Legalistic Sabbath Police

[Jack K]

Even the very best, most joyful activities, become burdensome when there's a fellow hovering over you making sure you always do them just right.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

Even the very best, most joyful activities, become burdensome when there's a fellow hovering over you making sure you always do them just right.

lol - This makes me think of somebody just taking their entire Sabbath to drive around to everybody's houses to make sure they're doing Sabbath right.

 

[Edward]

Just remember the simple test, and it becomes easy.

If you are less diligent than me, you are antinomianist, if you are more diligent than me, you are a legalist.

It's a test anyone can use, no matter the issue or their views.

 

[Pergamum]

For napping I'll say that my mentioning of it in my previous post might have implied I thought it wrong. I don't. I think a short nap can be very beneficial in the afternoon and I think that it is lawful. So just to put that out there. As to fasting, we could fast all day, but where is this commanded as a requirement of Sabbath keeping? Fisher (I think it's him) includes sleeping and eating as works of necessity.

I think your post raises a few questions. First of all, in congregations there are those people who are put over us to direct us in our conduct and obedience to the Word: the elders and the ministers. Part of their duty is to teach the congregation what obedience to God's commandments looks like and to discipline those who disobey.

Another question is: were churches less strict in the past, when there were revivals and huge attendance at the means of grace? No. By and large, they were far stricter than what most people experience today. So whilst I do accept that in some circumstances a stifling, legal atmosphere will drive people away from church I also think that compared to the standards expected in the past we are far looser- even the strictest churches today are probably laxer than most churches were in the past. You might argue that is one reason why the church has deteriorated but as churches have become more liberal do you see people returning? No.

In response to my desire to permit walking on Sunday and to allow some measure of private conscience in what is necessary on the Sabbath for worship...your telling reply was:

I think your post raises a few questions. First of all, in congregations there are those people who are put over us to direct us in our conduct and obedience to the Word: the elders and the ministers. Part of their duty is to teach the congregation what obedience to God's commandments looks like and to discipline those who disobey.

My only reply would be to take note of your church and stay far away if this is your attitude, "discipline those who disobey..."

Let me know when your court of inquiry decides how long of a nap is a necessary nap and when that Sunday afternoon nap turns into idle Sabbath-breaking.

 

[jblue88]

David cried out "I was glad when they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of the Lord.'"

Do we accentuate the positive? Do we display the supreme joy of Sabbath observance?

What if we spent our time leading our people in all the things they can do on the Sabbath?

What if we took our members along with us to accomplish works of mercy?

 

[BGF]

My initial reason for sharing the article and asking the author to clarify was due to the vague accusation. Modern Sabbatarians are often the aim of the lobbed "legalism" grenade. Some of you, by your responses, have proven that it is the case that some with a high view of the Christian Sabbath can be harsh toward others when it comes to perceived violations. But that is not the case for all. In my context there is a decided lack of regard for the Sabbath. My own practice falls far short of my beliefs (I agree with the Westminster summary). I long for elders who will guide me to greater holiness in this, not for shepherds that display a lack of regard for the day, if not by their words, then by their actions.

 

[alexandermsmith]

In response to my desire to permit walking on Sunday and to allow some measure of private conscience in what is necessary on the Sabbath for worship...your telling reply was:

I think your post raises a few questions. First of all, in congregations there are those people who are put over us to direct us in our conduct and obedience to the Word: the elders and the ministers. Part of their duty is to teach the congregation what obedience to God's commandments looks like and to discipline those who disobey.

My only reply would be to take note of your church and stay far away if this is your attitude, "discipline those who disobey..."

Let me know when your court of inquiry decides how long of a nap is a necessary nap and when that Sunday afternoon nap turns into idle Sabbath-breaking.

If you're just going to make childish comments why even participate in a discussion? This is the same old ploy of those who would undermine Christian obedience: reductio ad absurdum comments; making jokes at one's opponent's expense; trivialising the whole discussion. These people ask for direction on particulars then accuse their opponents of getting too particular. People who want to break the Sabbath will always seek a way to excuse their actions. When they don't receive the permission of one person, they run to the next and then the next until they find one person who agrees with them, never mind the 99 who don't.

 

[Pergamum]

In response to my desire to permit walking on Sunday and to allow some measure of private conscience in what is necessary on the Sabbath for worship...your telling reply was:

I think your post raises a few questions. First of all, in congregations there are those people who are put over us to direct us in our conduct and obedience to the Word: the elders and the ministers. Part of their duty is to teach the congregation what obedience to God's commandments looks like and to discipline those who disobey.

My only reply would be to take note of your church and stay far away if this is your attitude, "discipline those who disobey..."

Let me know when your court of inquiry decides how long of a nap is a necessary nap and when that Sunday afternoon nap turns into idle Sabbath-breaking.

If you're just going to make childish comments why even participate in a discussion? This is the same old ploy of those who would undermine Christian obedience: reductio ad absurdum comments; making jokes at one's opponent's expense; trivialising the whole discussion. These people ask for direction on particulars then accuse their opponents of getting too particular. People who want to break the Sabbath will always seek a way to excuse their actions. When they don't receive the permission of one person, they run to the next and then the next until they find one person who agrees with them, never mind the 99 who don't.

My comments are not childish, but rather wise, to stay away from those who would "lord it over you" and to guard yourself against authoritarian leaders seeking to become lords over your conscience. Authoritarianism is common in many churches and, by your responses, you might be prone to it.

For example, you pass this judgment on those who nap or walk on Sunday:

I think most workers can get through an 8 hour work day without needing to go for a walk. Or take a nap. Why do they need to go for a walk on a day where they are mostly sitting down not doing anything physically demanding?

You state ultra-strict rules for the Sabbath and then urge that leaders discipline those who disobey. What sort of court of inquiry or examination by the elders will be needed before I feel free to walk on Sunday without incurring ecclesiastical rebuke? Who determines what I "need" on Sunday or how much napping or walking is enough?

And by your response to my legitimate replies to this thread (accusations of childishness and admonitions to quit the thread) this seems to show you are not amenable to dialogue that contradicts your views. In a church context where a member felt they needed an afternoon nap or a walk, I would not expect you to truly listen to your congregation, but rather, treat them in the same manner. Therefore, if this is the case, folks ought to run the other direction...fast.

 

[Pergamum]

http://www.reformedreader.org/puritans/sabbath.puritan.newengland/sabbath.puritan.newengland.chapter17.htm

Captain Kemble of Boston was in 1656 set for two hours in the public stocks for his "lewd and unseemly behavior," which, consisted in his kissing his wife "publicquely" on the Sabbath Day, upon the doorstep of his house, when he had just returned from a voyage and absence of three years.

Lists of arrests and fines for walking and travelling unnecessarily on the Sabbath might be given in great numbers, and it was specially ordered that none should "ride violently to and from meeting." Many a pious New Englander, in olden days, was fined for his ungodly pride, and his desire to "show off" his "new colt" as he "rode violently" up to the meeting-house green on Sabbath morn. One offender explained in excuse of his unnecessary driving on the Sabbath that he had been to visit a sick relative, but his excuse was not accepted. A Maine man who was rebuked and fined for "unseemly walking" on the Lord's Day protested that he ran to save a man from drowning.

As late as the year 1831, in Lebanon, Connecticut, a lady journeying to her father's home was arrested within sight of her father's house for unnecessary travelling on the Sabbath; and a long and fiercely contested lawsuit was the result, and damages were finally given for false imprisonment.

The Vermont "Blue Book" contained equally sharp "Sunday laws." Whoever was guilty of any rude, profane, or unlawful conduct on the Lord's Day, in words or action, by clamorous discourses, shouting, hallooing, screaming, running, riding, dancing, jumping, was to be fined forty shillings and whipped upon the naked back not to exceed ten stripes. The New Haven code of laws, more severe still, ordered that "Profanation of the Lord's Day shall be punished by fine, imprisonment, or corporeal punishment; and if proudly, and with a high hand against the authority of God--with death."

and also this source: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1994/03/the-puritan-legacy-of-sabbatarianism

Laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut were especially inflexible. In Massachusetts it was illegal to walk the streets or fields except to attend church services. There was also a penalty for children playing on the Sabbath. In both colonies, attendance was mandated for Congregational worship. A quiescent Sabbath was enforced with a fair degree of rigor. Nathaniel Mather confessed that as a young child he had committed a great sin by whistling on the Sabbath day. Others were fined for trimming hair, carrying wood, and journeying unnecessarily.

These laws often seemed to go a bit overboard, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What other commandment would we likewise constantly complain about the strictness of legislation?

6th?

7th?

8th?

 

[Pergamum]

What other commandment would we likewise constantly complain about the strictness of legislation?

6th?

7th?

8th?

Starting with the 7th commandment....I suppose if the gov't stipulated what sex acts you and your wife could perform in the privacy of your own home, this would prove needlessly intrusive (giving out fines, for example, for any occasion of the seed being spilled not inside the wife).

All sins should not be legislated or patrolled by the gov't. Or interpreted too strictly by the church.

I am not sure I welcome the civil government enforcing the First Table of the Law. John Robbins (not a fan, but this is a good quote) says:

“In Romans 13 Paul makes it clear that the proper role of civil government is the enforcement of the so-called second table of the Ten Commandments: Romans 13:9 explicitly mentions adultery, murder, theft, false witness, and covetousness. Civil governments have no power over the mind, and so they have no authority to enforce the first table of the law.”

Making it illegal for Catholic churches to have graven images inside of them and fining them civally for breaking the 2nd commandment doesn't even seem helpful, even if we could do it through sheer force of power.

 

[Jack K]

What other commandment would we likewise constantly complain about the strictness of legislation?

6th?

7th?

8th?

Since you bring it up, I will say all of the commandments can lead to misuse. The human heart is prone to create rules that have an appearance of godliness but are not actually given by God. Think of some of the diet/exercise crazes that have been aggressively pushed in certain churches under the premise that God commands us to care for our bodies (Sixth Commandment). Or those who maintain believers may only use one certain sexual position (Seventh Commandment). Consider the temperance movement. Or even the person who recently accused me of violating the Third Commandment because I used the word "yucky" when describing my sin.

These, and some of the Sabbath rules that have been brought up here, are really not about being too strict, since it's impossible to be too diligent in keeping God's law. Rather, they are about usurping God's authority. They are taking man-made rules and claiming these have the force and authority of God-made rules.

We are imperfect and self-proud; we are bound to get the application of the commandments wrong sometimes. But it is unwise to argue that whomever seems "more strict" must be in the right, or to suggest that those who complain about a rule must be trying to make God's law less strict. They may in fact be trying to prevent God's law from being replaced by human wisdom, and thus robbed of its joy and beauty.

 

[Edward]

Starting with the 7th commandment

Until the 1960s - 70s the states did regulate private relationships. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) was the base upon which Roe v. Wade was erected, and it created a right of marital privacy. Griswold specifically addressed contraception, which you use as your 7th Commandment example. And without Griswold, there wouldn't have been a 'Constitutional' right to abortion.

Pre-Griswold, many states did have laws regulating what a husband and wife could legally do with each other.

 

[RAR]

In response to my desire to permit walking on Sunday and to allow some measure of private conscience in what is necessary on the Sabbath for worship...your telling reply was:

I think your post raises a few questions. First of all, in congregations there are those people who are put over us to direct us in our conduct and obedience to the Word: the elders and the ministers. Part of their duty is to teach the congregation what obedience to God's commandments looks like and to discipline those who disobey.

My only reply would be to take note of your church and stay far away if this is your attitude, "discipline those who disobey..."

Let me know when your court of inquiry decides how long of a nap is a necessary nap and when that Sunday afternoon nap turns into idle Sabbath-breaking.

If you're just going to make childish comments why even participate in a discussion? This is the same old ploy of those who would undermine Christian obedience: reductio ad absurdum comments; making jokes at one's opponent's expense; trivialising the whole discussion. These people ask for direction on particulars then accuse their opponents of getting too particular. People who want to break the Sabbath will always seek a way to excuse their actions. When they don't receive the permission of one person, they run to the next and then the next until they find one person who agrees with them, never mind the 99 who don't.

My comments are not childish, but rather wise, to stay away from those who would "lord it over you" and to guard yourself against authoritarian leaders seeking to become lords over your conscience. Authoritarianism is common in many churches and, by your responses, you might be prone to it.

For example, you pass this judgment on those who nap or walk on Sunday:

I think most workers can get through an 8 hour work day without needing to go for a walk. Or take a nap. Why do they need to go for a walk on a day where they are mostly sitting down not doing anything physically demanding?

You state ultra-strict rules for the Sabbath and then urge that leaders discipline those who disobey. What sort of court of inquiry or examination by the elders will be needed before I feel free to walk on Sunday without incurring ecclesiastical rebuke? Who determines what I "need" on Sunday or how much napping or walking is enough?

And by your response to my legitimate replies to this thread (accusations of childishness and admonitions to quit the thread) this seems to show you are not amenable to dialogue that contradicts your views. In a church context where a member felt they needed an afternoon nap or a walk, I would not expect you to truly listen to your congregation, but rather, treat them in the same manner. Therefore, if this is the case, folks ought to run the other direction...fast.

Very well put.