Washing Feet at Wedding

[aprilgail2]

I've heard of parents giving their dating-age daughter a Purity ring as a symbol that she ought to stop and think before following the crowd and getting into sexual activity before marriage. ".

wow that is so weird-- I don't know what the heck my response would have been if my parents had tried that LOL----I have always felt my sex life was my business, not my parents-especially once I became of legal age!

 

[WowLookAtThat]

wow that is so weird-- I don't know what the heck my response would have been if my parents had tried that LOL----I have always felt my sex life was my business, not my parents-especially once I became of legal age!

I'll admit it. My friends had the ring but I didn't accept it. I didn't want the state of my virginity paraded on my finger.

 

[Maybelle]

We gave a purity ring to our daughter after spending time talking and explaining the facts of life and going through a bible based "program" on sex in general. We are very open with her and talk quite openly, and she is very stron in her opinions about not engaging in pre-marital sex. BTW, for those who might be concerned about her well being, we have also discussed birth control options, but we have always stressed abstinance as the best choice. The true love waits program was talked about a lot about a decade or so ago, but there are other purity programs around that are still quite popular in certain Christian groups.

It sounds as if the couple the OP originally posted about were engaging in Courting rather than dating prior to their wedding, which is also quite common in certain groups. The idea is to get to know the person without the "interferance" of the physical relationship. While I haven't ever discussed this option specifically with my daughter, I certainly would not be against it if she chose it.

As far as the foot washing, many I know see it simply as a way to show humility and a way to show the other person their committment to love and care for them in all ways. I haven't actually heard of it being done at a wedding, but I have heard of several men washing the feet of their girlfriend when proposing. I think it is very romantic, actually.

I really don't understand why acts like these, which many associate as being 'old fashioned' are bashed, as they really speak to romance, love and service toward the loved one.

If you are not into something like this, so be it. No need to bash it simply because you do not agree.

 

[MrsPete]

I really don't understand why acts like these, which many associate as being 'old fashioned' are bashed, as they really speak to romance, love and service toward the loved one.

If you are not into something like this, so be it. No need to bash it simply because you do not agree.

Do you see the word "old fashioned" as bashing? I don't. Even putting religion aside, I think a whole lot of old-fashioned choices and ideas were more moral, kinder, and just plain better than many of our modern ways.

 

[Ciciwoowoo]

I can't offer much information about the ceremony you attended, OP, but I do happen to love going to weddings that are a bit different than what I am used to attending.

I think my favorite wedding ceremony was a couple that my ex husband worked with (he worked with the man, not the couple )

Anyway, they were of Mexican decent and it was an incredibly fun experience! I didn't know a soul there, but I probably had the most fun there that I've ever had at a wedding.

 

[AustinTink]

I just can't wrap my head around not kissing your husband until your wedding day. It seems so unnatural.

 

[Handbag Lady]

I just can't wrap my head around not kissing your husband until your wedding day. It seems so unnatural.

I agree. I'm still puzzled on the purity ring/promise ring thing, too. If you have to have one, why advertise? I don't think it is anyone's business.

Egads, what if he is one of those slobbery too-much-pressure kissers and now the poor girl is stuck with him? Or if he hums each time?

 

[Sparx]

It was in an Episcopal church, but definitely not an Episcopal ceremony. I'm not sure what religion they practice other than they are "Christian". They are both missionaries who spend a lot of time in Israel. From my understanding, they are praying for the fall of Israel because somewhere in Revelation it says that when Israel falls a second time, we will all be raised to Heaven. Yet, in the meantime, they are helping the children there. To me, it's counterintuitive, but I'm not here to judge.

What do I know? I'm Catholic.... we don't actively read the Bible.

I'm Atheist. I've never habitually attended any church before. However my boyfriend was raised Baptist. I just asked him about this and he said that they had a "Revival" once a year where the men of the church got in a line and washed the other men's feet and the women did the same in another line. He's never heard of it happening at a wedding though.

Didn't Mary Magdalene wash Jesus' feet and dry them with her hair? I wonder if that is the part of the bible this was taken from?

(I apologize if I got the reference wrong!)

 

[golfgal]

I just can't wrap my head around not kissing your husband until your wedding day. It seems so unnatural.

Well, TECHNICALLY, no one kisses their husband until their wedding day

I am wondering if this family is like the Dugger's. They were not allowed to even hold hands...

 

[bombygriz]

[

 

[Tinkermommy]

I'm Atheist. I've never habitually attended any church before. However my boyfriend was raised Baptist. I just asked him about this and he said that they had a "Revival" once a year where the men of the church got in a line and washed the other men's feet and the women did the same in another line. He's never heard of it happening at a wedding though.

Didn't Mary Magdalene wash Jesus' feet and dry them with her hair? I wonder if that is the part of the bible this was taken from?

(I apologize if I got the reference wrong!)

No, Mary Magdalene was not the woman who washed Jesus' feet. There are a lot of Marys in the bible, it was a very popular name.

A lot of my family are Southern Baptists and they do a "foot washin'" around Easter time (when Jesus washed the disciples feet).

I kind of "get" the foot washing thing, but for me it would seem more intimate and romantic to do it in private.

But the purity ring I don't like simply because it seems sexist. Did the groom present his to his parents? Why is it the woman has to remain and declare herself pure when the guy can ?

 

[dicar123]

I attended a wedding like this last January (and the good news is they are stil together and seem to be very happy).

The couple involved were very young, the woman barely 18 and the man was 20, I think. They didn't date. Anyone. They had met a couple of years before through the church and got to know each other a bit through social functions and thought, "Hmm, you might be a good partner for me." They proceeded to spend a LOT of time involved in each other's families. No dating really, just family get togethers. At some point, I suppose they did things alone, but ALWAYS in public places.

As for the problem that might arise from someone being a bad kisser or things like that, I would guess that unless people have been living together for years and combined finances and all of that, that there is always an issue or two that you can't quite predict when you marry or combine money or become parents. It gets worked out.

I have to say, although I do admire this young couple a great deal, I was uncomfortable with some of it. It just felt like none of my business. SO much seemed to be focused upon the virginity of these two people.

And while at every wedding there is some joking about the honeymoon, most every wedding I have attended, we knew it probably (or definitely in the case of children being involved) had already happened. It's not really a big deal.

At this wedding, IT was the focus of nearly everything. THEY ARE VIRGINS! They will kiss and have sex for THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT! I mean, a flashing neon sign over the altar would have been more subtle! It kind of squicked me out. By the end, I think we may have been more nervous and apprehensive about that first kiss than they were.

I think we all would have preferred they return the purity ring in a private moment with the family and walk down the aisle without the public kiss. It was made to be SO momentous, and yet it was all SO public.

 

[AustinTink]

I agree. I'm still puzzled on the purity ring/promise ring thing, too. If you have to have one, why advertise? I don't think it is anyone's business.

Egads, what if he is one of those slobbery too-much-pressure kissers and now the poor girl is stuck with him? Or if he hums each time?[/QUOTE]

That made me LOL!! I've never kissed a hummer.

 

[Liberty Belle]

You're assuming that there isn't always talk about honeymoons and wedding nights at receptions. There sure was at mine, with countless people telling us that we had to start having babies NOW.

Heck, my own stepmom asked if I used "protection", while quizzing me on when we'd procreate at the *rehearsal dinner*.

So embarrasing.

Even more embarrassing was when we did, in fact, conceive inside our first week of marriage. (DS is worth the embarrassment, but still...)



She did say "but definitely not an Episcopal ceremony".

Argh. I hope there wasn't at mine! If there was, thankfully I didn't hear it.

 

[Liberty Belle]

It's not for me, but I can see the foot washing thing as a respectful, loving thing to do at a wedding. The first kiss...to me kissing is very intimate and there's no way I would want to have my first kiss in front of a bunch of people. I mean, my goodness, if you waited that long to kiss someone, I'd think you'd cry afterwards.

 

[MrsPete]

I agree. I'm still puzzled on the purity ring/promise ring thing, too. If you have to have one, why advertise? I don't think it is anyone's business.

It isn't a ring that says in big letters, "YOU'D BETTER NOT HAVE SEX". It's any old ring that the parents/child pick as a symbolic reminder. It might be a birthstone ring or anything else that the girl likes. So unless you told people what it meant, you wouldn't be "advertising" anything.

Didn't Mary Magdalene wash Jesus' feet and dry them with her hair? I wonder if that is the part of the bible this was taken from?

(I apologize if I got the reference wrong!)

It wasn't Mary Magdalene -- it was the other Mary. Or maybe Martha. I do tend to confuse those two.

But, yes, she came into a gathering (where she clearly wasn't expected), broke open a jar of very expensive perfume/oil, washed his feet and annointed his head with the oil. Some people disagreed with her choice, saying that she should've spent the money on helping the poor, but Jesus said she'd done right: She was worshiping him, serving him.

 

[Andtototoo]

I attended a wedding like this last January (and the good news is they are stil together and seem to be very happy).

The couple involved were very young, the woman barely 18 and the man was 20, I think. They didn't date. Anyone. They had met a couple of years before through the church and got to know each other a bit through social functions and thought, "Hmm, you might be a good partner for me." They proceeded to spend a LOT of time involved in each other's families. No dating really, just family get togethers. At some point, I suppose they did things alone, but ALWAYS in public places.

As for the problem that might arise from someone being a bad kisser or things like that, I would guess that unless people have been living together for years and combined finances and all of that, that there is always an issue or two that you can't quite predict when you marry or combine money or become parents. It gets worked out.

I have to say, although I do admire this young couple a great deal, I was uncomfortable with some of it. It just felt like none of my business. SO much seemed to be focused upon the virginity of these two people.

And while at every wedding there is some joking about the honeymoon, most every wedding I have attended, we knew it probably (or definitely in the case of children being involved) had already happened. It's not really a big deal.

At this wedding, IT was the focus of nearly everything. THEY ARE VIRGINS! They will kiss and have sex for THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT! I mean, a flashing neon sign over the altar would have been more subtle! It kind of squicked me out. By the end, I think we may have been more nervous and apprehensive about that first kiss than they were.

I think we all would have preferred they return the purity ring in a private moment with the family and walk down the aisle without the public kiss. It was made to be SO momentous, and yet it was all SO public.

Yes, that was my experience as well. I was in bridal and did a few weddings for so-called "pure" couples. How did I know? Because they announced it and talked about it right from the first five minutes of our interactions and never stopped talking about it. In my opinion, they were the most sexually-obsessesd couples I've ever met and so were their family and friends. It was really uncomfortable because so much of the wedding chatter devolved into very salacious, wink-wink sex talk. There was nothing pure or loving about the way sexuality was being presented. There was also a lot of emphasis placed on the bride's "responsibility" to not tempt her future husband with any displays of "sex", i.e. her body. I felt dirty myself after listening to it and had to hold myself back from asking if actual proof of virginity was required and what would happen if either partner had been raped or molested. I also felt that something that should be private and intimate was being paraded out in order to win points with others who are judging them based upon their physical "purity", when in fact it should be more about emotional and mental cleanliness.


Obviously others may have had different experiences, but those were mine.

 

[mickeymedic]

Yes, that has a negative connotation, but people tend to hone in on that one detail about women being subserviant to their husbands. If you read the whole passage, the Bible gives a whole lot of instructions and responsibilities to husbands as well. Cherry-picking one verse never gives a full understanding.

Honestly, women get the good end of that deal -- if you read the whole passage. People today tend to see "submitting" as a sign of weakness, or worse, they think it means women are to act like slaves to lazy husbands with an attitude of entitlemen.

The passage actually says that men are required to "love their wives as Christ loved the Church". That means Agape love, total love, total commitment, putting her first. So that means always considering her needs before your own. Always making sure she's happy and cared for. It means maing sure she has food before you do. It means she has time to rest and relax, even if you yourself are tired. And the passage includes instructions about men being humble, not taking advantage of their position as head of the family, and -- I can't remember the exact words -- not driving wives and children to irritation by claiming special priviledges. Also, men are specifically charged to act as spiritual heads of the household, and they are responsible for the spiritual health of their household.

So any man who demands that his wife act as a servant to him should read those scriptures. Really, his part is harder.

The same passage instructs children to obey their parents, and the same passage tells slaves to submit happily and be loyal to their masters (which I think today can be generalized to mean employees to their bosses).

Really, if both partners are working hard to make the other one happy and aren't "keeping score" about who does what, things are going to work out.

I'm glad you took the time to explain that. I get so frustrated that it seems everyone focuses on the "wives submit to your husbands" part of the passage and have no idea that the rest of the passage exists. I agree that the husbands have the harder part of the deal. It's really, really hard to always put the needs of your partner above your own.

 

[okeydokey]

I guess she wasn't wearing panty hose?

Seriously, I've never heard of it, but we are not christian. I do agree that "subservience" has a bad connotation.

Panty Hose are primitive.

 

[dngnb8]

The verse that stands out to me is

Man is head of the house as Christ is Head of the church.

Remember, Christ died for us.