THE FATHER/BRIDE FENCE

G.K. Chesterton was an English author, philosopher, and Christian apologist from the early 20^th Century. His paradoxical mind led him to turn things inside out to make a point. One of his more enduring aphorisms is “do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.”

By this, Chesterton meant that we should resist the temptation to deconstruct a tradition simply because we do not understand or see its purpose. “Go away and think,” he said. “Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

Although the allegory of Chesterton’s Fence is over a century old, it has never been more prophylactically useful than right now. To be a traditionalist today is to subject oneself to constant demand to prove the value of every fundamental principle beyond a reasonable doubt to save it from the cultural scrap heap.

I was thinking about Chesterton’s Fence this past weekend at the wedding of a friend’s daughter. As I watched him walk the bride down the aisle to give her away, I realized that I had no idea where this tradition had come from or when it had started. I just knew that it was observed at most weddings I have attended where the father was available to do it. I have three daughters of my own whom I hope to walk down the aisle someday, so I decided to look it up.

On Brides.com Brides.com I found this: “the practice dates back to the days when a woman was viewed as the property of her father, and he gave her away on the wedding day in exchange for a dowry.” If that were true, there would be a decent argument to tear down that fence/tradition—but it is not true. American law derives from British common law, under which a man does not “own” his daughter as if she were a possession to be bought or sold. Nor was the dowry paid by the groom, but rather (if there was one), by the family of the bride.

Nonetheless, per Brides.com, “in more progressive affairs, both parents may choose to walk the bride down the aisle, or the bride walks herself.” So, fence down in the name of “progress” without knowing the real reason it was there in the first place, as Chesterton rolls in his grave.

No surprise, I am in favor of the father/bride fence staying up. As with most traditions the purpose of which I cannot necessarily see, I assume that our ancestors were responding to a legitimate need rather than their own troglodytic prejudices when they built the father/bride fence.

Here s what I contend that legitimate need was—and still is. When a man walks his daughter down the aisle it is a public demonstration of the last act of his fatherly duty to be the primary male source of her love, nurturing and protection. By “giving” his daughter to the groom, the father passes that duty to the husband who now becomes his wife’s primary male source of love, nurturing and protection. The father than takes a step backwards, but does not sit down, manifesting that he is not gone from his daughter’s life, but rather has become the secondary source of love, nurturing and protection should the husband falter. Although married and gone from his home, she is not gone from his life. She is his daughter forever.

Dismantling the father/bride fence in the name of “progress” would result in three bad outcomes. First, it would deprive the father of his opportunity to publicly transition from primary to secondary protector of his daughter. Second, it would deprive the groom of the sense of gravity of his commitment, that he is not only becoming a husband but also stepping into the father’s role as the primary protector of his bride. Third (and most importantly), it would deprive the daughter of the security of seeing the two most important men her life joint together in the unspoken compact to love and protect her forever.

That is a fence that should remain standing.