Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour

(1)

K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. October 1965

Preamble: This week we begin a series of articles dealing with the complex and weighty issue of the observance of the “Day of Rest” – the sabbath. The older generation will recall that in the 60’s, the vast majority of shops and businesses closed their doors at midday on Saturday and did not reopen until Monday morning. This was in fact legislated law and huge fines were in place to dissuade business owners from breaking them. (Some things never change). With the increasing secularisation of society, these laws were eventually repealed and all restrictions removed with the result that Christians, and churches had to wrestle with the question of Sabbath or Sunday observance. Prof. Runia opened the debate in T&S with a series of articles in consecutive issues which was then followed by a number of articles by Rev. Deenick. These articles will be republished over the coming weeks without further comment of preamble.

Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour

There is in our day an increasing amount of problems, and consequently also of discussion, around the Sunday. In several of our own congregations it is a problem that creates headaches for sessions. The coming N.Z. Synod will have to deal with a report of its ‘Sabbath Committee’, defending the Westminster Confession position, while at the same time there is an overture of the Reformed Church of Dunedin, asking Synod to declare that sections vii and viii of Ch. 21 of the Westminster Confession are no longer binding on the churches.

In the Netherlands, too, there is much discussion AND confusion. In 1960 the Christian Trade Unions published an important report, which discussed the various aspects of the problem. As the main cause of the problem it pointed to the industrial development in our day. Modern industry requires enormous investments in machinery, buildings, etc, and such investments are economically justified only when the machines are used as intensively and efficiently as possible. Certain modern processes of production have to go on without interruption, for otherwise the factory has to be closed down for about half the week. For the same reason maintenance and repair work must be done on Sunday. In some industries the so-called sliding working week has already been introduced, whereby people work (in shifts) for ten days continuously and then have a break of four days. – It is evident that the motive behind this development is purely economical: the production must be increased continuously. The main reasons are: competition with other countries, employment for the greatest number of people, the raising of the living standard of the whole population.

To every one who wants to live according to the Word of God, this whole development means a serious problem. What should be his attitude? Should he accept this development and try to make the best of the Sunday observance by a process of minimal adaptation? Or should he speak an unqualified No?

Two categories of Christians do not see much of a problem here. On the one hand, there are the take-it-easy Christians. They simply do not care. They do what suits them best in the circumstances. On the other hand; there are the legalistic Christians. They do like Israel of old: they stick to the letter of the law and all problems vanish. Does the fourth commandment not clearly say that one should not work on the sabbath day?

The truly ‘evangelical’ Christian, however, cannot accept either of these ‘solutions’. He knows that Christ has fulfilled the law and that in the liberty of the Spirit (II Cor. 3:17) there is no place for legalism.”For Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). But he also knows that Paul says: “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal. 5:13). God’s law is still there as a rule of gratitude. His task, therefore, is to find an ‘evangelical’ approach to all his problems. That is, an approach truly based on the ‘evangel’, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think we all agree that the Sunday is a tremendous blessing. It is a wonderful gift of God’s grace that we have a special day for worship; a day on which we may interrupt our daily work and concentrate on God and His service. By the way, are we really doing this? Are those who are so concerned about the Sunday doing this? How do they really spend the day? We may criticise others by making an appeal to the law of God and yet, in actual fact, be not any better! And what about those who plead for an ‘evangelical’ observance of the day? They like to speak of Christian liberty, but is it really a CHRISTIAN liberty? Is it a spiritual liberty, which always means a life in close relationship with God?

There is yet another reason too, why the Sunday is such a rich blessing. It means that we have the freedom to be together as a family and enjoy a measure of fellowship which the hustle and bustle of ordinary life often does not permit.

Today, however, the Sunday is threatened on all sides by the secularism and materialism of modern life. For many people the Sunday is not much more than a special opportunity for recreation. For others it is a good chance to earn some extra money. There can be no doubt that as Christians we have the task to fight for the preservation of the Sunday. If need be, we must be willing to make personal sacrifices.

But – how far should we go?

(1) PERSONALLY. – Should we refuse to do any Sunday labour in modern industry? Or to put it in another way: should we as Christians try to avoid the whole sphere of modern industry? Should this be a ‘prohibited area’ for the Christian?

But – is this possible, especially in our time, when we see that the world is returning to the pre-Constantine situation? (The emperor Constantine (284-337) raised Christianity to the status of state-religion and the first legislation on the Sunday dates from this time. Would such an attitude not mean that we force ourselves into a self-imposed social ghetto?

(2) AS A CHURCH. – How far should the session go in its disciplinary action? Is it possible for someone who occasionally works on Sunday, to be an office-bearer in the church? Is there really a difference on this point between the farmer and the one employed in industry?

The fundamental question behind all these specific questions is, of course: to what extent is the observance of the Sunday a divine commandment? Are we still bound to the fourth commandment and, if so, to what extent? In other words, we have to go back to Scripture and answer the question: what does God’s Word teach us on this point?

It is not sufficient to go back to the theologians. For example, one could go back to Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism and the Second Helvetic Confession, which all give a rather broad interpretation of the commandment. Or one could go back to the Puritans and the Westminster Confession and most of the later Reformed theologians in the Netherlands (such as Kuyper, Geesink, Bourman, and others), who give a much more restricted interpretation. But this matter is not decided by theology or tradition, but by Scripture itself. Of course, we shall gladly listen to what the fathers before us have said. We realise that we are not the first ones to listen to the Word of God! Nevertheless, not the view of the fathers is determinative, but what we ourselves, today, find in the Word of God.

At the same time we should be aware that it is not an easy matter and that we should not be too dogmatic about it. The fact that such divergent views have been held by people who all accept the full authority of Scripture, should warn us beforehand that we must not expect a clear-cut statement that answers all our questions. There are exegetical problems here that have baffled theologians throughout the centuries.

The more traditional view, which has been held generally in Reformed circles for the last few centuries (but not by Calvin himself, see his Institutes, II, viii, 28-34) is that the Sabbath is a perpetual ordinance based on the creation. Admittedly, there is a ceremonial aspect in the fourth commandment and therefore it was possible to transfer the day of rest from the seventh to the first day of the week, after the resurrection of the Lord. But the ordinance of a day of rest (‘sabbath’) itself is perpetual. A very clear summary of this view is given in the Westminster Confession.

Section vii. “As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto him; which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath”

Section viii. “This sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy”

This view is still held by many Reformed or Presbyterian Christians all over the world. In fact, it is vigorously defended by the N.Z. ‘Sabbath Committee’ in their report presented to Synod. Personally we have great respect for those who held this view AND practice it in their own life (although we really wonder whether any Reformed Christian of today practices it according to the letter AND the spirit of the framers of the Confession). Characteristic of this view is that it generally takes its starting point in the 0.T. (especially Gen. 2:3 and the letter of the Fourth Commandment – the Westminster Confession speaks even of the ‘law of nature’!), decides on the basis of the Old Testament data that it is a creation ordinance, and then reads the N.T. in the light of this starting point. The Sunday is seen as a Christian version of the 0.T. (and perpetual) Sabbath. Hence the Westminster Confession speaks of it as the ‘Christian Sabbath’.

In recent years there is an ever increasing feeling among many Reformed theologians that this is not the correct procedure. Is it not the correct starting point of all biblical interpretation to begin with the N.T.? Is it not so that the O.T. must be read in the light of the N.T. and not the reverse? Is this not the way the N.T. writers themselves interpret the 0.T., namely, in the light of Christ who came to ‘fulfil’ the 0.T.? Is this not the method they had learned from Christ Himself? Read Luke 24:25-27 and 44-46.

It should not be objected that we do not always follow this procedure. For example, do we not found the good right of infant baptism on the O.T.? I believe that this objection is not valid. First of all, the N.T. ITSELF clearly teaches us that baptism is a divine ordinance. This is not an inference from the 0.T., but IN THE N.T. ITSELF we read in unmistakably clear words that the Lord Jesus instituted this sacrament. If this were not so, we would not baptise anybody! Secondly, INFANT baptism is not founded in the 0.T. either. If this were the real and only argument, we should immediately stop doing it. Why do we baptise children? Because we believe that the collective aspect of the covenant, which is so clearly part of it in the 0.T. dispensation, is continued in the N.T. ITSELF. If there were not clear indications of this in the N.T. ITSELF, we would never baptise infants!

We, therefore, believe that the only correct way of studying this problem is to start with the N.T. and to study first what this ‘charter of the N.T. church teaches about the Sabbath and the Sunday. Having done this we we shall turn to the 0.T. to read it in the light of the N.T. and to find out what, in the light of the N.T., it teaches us concerning the abiding validity of the sabbath and the fourth commandment. We intend to do this in a series of articles in the next issues.

One final remark. At this point already we want to state that we believe that in actual fact the appreciation of the great importance of the Sunday for the spiritual life of the individual Christian and of the Church as a whole, will not really differ, irrespective of what interpretation is accepted. In both cases we want to retain the Sunday. In both cases we are willing to fight for it. In both cases gross and wilful neglect of this day will be seen as sinful and subject to disciplinary action on the side of the session. The main difference will, most likely, be that according to the traditional view this retention of the Sunday is a clear divine commandment, while according to the other interpretation it is rather a matter of spiritual insight, based on an ‘evangelical’ appreciation of the great gift of the Sunday.

K. RUNIA

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com