled to remove it: |
| |
|
|
|
(a) During
the rite of their baptism, and/or
(b) While
serving as an officer in a local church lest the consciences of
fellow church members be affronted and offended. |
| |
|
f. |
On
August 9, 1971 the North American Division Officers considered a proposal
which, had it been voted [it was not adopted], would: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Discourage
the wearing of the wedding band whenever and wherever possible. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Remind
pastors of the fact that the Church Manual did not prohibit
baptism for those who felt they could wear the wedding band
conscientiously. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
Urge
pastors "against establishing individual standards" [tests of membership
or officership] in this matter. |
| |
|
|
(4) |
Remind
pastors of the earlier decision that they not conduct ring ceremonies
for church members. |
| |
|
|
(5) |
Discourage
church employees [denominational workers] from wearing the wedding
band on the grounds that to do so would exert an undesirable influence.(8) |
| |
|
g. |
As
already noted, on Oct. 2 1972 the General Conference Officers voted
a Statement of "Counsel Regarding the Wedding Band in North America,"
recommending that the practice need not constitute a bar to baptism/membership
of conscientious Christians who felt that they must continue to wear
it. But even in opening the door of accommodation ever so slightly,
the leaders were concerned that the church not "lower its standard,
blur its identity, or muffle its witness."(9) |
| |
|
h. |
Finally,
again as already noted, on Nov. 11, 1986, the North American Division
Committee voted to make the "counsel" of Oct. 2, 1972, the official
policy of the Division. |
| |
5. |
There
is a growing number in the SDA Church today who affirm, vigorously,
that the custom of wearing the wedding band in North America in the
1980s is as obligatory socially as was the custom in Australia, the
British Empire, and Europe in the 1890s, which was addressed by Ellen
White. |
| |
|
a. |
Others,
with equal vigor, aver that the two decades are not properly to be
so equated. |
| |
|
b. |
The
fact remains that it is probably impossible to "prove" either position. |
| |
|
c. |
We
therefore turn next to a detailed examination of Ellen White's position. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| II.
ELLEN WHITE'S
POSITION ON THE WEARING OF THE WEDDING BAND |
| A. |
The
Published Statement |
| |
Some
have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling
that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All
this is unnecessary. Let the ministers wives have the golden link
which binds their souls to Jesus Christ. a pure and holy character,
the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne
upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere.
The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good
reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood
by plainly stating that the custom Is not regarded as obligatory in
our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our
marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that
we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems
to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion.
Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that
we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have
no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them
wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries
feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one
jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest In their
Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the
home, in association with others it will be evinced by their patience
and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of
the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness
of disposition, His sympathetic heart,(10) |
| B. |
An
Analysis of the Passage: EGW Raises at Least FOUR Major ISSUES: |
| |
1. |
The
Issue of INFLUENCE: she holds that the wearing [by American
missionaries in Australia in 1892] is unnecessary for the following
reasons: |
| |
|
a. |
If
the church worker has a pure, holy character, it will be evident in
fruitage in his life. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Therefore
his influence will be secure. |
| |
|
b. |
The
fact that non-compliance [by Americans in Australia in 1892] occasions
public comment is insufficient reason for adoption of the custom: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Americans
can always say plainly that it is not [for them, in1892, in Australia]
a national custom, even in their own country. |
| |
|
c. |
The
irrelevance of the custom: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Wearing
is not a proof of marital fidelity. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Abstinence
from wearing is not proof of marital infidelity. |
| |
|
d. |
Compliance
[by Americans, in Australia, in 1892] will not enhance their influence
"down under": |
| |
|
|
(1) |
If
one is a Christian, the evidence of Christ-likeness will be borne
as fruit in the character. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
The
true Christian will always manifest the Spirit of the Master by reflecting
His beauty of character, loveliness of disposition, and sympathetic
heart. |
| |
2. |
The
Issue of LEAVENING OF THE CHURCH [in America]: |
| |
|
a. |
The
wearing of the wedding band [in America by SDAs, in 1892] is another
example of conformity [there] to custom/fashion, insidiously coming
in among our people [there] [since the wearing of it is not a national
custom there in 1892]. |
| |
3. |
The
Issue of STEWARDSHIP of Finances: |
| |
|
a. |
Not
one penny should be spent [by Americans, in 1892] for this purpose. |
| |
4. |
The
Issue of INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE: |
| |
|
a. |
We
recognize and accept the fact that the wearing of the wedding band
is a matter of imperative social obligation in some countries [in
1892]. |
| |
|
b. |
As
such, we have no burden to condemn the wearing of it, under those
circumstances. |
| |
|
c. |
We
leave this matter, therefore, at the altar of personal conscience,
to be decided between the individual Christian and his God. |
| C. |
Ellen
White's Position in Europe [1885-1887]: |
| |
1. |
Mrs.
White served as a missionary in Europe for two years. |
| |
|
a. |
During
this time she had to meet the wedding band issue there. |
| |
2. |
In
Basel, Switzerland, a series of meetings was held late in 1885. A
Brother [a European SDA minister] was preaching on the subject of
plainness of dress. One evening he denounced the wearing of jewelry,
including the wearing of rings. One worshipper spoke up to inquire
if he included the wedding band. He responded, "Yes, everything."
It created no small stir, because in Europe the wearing of the wedding
band was not viewed as a matter of ornamentation, but rather, as a
token of marital fidelity. The question was referred to Mrs. White.
According to her son, W. C. White (who was present), "She said that
where the wearing of the wedding ring was demanded by custom as a
matter of loyalty, our preachers should not press the matter of its
being laid aside."(11) |
| D. |
Ellen
White's Position In Australia (1891-1900]: |
| |
1. |
Mrs.
White's son, Elder W. C. White, was a widower while serving with
his mother in Australia. He fell in love with, and became engaged
to, Ethel May Lacey. May was a British young woman, born in India,
educated in Britain, and now [in 1895] living in Tasmania, Australia.
(In all three of these countries the culture not only accepted but
demanded wearing of the wedding band as a sign of marital fidelity.)
May's father was in the British police service, and he had now retired
in Australia.(12) |
| |
|
a. |
Anticipating
a problem, because she was British (and knowing of Ellen White's objection
to American missionaries in Australia wearing the wedding band), May
went to her future mother-in-law (Mrs. White) to seek counsel. Shortly
thereafter May wrote to her fiance, "Willie," and reported the interview:
"She [EGW] says she has no objection whatever to my wearing one."(13) |
| |
|
b. |
The
couple was married at the bride's home in Tasmania. As there were
no SDA ministers on that island at that time, the service was conducted
by an Evangelical clergyman; a ring ceremony was performed. May subsequently
wore her wedding band on the trip from Tasmania to Australia's mainland;
and for several weeks thereafter she continued to wear it.(14) |
| |
|
c. |
Then,
a little later, May removed her wedding band. Noting that fact, her
new husband inquired as to the reason. She replied simply that it
had gotten in the way while she was doing the family washing.(15) |
| |
|
d. |
She
never again wore this simple, plain band of gold, neither in Australia,
nor on the journey from Australia to the United States, nor during
her subsequent years in America. Her wearing of it, in Australia,
in the 1890s, was in total harmony with the EGW counsel as published
in the single statement in TM 180-81.(16) |
| |
|
|
|
|
| III.
A POSITION FOR
NORTH AMERICA—A Personal Statement |
| |
1. |
I
have served in North America as a pastor of three churches in Southern
California (four years), as a professor of religion at Pacific Union
College (eleven years), and—most recently—as senior pastor
of the GC "headquarters" church in Takoma Park, MD (three years). |
| |
|
a. |
In
addition, my wife and I spent twelve years as missionaries in West
Africa. |
| |
|
b. |
And
in our present work (I in the White Estate, she as an assistant auditor
in the GC Auditing Service), we have traveled together in North America,
Europe, Africa, and Asia. |
| |
|
c. |
Neither
of us has ever worn (or even owned) a wedding band. |
| |
2. |
I
am, however, willing to grant any SDA member his or her private conviction
that the wedding band is, today, in North America, a matter of imperative
social obligation. |
| |
|
a. |
Although
I do not myself yet see it that way, and although my policy and practice
in North America continue in the direction of discouraging its wearing
(for reasons to be set forth in detail below), I resist relating in
any kind of judgmental, condemnatory manner toward those who feel
that they in good conscience should wear it. |
| |
|
b. |
In
seeking to persuade wedding-band wearers to become non-wearers, I
have strenuously endeavored to conduct myself in the right way
(and not in what I perceive as the wrong way), and I have endeavored
to use what I conceive to be the right reasons (even as I have
endeavored to avoid using what I strongly believe to be the wrong
reasons). |
| |
|
c. |
Let
me explain what I mean by this statement. |
| A. |
The
"Wrong" Way Versus the "Right"Way |
| |
1. |
The
WRONG WAY—for me—is to impose coercion in order to achieve
conformity. |
| |
|
a. |
This
may be done overtly or covertly. |
| |
|
b. |
Its
most frequent manifestations are in refusing the "offender" the privilege
of baptism, church membership, church office, or even social fellowship
with other believers within the local church community. |
| |
2. |
Ellen
White made it clear while she was alive that "it is no part of Christ's
mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men
actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience.
. . . Christ is ever. . . seeking to win by the revealing of His love.
. . but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender
of the heart under the constraint of love."(17) |
| |
|
a. |
In
1906 (while the prophet was still alive), her son, Elder W. C. White,
received a letter from an SDA member in Grand Rapids, Mich., inquiring
as to the propriety of selecting as a church officer one who wore
a wedding band. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
He
replied: "In the teaching of the gospel we must always be outspoken
regarding the principles of simplicity in dress, but we need not enter
into the specific work of saying that individuals [who] wear the wedding
ring . .. are to be disciplined by the church. . . . I have seen very
devoted, earnest people wearing the wedding ring, wearing the gold
watch, wearing the gold chain, and I felt no burden to say to them,
You must lay it off."(18) |
| |
3. |
In
1881 Ellen White wrote concerning another item in the category of
dress, the "reform dress" which she had advocated for some time. Certain
statements made concerning the attitude of some church members pressing
this reform unduly in her day seem (to me, at least) to have somewhat
of a parallel in the discussion today on the non-wearing of the wedding
band: |
| |
|
a. |
"Some
who adopted the reform [dress] were not content to show by example
the advantages of the dress, giving, when asked, their reasons for
adopting it, and letting the matter rest there. They sought to
control others' conscience by their own. If they wore it, others
must put it on. They forgot that none were to be compelled
to wear the reform dress." |
| |
|
b. |
"It
was not my duty to urge the subject upon my sisters. After
presenting it before them as it had been shown me, I left them
to their own conscience." |
| |
|
c. |
"Much
unhappy feeling was created by those who were constantly urging the
reform dress upon their sisters. With extremists, this reform seemed
to constitute the sum and substance of their religion. It was the
theme of conversation and the burden of their hearts; and their minds
were thus diverted from God and the truth. They failed to cherish
the spirit of Christ and manifested a great lack of true courtesy." |
| |
|
d. |
"Some
were greatly troubled because I did not make the dress a test question,
and still others because I advised those who had unbelieving husbands
or children not to adopt the reform dress, as it might lead
to unhappiness that would counteract all the good to be derived from
its use."(19) |
| |
4. |
An
important distinction needs to be made between the teachings
of the church and the tests of the church: |
| |
|
a. |
William
H. Branson, while President of the General Conference [1950-54],
addressed clergy of our church on this subject. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
He
distinguished between Bible doctrines--the acceptance of which is
a test of church fellowship, and therefore is required—and
the teachings concerning certain standards—which the church
advocates, but finally leaves to the individual conscience of the
member (or prospective member). |
| |
|
|
(2) |
He
wrote: "Some of these [latter] matters that are not tests for membership
should be taught but not enforced upon the people. After proper instruction
is given, then the matter of compliance must be left to the individual
conscience." Not every teaching is a test. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
And
he pointedly warned pastors and laity alike that for them to impose
their own private tests of membership or officership in the church
would serve only to "bring in confusion," and would thereby make them
out of harmony with the body of the church generally.(20) |
| |
|
b. |
In
1984 Andrews University Professor Robert C. Kistler, in a slightly
different context, came to the matter directly in his book on labor
unions: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
"It
is important to differentiate between what is a teaching of the church
and what is a test of fellowship. The Seventh-day Adventist Church
has some teachings which it encourages members to follow, but will
not disfellowship them if they do not. Such teachings are regarded
as a matter of individual conscience reflecting growth in grace rather
than as a doctrine of the church. In addition to [the teaching against
labor] union membership, such teachings would include the desirability
of a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet; the teaching in North America against
the wearing of wedding rings; the blessing that comes from giving
generous offerings to the church s program in addition to the practice
of tithing, and similar points."(21) |
| |
5. |
It
cannot be too strongly pointed out that: |
| |
|
a. |
The
Church Manual is the only constitution of the SDA Church. |
| |
|
b. |
Tests
of membership and of officership for the church at large can only
be voted by a General-Conference-in-Session (after which they are
incorporated into the Church Manual). |
| |
|
c. |
The
world church has never yet made the non-wearing of a wedding band
either a test of baptism, or membership, or of officership. |
| |
|
d. |
For
any local congregation, or conference, or union conference, to adopt
(publicly, or privately) any other test than those published in the
Church Manual is not only immoral but unconstitutional
as well; and effectively places that unit of the church in
rebellion against its duly constituted authority, leaving it wide
open for disciplinary action by the next higher body! |
| |
6. |
What
do I envisage as the RIGHT WAY? |
| |
|
a. |
Ellen
White, in her one-and-only published statement on the wedding band,
laid down two conditions where it might be worn without her prophetic
condemnation: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
In
countries "where the custom is imperative," and |
| |
|
|
(2) |
If
persons in such places "can do so conscientiously." |
| |
|
b. |
Ellen
White left the matter at the level of the individual, personal conscience. |
| |
|
c. |
It
is my own deep conviction that we should follow her example in this. |
| |
|
d. |
Paul
made it abundantly clear in Scripture that some issues are solely
to be settled within the precincts of a man or woman's own conscience.
[See Romans 14:5] |
| |
|
e. |
I
believe that the minister should explain the whole matter to the member
(or prospective member)—including good reasons for removing
the wedding band [see below]—in an atmosphere of love, kindness,
and acceptance. It is an educational activity. But, once explained,
the minister should leave it where God's prophets have left it: at
the altar of personal, individual conscience. That, for me, is the
RIGHT WAY. |
| B. |
The
"Wrong" Reason Versus the "Right" reason: |
| |
1. |
The
Christian religion is a "reasonable" religion; and the Apostle Peter
urged all sanctified Christians to "be ready always to give an answer
to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear." (1 Peter 3:15) |
| |
|
a. |
And lest
any Seventh-day Adventists adopt the Jesuit-inspired dictum that
"the end justifies the means," and thereby be tempted to use a bad
argument to support a worthy cause, Ellen White added this pointed
testimony:
Agitate, agitate,
agitate. The subjects which we present to the world must be to us
a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines
which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never
allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These
may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth.
We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our
opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny.
With those who have educated themselves as debaters there is great
danger that they will not handle the word of God with fairness.
In meeting an opponent it should be our earnest effort to present
subjects in such a manner as to awaken conviction in his mind, instead
of seeking merely to give confidence to the believer.(22) |
| |
2. |
I
believe that there are two very WRONG REASONS that have been advanced
by Seventh-day Adventists for the removal of the wedding band in North
America: |
| |
|
a. |
That
the wedding band is "bad" because it had its origin in paganism. |
| |
|
b. |
That
the wedding band is "bad" because it is a part of the total "Jewelry
Question"—and SDA Christians are called to lay off all
forms of jewelry. |
| |
|
c. |
Let
us first examine the validity of each of these arguments. |
| |
3. |
There
can be no question but what the wedding band had its origin in paganism;
that fact has been too carefully documented historically to be seriously
challenged or doubted: |
| |
|
a. |
For
example, Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, in discussing
various pagan customs which crept into the early Christian Church,
states: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
"The
ring in marriage [among other customs] are all of pagan origin." |
| |
|
|
(2) |
He
claims, however, that the adoption of them by the Church of Rome "sanctified"
them and made them legitimate.(23) |
| |
|
b. |
O.
A. Wall, in an historical study, demonstrates in rather vivid and
explicit clinical detail just how the wedding band came to be worn.(24) |
| |
4. |
Certainly
SDA church members and prospective converts ought to be acquainted
with the pagan origin of this custom. But solely of itself, is this
a good and sufficient reason to urge the abolition of the custom?
I think not. And for these reasons: |
| |
|
a. |
I
have no trouble accepting the fact that Mrs. White was probably clearly
aware of the pagan origin of the Christmas festival in general, and
of the Christmas tree in particular. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Yet
she approved (and in the case of families with small children, even
urged) the recognizing of this festival in the homes of SDAs, and
she approved the use of unadorned Christmas trees even within the
sanctuary of the SDA houses of worship, where offerings for missions
might properly be placed among the boughs!(25) |
| |
|
b. |
I
also am satisfied that Mrs. White and the early SDA church leaders
were probably aware of the pagan origin of the practice of placing
spires or steeples on the top of houses of religious worship (and
of affixing crosses to them as well). |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Yet
when the "Dime" Tabernacle was built in Battle Creek, Michigan, in
1879 (it seated 3,000 and was one of the largest SDA church buildings
ever built), it had not one but a number of steeples or spires adorning
it; and on top of the main clock tower there appears in old photographs
of the structure something that very distinctly appears to be a Maltese
or Celtic cross. At least four other lesser spires are also apparently
adorned with additional ornamentation! |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Also,
I understand that when the South Lancaster, Mass. Church was built
in 1899 (adjoining what is now the campus of Atlantic Union College),
that it, too, had a similar spire arrangement; and many SDA houses
of worship built in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s resembled these two
pioneer churches in Battle Creek and South Lancaster.(26) |
| |
|
c. |
I
conclude, therefore, that--on the basis of the practice of the prophet
of the church in our midst in the latter part of the 19th century--the
origin of a custom or practice in paganism was not, alone, in and
of itself sufficient reason to abandon it. |
| |
5. |
Some—perhaps
many—in the SDA church in North America have tacitly concluded
that the wedding band is a ring; that rings are a part of jewelry;
that jewelry should not be worn by good SDAs; and therefore the wedding
band should not be worn by SDAs for this reason. |
| |
|
a. |
It
is apparent that the publishers of Testimonies to Ministers
were of this conviction, for in subsequent editions of that work they
have added, at the conclusion of this single statement on the wedding
band on p. 181, cross- references "for further study" which deal not
with the wedding band but, rather, with statements on jewelry in general! |
| |
|
b. |
There
is evidence, however, that there was a distinction between the two
in Ellen White's thinking. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
A
survey of her statements upon jewelry in general make it clear that
she made no exceptions for any category of ornamentation—she
unsparingly condemned it in a total and forthright manner. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Yet
she never linked—in print or in oral instruction—the simple,
non-jeweled wedding band with jewelry in her prohibitions against
the latter. Not once. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
And
she did make provision for the wedding band, when society was
perceived as making it socially obligatory and the SDA Christian could,
in good conscience, wear it. |
| |
6. |
A
scant thirteen months after the death of the prophet, her son, Elder
W. C. White, was writing to a church member in Florida in response
to an inquiry concerning his mother's position on the wedding band
vis-a-vis jewelry. He wrote: |
| |
|
a. |
"Mother
was always opposed to the wearing of jewelry of any sort as a matter
of ornamentation. When we were in Switzerland [in the 1880s], one
of our Swiss ministers took a very radical and harsh attitude toward
the wearing of the wedding ring. Mother [Ellen G. White] reproved
him, and protested against that kind of work, and we all understood
from what she said that it was right for us to discern a difference
between wearing rings as a matter of adornment and wearing the wedding
ring as a token of loyalty to the husband. In some countries custom
has led people to put special emphasis upon the wearing of the wedding
ring as a matter of loyalty. While serving in Australia, Mother encouraged
our brethren [American missionaries serving there] not to press the
matter of our sisters laying aside the wedding ring [there], but when
some of our American sisters, wives of ministers, put on the wedding
ring because they were criticized while traveling among strangers,
Mother advised that this was not necessary."(27) |
| |
7. |
It
seems unwise, then, to me at least, to employ what I perceive as unsound
arguments—origin in paganism or linking the simple, non-jeweled
wedding band to ornamental jewelry—in trying to persuade members
and prospective members to abandon, in North America, the wearing
of the wedding band. |
| |
|
a. |
Does
that mean, then, that there are no sound arguments that may be usefully
employed? |
| |
|
b. |
By
no means. Let me share an approach with you that I employ in personal
work which has never yet failed me (when presented in the right way,
and not in the wrong way!). |
| |
8. |
There
are RIGHT REASONS, in North America, for a minister to work—in
the right way— toward encouraging members and prospective members
to abandon the practice of wearing the wedding band. In my opinion
they involve: |
| |
|
a. |
The
question of financial stewardship. |
| |
|
b. |
The
question of avoidance of idolatry. |
| |
|
c. |
Questions
associated with the dress-code for Christians. |
| |
|
d. |
The
question of one's personal influence, within the church and without.(28) |
| |
9. |
The
question of financial stewardship: |
| |
|
a. |
The
doctrine of stewardship holds that the Christian does not own anything;
all the possessions he may have are owned by God, and as a "steward"
he manages these goods for the "real" owner, recognizing that ultimately
he is accountable for the faithfulness in which he operates in this
trust-relationship. |
| |
|
b. |
Stewardship
is not concerned merely with 10% (tithe) of a Christian's money; it
is concerned with all of it. God should be consulted, and His
will followed, as far as it is possible to ascertain it, in the expenditure
of every penny. |
| |
|
c. |
Of
course, if the individual already owns a wedding band before
coming to Christ, and becoming acquainted with the claims of Christ
upon one's pocketbook, the question of stewardship does not apply;
it is moot. |
| |
|
d. |
But
for those contemplating marriage, it is a serious question which cannot
be evaded. |
| |
|
e. |
Many
couples are pressured by jewelry salesmen into expensive purchases
for engagement/wedding band sets which they cannot afford; some are
still paying for them when the marriage disintegrates and a divorce
is sought. |
| |
10. |
The
question of avoidance of idolatry. |
| |
|
a. |
Wedding
bands, with their big stones, beautiful diamonds, jewels, etc., can
easily become an idol for some Christians. |
| |
|
b. |
Idolatry
was condemned in both Old and New Testaments—and in both the
warning is given that it leads to eternal destruction. |
| |
|
c. |
The
danger of idolatry is probably one of the biggest reasons why the
church historically has frowned upon jewelry and taken a negative
attitude toward anything that "smacked" of jewelry. |
| |
|
d. |
Of
course, a minister cannot tell a church member whether or not his
or her wedding band is an idol—or merely an object of sentiment.
But the Christian must honestly face the possibility that idolatry
could be involved here, and honestly face God with a heart
willing to be led by the Holy Spirit. |
| |
11. |
While
Ellen White appears to have excluded the wedding band from the category
of ornamental jewelry, it is nevertheless a legitimate consideration
to examine its relationship to the dress-code of a Christian. Andrews
University Religion Department professor Carl Coffman, in instructions
to prospective young ministers, has made some helpful, if pointed,
suggestions for consideration: |
| |
|
a. |
Ellen
White discusses a "sacred circle" about Adam and Eve before sin in
Eden.(29) |
| |
|
b. |
In
Genesis 3:7-10 two points are worth noting especially: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
With
the entrance of sin, the circle was severed, and deterioration began. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
An
external covering was formed to take the place of internal
purity. |
| |
|
c. |
With
the passage of time, far more than clothing was added externally: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
See
especially Isa. 3:16-23. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
It
is a human characteristic that the less one has on the inside, the
more he seems to feel he needs on the outside. |
| |
|
|
(3) |
Note,
also, that God did not approve. |
| |
|
d. |
The
great object of the plan of restoration is to restore inward purity.(30) |
| |
|
e. |
Hence,
we have the New Testament counsel: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
"Women
again must dress in becoming manner, modestly and soberly, not with
elaborate hair-styles, not decked out with gold or pearls, or expensive
clothes, but with good deeds, as befits women who claim to be religious."
1 Tim. 2:9-10, NEB. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
"In
the same way you women must accept the authority of your husbands,
so that if there are any of them who disbelieve the Gospel they may
be won over, without a word being said, by observing the chaste and
reverent behaviour of their wives. Your beauty should reside, not
in outward adornment--the braiding of the hair, or jewellery, or dress—but
in the inmost centre of your being, with its imperishable ornament,
a gentle, quiet spirit, which is of high value in the sight of God.
Thus it was among God's people in days of old: the women who fixed
their hopes on him adorned themselves by submission to their husbands.
Such was Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him 'my master.' Her
children you have now become, if you do good and show no fear.
In the same way, you husbands must conduct your married life with
understanding: pay honour to the woman's body, not only because it
is weaker, but also because you share together in the grace of God
which gives you life. Then your prayers will not he hindered. 1 Peter
3:1-7, NEB (note especially verses 2-4). |
| |
|
f. |
The
great object of restoration is to restore inward purity. The restored
"sacred circle" of holiness is God's circle of genuine safety
about any married couple. |
| |
12. |
The
question of a Christian's influence—within the church and without—must
be studied and safeguarded: |
| |
|
a. |
In
at least two of Paul's epistles he expresses a concern for the Christians
of his day that they safeguard their influence, and not become "stumbling-blocks"
to their fellow (and weaker) Christians. (See especially Romans 14:21,
13; and 1 Cor. 8:9). |
| |
|
b. |
He
elaborates the doctrine of "expedience" by stating that although some
things are "lawful" for him to do—perfectly all right in and
of themselves—yet he will not do them because it is not "expedient"—a
weak brother in the church might take offense, and be led astray.
(See I Cor. 6:12; 1 Cot. 10:23) |
| |
|
c. |
In
1 Corinthians Chapter 8 his ideas are most fully developed along the
line of the Christians's responsibility for the stewardship of his
personal influence, in the context of an immediate, local problem
in Paul's day: whether or not a Christian should eat foods that had
been consecrated to pagan idols before ever sold on the public market: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Farmers
often received higher prices for food if first offered to heathen
deities by pagan priests. |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Sometimes
it was the best, choicest food. (Nutrition is a legitimate consideration
and concern for a Christian—get the best food possible.) |
| |
|
|
(3) |
Paul's
position: it is perfectly permissible for a Christian—legally—to
eat this kind of food, because he knows it isn't poisoned, and idols
do not exist in the "real" world in which the Christian operates.
And if these were the only considerations, there is no impediment
to his eating food "offered to idols." |
| |
|
|
(4) |
The
"rub" comes, however, in the fact that not all Christians of that
day had this knowledge. Some still believe that eating this food
is
a betrayal of Christ and their faith in Him. If they ate it, their
consciences would be defiled; and if they saw you eat it, it might
be enough of a stumbling-block to cause them to lose their way spiritually
and be lost eternally. |
| |
|
|
(5) |
And
so Paul said, Even though it is perfectly all right for me to do this,
I will protect my influence—and my weak brethren—and refrain
from doing something that otherwise would be perfectly acceptable. |
| |
|
d. |
Many
in the church today, incredibly, are saying in effect, How close can
I live to Satan, and yet win eternal life? |
| |
|
e. |
For
Paul, the question was, How close can I live to Christ, so that in
every aspect my influence is going to tell for Christ in a way that
won't offend anyone weaker in knowledge than I am? |
| |
|
f. |
Paul
made it abundantly clear that the issue was not eating the
food itself; and he did not restrict anyone on that ground.
But there was a moral issue: we are responsible in great
measure for the effect of our influence upon others, within and without
the church. |
| |
|
g. |
A
Christian wearing the wedding band, in North America, where there
are many "weak brothers—and sisters" who are morally offended
and affronted by a fellow church-member wearing it, needs to ask God
(not any mere man): What is the effect of my action upon others? How
can I best preserve my influence and credibility among the church
of Christ? |
| |
13. |
There
are moral issues involved in the wearing (or non-wearing) of
the wedding band, as we consider all of the ramifications, even though
the matter in and of itself may be merely a matter of culture or custom. |
| |
|
a. |
And
there are questions that each Christian must ask himself—and
God—in this context. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| CONCLUSION:
There are perhaps five questions/issues that we must finally consider— |
| |
1. |
The
question of PERSPECTIVE: |
| |
|
a. |
It
is well for each Christian to keep the wedding band question (which,
as already noted, is a part of the greater, overall dress question)
in proper perspective. |
| |
|
b. |
In
1883 the then-General Conference president, George I. Butler, wrote
concerning the importance and necessity of keeping the various aspects
of the dress question in an overall perspective: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
"The
dress question should never be exalted to an equality with the
great
moral questions of the Bible, such as keeping the commandments of
God and the faith of Jesus. Meekness, humility, charity, goodness,
patience, and other Christian graces, are ever more important than
the cut of the clothes we wear or the eating of certain kinds
of food.
We should give those subjects just the place God gives them in His
word; and if we will notice closely, we shall soon discern that
that
place is not near so prominent as that which He gives to the great
moral principles of His law, and the teachings of Christ. We
claim
that Sister White in her teachings has ever taken this position."(31) |
| |
2. |
The
question of MOTIVATION: |
| |
|
a. |
That
God is generally more concerned with the motivation which prompts
the deed, than with merely the deed itself, cannot be seriously challenged: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
"The
Searcher of hearts weighs the motives."(32) |
| |
|
|
(2) |
"It
is the motive that gives character to our acts, stamping them with
ignominy or with high moral worth."(33) |
| |
|
|
(3) |
"Many
acts which pass for good works. . .will . . . be found to be prompted
by wrong motives."(34) |
| |
|
|
(4) |
"It
takes patience to keep every evil motive weeded from the garden of
the Lord."(35) |
| |
|
b. |
If
you tend to FAVOR the wearing of the wedding band, ask yourself, "Why?" |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Is
it because you desire, like ancient Israel, to be like the nations
around us, so that you will not appear singularly different? |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Is
it because you desire to hide your identity as a Christian who is
in the world but not of the world? |
| |
|
|
(3) |
Is
it because you desire to draw attention to yourself (one of the main
reasons God disapproves of ornamental jewelry)? |
| |
|
|
(4) |
Or
is it because you desire to exhibit loyalty to your spouse, avoid,
bringing discredit against the cause of Christ, and to meet the reasonable
expectations of society? |
| |
|
c. |
If
you tend to OPPOSE the wearing of the wedding band, again, ask yourself,
"Why?" |
| |
|
|
(1) |
Is
it because you enjoy being the policeman of the church, and you enjoy
castigating and censuring the "liberals" who "need to be straightened
out"? |
| |
|
|
(2) |
Is
it because such acts tend to reinforce your security found in self-righteousness,
and a legalistic spirit affirms you as "good" because you do some
good things? |
| |
|
|
(3) |
Is
it because such opposition reinforces in you a conviction that you
are better than others, and—like the Pharisee in Christ's parable—you
are thankful you are not as other men are? |
| |
|
|
(4) |
Or
is it because you discern in the adoption of this custom a lowering
of the necessary and important standards of the church, bringing its
good name into question (if not disrepute), and diluting the effectiveness
of its witness by the adoption of a custom which you discern to be
a leavening influence among God's people? |
| |
|
d. |
Can
you honestly face your motive, whatever your position may be? |
| |
3. |
The
question of HONESTY: |
| |
|
a. |
Intellectual
honesty is an absolute imperative. Can you pray—honestly and
sincerely—this prayer suggested by Ellen White?
"Each
day, each hour, let the heart go out after God: 'Here, Lord, am
I, Thy property; take me, use me today. I lay all my plans at Thy
feet; I will have no way of my own in the matter. My time is Thine;
my whole life is Thine. Let the heart be constantly going forth
to God for strength, for grace every moment."(36) |
| |
|
b. |
Now,
while it is true that there are some places in the world where
the wearing of the wedding band is not only appropriate but necessary,
it is probably also true that there are some places where it
is not yet necessary today. |
| |
|
c. |
Ellen
White clearly indicated that, in her day, there were places
(the United States was particularly singled out) where—at that
time—the custom was not imperative, obligatory, or necessary. |
| |
|
|
(1) |
In
such places she saw the adoption of an unnecessary custom as a leavening
agent within God's people. And such (as history has since borne witness)
it has become. It has, indeed and in fact, opened the door to jewelry
generally: |
| |
|
|
|
(a)
The wedding band itself has become conspicuously larger in size, has
become noticeably more ornate, and has even become encrusted with
precious and semi-precious stones—on the fingers of Seventh-day
Adventist Christians.
(b) And it has paved the way for the tacit acceptance of other rings
(engagement rings, class rings, friendship rings, etc.) on the hands
of Seventh-day Adventist church members. |
| |
|
d. |
With
the lessening of opposition to the wearing of the wedding band on
the campuses of some of our colleges in North America in the early
1970s, we find a more complex problem with jewelry in the early- and
mid-1980s. |
| |
4. |
The
question of ATTITUDE: |
| |
|
a. |
The
attitude of the individual church leader or member--whether such is
for, or against—is crucial. |
| |
|
b. |
In
the context of the advocacy of diet reform, Ellen White wrote some
counsel equally applicable to those who seek legitimate dress-reform: |
| |
|
|
(1) |
"We
must go no faster than we can take those with us whose consciences
and intellects are convinced of the truths we advocate. We
must meet the people where they are. Some of us have been many
years in arriving at our present position in health reform. It
is slow work to obtain a reform in diet. We have powerful appetites
to meet; for the world is given to gluttony. If we should allow the
people as much time as we have required to come up to the present
advanced state in reform, we should be very patient with them,
and allow them to advance, step by step, as we have done, until
their feet are firmly established upon the health reform platform.
But we should be very cautious not to advance too fast, lest we
be obliged to retrace our steps. In reforms we would better
come one step short of the mark than to go one step beyond it. And
if there is error at all let it be on the side next to the people."(37) |
| |
