Hi, bygrace,
In the past few years, I have been observing people from outside the church, and been very surprised at the number of them who are married, yet do not wear rings.
Case in point: There was a sister who was single for many years, and worked as a professional in a large corporation for her last few years before becoming engaged. She never wore any kind of ring (she lived like your typical conservative AC).
When word got out in her building that she was engaged, numerous people in her building expressed surprise because they had thought she was already married, all along -- inspite of the fact that she had been "ringless" the entire time. If a single sister can find a way to "project herself" -- to communicate that she is hands off, as we both agree that she must -- then a married one is just as capable of projecting herself.
If we are going to claim that protecting sisters from unwanted advances is the compelling reason for accepting the rings into the church, it is incorrect to assert that this is a separate issue for marrieds and singles. Men inclined to honor the fact that a woman is hands off will honor that status, whether it is communicated by a ring, a head-covering, or her own verbal mention of a husband.
As you implied, conduct (I would mention shamefacedness & sobriety specifically) plays a significant role -- and would suggest that, as with all other areas, that needs to be our focus. The shamefacedness & sobriety of the single sister I described earlier correctly communicated that she was married the entire time -- to the Lord.
In the past few years, I have been observing people from outside the church, and been very surprised at the number of them who are married, yet do not wear rings.
Case in point: There was a sister who was single for many years, and worked as a professional in a large corporation for her last few years before becoming engaged. She never wore any kind of ring (she lived like your typical conservative AC).
When word got out in her building that she was engaged, numerous people in her building expressed surprise because they had thought she was already married, all along -- inspite of the fact that she had been "ringless" the entire time. If a single sister can find a way to "project herself" -- to communicate that she is hands off, as we both agree that she must -- then a married one is just as capable of projecting herself.
If we are going to claim that protecting sisters from unwanted advances is the compelling reason for accepting the rings into the church, it is incorrect to assert that this is a separate issue for marrieds and singles. Men inclined to honor the fact that a woman is hands off will honor that status, whether it is communicated by a ring, a head-covering, or her own verbal mention of a husband.
As you implied, conduct (I would mention shamefacedness & sobriety specifically) plays a significant role -- and would suggest that, as with all other areas, that needs to be our focus. The shamefacedness & sobriety of the single sister I described earlier correctly communicated that she was married the entire time -- to the Lord.
