Overture 9 and the Recreation Clause

[Hamalas]

Okay guys, I'm hoping this thread will generate more light than heat and that I can get a few specific questions answered. I've been reading over Overture 9 to the PCA GA for this summer and I think it is a shame that the proposal passed over the historical question. While the historical side of things is not determinative, it is informative as it helps us to understand what the Westminster Standards even means by speaking of recreation.

I think this is a critical question since the proposal has both an exegetical/theological and historical argument. They say on page 6 lines 21-26 that:

If a given recreational activity distorts or detracts from the significance of the day which God in His goodness has given us, then that type of recreation should be stopped. But that is far different from prohibiting all recreation on the Sabbath. From our study of Scripture we humbly believe that the Westminster fathers got this wrong and we propose that all references to the forbidding of recreation on the Sabbath in the Standards be stricken.

So my questions are these:

1) What did the Westminster Divines mean by "recreations"?

2) Are the authors of this overture simply misunderstanding the Divines on this issue or is there a disagreement of substance beyond the different exegesis of Isaiah 58?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't know the minds of those proposing the change. Is this the "I don't think it is wrong to throw a ball with my son" kind of recreation or something more than that? I think there is a fundamental ignorance of the actual puritan view and not just a misunderstanding of one term. I'm not saying that the fears of just how restrictive it is will not prove true; but it sure seems like there is at least some level of misunderstand judging from just the questions I have received from people and I have zero standing on the matter. If this is about a certain level of latitude for a 'child's sabbath' or doing some activity with an energetic child that needs his spring sprung, I think that can be discussed within the scope, limits and exceptions of the Puritan understanding of the fourth commandment. But, given what the actual practice is in the PCA, I don't think this is about that kind of thing. I could be wrong. From one prof's question to me about this I wrote the following. I open to the board's puritan experts correcting or refining any of it.

I toss this out as a summary of my gleanings from various ‘approved’ authors. I don’t think my take away is too strict; my fear if anything is that it may be too loose or permissive. It also does not exhaust the subject but I hope it gets if briefly and perhaps clumsily to general principles. If this question merely bewilders, then a study of the broader question of a Christian Sabbath is in order but that is assumed here.

What are the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms getting at when they prohibited as a breach of the fourth commandment the engaging in our otherwise lawful pastimes and recreations on the Lord’s Day? The confession reads at chapter 21, §7-8,
​

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 in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.​

VIII. This Sabbath is to be 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.
​

And the Westminster Larger Question asks and answers in Q&A117.
​

How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified? (see Scripture proof texts in versions of the Westminster Standards; omitted here for brevity).
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.
​

Organized, time consuming, sports, amusements, pastimes (think time spent watching the game), etc. are indeed prohibited on the Lord’s day by the fourth commandment (concluded from the prohibition of the greater, laboring, reasoning to the lesser, our pastimes and recreations). But there is not in this view a total prohibition of activity, any more than there is of eating or sleeping. We need appropriate amounts of these to function on any day and moderate use of all these is necessary to be alert and capable for observing the worship of the Lord’s Day. However, while an individual needs some level of all these, which will vary due to individuality and circumstances, perhaps medical necessity, this is no more a permission to run some miles, than to ‘pig out’ feasting, lounge away the Lord’s day in bed, etc.


In general, as with rest and food, we may require modest activity to keep us alert (or in children perhaps to blow off some pent up energy), but such bodily activity should be always directed within the confines of what is necessary to keep us fit and on track for the duties of the day. Can one take a walk on the Lord’s Day between worship services? Casually toss a ball with a child? Perhaps, perhaps not. Can it be done while turned to a good use of the time in keeping with the Lord’s Day? Are such things something you already do during the week and how does a proposed activity comport with putting aside our normal pastimes as we do our normal weekday labors to observe the Lord’s Day? Is it an incidental thing to blow off some energy or does it turn the heart away from the purpose of the day or end up simply burning time that could be spent in private and family acts of worship? Are we of a mind to keep a Sabbath of the mature, or of a child (cf. Rutherford’s Catechism, Catechisms of the Second Reformation, [1886] 232)?


The root question over modest bodily activity as opposed to recreational pursuits on the Lord's Day, is, will they comport and aid the duties of the day, or will they distract, consume time, and merely unfit us for observing the worship of God? Convenient food, rest and activity (perhaps in decreasing importance?) are necessary in their place, but should be subservient to the purpose in view of spending the day in the public and private worship of the Lord.

​

It strikes me that Gouge on the Family or Baxter's work may have something explicit on this but I am not familiar with either work.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Also, here is Westminster divine Daniel Cawdrey's understanding:

But our own works.
Secondly, They are therefore our own works that are forbidden; which, what they are, may be perceived by the opposition of God's works: Such works, as are neither works of piety, nor charity, nor tending thereunto, are properly our own, and then unlawful. And this the Commandment doth import, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all (thy) work: In it (the Sabbath) thou shalt do no manner of work: namely, thy own, the ordinary and unnecessary works of thy calling, used and permitted on the week days. So Tertullian long ago understood it.[1] This is then the sum, All our own works, be they servile, or ingenious, toilsome, or easy, are here forbidden, as impediments of the Sabbath's sanctification; This is the general. The particulars instanced in the Scripture, of plowing sowing, reaping, &c. are but comments of this text, and specials of this general.[2]

XXIII. 2. Works of pleasure, or recreations, are also here forbidden.
2. But beside these, there are other works of pleasure, some of which, though perhaps delightful, are as toilsome to the body, as some works of labour; and some of them of greater distractions of the mind from the service of God, than most labours are: and therefore are in that respect, as impediments of God's service, confessedly prohibited in the fourth Commandment.

1. As our own works.
Not expressly indeed, but first by implication, as thy works, opposed to God's works:

2. As impediments to the sanctification of the day.
And secondly, by consequence and conclusion; both as equal, if not greater impediments to the publick and private sanctification of the day: And then thirdly à minore ad majus; If honest labour be forbidden, much more honest recreations; for recreation is but the means to prepare and fit men for labour; therefore if labour, which is the end of recreation, be forbidden; much more recreation, which is but the means to labour. And indeed (which may be added) Recreation is a week day's work, as well as labour; Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do: But moderate Recreation is a work we have to do on the weekdays, otherwise we are cruel to ourselves and ours. There is indeed, a spiritual Recreation, which is an holy joy, rejoicing, delighting in God, in his services, in his ordinances, &c. and this is the Recreation not only permitted, but required on the Sabbath, @Isaiah 58 and is (as we may so say) the Spirituality of this 4th commandment. And this the Jews themselves understood to be the right manner of sanctification of the Sabbath:

So Philo tells us:[3] Moses (saith he) ordained that all his Commonwealth, following therein the course of nature, should spend the seventh day, in Festival, or cheerful delights, resting therein from all their works: Yet not to spend it, as some do, in laughter, childish sports, or (as the Romans did their time of publick feastings) in beholding the activity, either of the Jester, or common dancers, &c. Yea, it is confessed by some of their own, that recreations and sports, were forbidden the Jews on their Sabbath (where but in the fourth Commandment?) God (says one)[4] commanded a most exact and strict cessation from all works, which otherwhere he calleth servile works, that is, appertaining to their temporary and ordinary callings, either for profit, or for Recreation, &c. The like is said by another, (though otherwhere he deny it)[5] The Jews' own works, pleasures, wills and words, were such as were repugnant to the positive Law of the Sabbath, then in force. And now we proceed in the exposition of the next words.
-------------------------
[1] Dicendo Tuum, de humano opere definiit, quod quisque ex arctificio, vel negotio suo exequitur. Contr. Marc. 1.4. c. 12.
[2] See Primr. p. 257. S. 14. [David Primerose, A Treatise of the Sabbath and the Lords-day Distinguished into foure parts. Wherein is declared both the nature, originall, and observation, as well of the one under the Old, as of the other under the New Testament. Written in French by David Primerose Batchelour in Divinitie in the University of Oxford, and minister of the Gospell in the Protestant Church of Roven. Englished out of his French manuscript by his father G.P. D.D. (London: Printed by Richard Badger for William Hope, 1636).]
[3] Lib. 3. de vita Mosis. [Cf. C. D. Younge, B.A., The Works of Philo Judæus: The Contemporary of Josephus, Volume 3 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1899) 118.]
[4]Primr. p. 258. S. 20. [Primerose, A Treatise of the Sabbath and the Lords-day Distinguished into foure parts (1636).]
[5] B. of E. 252. [Francis White (Bishop of Ely), A Treatise of the Sabbath-day Containing, a Defence of the Orthodoxall Doctrine of the Church of England, against Sabbatarian-novelty (London: Printed by Richard Badger, 1635) 252.]

Herbert Palmer and Daniel Cawdrey, Sabbatum Redivivum: or The Christian Sabbath Vindicated (part one, 1645; part two-four, 1652), part two, 36–38.
​

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I think that the situation here is textured: there is, as Ben suggests, at least on the part of some, a lack of proper historical awareness of the meaning of "recreations" and a failure to understand precisely what the divines were getting at here; at the same time, as Chris intimates, there is likely substantive disagreement with the divines as well, at least on the part of some, particularly given the nature of many "exceptions" taken to the Standards in the PCA on the Sabbath.

Whatever drives this overture, and like proposals for confessional revision, which I suggest is layered and varied, here is my appeal: Brothers in the PCA, you have precisely the same form of the Westminster Standards as we have in the OPC. In the name of proper ecumenicity, please do not consider such confessional revision without serious consultation with the wider Presbyterian church that holds the Westminster Standards and especially with those of us who hold the same form of those Standards. For the sake of the unity of the church, do not consider making such changes on your own. I appeal to you to consult with your brethren in the Lord who confess the same things with you.

Many years ago in the OPC, John Galbraith, a leading proponent of biblical ecumenicity, rose on the floor of the OPC GA and pled with the brethren there not to consider adopting anything that impacted the Standards without consulting with brothers, especially in the PCA, who have the precise same Standards as the OPC. The GA wisely acceded to his plea. Mr. Galbraith remains with us at the age of 102. I am not PCA, but I love the PCA, and I beg you not to consider confessional amendment without serious consultation. We must strive for as much unity as we can have and not act in any way that could be construed as divisive.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Pergamum]

I don't know the minds of those proposing the change. Is this the "I don't think it is wrong to throw a ball with my son" kind of recreation or something more than that? I think there is a fundamental ignorance of the actual puritan view and not just a misunderstanding of one term. I'm not saying that the fears of just how restrictive it is will not prove true; but it sure seems like there is at least some level of misunderstand judging from just the questions I have received from people and I have zero standing on the matter. If this is about a certain level of latitude for a 'child's sabbath' or doing some activity with an energetic child that needs his spring sprung, I think that can be discussed within the scope, limits and exceptions of the Puritan understanding of the fourth commandment. But, given what the actual practice is in the PCA, I don't think this is about that kind of thing. I could be wrong. From one prof's question to me about this I wrote the following. I open to the board's puritan experts correcting or refining any of it.

I toss this out as a summary of my gleanings from various ‘approved’ authors. I don’t think my take away is too strict; my fear if anything is that it may be too loose or permissive. It also does not exhaust the subject but I hope it gets if briefly and perhaps clumsily to general principles. If this question merely bewilders, then a study of the broader question of a Christian Sabbath is in order but that is assumed here.

What are the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms getting at when they prohibited as a breach of the fourth commandment the engaging in our otherwise lawful pastimes and recreations on the Lord’s Day? The confession reads at chapter 21, §7-8,
​

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 in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.​

VIII. This Sabbath is to be 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.
​

And the Westminster Larger Question asks and answers in Q&A117.
​

How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified? (see Scripture proof texts in versions of the Westminster Standards; omitted here for brevity).
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.
​

Organized, time consuming, sports, amusements, pastimes (think time spent watching the game), etc. are indeed prohibited on the Lord’s day by the fourth commandment (concluded from the prohibition of the greater, laboring, reasoning to the lesser, our pastimes and recreations). But there is not in this view a total prohibition of activity, any more than there is of eating or sleeping. We need appropriate amounts of these to function on any day and moderate use of all these is necessary to be alert and capable for observing the worship of the Lord’s Day. However, while an individual needs some level of all these, which will vary due to individuality and circumstances, perhaps medical necessity, this is no more a permission to run some miles, than to ‘pig out’ feasting, lounge away the Lord’s day in bed, etc.


In general, as with rest and food, we may require modest activity to keep us alert (or in children perhaps to blow off some pent up energy), but such bodily activity should be always directed within the confines of what is necessary to keep us fit and on track for the duties of the day. Can one take a walk on the Lord’s Day between worship services? Casually toss a ball with a child? Perhaps, perhaps not. Can it be done while turned to a good use of the time in keeping with the Lord’s Day? Are such things something you already do during the week and how does a proposed activity comport with putting aside our normal pastimes as we do our normal weekday labors to observe the Lord’s Day? Is it an incidental thing to blow off some energy or does it turn the heart away from the purpose of the day or end up simply burning time that could be spent in private and family acts of worship? Are we of a mind to keep a Sabbath of the mature, or of a child (cf. Rutherford’s Catechism, Catechisms of the Second Reformation, [1886] 232)?


The root question over modest bodily activity as opposed to recreational pursuits on the Lord's Day, is, will they comport and aid the duties of the day, or will they distract, consume time, and merely unfit us for observing the worship of God? Convenient food, rest and activity (perhaps in decreasing importance?) are necessary in their place, but should be subservient to the purpose in view of spending the day in the public and private worship of the Lord.

​

It strikes me that Gouge on the Family or Baxter's work may have something explicit on this but I am not familiar with either work.

I like this (what you wrote below), Chris. Maybe if the PCA guys read this, they wouldn't feel a need to propose a change?:

In general, as with rest and food, we may require modest activity to keep us alert (or in children perhaps to blow off some pent up energy), but such bodily activity should be always directed within the confines of what is necessary to keep us fit and on track for the duties of the day. Can one take a walk on the Lord’s Day between worship services? Casually toss a ball with a child? Perhaps, perhaps not. Can it be done while turned to a good use of the time in keeping with the Lord’s Day? Are such things something you already do during the week and how does a proposed activity comport with putting aside our normal pastimes as we do our normal weekday labors to observe the Lord’s Day? Is it an incidental thing to blow off some energy or does it turn the heart away from the purpose of the day

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Not to be cynical (who me?) but really and truly at the heart of a lot of this is the watching and attending of professional sporting events on the Sabbath Day.

 

[SolaScriptura]

My thoughts are a bit more jumbled.

On the one hand, I believe that sola scriptura demands our creeds and confessions must be open to revision. Additionally, I believe that we risk a form of idolatry if we cling to a doctrinal statement *just because it is historic* when it doesn't really reflect what we believe. (And as a whole, it is clear that the majority of the TEs - and the churches that employ them - do not believe the Puritan view of the Sabbath as articulated in the Standards.)

Yet I confess that I am highly suspicious of the ultimate motives of those of the "progressive" wing who are advocating for this change. I used to think that the PCA's "progressives" were the equivilant of Calvinistic evangelials, but I no longer believe that. Some of the stuff coming from that camp truly does border on liberalism. And the utter unwillingness of those in that camp to prosecute FVers, NPPers, etc - all Gospel issues - is telling. I've personally had exchanges with elders who believe that homosexuality as an orientation is amoral (they likened it to the effects of the fall in the same way that a genetic disorder is an amoral effect of the fall). I've mentioned here many times about my visit to Covenant Seminary several years ago... The NT prof said to his class in my hearing that "the primary reason I'm not for the ordination of women is because of the position of my denomination." How's that for building confidence in our denomination's standards? Is there any wonder why routinely there are overtures brought up about changing our position? Why churches - like Keller's - often operate in brazen defiance of our stated positions with utter impunity? The OT prof openly ridiculed the RPW in his class in my hearing. Any wonder why so few have confidence in it? Anyway, if the real goal was to bring the Confession and Catechisms in line with what we really believe and practice, there's a lot of other low hanging fruit: virtually no one thinks that engagement is legally binding, virtually no one believes the Bible limits us to psalms, (in fact, we aren't even required to register an exception to that because it is such common knowledge, and the BCO specifically broadens it to include hymns, etc., even though everyone knows the authorial intent was exclusive psalmody), etc. If the real intent was simply to clean up the Standards and bring them "up to date with what we believe and practice" why not start there?

I am convinced that if we remove the "recreations clause," expect in a few years to see overtures to remove the "work clause" as well. Pretty soon we'll have a Lutheran view: pretty much do what you want, just try to make going to church a priority if you can.

At the same time, given that there is virtually no enforcement of the present wording of the standard, I'd rather have a modified statement on the 4th Commandment *that we actually enforce.* But that's just the rub: the real problem is our notion of subscription which effectively precludes any real enforcement. I foresee that we won't enforce a modified statement just like we haven't enforced the current statement. The real problem is an issue of Subsciption. I'd be much more amenable to changing the Standards if there was a corresponding overture calling for a more "strict subscription" practice. But, since there's no such motion on the table, and none would ever be on the table, I fail to see the reason to change the Standards when we wouldn't enforce them any more than we do now. At least NOW we have a statement that stands as a stark reminder of our own infidelity to what our tradition has historically professed. But perhaps removing that odious source of offense is really what this is about in the minds of many.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I realize the confessionalists have been fighting a losing battle since the founding of the PCA. While there is an appeal to having a confession all agree to enforce, today's line in the sand will move just as it did in the PCUSA. I like this that was said on this subject on a FB status of Andrew Barnes; I don't have explicit permission so quoting anonymously: "The problem with this [having a confession that reflected where the PCA is in practice] ... is that this would nullify the Confession as an aid to renewal. When a confession keeps up with our declension then it can't call us back to the old ways. Neglected doctrinal emphases (and even neglected doctrines) have a way of cycling back as each new generation appropriates the faith. For example, it would be much easier for Calvinistic-ish Baptists to make their case if the Southern Baptist Convention still held to an older declaration of faith." Add this to Dr. Strange's appeal and I would hope confessionalists and conservatives at least would not fall into an easy acceptance of an appeal to pragmatism of having a confession that reflects the horrible moral state of the church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is about agendas for those driving this; I think while it may shore up the opposition, the rest have deaf ears to this and appeals such as Alan's. I mean, if they could care less about the minority that still believe the Standards in the PCA, they really won't care what those in other denominations think.

I like this (what you wrote below), Chris. Maybe if the PCA guys read this, they wouldn't feel a need to propose a change?:

In general, as with rest and food, we may require modest activity to keep us alert (or in children perhaps to blow off some pent up energy), but such bodily activity should be always directed within the confines of what is necessary to keep us fit and on track for the duties of the day. Can one take a walk on the Lord’s Day between worship services? Casually toss a ball with a child? Perhaps, perhaps not. Can it be done while turned to a good use of the time in keeping with the Lord’s Day? Are such things something you already do during the week and how does a proposed activity comport with putting aside our normal pastimes as we do our normal weekday labors to observe the Lord’s Day? Is it an incidental thing to blow off some energy or does it turn the heart away from the purpose of the day

 

[Nicholas Perella]

I am convinced that if we remove the "recreations clause," expect in a few years to see overtures to remove the "work clause" as well. Pretty soon we'll have a Lutheran view: pretty much do what you want, just try to make going to church a priority if you can.

Of course the far out there comparison brought up often is the PCUSA, but I will mention it again. I was in one, and my wife for over thirty years. Once the Sabbath is no longer highly thought of in a holy manner, what soon happens is some people start looking at their watch when the pastor starts preaching past 15 minutes or so. They have places to go and do not want to be late. Some will talk to the pastor after the service or whenever they see him again to tell him how he is preaching too long. The week takes over our minds enough as is, and when the Day is succumbed to the world then church starts to get in the way of other worldly priorities. There is a real impact. We all know God knows what He is doing in setting that day aside.

At the same time, given that there is virtually no enforcement of the present wording of the standard, I'd rather have a modified statement on the 4th Commandment *that we actually enforce.* But that's just the rub: the real problem is our notion of subscription which effectively precludes any real enforcement. I foresee that we won't enforce a modified statement just like we haven't enforced the current statement. The real problem is an issue of Subsciption. I'd be much more amenable to changing the Standards if there was a corresponding overture calling for a more "strict subscription" practice. But, since there's no such motion on the table, and none would ever be on the table, I fail to see the reason to change the Standards when we wouldn't enforce them any more than we do now. At least NOW we have a statement that stands as a stark reminder of our own infidelity to what our tradition has historically professed. But perhaps removing that odious source of offense is really what this is about in the minds of many.

I have brought up a thread recently on vows. I did not communicate what I was driving at that well at all, but how Ben states this here above is spot on. If vows (subscriptions) before God, in other words, if our word is not honorable - do we say what we mean - then there really is no point in the long run. Ben makes what I think is so much at issue, also, here.

Pastor Strange reached out wonderfully with his post, and I pray a persuasion grows in the PCA within the scope of what Pastor Strange humbly pleaded. I think it is wonderful that representatives from NAPARC speak at synod's and assemblies to provide encouragement and insight as to what their own denomination is doing. That kind of brotherly interaction is strengthening and helps us look at the broader Christianity that NAPARC signs onto. Means are already available therefore and to use them in this manner that Pastor Strange mentions I think would be wise.

God Bless

 

[Rom]

Not to be cynical (who me?) but really and truly at the heart of a lot of this is the watching and attending of professional sporting events on the Sabbath Day.

This, and there is also this selfish problem of - "rest for me, but not rest for you". The Fourth Commandment ends the first table and begins to transition us to the Second Table of the Law in the Fifth Commandment, and we see in it a Love of God and Love of Neighbor expressed clearly within. Not only do we show our desire and love of God by consecrating the day to Him, but there is an element of mercy towards our neighbor. That they would have opportunity to go and worship, and also have a day of bodily rest. We look on those who are outside the visible church with pity, that they are still "slaves in Egypt", and desire that they come within the camp. The Fourth Commandment is the means that God uses for this. We show we despise our neighbor and the eternal nature of their souls by forcing them to work for us on the Lord's Day.

When we look at the Fourth Commandment as harsh, I wonder how many are thinking of their neighbor? I doubt many are.

From Dt 5:12 - "...In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day."

 

[Nicholas Perella]

When we look at the Fourth Commandment as harsh, I wonder how many are thinking of their neighbor? I doubt many are.
From Dt 5:12 - "...In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day."

Exactly. How many will come to a point that there is a Sabbath rest while pulling into a McDonald's or driving to a ball-game, thinking they are resting? Notice the emphasis on who is resting, as Backwoods and you mention. It is not uncommon that some people will with more strength and intention make it a habit to go out to eat at a restaurant on the Lord's Day thinking they are resting from their labor activities of the six days.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I think while it may shore up the opposition, the rest have deaf ears to this and appeals such as Alan's. I mean, if they could[n't] care less about the minority that still believe the Standards in the PCA, they really won't care what those in other denominations think.

I understand your point, Chris: if members of a denomination look to change their doctrinal standards heedless of their fellow denominationalists, why would they care what co-religionists in the broader church think?

You may be right, but I refuse to concede the matter on this basis. Here's why: if those in the PCA pressing for change are right that the Scriptures teach otherwise than what we've confessed for years, they should argue for changes to the confessional standards in the broadest possible venues, wanting to convince as many as possible to be "reformed according to the Word of God." This is what we and our doctrinal statements are all about--being Reformed according to the Word of God. The only basis to press for confessional revision is the conviction that we've come to think otherwise biblically about a matter and enjoy greater clarity on it. This conviction ought not only to be argued within the the PCA but by the PCA with churches of like faith and practice, particularly those that hold, as does the OPC, the precise same form of the Westminster Standards.

Peace,
Alan

 

[NaphtaliPress]

And I agree with your point Alan as far as "ought." I just don't think those "driving this" will be moved by such appeals. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. I still want to see just how many men stand up in defense of the doctrine; it may well be this has also already been lost on the presumed confessionalist side.

 

[Romans922]

That you will not see unless you come to the Overtures Committee meeting Chris. Ask me after the fact, and I may be able to give you a rough estimate. Sadly on this issue, I won't be able to speak on the floor of GA (if needed) because I am on the Overtures Committee. My voice can only be heard there according to the rules.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

it may well be this has also already been lost on the presumed confessionalist side.

Again, I can understand, Chris, your consternation here, but I do not think that in our denominations we should approach things like we might with the world. Permit me to elaborate.

I recall Chaplain Ben saying some time ago that same-sex marriage (SSM) appeared all but inevitable in secular society. I feared then that he was right and that seems even more likely now. However, I am still praying that the Supreme Court would not rule in the next few weeks that the US Constitution not only permits but even mandates SSM, a notion, as The New York Review of Books recently conceded, that would have seemed absurd only a few years ago (and still seems absurd to many of us who have any reasoning faculties left).

I refuse to take such a position with any of our NAPARC churches, that something like this is a done deal. We've all confessed this for many years and to change it now places the onus probandi on those proposing revision. I don't think that anything other than this should be consistently communicated and it should be clear to such would-be revisionists that they must adduce proper biblical evidence to warrant any changes. And I will continue to maintain that proper ecumenicity requires that such changes be made only in serious consultation with all churches with whom the PCA has fellowship that adhere to the Westminster Standards. We may have a different form of it in a measure than our Covenanter and Seceder brethren, but not on this point: we've all agreed confessionally on this and there needs to be serious consultation. I hope that this is picked up by brothers arguing this case in committee and on the floor of the General Assembly.

Peace,
Alan

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Well while you must remain silent on the floor, the Lord be with you to speak well and faithfully in the committee.

That you will not see unless you come to the Overtures Committee meeting Chris. Ask me after the fact, and I may be able to give you a rough estimate. Sadly on this issue, I won't be able to speak on the floor of GA (if needed) because I am on the Overtures Committee. My voice can only be heard there according to the rules.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Sadly on this issue, I won't be able to speak on the floor of GA (if needed) because I am on the Overtures Committee. My voice can only be heard there according to the rules.

Andrew, could you cite the relevant rule for this? That would be helpful to me and I would appreciate it.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Romans922]

it may well be this has also already been lost on the presumed confessionalist side.

Again, I can understand, Chris, your consternation here, but I do not think that in our denominations we should approach things like we might with the world. Permit me to elaborate.

I recall Chaplain Ben saying some time ago that same-sex marriage (SSM) appeared all but inevitable in secular society. I feared then that he was right and that seems even more likely now. However, I am still praying that the Supreme Court would not rule in the next few weeks that the US Constitution not only permits but even mandates SSM, a notion, as The New York Review of Books recently conceded, that would have seemed absurd only a few years ago (and still seems absurd to many of us who have any reasoning faculties left).

I refuse to take such a position with any of our NAPARC churches, that something like this is a done deal. We've all confessed this for many years and to change it now places the onus probandi on those proposing revision. I don't think that anything other than this should be consistently communicated and it should be clear to such would-be revisionists that they must adduce proper biblical evidence to warrant any changes. And I will continue to maintain that proper ecumenicity requires that such changes be made only in serious consultation with all churches with whom the PCA has fellowship that adhere to the Westminster Standards. We may have a different form of it in a measure than our Covenanter and Seceder brethren, but not on this point: we've all agreed confessionally on this and there needs to be serious consultation. I hope that this is picked up by brothers arguing this case in committee and on the floor of the General Assembly.

Peace,
Alan

A brother "Chad" from the OPC could rebuke us as a fraternal delegate to the PCA this year. I sincerely would not mind being rebuked and called to greater faithfulness, concerning this issue and the part of beginning relations with the EPC.

 

[Romans922]

Sadly on this issue, I won't be able to speak on the floor of GA (if needed) because I am on the Overtures Committee. My voice can only be heard there according to the rules.

Andrew, could you cite the relevant rule for this? That would be helpful to me and I would appreciate it.

Peace,
Alan

RAO 15-8.f (Presentation of the Report of the Overtures Committee to the General Assembly):

"f. A member of the Overtures Committee may not participate in debate unless he is the designee of the chairman with respect to the presentation of a particular recommendation, or presenting a minority report. With respect to any recommendation, this restriction may be removed for a particular member of the Overtures Committee upon the adoption of a non-debatable motion to that effect by majority vote."

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Andrew:

That would be Chad van Dixhoorn, known to many on this board as an expert on the Westminster Assembly of Divines. I will speak with Chad.

Let me be clear: I am not herein calling for a rebuke of the PCA. It would be highly unusual for a fraternal delegate to enter into the substance of debate. My appeal is that the PCA not take any unilateral actions to modify the Westminster Standards, but that serious consultation, for the sake of ecumenicity, is imperative. If the PCA wishes to revise its doctrinal standards, it should do so only in consultation with those other churches that have the same doctrinal standards. We can get to the substance of things in such discussions.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Romans922]

Well, I'm not saying it isn't unusual, but much needed. A voice from another denomination may help us see clearer. Also a couple years ago, the ARP delegate rebuked us on a few things, and got a hearty amen by a number of men.

While it may be suitable to be 'proper' and diplomatic, the Scripture is clear, "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted."

 

[earl40]

Just curious if there is a place for any laity to voice an opinion at the GA?

 

[Romans922]

No.

This is all you get if you are there in person, RAO 14-6.c - "If such visitors desire the committee to consider a proposal on some item of business that is before the committee, this must be presented in writing."

 

[earl40]

No.

This is all you get if you are there in person, RAO 14-6.c - "If such visitors desire the committee to consider a proposal on some item of business that is before the committee, this must be presented in writing."

Thank you Andrew....Hey that sort of rhymes.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Chad would not need to rebuke but could certainly urge a pretty strong 'think about this' given no one since the Westminster Assembly in the history of Presbyterianism has been 'smart enough' to see this new 'light' these folks think they have.

Let me be clear: I am not herein calling for a rebuke of the PCA. It would be highly unusual for a fraternal delegate to enter into the substance of debate. My appeal is that the PCA not take any unilateral actions to modify the Westminster Standards, but that serious consultation, for the sake of ecumenicity, is imperative. If the PCA wishes to revise its doctrinal standards, it should do so only in consultation with those other churches that have the same doctrinal standards. We can get to the substance of things in such discussions.

 

[earl40]

Chad would not need to rebuke but could certainly urge a pretty strong 'think about this' given no one since the Westminster Assembly in the history of Presbyterianism has been 'smart enough' to see this new 'light' these folks think they have.

Let me be clear: I am not herein calling for a rebuke of the PCA. It would be highly unusual for a fraternal delegate to enter into the substance of debate. My appeal is that the PCA not take any unilateral actions to modify the Westminster Standards, but that serious consultation, for the sake of ecumenicity, is imperative. If the PCA wishes to revise its doctrinal standards, it should do so only in consultation with those other churches that have the same doctrinal standards. We can get to the substance of things in such discussions.

So I take it this is not enough to break the official fraternal relationships?

 

[BGF]

Received my copy of Bownd's work yesterday. I'll have to set aside Bannerman's work on the Church of Christ for a while. The Sabbath question seems to be the more pressing controversy at the moment.

I plan to ask our pastor this Sunday where he stands. He's been on the overtures committee in the past, but I'm not sure if that's still the case. I hope to make clear to him that there are still some of us who have made vows that apply to the WS as currently worded. I, for one, take that very seriously.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So I take it this is not enough to break the official fraternal relationships?

Our church, like quite a few churches, describes ecclesiastical fellowship in terms of levels or stages. At present, the PCA along with a number of our Presbyterian and Reformed brethren are at the closest possible fellowship (as we define it) which is not formally seeking a path to permanent union or merger of two bodies.

While I'm not anywhere close to matching Dr.Strange in terms of intimacy with the "pulse" of our church (he's passes by the bridge of the ship with greater frequency)--I will venture to guess that PCA changing the terms of their Confession will after analysis require the OPC to reassess the stage of our fellowship.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

there are still some of us who have made vows that apply to the WS as currently worded. I, for one, take that very seriously.

This is a salient point, and each oath-taker must consider if he personally could make such a change with the church, if so be.

Remember, though in addition, your constitutional commitment included (unless I've forgotten too much from my PCA days) consent to the lawful procedures outlined in the BCO--which include constitutional amendment.

So it is not exactly as if the PCA were pulling a "magician's trick," where you look down and lo-and-behold the rug you were standing on was slipped out, and another put in its place--and you supposedly never agreed that could EVER take place.