Of Rings
It’s wedding season. Depending on your season in life, chances are you have probably been to multiple weddings this summer–I certainly have. It seems as if all my friends (and yes, I’m included of course) have decided to bind themselves eternally to one person.
By this time I’ve had my fill of pastoral cliches and bankrupt pontificating about 1 Corinthians 13. Not that the chapter itself is bankrupt–truth never finds itself in the red. Yet packaging (even stainless steel) finds occasion to decay.
One particular profundity emerged from the latest wedding (which was yesterday). Mr. Sanchez enumerated about the significance of the Ring. The Ring has metanarrative significance as a token of power and authority. “Show them this ring, and they will do as you require.” The ring communicates to all that the Ring Bearer has authority to speak for the Ring Owner. Kings have always used a signet Ring to deputize ministers. The metanarrative authority inherrent in the Ring icon gives transcendent meaning to wedding rings themselves, for the Bride, when adorned with the Groom’s ring has authority to speak for the Groom, and the Groom, when blessed with the Bride’s ring, may take her place and act as her voice.
We could go in many directions with this; right now I’m thinking of Jessica in The Merchant of Venice (in that sort of odd scene at the very end where she demands her ring back). But Shakespearean theory isn’t where I’d like to linger; rather, the thought that sent shivers up and down my spine was another metanarrative (metacalculus has powerful results) positioned alongside and within the ring tale.
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet’” (Luke 15:22).
Yes, the Prodigal Son. This parable is brimming-over with meaning; others have articulated many beautiful profundities inherrent in the rich fabric of the text–you can find those for yourself, I have a different purpose here. I want to look at the place of the Ring in the story. For it is here that the sacred power of the Ring is illumined in its full brilliance.
The Father welcomes his wayward, whore-mongering, beggarly son with new robes and a Ring! The Father sees the son’s repentance and desire to change and responds by readily giving the Prodigal power and authority to speak for Him. The depths of grace, the beauty of love, the sacrificial nature of complete acceptance in the deputization of redeemed riff-raff–all these things are by nature a part of the transcendent meaning of the Ring.
Oh, he is good, and his mercy endures forever…
Jul 19th 2005
I like that. A fresh reading of the Prodigal story.
Of course, I wouldn’t have minded if you’d stayed in the realm of Shakespearian theory a little longer.
Also, as far as I can see, tongue-in-cheek chauvinistic statements don’t classify as either “pastoral cliches” or “bankrupt pontificating”… So I guess I feel better about what I said at your coed shower.
Jul 20th 2005
You might be happy to know, Ariel, that “Recreational Companionship,” i.e., hanging out with other men and doing stuff (like basketball), is listed by some psycholgists as a top-five category need. Certainly not bankrupt…
Jul 23rd 2005
yet, the Latin language does not provide articles such as we do . . . and by tradition, we have used the indefinate article, “a” . . . how are you sure it was “the” ring?
but, your argument does follow . . .
and–you’re engaged? splendid! congrats to you both! does your partner blog?
Jul 24th 2005
My partner has a blog, but she has never used it–we’re rather near opposites when it comes to literary consumption and expression.
My admittedly arbitrary use of the defining “the” word was probably some long-ingrained subconscious echo from my many days of Tolkien immersion (THE one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them…). Of course, I also like writing powerfully if I can, and definitive articles tend to propell the “power” objective along (naturally, sometimes I’m out of line). Perhaps another reason is that I was trying to get at the archetypal significance of rings in general. And, if a ring were an archetype it would probably be a “the” and not merely an “a.”
I’m smiling now. I like your commments, squirrley!