# Sunday Shopping and PCA



## ericfromcowtown (Apr 16, 2012)

Does anyone know if the PCA or its precursor ever issued a position paper on Sunday shopping? I searched through the PCA Historical Center website but could not find anything.

I infer from those portions of the WCF and LC dealing with the Sabbath that Sunday shopping is not confessional, but since the writers of these documents weren't dealing with exactly the same issues that we are today they are not worded as clearly as one might like. However, I am wondering if in the debate concerning Sunday shopping in the 20th century if the PCA (or PCUS) ever issued any position papers that explicitly make that connection and point towards the Confession.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 16, 2012)

I believe that this is a simple issue. If you believe that the Sabbath as commanded by God still applies, then it is incumbant upon us to not only keep it, but to refrain from creating a situation that would compel others to break it. Our economy works on a simple principle, supply and demand. If enough people desire to shop on Sunday, then business owners will meet that demand and compel their employees to work on Sunday. If you believe that it is biblical to keep the Sabbath, then you must keep it in its entirety. There is no halfway with God.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Apr 16, 2012)

Agreed. But that wasn't my question.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 16, 2012)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Agreed. But that wasn't my question.



I know, but since I have absolutely no knowledge of the PCA, I thought I would just comment on what their position should be if they desire to be consistent.


----------



## Wayne (Apr 16, 2012)

Eric:

To my knowledge the PCA has never issued any such statement.

There have been at least three judicial cases, (& those three before 1993), where among other issues, 
a candidates' stated views regarding observance of the Sabbath were in question.

On a related note, you could go back in history and find a good deal of discussion about rail service and the publication of newspapers on the Sabbath.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Apr 16, 2012)

Wayne said:


> Eric:
> 
> To my knowledge the PCA has never issued any such statement.
> 
> ...



Thank you Wayne. Are those judicial cases available online?

It doesn't surprise me that the PCA never issued a position paper on this particular issue. It's my understanding that within the reformed tradition the debate has historically been over the role of recreation on the Sabbath, rather than on commerce, correct?


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 16, 2012)

Eric,
The PCA position is the Westminster Standards, which although not explicitly addressed to "shopping" commerce on the Lord's Day, it is implicitly.

So, there is not need for a "study," only for obedience on the part of God's people.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXI
> Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
> ...



For practical application, there is some dicta in GI Williamson, _The Westminster Confession for Study Classes_, which is used widely to train officers in the PCA. It is available at the PCA bookstore:
http://www.cepbookstore.com/p-284-the-westminster-confession-of.aspx

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

Also, I'm currently reading through Ryan McGraw's, _The Day of Worship: Reassessing the Christian Life in Light of the Sabbath _ which is available here:
The Day of Worship: Reassessing the Christian Life in Light of the Sabbath - Reformation Heritage Books

It has some practical application, including the issue you mention.

Pastor McGraw is a PCA Pastor and told me he anticipates this book becoming available through the PCA bookstore also.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Apr 16, 2012)

Hello Scott,

Thank you for the book recommendations.

I agree that the Westminster Standards implicitly speak to Sunday shopping and such matters. I'm not so sure that this necessarily means that further clarification was never in order. In your experience in the PCA, how consistently do you believe that a sabbath observance that would preclude shopping is practiced?


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 16, 2012)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Hello Scott,
> 
> Thank you for the book recommendations.
> 
> I agree that the Westminster Standards implicitly speak to Sunday shopping and such matters. I'm not so sure that this necessarily means that further clarification was never in order. In your experience in the PCA, how consistently do you believe that a sabbath observance that would preclude shopping is practiced?



Are you referring to officers and/or laypeople? Officers are allowed, I was told at least by an Elder, to take an exception to the Sabbath question. Laypeople are not required to take the same vows as officers, so I think that leaves it up to them.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 16, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Scott,
> ...



Depending on the examining body and the nature and extent of the exceptions, some PCA officers have taken exceptions and still been ordained.

But this misses the heart of the question. Even where confession-based vows regarding a particular point of doctrine are not required, obedience to the whole Word of God is always in order for both officers and lay members. So it is not "up to them." It's about understanding what God has and has not commanded. And it means a position paper on an issue like this could, theoretically, be valuable to all, supposing enough folks felt the church's position wasn't already clear.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 16, 2012)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Hello Scott,
> 
> Thank you for the book recommendations.
> 
> I agree that the Westminster Standards implicitly speak to Sunday shopping and such matters. I'm not so sure that this necessarily means that further clarification was never in order. In your experience in the PCA, how consistently do you believe that a sabbath observance that would preclude shopping is practiced?



Eric,
We could ask this about any one of the Ten Commandments.
How much are people in a biblical reformed and Presbyterian denomination obeying those perfectly?

It's a matter of faithful teaching, living in faith, and the obedience of God's people.

We often fall short,
which is why we need a Savior.


----------



## jfhutson (Apr 16, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Even where confession-based vows regarding a particular point of doctrine are not required, obedience to the whole Word of God is always in order for both officers and lay members.



I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. If a minister takes exception on the Sabbath, is he still bound to the confessional practice of Sabbath-keeping, even though he believes it to be incorrect? Is he also bound to teach confessional Sabbatarianism and keep his views to himself?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 16, 2012)

> It's my understanding that within the reformed tradition the debate has historically been over the role of recreation on the Sabbath, rather than on commerce, correct?



I was in one PCA church that openly spoke against engaging in commerce on the Lord's Day based on the naming of the different groups of people explicitly given in the commandment. (I.e., going to a restaurant because it allows me to rest doesn't cut it, because the commandment is binding on all whether you are a believer or not.) I was in another PCA church where the laity was split down the middle, but I think the officers all avoided commerce except that which was needed for mercy or necessity. Anecdotal, I realize, but some churches take a strong view on the issue.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 16, 2012)

jfhutson said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Even where confession-based vows regarding a particular point of doctrine are not required, obedience to the whole Word of God is always in order for both officers and lay members.
> ...



Depending on the extent of his exceptions and the views of the particular presbytery examining him, he might be turned down for ordination, might be approved with restrictions such as those you mentioned, or might be approved, period.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 16, 2012)

The last time I visited a PCA congregation, the pastor invited my wife and myself to eat out (at a restaurant.) No doubt he took exception to the teaching on the 4th Commandment in the Westminster Standards. I understand that this is the most common exception taken. 

Whether or not the Presbytery is OK with this flagrant flouting of the Confessions' teaching on this issue, (and the promotion of the opposite view) I don't know. Often it is decided that the TE can take exception to something but he can't teach on it. But what could a confessional member do about it now? Bring charges? How would one know what the Presbytery had decided while deliberating his ordination without an elder friend privy to the situation "leaking" that information? 

While it varies from Presbytery to Presbytery, I don't doubt that there are many others that take the same view that this pastor does.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 18, 2012)

Time out for a reminder. The moderators recognize some Reformed denominations tolerate views in both members and church officers out of keeping with the Reformed confessions (i.e. exceptions); the PCA in particular does this. The Puritan Board is a discussion board governed by the confessions noted in the forum rules, without any exceptions. Feel free to ask questions and discuss, but advocacy against the confessional position is off limits. It is sometimes a challenge for the moderators to determine when a post has crossed from one to the other; please review the forum rules if you believe we have been over zealous and if you cannot bear that your post was edited or removed for advocacy contra the confessions, follow the rules for appealing moderator action.
See these previous moderator threads on this subject.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/attn-all-pb-members-reinventing-wheel-68989/

 What?! This is a Reformed Board?!
Carry on.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 18, 2012)

Pilgrim said:


> Often it is decided that the TE can take exception to something but he can't teach on it.



Chris, While I don't know about the situation you are speaking about and I don't want to presume a Pastor's position, I think his way of living is a teaching tool also. So if he is a regular violator of this principle by action, he is actually teaching what he believes by his actions. I do understand that there may be a situation of mercy needed and where someone might have to seek the diner in a rare case on the Sabbath. I am not able to judge this.


----------



## jfhutson (Apr 21, 2012)

Jack K said:


> jfhutson said:
> 
> 
> > Jack K said:
> ...



This is where it gets confusing to me. If a minister can take exception to a confessional _practice_, but members can't, then members are held to a higher standard than ministers. Furthermore, apparently the minister is supposed to exhort me to follow a practice that he is not bound to. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Kevin (Apr 22, 2012)

John, your confusion arises from the fact that elders must take vows to the standards and members do not.

To be a member in a PCA congregation requires a credible confession of faith and baptism.

To be an elder requires a vow to uphold the standards. Exceptions are to be raise by the man taking the vow. He must state what he considers to be an exception at the time he is examined for ordination, per the BCO. Some presbyteries (including mine) require this earlier. At the examination for Licensure. A couple of overatures are before the GA this year to make this the BCO requirement.

When a man registers an exception his presbytery has 3 options. !) to say that his scruple is Merely semantic. 2) More then semantic, but not a "big deal" (this is not BCO language, btw) 3) a big deal. If 3 then they can refuse to ordain (or license) or they can proceed, but tell him not to teach. At this point the guy that makes the third kind of objection doesn't need to be told (in most cases) to not teach. They know that they are in the minority.

Examples of category three would be issues relating to theonomy (more so 15 years ago) or 2K (today) or some issue that the GA has dealt with, and rejected, but a minority report was received on that issue. Padeocommunion would be an example.Any man entering the PCA would know that we are not padeocommunion, but we do allow men to be ordained that believe in the position outline in the minority report, so long as they do not practice it.

Since members undergo nothing like this scrutiny of their views they are not held to a higher standard.

I hope that this helps you understand.

kr, chairman candidates and credentials, ECP-Maritimes


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 23, 2012)

This may be too removed from the thread topic, so moderators feel free to delete.

Regarding Kevin's response to John and PCA "exceptions"



> PCA
> Rules of Assembly Operations
> 
> 5) Minutes of presbytery relating to examinations must list all
> ...



PCA member vows don't require agreeing with (or even understanding) "every statement and/or proposition of doctrine," of the Westminster Standards as do officers.

So evaluation of their differences with the standards are not evaluated as are officers.

However, members do agree (my words) to peaceably study the church's (confessed) doctrine and to submit to its governance and discipline.

My understanding is that any difference "out of accord" will almost always disqualify any officer candidate from ordination. That is, a candidate whose beliefs "are out of accord," for sake of the church's peace and purity (confession) and his conscience sake will not be ordained. He would need to find a place He could "confess" in good conscience.

If somehow he were ordained, (I see real problems with this) he would not be allowed to teach or practice the view .

Even were an "out of accord" still ordained, it would be subject to higher court (General Assembly) review. 

That's the reason candidates are now required to state their exception "in their own words," precisely because of higher level (Presbytery or General Assembly) evaluation and review. 

Also, it is my understanding a Presbytery can prohibit teaching of the "more than semantic but not out of accord" classification, is that your understanding, Kevin?


----------



## Kevin (Apr 23, 2012)

Scott, as far as the question of membership goes, the standard is, and always has been confession and baptism.

Creative interpretations of what is meant by "study the peace and purity" are widespread. I have seen efforts within the PCA and ARP to assert "confessional membership" on the basis of this (or similar) language. These efforts always fail, because they are contrary to the history and intent of our confession.

These efforts usually originate with individuals that are under the thrall of Dutch Eclessiology. In this system individual members are (sometimes) bound by the jot's and tittle's of the standard.

This is not our way.

---------- Post added at 05:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 AM ----------

Scott, the great question is what is "out of accord"? 

At one time those that held to the abiding validity of the Mosaic law (such as myself) would have been "out of accord" with some (few) presbyteries. 

However our view has always been "acceptable" with in our church. Because many within our church have always held this view.

So if a man holds to a view that is a minority position, he is normally allowed. Often with provisions, such as "do not teach" this view. However the "do not teach" provision is reserved to matters about which the GA has spoken. In the normal course of events.

The reduction of all differences (without distinction) to a disqualification is not the present, nor is it the historical practice of the PCA or of our tradition in general.

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 AM ----------


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 23, 2012)

> PCA Member Vows
> 
> 1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
> God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
> ...



While new member vows do require baptism and profession of faith, there's a bit more to it. They require a vow to submit to the church's government, discipline and to (peaceably) study its doctrine. And those would be things the new members class would teach toward, those responsibilities.

But, that's not "confessional" membership (requiring doctrinal subscription) because it does not require (or assume) that the new member even understands much of the doctrine, far less is qualified by it.

(How can a brand new Christian be expected to know all that?) 

The question though regarding ordination of officers,
Is it your understanding that a Presbytery can prohibit teaching of a candidate's differences if they are "more than semantic, but not out of accord?" That middle standard, which also goes on the record now, in the candidates own words?


----------



## Kevin (Apr 23, 2012)

Scott, what we teach in membership classes, and ask in membership vows, does not change the qualifications. 

Profession of faith and baptism are the only qualification required. The only possible point of dispute by the advocates of the confessional membership innovation is that they reinterpret # 5 as demanding full faith subscription under the rubric on # 5.

As to your question about the role of presbytery in proscribing the teaching of an ordinand of a view that presbytery has viewed to be "more than semantic, but not contrary.." I will defer to my presbytery. When such a case arises, I will consider the pro's and con's and vote my conscience.

My instinct is that views in this category are not "contrary" and so may be taught. However, I defer to my fathers and brothers on this matter.


----------



## jfhutson (Apr 23, 2012)

Whatever is said in the vows, members must submit to the government of the church. Grounds for discipline are anything contrary to the Word of God, and we accept the Standards as a faithful interpretation of the Word of God, whether or not the one being disciplined understands or believes the Standards to be correct.

So if an officer can take an exception to a _practice_, then that grants him immunity to church discipline. I can understand an exception on a belief, but that shouldn't mean that he or his congregants are excepted from a practice. He should be able to say, I don't believe the Word demands Sabbatarianism, but we are part of a church who believes it does, and as long as we are a part of this church, we will hold to that practice. I think this would also apply to teaching something contrary to the Standards, but that's getting off topic.

Personally, I think if the vast majority of elders in the PCA don't think we need to keep the Sabbath the way the Standards say (as in, worshipping the whole day), then we ought to amend the Standards. We are telling the world, this is what we as a church believe, and if they watch us on the Sabbath, they'll see we don't actually.

This Ref21 blog post illustrates the problem.



> The treatment of the fourth commandment ("Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy") is highly restrictive, and it is safe to say that few Christians, even in conservative Reformed circles, observe the Sabbath as the Westminster divines intended (LC QQ. 116-121).



The takeaway being that we shouldn't use the teachings of the LC for church discipline, despite this from the BCO: 



> An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything in the
> doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is
> contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith and the Larger and
> Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the
> ...



(I happen to agree with the author's main point, that most internet polemics do not violate the 9th Commandment, but I don't think we have to throw away the LC).


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 23, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Depending on the examining body and the nature and extent of the exceptions, some PCA officers have taken exceptions and still been ordained.
> 
> But this misses the heart of the question. Even where confession-based vows regarding a particular point of doctrine are not required, obedience to the whole Word of God is always in order for both officers and lay members. So it is not "up to them." It's about understanding what God has and has not commanded. And it means a position paper on an issue like this could, theoretically, be valuable to all, supposing enough folks felt the church's position wasn't already clear.



Maybe I worded it badly but my point wasn't to devalue the confession or the Sabbath at all. I was merely pointing out that if a position paper was used to bind a church officer to holding a particular view, it wouldn't necessarily affect the lay members of the church. So until the PCA decides to enforce the confession for both officers and lay members, I think a distinction in practice needs to be made between these two parties.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 23, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on the examining body and the nature and extent of the exceptions, some PCA officers have taken exceptions and still been ordained.
> ...



And I just meant to point out that not everything in the life of the church is about "binding" people to this or that. Position papers ought not to be of interest only to those who're somehow "bound" to them. Beyond the matter of vows taken, all believers should desire to live godly lives whether or not they taken a subscription vow. Many position papers have to do with how we ought to live as people of Christ. These are helpful to all believers. You don't have to have taken a vow for this to matter to you.

Church life is not all about enforcing officers' vows, as if that were the only issue that mattered in a congregation. And denominational position papers do not exist only to keep officers in line, as if this were why the denomination exists. There's a whole congregation of believers out there beyond the officers, and well-studied teachings of the church ought to be helpful to them also, even if they aren't enforced with the same rigor applied to officers.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 23, 2012)

Jack K said:


> And I just meant to point out that not everything in the life of the church is about "binding" people to this or that. Position papers ought not to be of interest only to those who're somehow "bound" to them. Beyond the matter of vows taken, all believers should desire to live godly lives whether or not they taken a subscription vow. Many position papers have to do with how we ought to live as people of Christ. These are helpful to all believers. You don't have to have taken a vow for this to matter to you.
> 
> Church life is not all about enforcing officers' vows, as if that were the only issue that mattered in a congregation. And denominational position papers do not exist only to keep officers in line, as if this were why the denomination exists. There's a whole congregation of believers out there beyond the officers, and well-studied teachings of the church ought to be helpful to them also, even if they aren't enforced with the same rigor applied to officers.



Agreed.


----------

