hmmm... sound a bit anthropological

Yay!! I get my own post on your xanga!

A friend of mine went to a wedding where there was no ritual. Neither bride nor groom were religious and they had been living together for 10 years. The ceremony was casual and there was none of the pomp and circumstance that is usually associated with a wedding. My friend (who is not a believer) came away feeling it wasn't really a wedding.

All that to say that rituals do add meaning. It's about bringing in the force of history and tradition to add emphasis to whatever you are doing in a way that is easily recognizable by everyone around you. A ring symbolizes so much--love, sacrifice, something precious--that if you had to find a way to try to convey all that to your future wife you'd really have to rack your brain. AND...you'd probably have to come up with another symbol to replace the ring. So why reinvent the wheel? Just use the ring. The danger perhaps is allowing the ritual or symbol replace the sentiments behind it--that is, if you give your future wife a ring to symbolize your love for her and then you don't bother loving her.

Hmm. Maybe I'm going to write a post about that! I should slap a (c) copyright 2007 on this comment so I can use it again.

I completely agree --  :)

I love tradition, but hate to be BOUND by tradition.  I would rather be bound by the ties that bind, rather than by the symbols of the ties themselves.  It's funny, but one studies art and form, to be free in the form itself.  Mastery of a form, leaves you most free, indeed.

Rote adherence to form leaves one listless, I fear.

Nonetheless, I like rings.  I hope I don't get buried in the demands of custom...

Strangely, this set of thoughts relates well to my feelings towards Chinese art and culture.

I agree as well.  I appreciate the weight of tradition so long as I'm not right under it - guess that makes me a rebel of sorts.  The weight of tradition brings about a significance or a focus - and most certainly helps define the values that are esteemed in a society.  However, when the traditions are performed without the heart in accord, the weight becomes a burden, cumbersome to execute, or irrelevant and thereby eliminated. 

To bring this back to a wedding example: I was recently at a wedding that had all the rites of the traditional ceremony, but done at light speed so that the entire ceremony was no longer than 20 minutes.  The bride was a believer and the groom was not.  The pastor spoke as if both were, which really confused me, esp. when he spoke of the couple taking their first communion together.  The communion happened so fast that I don't think I even saw it.  At the end, I could not help but feel a bit empty - that the weight was missing.  As I reflected on the wedding afterwards, I realize that the emptiness was from the appeasement to the groom's sensibilities - his heart was not in the traditions because he was not a believer.  That his heart was not in accord with the ceremony affected the tone of the entire event.

So my take: if my heart is in accord with the value of the tradition, i would likely conform to allow its weight to perform its function.

Good points!

I think I'm going to have to do a redux part 3 (tridux?), about the best ceremonies I've seen.  Maybe I'll just write it quickly in these comments.  I've been to a lot of weddings by now, and there are 2 that really stand out in my mind in terms of meaning.  (Yes, all weddings are by definition meaningful, just as all brides are by definition, beautiful.  All semantics aside, I'm cutting to the chase)

The first was when I was in college, early on.  Very small and intimate 60-70 people or so.  The writing accompanying the wedding was both extensive and sensitive.  The groom wrote about many of their shared experiences, values and dreams in a pamphlet they distributed.  The minister knew the couple well and it showed in the message.  The charges he gave were very tailored to the bride and groom.  Their love for one another, for God -- and the love they shared with the minister were all quite apparent throughout both the ceremony and the reception.  It was challenging to me, because at the time, I didn't really appreciate the emotional aspects of marriage as well as I think I do now.  (THINK! -- it's still theoretical for me!)  Indeed, at the time, I keyed in on the concepts of responsibility and duty, rather than the emotive aspects of attraction and affection.  Thoroughly beautiful -- I got to see the couple again last month -- still very much in love.  :)  This wedding was very traditional, with many of the standard elements (parents, candles etc)

The other was quite the opposite with nigh 600 guests.  The minister was the Bride's father, and the homily was about as tailored as it could get.  It was informal in a way, but very mindful of tradition (I think the bride's hand was at this aspect -- very artfully done).  Both bride and groom shared their testimonies.  First how both fell in love with Christ, then together about how they fell in love with each other.  More time was spent on the former than the latter.  The minister then spoke, reiterating the Gospel, and then exhorted the two to really love one another. I don't really cry at weddings -- baptisms and communions -- but not weddings.  This one got me. 

It got my whole family, actually.  As did their memorized, personalized vows.

Anyway, despite the a la carte kindov reception, the huge size, and the departure from from standadr protocols, the sense of tradition and meaning was palpable in the ceremony and their interaction.

Ceremony rocks -- but only when meaning is both implicit and inextricable.

Hmm... Maybe I should stick this in as a post?

Just to be completely shallow and irrelevent, one of my friends uses his wedding ring as a beer can opener. It works quite well.

Doesn't the ring get totally scratched up? *sigh*

Back to ritual and weddings. I was reading a book that talks about the plights of people "living together" without getting married. Something about the ritual of dating, getting engaged, giving/getting the ring, throwing a huge party at the wedding, solemnizes the relationship and the commitment between the man and the woman, and involves the whole community in holding them to their promises. But when you just move in together, there is no ritual, no ceremony, no agreed-upon promises, and no societal expectations. This is why it is so much easier for couples who are just living together to break up, even if they've been living together for 10 years, than for married or engaged couples.

I think ritual is good in that way. It invites the community to hold us accountable.

Totally agreed.  :)  I think I've got a post about a HK wedding that I really enjoyed attending... Okay, Now you've forced me.  It's the "Why a Ceremony?" Post.

:(  Sigh.  And I was working my way up to writing my idolatry couplet.

Okay, I updated the bottom with a link to an older post.  :)

Long time since I commented, but I have to agree with your sentiments on the diamond ring. I think the diamond is unnecessary but the ring is still necessary. How else do you signal that you are married and unavailable to others (without having to explicitly say so)?

As my friends have started getting married, I've started to think about this whole engagement thing and decided on the following ideal ring. I'd want my engagement ring to be the same as my wedding ring. I don't want any gemstones on it, because those stick out and make it hard to go through everyday life (e.g., putting on sweaters, going to the gym, etc.). However, I want a ring I can match with everything. So what I came up with a ring with gold and silver braided together. Simple but still serves the purpose.

V.