This is the season of weddings and many wedding related questions have come into the mailbag and two interesting ones on wedding rings are related. Chris writes in to ask this, "As I consider engagement, I have trouble giving in to the idea of spending a large sum of money on a ring.

I have a great desire to do so for my current girlfriend, but a diamond holds no eternal value, and better things could be done with $3,000. Is a fancy engagement ring really necessary or is it just something society tells us we need?" Likewise, Aaron writes in to ask this, "Pastor John, what are your thoughts on diamond rings for engagements?

Is it a poor use of resources to buy even a modest diamond ring?" So, Pastor John, maybe I can simplify this to two questions about Christian engagement and wedding rings. Number one, are rings optional or essential? And number two, are diamonds optional or essential? Okay, those last two questions are easy.

The bigger picture may not be so easy. Wedding rings and engagement diamonds are not essential. They're not essential for engagement. They're not essential for marriage. They're not essential for love. That's easy. Both diamonds and engagements and rings for marriage are culturally defined, not biblically mandated. Okay, we could just stop right there.

I suppose that's not what Chris wants. I'm sure he wants me to say more than that, and I have lots more to say than that. So, here goes. Let me try to say something that just might put it in a bigger biblical context. Yes, you could save money. You could.

And if you built your houses without windows, you'd save money too. And yards would be more economical if you didn't plant any flowers and just had grass, or maybe even better, just dirt. And wedding anniversaries and birthdays and Christmas would be cheaper if you dispensed with gift sharing. All of these would result in more money going to the poor, to missions, if you were disciplined enough to calculate it that way.

So, no rings, no diamonds would clearly be cheaper, and the money would go to perhaps more compassionate uses. True. So, the question is, are wedding rings and engagement rings warranted expenses? Are they justifiable in the light of biblical truth? So, let me start with wedding rings. I think, culturally, it is wise and good for a husband and a wife to wear a wedding ring for two reasons.

Number one, it sends a signal to everyone you relate to that you're married and therefore committed to a lover and not available for anyone else. It's a symbol in our culture, "I am taken. I am not available. Don't deal with me as a candidate for sex, and don't deal with me as a candidate for marriage." My ring is a true statement that helps me navigate the cultural waters in wise and faithful ways.

Second reason, I think it's wise. Our wedding ring is a great reminder to us that we are married and that it is "till death do us part." It represents a sacred set of vows that we made, which should govern every day of our married lives. I never take my wedding ring off, ever, unless some doctor makes me to because I've got to have prostate cancer.

In 45 years, alright, 45 years, my wedding ring has been off my finger less than 24 hours, I think. Two surgeries, and I fought them, but they won. They wouldn't let me go into surgery with my ring on, so I got it back on as soon as I came out.

Why? I am Noel Piper's husband, and I want to be known that way. That's what that ring signifies to everybody, and it signifies to me. I love this woman. I'm committed to her till I die, and I made promises to her I am going to do my dead best to keep.

So I love this symbol, and I believe in it. So if there are good reasons to wear this ring, then there are probably good reasons to purchase it. And I'll come back to the cost in just a minute. So that was my little case for, yeah, good idea. Go ahead.

Have wedding rings. Now what about engagement? What about the diamond? Betrothal has its roots in the Bible. Mary and Joseph were betrothed. There's things about betrothal in the Bible. But no biblical mandate for any period of betrothal in the Bible, and no biblical mandate for anything that requires engagement, let alone any symbol of engagement.

But again, I would say it seems wise. This tradition seems wise. It's a season when neither the man nor the woman relates to other men and women in ways that could be construed as romantic or tending toward that kind of relationship. It's a focused season of upper-level commitment that hasn't reached the commitment of the vows of marriage yet.

And it seems to me that that kind of staged or staggered or leveled relationship or commitment while you focus on knowing one another and discerning each other's natures is a good and wise thing. The reason a ring is generally given only to the woman is that culturally it has generally been viewed as fitting that men, not women, take the initiative in pursuing a relationship.

That means that when a man sees an engagement ring on a woman's finger, he knows this woman is betrothed. It's a level of commitment short of marriage but deeply significant. And of course, it always signifies from the man, "I love you, and I want you to be my wife." And that's the direction we are moving unless something really surprising happens.

So if that expression of love and that season of engagement with visibility to others is wise, then it seems to me like some kind of investment is also wise. Now, last few comments on cost. I love it when I hear of couples that are so in tune with each other in matters of lifestyle that they happily agree that the symbols of their love will not need to be exorbitantly expensive.

I have known couples who decide on another kind of beautiful stone besides a diamond, for example, a birthstone. It not only didn't break the bank, it was beautifully distinct and fit her personality perfectly. But if you're going to go against the cultural current like that, it's really, really important, crucial, that you know each other deeply.

How valuable is this symbol to her really? Is she just saying, "Oh, it doesn't matter because she wants to please you," and deep down, she'd be profoundly disappointed? No one can put a dollar amount on a woman or a man or on the value of engagement or on the value of marriage.

And so no one can put a value on these symbols. No amount of money would tell the truth about the value of the person. So don't try to attach the value of the person with the value of the ring. It won't work. Can I just throw in a pet peeve here, Tony?

Sure, go for it. I want to throw in my pet peeve about 10, 15, and $20,000 wedding receptions. I think this is a deplorable tradition. So here I go, absolutizing, right? No, no, I'm not absolutizing. I'm just giving my judgment about a trend that I think has gotten way out of hand.

I would love to see pastors and parents and young people all agree that the joy after a wedding does not need tens of thousands of dollars of the finest hotel, finest retreat center, finest band, finest cuisine. It's crazy the money that is being sunk into these things. I think, I personally think, this couple, I mean get this clear, this couple wants to get on the road.

And cake and nuts will be remembered as happily as caviar. So all that, now I've got my rant over, all that to say in all this, rings, wedding rings, engagement rings, receptions, keep it simple, keep it beautiful, and amp up the ways of showing love that cost little and mean much.

Yes, that was a rant, but it was a happy rant. And we'll be back tomorrow to talk more about weddings again, specifically would you, Pastor John, marry a couple that was living together? And if you want to ask Pastor John a wedding question or any question, please email it in to us at askpastorjohn@desiringgod.org.

And please check out desiringgod.org to find thousands of books, sermons, articles, and blog posts from John Piper, always free of charge to you. I'm your host Tony Reinke. We'll see you tomorrow. . . . .