Recreation on the Lord's Day Article

[Travis Fentiman]

Friends,

It is often thought Westminster Confession 21.8 prohibits all recreation on the Sabbath.

On the contrary, I have written something of an academic article which appears as "Intro & Westminster Only Necessarily Prohibits Worldly Recreations on the Sabbath" on the Recreation on the Lord's Day webpage at ReformedBooksOnline. Here is a summary of it from its "Summary Conclusion":

----------------

"While recreation is a proper work of the other six days of the week and not the Sabbath, it appears from Westminster’s historical context, the writings of Westminster divines, the context of the Assembly’s process and the standards themselves, especially as these were consensus documents (which tend to the lowest common denominator) and are able to be read in the way here argued, that the original intent of Westminster as an Assembly did not prohibit all recreation on the Sabbath simply, but only necessarily prohibited “needless… worldly… recreations.” It would appear this understanding of the Westminster standards cannot be disproved except it be demonstrated this reading is not legitimately possible.

Spiritual recreation was evidently allowed (and is necessary for the Day’s purpose). While “worldly” might refer to honest, earthly recreation, or recreation done in an immoral, worldly way, the very ambiguity in the consensus context only necessarily prohibits the latter. Even honest recreations, apart from “all sports and pastimes” (per the Directory), may be allowed, if necessary. While divines did vary on what constituted necessity, many of the puritans did affirm that it encompasses a relative degree of moral necessity unto a relevant benefit, such as giving life (Mk. 3:4; Lk. 6:9; 14:3), which view has been argued here. Common decency, nature’s light, Christian prudence and the Word’s general rules do qualify the worshipful observance of the Lord’s Day (WCF 1.6; 1 Cor. 14:26,40).

Pleasurable activity, refreshment and recreation largely overlap, and did for many reformed divines, and exist on a continuum. These may be allowed if they are not distracting from or hindering of, but consistent with or subservient and beneficial to worship, which the whole day is to be devoted to apart from necessities. Worship, commonly defined by the reformed (and others) in its narrow sense as an immediate honoring of God, encompasses not only instituted ordinances, but also immediate natural worship, which can involve meditatation, spiritual conversation, enjoying and praising God for his works, reading godly literature and other spiritual employments.

This is a fuller and more exact keeping of the Lord’s Day than the wood-box view, which may not allow for some of these qualifications. It is hoped those who have held to that view, perhaps not knowing any better, have come to a fuller understanding of the Lord’s Day.

As we are subjects and have subjective needs, motivations and inward worship, Lord’s Day observance has a subjective aspect. Playing catch with the football and making love, while not proper Lord’s Day activities, may be lawful if they are consistent with or conducive to Lord’s Day purposes and right reason; otherwise they break the Sabbath."

------------------


If you have seen an earlier version of this article previously, it has been signifcantly updated with numerous more sections in the last week or so. Give it a read over again, and you will likely learn A LOT.

After an early, brief version of the article several months ago, I caught wind some persons may have been saying that I am not an expert, so it may be dismissed. So I added around 8 times the primary source documentation and have liberally quoted experts. Then I heard some persons may have been saying it was loose on the Lord's Day, so I filled it out, showing that it is the most precise keeping of the Lord's Day possible (according to all the light I have found and can see), and that the "wood-box" view (see the Intro), on the contrary is loose and a shortcoming of the Lord's Commandment, as argued.

I have never changed my general view on the practical keeping of the Sabbath, though my understanding of Westminster's teaching has changed in the last several months. The impelling cause for writing this article was seeing an RPCNA post on FB saying Westminster prohibits "worldly recreations", quoting one of the Catechisms. This intrigued me, never even having considered this before, and I searched into it to see if the claim holds water. In doing so I became firmly convinced it is true.

I hope this all is very beneficial to you, and will help you keep the Lord's Day more fully and with greater love and spiritual recreation in our Lord.

 

[OldSchoolPresbyterian]

Travis - Do you discuss in your article whether there were any significant differences on this issue between reformed theologians in Britain vs. other parts of Europe? Thanks

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Travis - Do you discuss in your article whether there were any significant differences on this issue between reformed theologians in Britain vs. other parts of Europe? Thanks

Cary,

I do not discuss that point in the article. The article, due to the Westminster context, is focused on the British context.

While the difference between the continentals and the British on the subject has often been overplayed and exagerrated, especially as some continentals and presbyteries, etc. were just as strict as the British, yet I do believe there is a general discernible difference, the continentals typically being a bit looser in the details and practice than the British.

One example is in the Synopsis of Pure Theology (continental, Dutch), which allowed for sports and recreations the whole time not in public worship. This is precisely what the prelates in England and King James and King Charles forced on England, and which the puritans and basically everyone else in the isles repudiated.

If you desire to look into it further, here is a page of resources On the "Continental View", emphasizing its similarity to the British view and practices.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Any thoughts on the article?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Any thoughts on the article?

I thought it was helpful for those pondering the issue in the spirit of Isaiah: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy will on mine Holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight to consecrate it, glorious to the Lord, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor seeking thine own will, nor speaking a vain word, Then shalt thou delight in the Lord...." Here are a few specific reactions to some of your thoughts (in bold for clarity):

"Puritans, not to mention others, at times used “recreations” and “refreshments” interchangeably." I appreciated your work in showing how these nouns were being used at the time - and that there was seemingly no real consensus. As with the etymology of many of our English words, English from French from Latin words often change meaning along the way in very subtle ways. The Latin noun recreatio means a general "restoration" or "recovery," which became recreacion/recreacion in medieval French with a more specific meaning of "refreshing" or "curing" of a person, often by eating, which then by the 15th century came to mean "refresh by some amusement" in English. So it evolved from specifically referring to a physical "refreshment" in Latin to a more generic body, mind, and/or soul refreshing in English. It seems the use of "recreate" as a verb in English came into use about the same time but never really came into wide use (as evidenced by its status as archaic today). "Recreate" - meaning to "create anew" - was already in use, which is why you will sometimes still see "re-create" and "re-creation" in modern English to distinguish between the two. And perhaps this is where the confusion regarding the Sabbath lies - recreation (noun) as refreshment is part of the purpose of the Sabbath (physically and spiritually, as evidenced, for example, in the nuances in the commandment in Ex.20.11 vs Deut.5.15) whereas to re-create (verb) is the antheses of the Sabbath as God rested from work of creating.

"Shorter Catechism questions 60-61 are similar and have no comma (all these catechism answers are confirmed in early editions):

60. “The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting… from such worldly employments and recreations…”

61. “The fourth commandment forbiddeth… unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.”

As the Larger and Shorter Catechism questions are arguably clearer and were written after the Confession, they may interpret WCF 21.8, especially as the detailed lists of sins prohibited in the questions on the Ten Commandments in the Larger Catechism are much fuller and detailed than the summary statements in the Confession."
I think this section does well in showing that the original intent of the Assembly was to forbid worldly employments and worldly recreations on the Sabbath from which the opposite can be deduced: spiritual employments and spiritual recreations are not forbidden. In fact, the latter are suggested in LC 120 in referring to "that blessing which God put upon that day, not only in sanctifying it to be a day for his service, but in ordaining it to be a means of blessing to us in our sanctifying it" and in LC119 which forbids "all omissions of the duties required" and "all profaning the day by idleness." It is not just a day of rest, and it is not just a day of remembrance - it is a day of rest and remembrance. It is a day given to us to stop what we normally do so we can do something different. It is never a day to do nothing, so worldly employments and worldly recreations must be replaced with something.

"a significant portion of ancient Jewry held making love to be common and lawful on the Sabbath." (The terms "Jewry" and "making love" employed here are problematic to me - we are all "Jews" (Romans 2:28-29 and 9.6) and "making" is too close to "creating" for me - but those are just asides and probably just me). There is a long rabbinic tradition regarding sex on the Sabbath. Probably the best known, the Mishneh Torah taught/teaches that sexual relations are considered a dimension of Sabbath delight. And while I do not run first to rabbinic literature for understanding Scripture, I do often find its commentary on the Old Testament Scriptures can be helpful (Matt.5.20?), and I find the rabbinic teaching that the commandment to procreate in Genesis 1 is lawful at all times to be sound (you can find earlier rabbinic writings proscribing the death penalty for those having sex on the Sabbath - at the end of the 2nd century BC pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees, for example - but there is no sound teaching/reasoning attached and it seems aimed mostly at keeping people from violating ceremonial purity laws). Procreation and delighting in the Sabbath are both obligatory, so, yes, sex between husband and wife can be allowed on the Sabbath. Consider further that "evening and the morning were the first day" - the reasoning behind the Sabbath beginning at sundown - and we are faced with the fact that Adam and Eve's "honeymoon" was the first Sabbath: our first parents were created on the 6th day and that evening began the first Sabbath. (In light of Gen.1.28 and 2.22-25, I do not believe that Adam and Eve waited until after the fall to have sex as some believe Gen.4.1 implies, though I have always wondered why Eve did not conceive prior to sin - everything was created good and should have been working perfectly - my only guess has been that they were created in pre-pubescence, but would there have been natural aging prior to the fall?). I do not believe Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.5 is exclusively referring to abstaining from sexual relations on the Sabbath, although it could by mutual agreement. I know of some Christian couples who have that arrangement. I also know of some couples for whom "regularly-scheduled" sex when they go to bed at night on the Lord's Day somehow frees them from thinking about it the rest of the day.

I do think one of the aspects missing in the article (perhaps because it is beyond the academic scope and more of the pastoral) is how what one considers a spiritual recreation on the Lord's Day may be a stumbling block to another believer. It is not just one's individual conscience that needs to be regarded. Tossing a ball with a child after lunch while talking about the morning sermon may be acceptable for those involved, but the outward appearance may be problematic for others (sex, being done in private, seems outside of this worry). This is one reason that I think teaching about the Sabbath and discussing it amongst one another should be a regular topic in our congregations, and perhaps this article can contribute to that.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Can anyone disprove the main thesis of my article, that the Westminster Assembly only necessarily prohibited unnecessary worldly recreations?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Can anyone disprove the main thesis of my article, that the Westminster Assembly only necessarily prohibited unnecessary worldly recreations?

Out of curiosity, I didn't read your article, but what would a "necessary worldly recreation" be? Like being on a team that did sports on a Sunday?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Out of curiosity, I didn't read your article, but what would a "necessary worldly recreation" be? Like being on a team that did sports on a Sunday?

It would not be organized sports; for the answer to your question, as there are numerous nuances to it, you will have to read the article.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I apologize up front that I simply don’t have the time to take right now to read the article and opine, just time to opine based on my prior study and work (e.g., Bownd’s True Doctrine of the Sabbath, study of the Westminster assembly and assemblymen's works, etc.). I prefer the term activity to recreation to avoid confusion (given the use of the term in the Stuart kings’ Book of Sports and Parliament's prohibition of all sports, pastimes and recreations as well as banning that book by ordinance in 1644); but the puritans granted that some activity may be needed on the Lord’s Day (Twisse comes to mind; possibly Cawdrew and Palmer), to be alert, or for health or as someone’s specific health may require, just as food is necessary, though maybe not to the same degree. Bownd in fact argues for quite an active day in visiting and doing acts of mercy. If there were more time between my church's services I’ve thought that a meditative walk would be a better choice than being at home where a nap may beckon which may not be the best or even necessary choice and best use of that time. As is pointed out in PB’s Rejection FAQ (added given the many applicants who take an exception to the WCF’s recreation clause at 21.8), the Lord’s Day is not simply a day of rest, but a day of rest in order to worship the Lord privately and publicly. Activity and food and rest are as necessary in God's kindness; but the day is not for activity, food, and rest simply.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Chris, thanks for your thoughts. It appears we agree, so far as what you stated, as to the practice of keeping the Lord's Day.

Regarding the 1644 act of Parliament, it only mentions recreation descriptively in relation to the King's Book of Sports, but does not outlaw recreation simply, but many numerous specific recreations (rather, sports and pastimes, etc.). For instance it does not disallow walking in a field, listening to music etc.

As far as your distinction between activity and recreation, I don't mind it, and think it can be helpful, but as I document at some length in my article, the reformed, puritans and Westminster divines often spoke of lawful recreation (not sports, etc.), and used a variety of other language. I did not note that any of them made a strong and consistent distinction between "activity" and "recreation".

Regarding Bownd, I quote him on the webpage (using the term "recreations"):

“9. Yet in cases of necessity God has given great liberty unto us, to do many things for the preservation and comforts not only of the beasts and dumb creatures, but especially of man. Not only when he is weak and sick, but being healthful and strong, both in the works of our callings, and also of recreations, without which necessity we are persuaded that men ought ordinarily to cease from them.”

Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, or The True Doctrine of the Sabbath (Naphtali Press & Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), Author’s Preface, pp. 8–9 Thank you for publishing his book!

Blessings.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Can anyone disprove the main thesis of my article, that the Westminster Assembly only necessarily prohibited unnecessary worldly recreations?

You would need to give folk the same amount of time it took you to do your research to approve or disprove the main thesis by examining your handling of the source texts and any others you may not have referenced. But I question whether your thesis is provable - as you admit in your article, there was a wide variety of opinions on the matter and a variety of uses of some words to mean slightly different things.

I also must admit I do not fully understand what SC 61 means when it prohibits "unnecessary thoughts, words, or works, about our worldly employments or recreations” if "unnecessary" and "about our worldly employments or recreations" is applied to all three. I believe I understand what is meant by unnecessary thoughts about worldly employments or recreations, and what is meant by unnecessary words about worldly employments or recreations, but I cannot wrap my head around the third prohibition: "unnecessary... works, about our worldly employments or recreations." How can "works" be "about" something?

I do not doubt you are correct that the Assembly only intended to prohibit "unnecessary worldly recreations" if by that you are saying they meant to prohibit worldly recreations that are not necessary to keep the Lord's Day holy. I would suggest Christ's disciples picking grain as they walked through a field on the Sabbath was both a necessary work (picking grain) and a necessary recreation (walking through a field). To argue that something is necessary, you must be able to state how or why it is necessary.

 

[Polanus1561]

If someone worked 6 days a week, the Sabbath would necessarily be the day he physically rests more than the other days correct?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

If someone worked 6 days a week, the Sabbath would necessarily be the day he physically rests more than the other days correct?

John,

You appear to be making a point. Though I am not exactly sure what it is, whatever it is, life and the issues involved with the topic are much more complex than the simple proposition you have put forward.

As you appear to have interest in the topic, I would encourage you to read the article. There is much to be learned from the Westminster divines.

 

[VictorBravo]

but I cannot wrap my head around the third prohibition: "unnecessary... works, about our worldly employments or recreations." How can "works" be "about" something?

That doesn’t throw me. Maybe I’m simplistic, but as a trial lawyer who had a full Monday docket, I often was tempted to put files in order and on the Lord’s Day. My practice against that was to put in a late evening on Friday.