Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Saturday, February 17, 2024
The weekly Sabbath is not merely – or even primarily – a type or shadow. Rather, the weekly Sabbath is embedded in the middle of the Ten Commandments, which earlier generations viewed as the indispensable “lynchpin” between the two tables of the Law.

Keeping the Sabbath Today? By Jay Adams
Readers may ask why a book published in 2008 should be reviewed today. Several years ago my pastor gave me his copy and asked me to write a review. His request was the only reason for this ruling elder – lacking Hebrew and Greek – being willing to undertake the task; albeit having completed a doctoral dissertation on the Christian Sabbath in the nineteenth century.[1] (Finally overcoming my procrastination, this review’s completion happily coincides with the run-up to this year’s Super Bowl.)
I recall years ago when Dr. Adams visited my church. His credentials, experience, and widely-known counseling and writing ministry were hugely impressive; today they still give me trepidation to write in opposition to one of his roughly 100 books – the writing of which caused Adams himself “some trepidation” as he acknowledges. Alas, the book should be opposed; but respectfully and thoughtfully.[2]
Before diving in, I’ll borrow from nineteenth-century Southern Presbyterian theologian, Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney, whose lecture on the fourth commandment in his Systematic Theology is as good as any relatively short piece I’ve found on the subject. Dabney’s opening words are as relevant today as when he penned them:
There is, perhaps, no subject of Christian practice on which there is, among sincere Christians, more practical diversity and laxity of conscience than the duty of Sabbath observance. We find that, in theory, almost all Protestants now profess the views once peculiar to Presbyterians and other Puritans; but, in actual life, there is, among good people, a variety of usages. . . .[3]
Then – and now – the usages of the first day of the week range from laxity to strictness. Dabney relates how “the communions founded at the Reformation, were widely and avowedly divided in opinion as to the perpetuity of the Sabbath obligation.” Some of the “purest” churches “professed that they saw no obligation in the Scriptures to any peculiar Sabbath observance. . . .” While many of their descendants – at least in Dabney’s day – had ceased to “defend the looser theory of their forefathers,” they retained their forefathers’ traditional practices which were “far beneath” their profession.[4]
Adams largely shares the view historically called the “Continental Sabbath,” which was essentially Calvin’s view. It is fundamentally different from the Presbyterian and Puritan churches, lacking the moral authority of the fourth commandment and viewing the first day’s observance of corporate worship as a means of order and convenience for the Church. Not surprisingly, such convictions attach less weight to the day’s observance. Adams writes that Calvin’s position “is essentially that which I espouse.”[5]
Furthermore, Adams was convinced many Christians suffered from a burdensome Sabbath, writing, “Possibly this book will be used by God to free them from this weekly misery and help others from ever experiencing it.” His overarching concern, though, transcends Dabney’s laxity or strictness. Adams does not see either position as a legitimate concern because, in his view, the weekly Sabbath has ceased. A number of the arguments in this book, however, fall short of achieving Adams’s objective of proving the weekly Sabbath’s abolition.[6]
The hundred page book contains 21 chapters; only a few will be addressed here, although at least one common thread runs throughout. It is Adams’s conviction that because the (original, physical) “rest” required by the fourth commandment has been fulfilled for the believer in Jesus Christ in a far greater (spiritual) manner – in one’s resting by faith upon Him alone for salvation (Matthew 11:28-29) – one must conclude that the original Sabbath commandment has been made obsolete.
In the introduction, Adams highlights Romans 14:5-6 with its reference to observing “one day above another” (as well as the eating or not eating of meat). Here, without acknowledging the context of the passage (he does so shortly thereafter) – which concerns Jewish ceremonial practices (including ceremonial sabbaths which also are in view in Galatians 4:9-10 and Colossians 2:16-17) – Adams leads the reader to assume the apostle Paul was including the weekly Sabbath day in the passage. As this essay argues, that is a stretch.[7]
These passages (Rom. 14, Gal. 4, Col. 2) deal with questions of Jewish ceremonial practices which were no longer appropriate after Christ’s resurrection – questions of meat-eating, “days and months and seasons and years,” and food/drink/festivals/new moons/sabbath days. How does Adams get from ceremonial law and non-weekly sabbath references to abolishing the weekly Sabbath? He does this by assuming that all references to any form of the word “sabbath” must include the weekly holy day.[8]
Close examination of the English rendering of the scriptural references to this word reveals that in most cases where the fourth commandment is in view, the article “the” is employed in addition to the singular form as in “the sabbath” or “the sabbath day.” In contrast, in most cases in which the context indicates Jewish ceremonials to be in view, either the article “a” is used as in “a sabbath” or “a sabbath day”; or, the rendering is plural, as in “her sabbaths” or “sabbath days.”[9]
The lack of reference in these passages to the fourth commandment has not stopped anti-Sabbath advocates from arguing against the weekly rest/worship day’s obligation. At this point, Calvin’s comments regarding another portion of Scripture prove helpful. In Calvin’s Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1, he writes concerning the genealogy of Jesus Christ: “. . . we must observe, that the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age” [emphasis added]. Regarding the ancestry of Joseph and Mary, “The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous” on the question of Mary’s tribe,
. . . for, if any one entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor tedious. Besides, they took for granted, that Joseph, as a man of good character and behaviour, had obeyed the . . . law in marrying a wife from his own tribe.[10]  
The relevance of Calvin’s point is this: because it was generally understood that the apostolic church had begun worshiping corporately on the first day of the week (the research “neither difficult nor tedious”) in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, observing the Christian Sabbath with the moral authority of the fourth commandment’s one-day-out-of-seven, there was no need for Paul to state that the days he refers to do not include the weekly rest/worship day. To borrow Calvin’s phrasing, there was no need for Paul to be “solicitous” on that point.      
In chapter 11, Adams asks, “Why must the Sabbath change its meaning and purpose again and again?” His main argument here stems from the fact that the rationale for the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy 5 is different from that in Exodus 20. As the Westminster Larger Catechism (LC) 121 suggests, creation is the rationale for the Sabbath commandment given in Exodus while redemption (or, deliverance) is the rationale provided in Deuteronomy. Adams argues from this development that the Sabbath “is not unchangeable. Indeed, it is the one commandment of the Ten that is changeable.” True, and in fact the fourth commandment itself does not specify a particular day of the week’s seven days to be observed in perpetuity. Rather, the wording “the seventh day” suggests a one-in-seven principle, not necessarily the 7th of the week’s seven days. In any case, why should believers be troubled with an addition – or enhancement – to our understanding of one of God’s ordinances? An addition does not necessarily require a full replacement of the commandment, as Adams suggests.[11]
Another pastor friend points out examples in Scripture of what he calls “both-and rather than either-or.” That view fits LC 121: “The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly . . . to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion. . . .” Creation and redemption. Because God is Creator, He alone is the rightful Redeemer of those He chooses. It is not necessarily an either-or proposition. In fact, holding both realities together is faith enhancing.
But the most consequential case in which Adams argues for replacement in lieu of addition comes from his view of Hebrews 4. Adams rightly states, “The Sabbath now pictures the heavenly rest – the final Sabbath.” He assumes that the eternal, spiritual Sabbath rest (4:11) must of necessity require the passing away of the weekly Sabbath, one of the Old Testament “types and shadows” in his view.[12]
But the weekly Sabbath is not merely – or even primarily – a type or shadow. Rather, the weekly Sabbath is embedded in the middle of the Ten Commandments, which earlier generations viewed as the indispensable “lynchpin” between the two tables of the Law. Nehemiah 9:13-14 strongly supports that position, where “Your holy Sabbath” clearly stands for the “just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments” (i.e., the Ten Commandments) given at Mount Sinai. The weekly Sabbath, possessing both a type-shadow and a moral nature, is a case of both-and, not either-or.[13]
Moreover, in this section Adams overstates his case:
As there are no more sacrifices and no more temple service because Jesus is the reality that these things symbolized, so too Paul says, there is no more Sabbath, because the ‘rest-reality’ is found in Christ – now in part and forever in the end. . . . The eternal Sabbath is the sign of our everlasting rest in Christ [emphasis added].[14]
There is much truth here. But Paul never says “there is no more Sabbath.” Adams appears to allude to Colossians 2, which he uses to argue for the weekly Sabbath’s abolition. (This has long been the favorite passage of New Testament Sabbath opponents.) In Col. 2:16-17, Paul says:
So then, you must allow nobody to judge you about eating and drinking or about feasts or new moons or sabbaths, which are shadows of what was coming (the body belongs to Christ).[15]
But Adams errs in assuming that, “If Paul wanted Christians to keep the weekly Sabbath, he surely missed a golden opportunity to stress the fact.” This is an argument purely from silence, which can never prove anything in history, or theology. Paul had no reason to stress the weekly first day’s observance that was already well established and not in dispute, believers having begun first-day worship following the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). For Paul to have done so would merely have muddied the waters. Throughout the book, Adams assumes that plural references to “a sabbath” or “sabbaths” or “sabbath days” – the usual biblical manner of referring to ceremonial days – must include the fourth commandment’s weekly holy day, which is essential to his thesis statement: “. . . the Bible teaches that the Sabbath has been abolished.”[16]
But assuming the Sabbath commandment was so soon to be abolished, how nonsensical should it be for the Lord Jesus to affirm the Sabbath – and His lordship over that institution – as in Mark 2:27-28, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (see also Matt. 12:8, Lk. 6:5). PCA Pastor Roland Barnes – who retired in 2023 after four-plus decades of ministry in Statesboro, Georgia – writes, “The Sabbath law prevents us from becoming slaves to our work on the one hand and slaves to our pleasures on the other.” As Jesus said, the day was “made for man,” that is, for man’s benefit and blessing to the extent he employs its hours in God-honoring ways. The physical and the spiritual elements complement one another: as one rests (body/mind) from secular labor on the day, he is thereby enabled to devote himself to corporate worship of the living and true God as well as pursuing the interests of the soul in private/family devotional time, mercy ministry, fellowship, and more during the remaining hours of the day. Occasionally when church members acknowledged they wished for more time to study their Bibles, my former pastor used to reply, “What are you doing on Sunday afternoon?” The Sabbath is a precious and holy gift; use it well.
Adams mentions today’s “more complex society” and suggests, rightly it seems, that a strict cessation of labor on any given day is impossible where medical, utilities, law enforcement, and other services are deemed a necessity (the question of legitimate works of necessity is beyond the scope here but is easily abused in practice). But what bearing does this development have on the moral obligation itself? Perhaps – as an Oak Ridge, Tennessee, engineer friend of mine suggested three decades ago – the commandment was intended, in part, to preclude the development of the type of complex society we have now, one in which technology (perhaps most significantly, medical) facilitates the arrogance of men who increasingly pretend themselves to be gods?
While nostalgia for a simpler time is often dreamy, how less complex might our society be without the massive urban centers (with associated social problems) made possible in part by the production of the steel and power (energy) required for high-rise buildings, utilities, transportation systems, and more? By the nineteenth century, beginning in Pennsylvania the nascent steel industry required blast furnaces to operate continuously – including on the weekly rest/worship day – in order to maintain the extremely high temperature necessary for production. That, along with transportation systems such as railroads which operated every day of the week, probably constituted the most far-reaching examples of societal Sabbath-breaking prior to 1900. It was our own mainly Presbyterian forefathers who did their best to warn against the long-term consequences of societal, even institutionalized, Sabbath breaking.
While the complex society problem is real, perhaps it is also important for the believer to remind himself that one’s favor in God’s sight does not stem from perfect observance of the fourth commandment – or any other law. Jesus Christ alone has fulfilled His Father’s law perfectly, on our behalf. It is Christ’s righteousness alone that believers are credited with, which is received by faith alone. Perhaps the failures of earlier generations – even those of the nineteenth century – have seriously damaged the prospects of contemporary Christians to observe the weekly holy day in the best possible manner. If that be the case, then let it be. May the intractable challenges of honoring the Lord in the fourth commandment – despite our best efforts – serve as a weekly reminder of our true and unending dependence upon “the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:5-6).
Out of genuine respect and admiration for the memory of this eminent father of the faith, the late Dr. Adams gets the last word here – which was his closing sentence in this little book: “Now, may God’s Spirit work in your heart through His Word that you may find saving, sanctifying, and glorifying rest in the Lord Jesus Christ – both now and forever.”[17]
Forrest L. Marion is a ruling elder in the First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Crossville, Tennessee.

[1] To clarify whether the weekly (fourth commandment) Sabbath or the several Jewish ceremonial sabbaths are in view, I elected to capitalize the weekly “Sabbath” and use lower case for the ceremonial “sabbaths.” Because the Westminster Confession of Faith uses the term “Christian Sabbath” or “Lord’s Day” in chapter XXI, para. VII, which terms have been used by generations since then, I will also use those terms on occasion. Note that the capitalization of the word sabbath found in many English renderings of Colossians 2:16 was an editorial decision – the Greek language of Paul’s day did not use capitalizations. That unfortunate editorial decision – thereby implying the weekly holy day (fourth commandment) was in view, rather than solely Jewish ceremonial days – has made the already difficult discussions of this issue even more difficult.  
[2] Jay E. Adams, Keeping the Sabbath Today? (Timeless Texts: Stanley, N.C., 2008), vii.
[3] Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Trust: Edinburgh and Carlisle, Penn., 1985 [1871]), 366-97 (quote on 366).
[4] Dabney, Systematic Theology, 366-67.
[5] Dabney, Systematic Theology, 366-68; Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, x.
[6] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, x.
[7] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, xi, 1-4.
[8] Gal. 4:10. Note Col. 2:16’s reference to “a Sabbath day” (NASB and other translations), is the result of an editorial decision to capitalize “Sabbath” – which capitalization does not appear in the Greek. The editors here showed their assumption – incorrect in the view of the Westminster Standards – that the weekly day of rest/worship was in view. Either the old, obsolete, Jewish ceremonial sabbaths were in view; or the Old Testament’s seventh-day Sabbath was in view (or both). But it cannot be logically argued that the New Testament’s holy day is in view – that day’s observance was not in dispute among believers and, therefore, had no need to be addressed; and does not fit the context.
[9] In addition to Colossians 2:16-17, Adams also relies on Rom. 14:5-6 (see also his chapters 1, 14) and Gal. 4:9-10 (see also his chapters 8, 17). Note that none of these three passages refers explicitly to the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s day. Romans 14:5-6 refers to those who regard “. . . one day above another, another regards every day alike”; and, “He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord. . . .” Galatians 4:9-10 warns against believers reverting to Jewish ceremonials, in verse 10, “You observe days and months and seasons and years.” Paul’s clear reference is to Jewish ceremonial days, also considered “sabbaths” or “sabbath days” (note the plural references to these ceremonial days) in several Old Testament passages (Neh. 10:33 refers to “the sabbaths, the new moons, for the appointed times, for the holy things” [clearly, these “times” are other than the weekly Sabbath; note that, in contrast, in chapter 13:15-22, Nehemiah refers ten times to the weekly holy day (singular) as “the sabbath” or “the sabbath day”]; Is. 1:13-14 refers to “New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies . . . I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts” – because “sabbath” is linked with “assemblies” and “new moon festivals” and “appointed feasts” (all plurals), there is no question the reference to all such ceremonies is in the plural; Hos. 2:11 refers to “feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, And all her festal assemblies,” again, both the context and plural indicating ceremonial days are in view rather than the weekly Sabbath). Unless noted otherwise, all Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
[10] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1 (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003 [reprint]), 82.
[11] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 60 [emphasis in original]; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q/A 121; Exodus 20:10.
[12] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 61.
[13] Or, if one prefers, the weekly Sabbath illustrates “the already and the not yet.”
[14] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 61.
[15] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 3. I am not sure which Bible version Adams uses here.

[16] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 3-4. Evidence exists that for a time some Jewish believers observed both the Jewish seventh day and the Christian first day.
[17] Adams, Keeping the Sabbath, 103.
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Wednesday, August 23, 2023
Non-competitive activities, however, may retain one’s focus on the Lord – if engaged in it thoughtfully. Again, readers may think of their favorite examples, from going for a walk or a bike ride with their children/grandchildren to a dad throwing a baseball with his son in the backyard to various other outings or indoor activities that allow for engaging in conversation or reflection on God’s sovereignty, creativity, and lovingkindness – or on the morning’s teaching and preaching. 

Among Christians, Presbyterians generally are those best attuned to the importance of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s Day. But this shared sense of importance does not translate to full agreement on the day’s nature or observance. For centuries, followers of Jesus Christ have differed regarding the observance of the fourth commandment.
Regardless, the Westminster Standards highlight the observance of the Lord’s Day which commemorates the resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the first day of the week. The Larger Catechism devotes no less than 7 questions – of 196 – to the fourth commandment (#115-121).
Question 117 asks, “How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?” The most relevant portion of the lengthy answer is, “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.” The answer to question 119 on “the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment” reiterates the forbidding of “all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations.”
The matter of worldly recreations is the narrow topic here.
A decade ago, while serving on my presbytery’s theological examining committee, I realized that the “recreations” clause was the one nearly always mentioned by candidates taking “exceptions” to the Westminster Standards. That experience has been reinforced by articles in The Aquila Report over the years as well.
One article in 2013 by Teaching Elder (TE) Jason A. Van Bemmel observed: “The biggest objection I have to ‘worldly recreations’ is that people seem eager to engage in leisure activities that do not focus their own hearts and minds on the Lord and that require others to work in order to serve them.”
In 2015, TE Benjamin Shaw expressed the issue of post-morning-worship Lord’s day activities with both humor and insight:
So our civil culture and our theological culture alike lean against prohibiting ‘recreations’ on the Sabbath. Then, we are presented the Dickensian bogeyman of the poor children of Sabbatarians, forced to sit in uncomfortable straight-backed chairs all Sunday afternoon, dressed in their Sunday-best, while their grim-faced father reads to them the opening chapters of 1 Chronicles.    
Assuming one’s regular attendance upon divine worship in the morning at a minimum, must we choose between Sabbath afternoon “leisure activities” that do not focus on the Lord on the one hand and “grim-faced” fathers reading 1 Chronicles’ genealogical chapters to their children on the other? Is there not a more biblical, even confessional, standard to be found somewhere between those two extremes?
All Christians acknowledge the Bible as their highest authority, but challenges may arise when Scripture does not use a particular word that carries weight in one’s confessional documents. The Westminster Standards use the word, “recreations,” which does not appear in the 1599 Geneva Bible or the 1611 King James Bible, the versions most familiar to the assembly when it met several decades later. Isaiah 58:13-14 – historically the favorite Scripture passage of Presbyterians on the topic – arguably comes closest to addressing the essence of recreational activity:
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, as 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, and I will cause thee to mount upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.      
Phrases such as, “. . . doing thy will on mine Holy day” and “not doing thine own ways, nor seeking thine own will,” point toward the essence of the recreations clause. In our culture, it’s all about “thine own will” – not God’s will. Even serious Christians are not exempt from such pernicious influences.
I am convinced this is where Greg Bahnsen’s thinking may help. He argued for viewing the recreations clause in the context of competitive versus non-competitive activities.*
Competitive activities by their nature focus one’s attention on the individual or one’s team. Readers may bring to mind their own examples of competition from sports to drama to music and so on. Such competitive activities promote “thine own will.” The very nature of competition means the activity must be self- or man-focused; not God-focused.
Non-competitive activities, however, may retain one’s focus on the Lord – if engaged in it thoughtfully. Again, readers may think of their favorite examples, from going for a walk or a bike ride with their children/grandchildren to a dad throwing a baseball with his son in the backyard to various other outings or indoor activities that allow for engaging in conversation or reflection on God’s sovereignty, creativity, and lovingkindness – or on the morning’s teaching and preaching.
While I cannot recall what Bahnsen may have said about King James I’s infamous – especially to the Puritans – Book of Sports, or Declaration of Sports, which was first issued in 1618 and reissued in 1633 by Charles I, without doubt the Westminster divines had this document in mind when they met in the 1640s. Some pastors, including John Davenport and Thomas Shepard, left England for America, partly because of Charles’s aggressive undermining of the Sabbath through the declaration’s reissuance (Davenport found refuge for a time in the Netherlands). Broader persecution influenced other pastors to emigrate, including John Cotton and Thomas Hooker, who traveled to America in July 1633, three months prior to the reissuance.
It is significant that several of the “lawful recreations” in which James and Charles encouraged their subjects to engage on Sabbath afternoons, were competitive in nature: “archery for men, leaping, vaulting.” The king considered them to be “exercises as may make their bodies more able for war, when we or our successors shall have occasion to use them.” This background supports the validity of viewing Westminster’s “recreations” within the framework of the competitive/non-competitive nature of Sabbath activities as Greg Bahnsen suggested.
Some writers argue for a study to address the Westminster Standards’ handling of the fourth commandment and/or the “recreations” clause. Until that happens, perhaps asking oneself whether a Sabbath activity being considered is competitive, or non-competitive, may promote a more faithful observance of the day and greater delighting in the Lord, which offers the believer a glimpse of the eternal Sabbath toward which he is headed.
Forrest L. Marion is a member of First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Crossville, Tennessee.

*Note: I’m unable to cite that roughly thirty years ago – in the olden days of audiocassettes – I listened to a (borrowed) taped message of Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995) in which he argued for viewing Sabbath “recreations” through the window of competitive/non-competitive activities. While I regret not having taken notes on his message, my family and former church members will testify that in the 1990s anything touching upon the Christian Sabbath and its observance commanded my attention; my dissertation dealt with the subject. Years later, I contacted Bahnsen Theological Seminary, but they were unable to locate this taped message. If any reader is familiar with this message of Dr. Bahnsen’s, please contact me at [email protected].
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Thursday, July 20, 2023
Given his ancestry and European upbringing, Frontis enjoyed a greater appreciation for the consequences of the loss of the Sabbath day than did most of his American-born brethren. Even so, some American-born Presbyterians occasionally reminded their countrymen of France’s abolition of the Sabbath in lieu of the Decadi (every tenth day) – nearly forty years after the event.

Until the early to mid-nineteenth century, many Protestant ministers who crossed the Atlantic to serve the Lord Jesus in British North America and, later, the American republic, hailed from England or Scotland. One worthy exception was a Frenchman, Stephen Frontis. His mostly forgotten life and ministry are worth considering today, including his contentions for the Christian Sabbath.
In British North America the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, was a pillar of the new society. This was the case in both spiritual and socioeconomic senses. Although the strict observance of the Sabbath in New England did not carry over to the Southern colonies, one historian of the Puritan Sabbath referred to the day’s observance in much of the South as “an island of rest in an ocean of endeavor.”[1] Colonial Sabbath statutes generally did carry over into the early national period, however, and in the 1820s at least 23 of the 24 states in the Union maintained some form of Sabbath ordinance. Additionally, many towns and villages had their own restrictions covering business as well as recreational activities.
Positively, the day afforded many with the opportunity for corporate worship and fellowship, as well as family gatherings, a degree of bodily rest from secular labor, and it marked the rhythm of community life. For many in that era, Sabbath customs and laws identified “these united States” – the plural was often used – as a “Christian nation.”
The federal government conducted almost no business on the Sabbath. The lone exception was the postal department, the largest department by far. The Post Office Act of 1810 probably seemed innocuous to many at first, but its consequences became apparent as the nation’s population and westward emigration increased dramatically, and as transportation options (macadamized roads, canals, steamboats) and cash-crop markets combined to place a premium on one’s ability to transport goods to market as quickly as possible – including on the Sabbath. Perhaps designed in part to offer protection to those postmasters and mail clerks who already were accustomed to performing secular labor on the Sabbath, the 1810 law required postmasters “at all reasonable hours, on every day of the week, to deliver” any mail or packages to those persons entitled to receive them. That included the Sabbath.[2]
During two brief periods between 1810 and 1830, many Christians as well as citizens seemingly unaffiliated with local churches in communities nationwide spoke out in defense of the day’s traditional observance. That is, they viewed the Bible’s fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy,” as the standard. They wanted it maintained, and they protested in print by means of petitions (or “memorials”) against that portion of the law which required postmasters and clerks to transgress the Sabbath. In the South – especially Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Carolinas – Presbyterians were the denomination most closely identified with Sabbath mails petitions sent to Congress (as well as the group responsible for the bulk of Sabbath-promoting publications in the South).
As occurred throughout the nation around 1830, citizens in a number of North Carolina locales petitioned Congress on the matter. A fair portion of the petitioners were locally recognizable if not prominent men, their signatures augmented by ordinary citizens, who viewed such practices – especially during peacetime – as unnecessary labor and, therefore, a violation of the fourth commandment. Postmasters, clerks, and the contractors who transported the mails, were deprived of their weekly day of rest and worship. (The same basic concern appeared in a recent U.S. Supreme Court case.)[3] In addition, the transporting of mails and opening of post offices appeared disruptive of Sabbath peace, order, and social harmony in communities. In North Carolina, memorials to Congress originated from at least eleven counties.[4]
Mecklenburg County (encompassing Charlotte) produced six memorials against Sabbath mails, more than any other community in the entire South. Two were handwritten documents. The other four were copies of a mass-produced (printed) North Carolina Memorial that also appeared in other counties in the state, indicating an organized petition campaign similar to that found in other areas of the country.
Another petitioning county, where Presbyterians were the dominant religious group, was Iredell, north of Charlotte. Most of the region’s early settlers were Scots-Irish Presbyterians. By the 1770s, Scottish Highlanders joined them as well as emigrants from Pennsylvania looking for good farm land. Many of the newly arrived were Presbyterians. Three of the earliest Presbyterian churches near Statesville, the county seat, were Fourth Creek, Concord, and Bethany.
In 1828, Stephen Frontis commenced his ministry at Bethany. Born in Cognac, France, near the height of the French Revolution’s terrors and reared largely without this father, Frontis survived a lengthy and treacherous trek to Switzerland when his mother, a Protestant from Geneva, decided to travel to her home. A biographer noted with considerable understatement: “She . . . undertook a very fatiguing journey of five hundred miles through a mountainous country with four children, the oldest only seven, the youngest [Stephen] two years old . . . [who was] feeble and sickly.” Surviving the journey and arriving in Geneva in June 1794, his mother brought up her children in the Protestant faith. There, Stephen attended a “singing school,” began his education, and learned the trade of a cabinet-maker.[5]
In 1810 – at a time when Napoleon’s army desperately needed young men – Frontis was allowed to travel to America to join his father who had settled in Philadelphia, while the rest of his family remained on the other side of the Atlantic. There Frontis worked as a journeyman and learned the English language. Walking along Fourth Street one Sabbath morning, he heard the voice of a preacher “speaking very loud.” Stopping to listen, Frontis heard something of the gospel. The preacher, he learned later, was Presbyterian pastor James K. Burch, whom Stephen came to consider his spiritual father. Frontis was to write that upon hearing the message, “I had read in the Old Testament that at the dedication of the Jewish temple, Solomon asked for wisdom and his request was granted. It occurred to me that I would do the same. I knelt down and prayed for wisdom. This was the first prayer I offered, without formality and in sincerity.”[6]
Received as a member of Burch’s church, Frontis accepted his pastor’s recommendation to pursue the gospel ministry. In 1817, Frontis accompanied Burch to Oxford, North Carolina, and assisted him briefly in an academy there, teaching French. Over the next ten years, Frontis taught French in Raleigh, North Carolina, then studied at Princeton’s theological seminary in New Jersey, and served as a Presbyterian evangelist in North Carolina, the Territory of Michigan (preaching in both English and French) and in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. (He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1824.)
At the end of 1827, Frontis received an invitation to visit the church of Bethany, in Iredell County. Returning to his adopted state, in the spring of 1828 he began preaching at Bethany. In May 1829, he accepted a call to become that church’s pastor as well as another’s – Tabor Presbyterian – devoting two-thirds of his time to Bethany and one-third to Tabor. During the winter of 1828-1829, Frontis led both churches in joining the nationwide petition campaign against Sabbath mails.[7]
In 1830, he married Miss Martha Dews of Lincolnton, N.C., whose family had come to America from the Channel Islands between England and France. They had three daughters and a son.
Rarely is it possible to identify the author of a particular Sabbath memorial, but the Iredell petition is one exception. The text of the document was penned in Stephen Frontis’ own “beautiful hand,” and his signature appeared just below the last line. That Pastor Frontis was influential in the petition effort – or that his views were in accord with those of other church leaders – was supported by the signatures of no less than eight of the eleven elders in the two churches. The signatures of five consecutive Tabor church members suggested the document was signed during a church gathering; probably on Sunday, February 1, 1829, the day before Frontis dated it below the last signature. Clearly, the Iredell memorial was the work of Presbyterians in the two churches led by Pastor Frontis.[8]
The petition’s text reflected Frontis’ thinking on the Sabbath. He believed the Sabbath afforded “the only adequate means for preserving the fear of God, the sanctity of oaths, genuine personal integrity, the public morals, & our civil & political privileges.” While acknowledging that there were many throughout the country “who practically disregard the Sabbath,” Frontis surmised there were but few “who would willingly see that sacred day abolished” – as the revolutionary government had done by design in his native France. Given his ancestry and European upbringing, Frontis enjoyed a greater appreciation for the consequences of the loss of the Sabbath day than did most of his American-born brethren. Even so, some American-born Presbyterians occasionally reminded their countrymen of France’s abolition of the Sabbath in lieu of the Decadi (every tenth day) – nearly forty years after the event.[9]
Consistent with other petition authors, Frontis believed the transporting of the mails and opening of post offices on the first day of the week “operate constantly & powerfully to bring the Sabbath itself into neglect & contempt . . . & that no remedy can be found, unless the national authority shall interpose to correct the evils.” The ills he alluded to grew tremendously during the period as the number of post offices increased greatly in size. In most communities the postmaster was the lone representative of the federal government, a respected figure. Even though most earned only modest revenues, each postmaster claimed the prestige of a federal office. His example was of considerable influence in the community, including his manner of keeping the Sabbath. Further, open post offices were popular gathering places for those looking for a reason to avoid attending public worship or seeking to escape the domestic circle.[10]
Having addressed spiritual concerns, in his conclusion Frontis emphasized temporal matters including the familiar connection between the Sabbath and republicanism:
The whole current of history & observation is in favour of the influence of the Sabbath upon the temporal prosperity of communities; that wherever this day has been con-secrated to religious instruction, & to the duties of public & private worship, the people have been distinguished for industry, peaceable habits, & especially for that intelligence & personal virtue, that sense of justice, of individual rights, & of the responsibility of rulers & private men to the Sovereign Ruler of all, which are essential to the existence of a free government.[11]
To any reader who may have glided over the above quote, please go back and read it again, slowly. Could there be anything more relevant in the America of the 2020s?
Frontis’ time at Bethany was of moderate duration: eight years, the last seven as her pastor. The main reason for his departure was one of the broad causes of North Carolina’s socioeconomic struggles of the period: westward, or southwestward, emigration, mostly in pursuit of richer, cheaper lands suitable for cash crops. Longings for the West contributed to upheaval in many communities and churches alike.
In Iredell County, from 1828 to 1836 the combined Bethany-Tabor membership lost 72 communicants, mostly due to emigration to West Tennessee. For a church that in 1836 counted 164 communing members, the losses were high. That year the dwindling flock led to a mutual decision leading to Frontis’ departure.
But Frontis was by no means the only local Presbyterian pastor concerned with Sabbath observance. Among North Carolina Presbyterians, the most active church court was Concord Presbytery, of which Frontis became a member in 1829. On four occasions between 1826 and 1836, Concord Presbytery directed her pastors to preach on the subject of Sabbath observance. Although four times in ten years may not appear overly impressive, it was unusual for a presbytery to direct its pastors to preach on specific topics.[12]
Following his pastorate at Bethany, Frontis served the First Presbyterian Church in Salisbury, N.C., for nine years, during which time two of his sisters were received into membership with certificates of transfer from their church in Geneva, Switzerland. Later, Frontis preached at several other area churches in the 1840s and 50s. For several years from 1858 he again taught French, doing so at the Presbyterians’ Davidson College, the precise location of which he had assisted in selecting some two decades earlier (he also served as a college trustee). He died in 1867, remembered as a man of great piety, “. . . deeply interested in everything that pertained to the advancement of the Redeemer’s Kingdom.”[13]
A faithful husband and father, pastor and churchman, native-Frenchman Stephen Frontis’ zeal for the Christian Sabbath may have been stirred by the bloody record of a Sabbath-less France in the 1790s as much as from his Bible and theological training. For Frontis and others of his era, the first day’s observance was an indispensable part of the serious and godly Christian life. Indeed, the Sabbath was a metaphor for the same: not one day a week, but every day. Today, we do well to remember the Sabbath, and the example of Rev. Stephen Frontis.
Requested byline:
Forrest L. Marion is a member First Presbyterian Church in Crossville, Tenn. This article stems from an ongoing study with the working title, “‘Stem the Torrent’: Southerners’ Contentions for the Christian Sabbath, 1815-1840.”

[1] Winton U. Solberg, Redeem the Time: The Puritan Sabbath in Early America (Cambridge, Mass., 1977).
[2] Forrest L. Marion, “The Gentlemen Sabbatarians: The Sabbath Movement in the Upper South, 1826-1836,” doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn., Aug. 1998.
[3] Chris Pandolfo and Bill Mears, “Supreme Court Hands Religious Freedom Win to Postal Worker Who Refused to Work on Sunday, Aquila Report [reposted from Fox News], Jun. 29, 2023.
[4] Petitions from the following North Carolina counties are held at the National Archives (NA), under Petitions Received, RG233: Cabarrus, Caswell, Cumberland, Guilford, Hertford, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Nash, Richmond, Robeson, and Rockingham.
[5] Joseph M. Wilson, The Presbyterian Historical Almanac, and Annual Remembrance of the Church for 1868, volume 10 (Philadelphia, 1868), 327-31; J. K. Rouse, “A Gifted Frenchman,” Daily Independent Magazine, Oct. 7, 1962; O. C. Stonestreet III, “19th-Century Minister Founded Area Schools,” Iredell Neighbors, Jul. 9, 1989.
[6] Manuscript, Stephen Frontis, “Memoirs of my Life,” Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
[7] As of 2006 the Presbyterian Department of History (PCUSA) at Montreat, N.C., displayed the Bethany church pulpit which was believed “to be the only 18th century North Carolina pulpit now in existence” – and from which Frontis preached.
[8] Petition of inhabitants of Iredell County, N.C., Feb. 2, 1829, Petitions Received, RG233, NA; “Bethany Presbyterian Church” abstract (original session books were penned by Frontis, clearly identifying his “beautiful hand”).
[9] Petition of inhabitants of Iredell County, N.C., Feb. 2, 1829.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Minutes of Concord Presbytery, vol. 2 (1825-1832), vol. 3? (1835), and vol. 4 (1836-1846), PCUSA.
[13] Stonestreet III, “19th-Century Minister,” Iredell Neighbors, Jul. 9, 1989.
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, February 13, 2023
Based on the historical record, there is little doubt that at the time of its destruction Washington Street Methodist had been – for three decades – a powerhouse of gospel-focused labor aimed at improving the prospects for eternity of the enslaved population of South Carolina, and beyond.

As Northern victory drew near in 1865, on the night of February 17/18 troops under General William T. Sherman set fire to the Washington Street Methodist Church in Columbia, South Carolina. Legend has it – highly plausible – that the soldiers intended to burn down the First Baptist Church. But when approached and queried by Union soldiers as to the Baptist church’s location, First Baptist’s quick-thinking sexton directed the soldiers around the corner to the Methodist church. Within minutes, that church was in flames. So goes the story.
Without a doubt, however, the First Baptist Church was where the first day’s meeting of the secession convention met, on December 17, 1860. But a smallpox epidemic had struck Columbia, so the delegates relocated to Charleston for the remainder of the convention, which voted unanimously on December 20 to withdraw from the Federal Union.
In America, the multitude of misunderstandings, ignorance, and errors of fact surrounding the political and social events from the 1860s are such that this little piece must refrain from addressing those important matters. Instead, it focuses on the burning of Washington Street Methodist and its relevance for today.
Washington Street Methodist is considered the mother church of all Methodists in Columbia. The first meeting house was a wooden structure built in 1804. In 1831, two men, Dr. William Capers – who pastored the church four times during his ministry (1818, 1831, 1835, 1846) – and William M. Kennedy, a former pastor and presiding elder of the Columbia district, laid the cornerstone of a new edifice, which was completed in 1832.
The first decades of the nineteenth century, known as the Second Awakening period, witnessed a mixed-bag of authentic gospel progress as well as more-or-less contrived professions of conversion and Christian faith which often were – and still are for historians – difficult to distinguish. William Capers, seemingly indefatigable and one of the few college-educated Methodist ministers in the area, was active as pastor, missionary, editor, and more. In 1821 he founded the Asbury Mission to the Creek Indians. Eight years later, he “took the lead in establishing plantation missions to slaves” among South Carolina Methodists. The same year, 1829, “Washington Street Church added 116 blacks to its roll.” (In 1830, Columbia’s population was 3,300.) Capers published a Catechism for the Use of the Methodist Missions (mainly for slaves), which, incidentally, is similar to the valuable children’s catechism used by some churches today (including in the PCA). Capers’s catechism began:
Who made you? God.What did he make you for? For his glory.Who is God? The Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.What do you know of him? God is holy, just and true.What else do you know of him? God is merciful, good and gracious.
Later, Capers’s missionary work spread to neighboring states. In the 1840s, Southern Methodists considered the mission to the slaves as “the crowning glory of our church.” When in 1855 Capers died, he had pastored Washington Street Church four times, his influence felt there even when not serving as their pastor. A fellow Methodist pastor preached his funeral service from Acts 13:36, “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep.” A biographer of Capers wrote, “. . . a great many . . . of his beloved flock passed by the altar, where lay the body of the faithful shepherd. . . . It was particularly affecting to see the colored people pass before the coffin with a tear and a sigh.”
Based on the historical record, there is little doubt that at the time of its destruction Washington Street Methodist had been – for three decades – a powerhouse of gospel-focused labor aimed at improving the prospects for eternity of the enslaved population of South Carolina, and beyond.
Readers, try to set aside the all-too-common presentism of today. Dr. Capers and many others devoted themselves to providing the gospel of Jesus Christ to a segment of the population which otherwise was unlikely ever to hear the words of life in a manner suitable to their knowledge and understanding. Capers and a number of ministers in denominations in the South – especially Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal – committed themselves to doing what they could. As the Puritan Matthew Henry wrote, if we may not do what we would, we must do what we could. The Southern ministers had no power to change the institutions of society at-large, even if some believed that to be part of the church’s calling.
The matter of the intentional burning down of any Christian church in a land where the vast majority at least nominally professed the God of the Bible is, of course, a troubling concern, but beyond the scope here. The fact was that Sherman’s men burned to it the ground – probably by mistake – the very church in Columbia that had done more than may be known on this side of glory for the souls of a poor and lowly people in the South.
The burning of Washington Street Methodist, then, is a metaphor in America today for the terrible destruction wrought by those who – regardless of their intent – confidently think themselves pure, righteous above all others. We are surrounded by those who never build anything – they only destroy. While the 94th Psalm refers to a throne, a broader aperture is fair for the purpose here: “Can a throne of destruction be allied with Thee, One which devises mischief by decree?” (94:20). And from Isaiah (with allowance for context), “Who among us can live with continual burning?” (33:14). Christians – those who build, not burn – must think rightly about the controversies of our day, and that means according to sola scriptura.
Forrest L. Marion is a member of First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Crossville, Tenn
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Saturday, November 19, 2022
Deacons are to be affirmed in this life is instructive: “For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 3:13). In contrast, the elder’s affirmation comes later: “. . . when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (I Peter 5:4).

On Saturday, October 22, 2022, Southeast Alabama (SEAL) Presbytery held its second annual deacons’ conference at the First Presbyterian Church in Montgomery. This year’s conference was built on last year’s, which was organized by deacon Samuel McLure and hosted by Eastwood Presbyterian in Montgomery. The theme of both conferences, “With Much Advantage,” is taken from the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-6 which states, “The deacons may, with much advantage, hold conference from time to time for the discussion of the interests committed to them.” The conference’s opening prayer was offered by Pastor Reed DePace of First Presbyterian.
Last year’s conference featured Pastor Harry Reeder of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama, who recorded an interview conducted by McLure. This year, however – even better – we secured Pastor Reeder in person, a most generous act on his part given his demanding schedule.
In the opening session, Reeder spoke about leadership in the church. Whenever God is about to do something, he said, “He raises up leaders.” But these are not unaccountable leaders. The essence of Presbyterian government is that “every person is accountable to someone.” His words were a good reminder for any church body, including a presbytery that has seen its share of discipline cases, the effects of some of them rippling until today.
In Acts 6, the account of the establishment of the office of deacon reveals that the work of serving “tables” was not, as one might suppose, the idea of waiters serving food to guests at their tables. Rather, serving tables referred to first century financial accountability. Pastor Reeder pointed out that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, that was the place of handling financial accounts. He emphasized that the reason deacons are ordained is because they perform elder duties; duties that have been delegated to them (such as church finances).
Pastor Stephen Estock followed Reeder. The coordinator for the PCA’s Committee on Discipleship Ministries (CDM) – and from 1995-2002 the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Montgomery (in whose former building the conference took place) – Estock reminded the gathering of a maxim of one of the PCA’s founding fathers, ruling elder W. Jack Williamson, who referred to the BCO’s preface and preliminary principles as “the spectacles by which we read the Book of Church Order.” If we find ourselves using some portion of the BCO to violate the preface or preliminary principles, “we are probably in error,” noted Estock.
He went on to focus on the office of deacon – although no small part of his commentary applied to elders as well. If you have been elected by your church to an office, then according to our constitution, which is subordinate to the Scriptures, “God has placed you there.” And that should be of great encouragement. Estock observed that because deacons exercise spiritual authority, that is why the office is open only to men. In exercising this authority, deacons, he said, “. . . are stewarding the gifts and administering them in the life of the congregation.” Noting that he was ordained as a deacon in 1989 and remains conscious of his call to serve, Pastor Estock also observed that BCO 9-7 allows a session to “appoint” (not ordain) godly men and women to assist the deacons. In some churches this is termed a “shepherdess” ministry.
Referring to the account of Jesus washing His disciples’ feet (John 13), Estock said, “This practical service was pointing to a greater spiritual reality,” one to be fulfilled by Christ within hours. Significantly, the Spirit who enabled Jesus to wash His betrayer Judas’s feet is the same Spirit who enables officers today to serve those whom they may be disinclined to serve. “Those you serve must see you as a servant,” he concluded.
Following Estock’s presentation, the attendees enjoyed a delicious luncheon prepared by the ladies of First Presbyterian which also provided an opportunity to catch up or connect with other brothers in the presbytery.
In an afternoon panel discussion moderated by Mr. McLure, there were a number of thoughtful questions and exhortations mentioned, including the following:

“How can I be a friend in a way that happens to line up with my calling as a deacon?”
There is benefit in the ministry of listening, assisted by the acronym WAIT (Why Am I Talking).
As a leader, you ought to always have somebody else with you, learning.
There are times when the Aquila-and-Priscilla model is appropriate, such as when visiting a woman in the hospital after surgery.
The Church’s narrow mission is to make disciples; the Christian’s broader mission is to be salt-and-light.
Cultural transformation is not the Church’s objective; individual transformation (discipleship) is the Church’s objective; cultural transformation is the consequence of aggregate, sinner transformations.

Pastor Reeder wrapped up the program, returning to the theme of leadership in the context of church officership. He noted the term “likewise” in I Timothy 3:8-12’s list of requirements for deacons “throws elders and deacons back into each other’s laps.” Beginning with the officers, “. . . the church needs to become a leadership factory,” Reeder asserted. (Especially in days of cultural dissolution and some of the worst ecclesiastical and political leadership in human history, this exhortation is desperately needed – see also Exodus 18:21’s teaching on leadership.) Reeder added, “The relationship of deacons and elders needs to be cohesive and not competitive. . . . We don’t do leadership teams, we do teams of leaders. . . . Godly leaders are office-bearers, not office-wearers. . . . Godliness is more important than giftedness.”
In his closing comments, the longtime pastor of Briarwood suggested that Paul’s statement that deacons are to be affirmed in this life is instructive: “For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 3:13). In contrast, the elder’s affirmation comes later: “. . . when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (I Peter 5:4). Perhaps the deacon’s affirmation (high standing) while in the earthly tent is intended to recognize that his service, oftentimes, entails laborious duty that remains mostly unseen, except, that is, by the True Deacon, Jesus Christ.
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, May 9, 2022
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At the end of November 1939, during a period many Europeans and Americans considered a “phoney war” after the invading, dividing, and absorbing of Poland in September 1939 by Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. attacked its small northern neighbor, Finland. The hardy Finns had enjoyed independence for barely two decades, having been under Russian sovereignty for a century until the 1917 Russian Revolution which gave them the chance to secure their liberty, by force of arms, in 1918. On the surface, the fight in the winter of 1939-40 appeared more uneven than today’s Russo-Ukrainian war, with results equally inspiring to those pulling for the smaller nation.
In 1939, the Soviet Union held more than 100 million subjects; Finland’s population was 4 million. The Soviets had about 3,000 tanks at the outset (the war cost them 1,600); most Finnish soldiers – mostly citizen-soldiers – had never seen a tank. The Soviet air force had some 2,500 aircraft (nearly 1,000 were lost); the Finnish Air Force had not quite 100 machines at the outset, but acquired dozens more from friendly powers during the war, losing about 60 total. Stalin preferred to have a legal pretext for his planned invasion – and following Hitler’s example in Poland – manufactured a border incident intended to depict the Finns as the aggressors. Never mind that the only firing of guns came from the eastern side of the border. Diplomatic initiatives leading up to the unprovoked attack had, unfortunately, dampened the Finns’ preparations for war. When the attack came, a new government was formed immediately, one clearly committed to the nation’s defense.[1]
Ten days after the Soviet attack, foreign minister Molotov – his name soon linked with a homemade, anti-tank explosive later known as the Molotov Cocktail (quite popular in Ukraine nowadays) – claimed in a telegram, with breathtaking dishonesty:
The Soviet Union is not at war with Finland, nor does it threaten the people of Finland with war. . . . The Soviet Union maintains peaceful relations with the Finnish Democratic Republic, whose government on December 2nd concluded with the Soviet Union a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. This treaty settles all the questions with regard to which the Soviet government had negotiated fruitlessly with the representatives of the former government of Finland, now ejected from office.[2]
If readers are somewhat confused by the treaty of friendship reference, think Donetsk or Luhansk today.
Perhaps the most brazen portion of Molotov’s missive, however, was his reference to Finland’s government being “ejected from office.” As the saying goes, neither Finnish Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, nor his soldiers, got that memo. Although Mannerheim fought against Russians, first in 1918 and again in 1939-40, he had served thirty years as an officer under Tsarist Russia, including participating in the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896, of which he remained proud all his life.
Under Mannerheim’s leadership in 1939, following the initial shock of seeing tanks in battle for the first time in addition to overwhelming numbers of enemy troops, the Finns fought like tigers, helped by their familiarity with the forests in which many of them worked as loggers and trappers; and their native skills with firearms, severely cold weather, and skiing. In addition, the Finns had the incalculable moral advantage of defending their homeland. Molotov’s communication was revealing, too, in that it presumed the “former government” had fallen – a faulty prediction echoed by a Russian news announcement in late February 2022.[3]
The telegram further illustrated what the noted 20th-century British military historian, Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, wrote concerning the Marxist use of language:
A fundamental principle in Marxian dialectics is verbal inversion. When the accepted meaning of a word or an idea is turned upside down, not only are Communist intentions obscured [to the unsuspecting], but the mind of the non-Communist is misled, and mental confusion leads to a semantic nightmare in which things appear to be firmly planted on their feet, but actually are standing on their heads.
. . . Disarmament to one means one thing, to the other another thing; so also does peace. While to the non-Communist peace is a state of international harmony, to the Communist it is a state of international discord. . . . Communists hold that peace and war are reciprocal terms for a conflict which can only end when the Marxian Beatitude is established; since their final aim is pacific, they are peace lovers.[4]
Thus could Molotov claim unblinkingly that the invading Soviets were not “at war” with Finland, rather, they maintained “peaceful relations” with their neighbor’s government; similar to Russian denials of being at war today. Even closer to home for Americans, however, Fuller’s warning brings to mind the “verbal inversion” and “semantic nightmare” of terms like “systemic racism” that characterizes the madness of neo-Marxist, so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) – a juvenile, secular religion, not a theory – and its fraudulent, destructive offshoot, Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI). As eminent Professor Thomas Sowell writes, “The mystical benefits of diversity are non-existent, however politically correct it is to proclaim such benefits.” Simply put, if your loved one is to have surgery, do you want the surgeon to have graduated from a medical degree program that pursued diversity or meritocracy? One must choose.[5]
In the Winter War, the Finns held off the Russians during December 1939 and January 1940, during which they achieved stunning, overwhelming victories at difficult-to-spell-and-pronounce place names – at least for English speakers – such as Lake Tolvajärvi (mid-December) and Suomussalmi-Raate (late December-early January).
Tolvajärvi was north of Lake Ladoga which formed the northern border of the strategic Karelian Isthmus. The Finnish commander there, Colonel Talvela, later commented: “In situations like this, as in all confused and hopeless situations, an energetic attack against the nearest enemy was and is the only way to improve the spirits of the men and to get control of the situation.” No wonder Mannerheim thought so highly of him. Talvela was promoted to Major-General.
North of Tolvajärvi, the roughly west-to-east Suomussalmi-Raate Road (Raate was near the Finnish-Russian border), ran across the narrow “waist” of Finland where the Soviets hoped to cut the country in two. In that battle the Russians suffered from temperatures as low as minus 25 degrees C. (likely much lower), to which they were unaccustomed, limited food supplies, and aggressive harassing attacks by the Finns. Russian losses there were estimated at 30,000. News from the Finnish front captured the world’s attention and was the cause célèbre of the day.
Churchill, four months away from becoming prime minister, made a broadcast, stating: “Only Finland – superb, nay, sublime – in the jaws of peril – Finland shows what free men can do. The service rendered by Finland to mankind is magnificent. . . . If the light of freedom which still burns so brightly in the frozen North should be finally quenched, it might well herald a return to the Dark Ages. . . .”[6]
February and early March 1940 were a much different story, however. A new Russian commander, Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko, was named and given almost unlimited resources in men and materiel. In his memoirs, Mannerheim described the difference from December-January to February-March: “The enemy’s attacks in December could be compared with a badly-conducted orchestra,” as infantry, armor, and artillery were uncoordinated. By February, experienced and under Timoshenko’s leadership, they had learned to orchestrate their arms. Such improvements, in addition to the willingness to accept massive losses which the Russians could replace but the Finns could not, forced the Finnish government to sign a severe settlement in March, according to which they lost 12 percent of their population and some 25,000 square miles of territory including the Karelian Isthmus. But Finland survived and was to prosper again in years to come.[7]
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
In 2004, Dr. Räsänen, a physician and former Minister of the Interior, wrote a short booklet on the Bible’s teachings regarding sexuality, including a section on homosexuality. Bishop Pohjola’s church published the booklet. In addition, Dr. Räsänen was charged with tweeting a Bible verse in response to the liberal state church’s sponsorship of an LGBTQ parade and for taking part in a debate on the subject in 2019.
Gene Veith writes, “Three years ago, over a decade and a half after the publication of the booklet, the two were charged for inciting hatred against homosexuals,” despite the fact that Finland did not legalize same-sex unions – I will not call it marriage – until 2017. In 2022, finally their case has been brought to trial. By the way, Finland claims to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. If found guilty, the two could face fines and up to two years in prison.[8]
To turn a bizarre case into an even stranger dystopian, yet evangelistic, event, in January the prosecution elected to shift attention away from the two defendants. As Joy Pullmann of the Federalist writes, “Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as ‘hate speech.’ Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court.” In scenes that Bible readers of the Apostle Paul before the likes of Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24-26) might recall, the lead Finnish prosecutor actually read out Old Testament verses, quoting them to the court. When prosecutors then proceeded to question Pohjola and Räsänen concerning their beliefs, the two had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel in the courtroom. Bishop Pohjola and Dr. Räsänen have on multiple occasions “publicly affirmed that they are not motivated by hate, but by love in stating the historic, orthodox Christian faith.” Outside the court, Räsänen spoke to reporters with faithfulness and winsomeness: “The saving gospel of Jesus Christ has been given to us in the Bible. . . . The cross of Christ shows the greatest love for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.”[9]
How ironic that a miniscule number – in this case, only two – spiritual descendants of those outnumbered and outgunned patriots who, for 105 days during the fearful Scandinavian winter of 1939-40, fought heroically to preserve Finland’s independence should, in 2022, find themselves the subject of naked state-sponsored persecution fairly reeking of the very tyranny against which nearly 25,000 Finns gave all against the invading enemy.
Sadly, today Finland is only one of many Western nations, including the United States, in which the few – but steadily increasing – morally courageous stand in contrast to the cowardly majority that embrace, knowingly or otherwise, Fuller’s Marxian Beatitude in its current CRT/DEI/cancel-culture iteration, revealing a weak, sickly body politic and a culture unworthy of their forefathers’ courage and sacrifices.[10]
As the afflictions of aggressive, compulsive, humanistic ideologies are manifested irrespective of locale, tradition, or historical precedent, more and more erstwhile quiet Christians and other principled individuals are determining to “live not by lies.” Rod Dreher writes, “Under the guise of ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusivity,’ ‘equity,’ and other egalitarian jargon, the Left creates powerful mechanisms for controlling thought and discourse and marginalizes dissenters as evil.”[11] As my senior pastor says, the Lord is “gloriously unpredictable.” Moreover, David in the 11th Psalm writes, “If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?” The next verse answers: “The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven.” His sovereignty rules over all (Psalm 103:19). May today’s followers of Jesus Christ lift hearts in prayer for the upholding of true righteousness, beginning in their own little spheres, in their own little corners of Zion, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. As the prophet Zechariah writes, “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates” (8:16).
On 1 April 2022, the Center for Religious Liberty reported that on 30 March a Helsinki court dismissed all charges against Dr. Räsänen. (The brief report did not mention Bishop Pohjola.) While this was only one spiritual battle in a long conflict, let us give thanks to God. . . .
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Eric Lewenhaupt, trans., The Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim (London: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1953), 365, 369.
[2] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 328; Robert Edwards, The Winter War: Russia’s Invasion of Finland, 1939-40 (New York: Pegasus Books, 2008), 139-40 (Molotov quoted by Edwards), 192. Mannerheim wrote, “In-fighting with tanks was to provide some of the most heroic incidents of the Winter War, for to attack them with only this bottle in one’s hand required skill as well as courage” (328).
[3] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Edwards, Winter War, 157.
[4] J.F.C. Fuller, The Conduct of War, 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961), 211-12.
[5] Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays (New York: Basic Books, 2010 [2002]), chap. 20 (audiobook).
[6] Edwards, Winter War, 152-85 (Talvela quoted by Edwards), 223 (Churchill quoted by Edwards); Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 334-40.
[7] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 350-53; Edwards, Winter War, 204, 228.
[8] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Gene Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” The Aquila Report, 4 Feb 2022 (originally in patheos.com, 26 Jan 2022).
[9] Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” 26 Jan 2022 (Pullmann quoted by Veith). For additional reading on this case, see Joy Pullmann, “In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians on Trial for Their Faith,” The Aquila Report, 30 Nov 2021 (originally in thefederalist.com, 23 Nov 2021); [Mathew] Block, “Finnish Bishop Elect Charged Over Historic Christian Teachings On Human Sexuality,” The Aquila Report, 6 May 2021 (originally in ilc-online.org [International Lutheran Council]), 30 Apr 2021; Kiley Crossland, “Finnish Church Embraces Gay Marriage, Loses 12,000 Members,” The Aquila Report, 30 Dec 2014 (originally in wng.org, 4 Dec 2014).
[10] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 365, 370.
[11] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (New York: Sentinel, 2020), xii. Dreher took his book’s title from a letter of famed Soviet dissident and author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, February 7, 2022
I recently had the opportunity to worship in a church in Sumter, South Carolina, that I had attended faithfully as a single man in my twenties more than 35 years ago. In the mid-1980s, stationed at nearby Shaw Air Force Base, I attended a local Bible church where many of the congregation clearly loved Jesus Christ and His Word. In my several years there, I connected with an older couple in the church, Herman and Rachel.

I recently had the opportunity to worship in a church in Sumter, South Carolina, that I had attended faithfully as a single man in my twenties more than 35 years ago. In the mid-1980s, stationed at nearby Shaw Air Force Base, I attended a local Bible church where many of the congregation clearly loved Jesus Christ and His Word. In my several years there, I connected with an older couple in the church, Herman and Rachel. Herman was born before 1920, was reared in Marion, South Carolina, and, like many young men during the Great Depression era served for a time in the 1930s in the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). When the United States entered the Second World War, Herman wanted to serve in the military but was married and with a child on the way. His wife, Rachel, was also from the town of Marion. (I recall one of them sharing with me that their family’s first telephone number, a party line – was either 9 or 1J – that was all.) Their first child, I’ll call her “Patsy,” was born early in 1942.[1]
Expecting that he could serve without moving far from home, Herman enlisted in the Army Air Forces late in ’42 or early ’43, becoming a crew chief on the B-17 bombers that famously were carrying the fight to Hitler’s Germany from the skies. (Contrary to his expectations, he ended up moving around and was stationed for a time at Kingman, Arizona.) After the war, Herman returned to South Carolina, and residing in Sumter he worked for a cleaner’s, a bank, and, later, as a traveling salesman first with an auto parts company, then a hardware store. With the hardware store, his territory extended from Sumter to the east and south, down to Georgetown, S.C. He dealt with a lot of people in his career, and Herman didn’t know a stranger, as the saying goes. He loved people and loved to talk about the Lord Jesus and the Bible with them. Rachel liked to say that Herman never went anywhere without seeing someone he knew. Once on a family trip to Indiana, it was only on the way home, somewhere in Tennessee, where that record remained intact. Patsy recalled her daddy always said to the children growing up, “If you see someone without a smile, give them one of yours, because they need it more than you do.” Herman lived that saying. He also read the Bible at home with his family. Patsy felt he lived before the Lord in a way that she could see – not perfectly, of course – what Christ was like.
By the time I met him, he had retired. He and Rachel became my surrogate grandparents in those days. I well remember going to the Shoney’s in town with them, and it was difficult for us to finish a meal. That was because Herman knew everyone there, or so it seemed, and wanted to talk with them and they with him. (On my recent visit to our old church, I drove right past that Shoney’s as I followed Patsy to her home for lunch.) Patsy’s son, whom I met on my recent visit, shared that he still runs into strangers around the state who knew his granddad, who went home to his Lord in 2000. Patsy says the same about folks all over Sumter. Herman’s lifelong companion, Rachel, followed him to her Lord about five years later.
In his latter years, Herman developed Alzheimer’s and eventually moved into a Methodist home in Orangeburg, S.C., for the care and convenience it afforded. Patsy shared that in her dad’s time there, he had a roommate, a former pastor. On occasion, as Patsy visited from Sumter, she would find Herman and his roommate sitting literally “knee to knee” in their room, their Bibles open on their laps. Herman’s roommate also suffered from Alzheimer’s. Neither man could read his Bible any longer, but they had them open anyway, talking about God’s Word together, which both of them knew very well. The fact that one was white and the other was black mattered not at all. They both loved Jesus and His Word – and that was all that mattered.
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.
[1] To protect her identity, I chose to call her “Patsy” because she has been enjoying a book on George Washington’s family life. George called his wife, Martha, by the nickname, Patsy.

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, January 10, 2022
The activities of the Red Guards in the 1960’s under the auspices of the . . . Cultural Revolution had certain interesting characteristics. The major slogan these young students were acting upon was to ‘smash the old and make room for the new.’ Tens of thousands of high school and university students traveled all over China, especially to such big cities as Peking, Shanghai, Canton. . . . They stormed some of the most treasured Chinese cultural sites – Buddhist temples, Protestant and Catholic churches – invaded the libraries, and desecrated the graves of their ancestors.

Fifty years ago, a scholarly study of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China serves as a case study to those in America today who may remain unable to perceive or unwilling to admit the religious nature of the neo-Marxist-based movement in our own culture. In recent months, a number of articles and blogs have shed light on the secular quasi-religion currently ravaging America, some of them in the pages of The Aquila Report. Perhaps today’s neo-Marxists’ reluctance to admit the religious nature of their movement is because Marxism is supposed to be a purely secular, a-theistic, non-religious movement. Bible readers will know, however, that as God has placed eternity in man’s heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11), so must mankind in all ages be found to worship something or someone. The present writing uses several excerpts to make clear that this is no cherry-picked interpretation of past events. Some readers may even be surprised to learn that the study from 1971 that I draw from was published by the University of California Press at Berkeley – not exactly a hotbed of conservatism, then or now.
Nineteen sixty-six marked 17 years since the Communists had secured mainland China, having kicked out the Nationalists who withdrew to Taiwan where the Republic of China government was reestablished and remains to this day, albeit under increasing near-daily threats from the mainland. The year 1966 also witnessed the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s People’s Republic of China (PRC). Five years later, Asian Survey published an article entitled, “The Role of Religion in Communist Chinese Society.” The writer, Lucy Jen Huang, a sociology professor at Illinois State University, collected her materials for the article from reports, editorials, newspapers, and official documents “published in Mainland China and intended for internal Chinese consumption,” supplemented with firsthand accounts provided by emigres from China and Western visitors to the mainland.
Huang noted that beginning in 1949,
Communist leaders, via the newspapers and monthly magazines, launched a diligent campaign against religion in which it was argued that religion and superstition were similar in that all religious activities were superstitious, but that not all superstitions were religious activities. . . . As long as class and class struggle are present, the struggle against religious superstitions will always be associated with the class struggle.[1]  
While the nature of the “struggle” – in reality, one small part of the war against God described in Psalm 2 – has shifted largely from class to other concerns in contemporary America, it was clear from the founding of the PRC that religious activities were to be equated with superstition.
Referring to the start of the Cultural Revolution, Huang wrote, “Every religious revival movement requires the true believers to spread the ‘word,’ in this case mainly selection[s] from the little red book, Quotations of Mao Tse-tung. Soon after the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, Red Guards [students, mainly], in the role of missionaries and disciples of the religious movement, traveled all over China.” A Canton news article recounted that the Red Guards in their missionary work, “. . . spared time every day to help the teenagers and children study quotations from Chairman Mao, teach them to sing revolutionary songs, and help the residents do household work.”
Lucy Jen Huang continued:
Maoism, by this time, had taken the form of extreme adulation of the great leader, sage, poet, philosopher, military genius, statesman, worthy successor to the mightiest of Emperors, and the great prophet of Marxist-Leninist thought. The worship of Mao could be discerned in the report on [the] Red Guards’ visit to his birthplace in Hunan Province. The house where Chairman Mao lived had been carefully preserved and an exhibition hall has been built near it. . . . Red Guards wrote the following pledges in the guest book: ‘We shall give our lives to defend Mao Tse-tung’s ideas! Henceforth, we live to implement Mao Tse-tung’s thought!’ . . . ‘Neither mountains of swords nor oceans of flame hold any fear for us as we work under your guidance. We shall follow you always. Let the seas dry up and the rocks crumble, but our hearts will never change.’
Bible readers perhaps will reflect on several passages of Scripture, of which the aforementioned is but a cheap plastic, soul-destroying imitation.
The article described activities engaged in by the young Red Guards:
. . . the heart and soul of the younger generation of Chinese was aroused by this Maoist religious experience. . . . Red Guards were set loose in the streets of Peking to demand that the traffic lights be changed so that red signaled ‘Go’ and green ‘Stop’; to rename the great Peking Square from ‘Heavenly Place’ to ‘East is Red’; to smash stamp collectors’ shops as ‘Bourgeois’; to break into people’s homes and toss out non-revolutionary pointed shoes and sport shirts. Persecution of the unbelievers can be traced in a Red Guard document entitled ‘One Hundred Examples for Breaking the Old and Establishing the New.’  
Sadly, American readers may substitute their own terms for today’s Red Guards let loose in their streets, not of Peking, Shanghai, and Canton, but Portland, Seattle, and Chicago – smashing shops, breaking the old and seeking vainly, if not hypocritically, to establish the new (utopia).
In terms frighteningly and disgustingly familiar to many Americans today, Huang summarized the devastations in China:
The activities of the Red Guards in the 1960’s under the auspices of the . . . Cultural Revolution had certain interesting characteristics. The major slogan these young students were acting upon was to ‘smash the old and make room for the new.’ Tens of thousands of high school and university students traveled all over China, especially to such big cities as Peking, Shanghai, Canton. . . . They stormed some of the most treasured Chinese cultural sites – Buddhist temples, Protestant and Catholic churches – invaded the libraries, and desecrated the graves of their ancestors. They smashed the statues and crosses, burned the Buddhas, and fed books into the flames. When they broke into Peking’s Roman Catholic Church, tore the crucifix from the altar and set up a plaster bust of Mao, the symbolism of the deification of Mao was complete. 
In conclusion, Huang pointed out part of the contradictory nature of the quasi-religion of Maoism:
The official policy of the Maoist regime has been anti-religious and anti-superstitious in nature. However, paradoxically, there are undeniably religious dimensions in the official tactics and ideology resembling the very phenomena of religion and superstition which the regime claims to oppose. Mao, as the symbol of god and prophet; Maoism the Bible, in the form of quotations of Mao Tse-tung; and the faith in Mao and his teachings, which have supposedly achieved superhuman feats and miracles, have stirred the religious zeal of Mao’s followers.
As was to be the case with the disciples of Wokeism in America fifty years later,
For many followers of Maoism they may have found in the Communist regime a seeming dedication to justice, international brotherhood . . . and tireless service to mankind. They are no longer confused and alienated. But for others who are overly idealistic and impractical, Maoism may turn out to be ‘the God that failed.’ It has challenged and fired their enthusiasm but may be unable to satisfy their cherished dreams and idealism.
One writer in 2021, questioning how “siblings, neighbors, colleagues, and classmates [could] turn on one another so viciously?” concluded that Mao’s “Cultural Revolution was fundamentally a civil war.” Perhaps 40 percent of China’s population in those days was fifteen years of age or under; nearly half were under twenty years, and they provided most of the Red Guards. Some estimates list as many as 1.5 million killed in China, 36 million persecuted, and tens of millions in addition affected “in a countryside upheaval” that lasted from 1966 to 1976, when Mao died. By 1981, the Chinese Communist Party called the Cultural Revolution an error, but deflected the blame from Mao toward his wife and his closest associates. The supposed “worthy successor to the mightiest of Emperors” could not suffer loss of reputation – at least not shortly after his death.[2]
For the student of the Bible, perhaps much of the assessment of China’s Cultural Revolution is as unsurprising as it is disheartening, except perhaps in the degree of its ruthlessness, vileness, and destructiveness. But the main point here is simply to recognize that, regardless of what Wokeism’s participants or observers may claim in 2021, it – like Maoism fifty years ago – is, in essence, a religion, and a false religion at that. But as is the case for all men in all ages, the follower of any worldly –ism – including Wokeism – is called to repent and believe the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and he shall be saved.
And for any that have believed the gospel but have been led astray by false teachers, heed the words of John to the angel of the church in Sardis: “Remember therefore what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. If therefore you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you” (Revelation 3:3).
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Lucy Jen Huang, “The Role of Religion in Communist Chinese Society,” Asian Survey, vol. XI, no. 7 (Jul. 1971): 695. Unless cited otherwise, all quotations in the remainder of the present writing are taken from Huang’s article, pp. 698-701, 707-708.
[2] Pankaj Mishra, “What Are The Cultural Revolution’s Lessons For Our Current Moment? The New Yorker, Jan. 25, 2021.

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Friday, November 26, 2021
Keep in mind that by this time the Jerusalem church probably numbered between fourteen and eighteen thousand. As the church grew, new men were needed to continue doing what the elders had been handling, that is, if the elders were to continue to focus on the Word and prayer. The deacons took up three duties that formerly had been done by the elders: the administration of the church, the resources of the church, and the mercy ministry of the church. The reason deacons are to be ordained is because they perform roles the elders formerly did. One very practical tip Reeder gave to elders and sessions was this: try not to redo the work of the diaconate.

On a beautiful, crisp Saturday in October, Southeast Alabama Presbytery (SEAL) deacons held a half-day conference focused on deacons and their biblical role in the church. Hosted at Eastwood PCA in Montgomery – strategically, on a “bye” week for Auburn football – about 40 men attended, mostly deacons from several Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) churches plus several teaching elders (TE) and ruling elders (RE). The conference organizer, Montgomery attorney and Eastwood deacon Samuel McLure opened the event by remarking that, as far as anyone knew, this was the first-ever SEAL presbytery gathering to focus on deacons and their role.
Mr. McLure provided handouts of an 1859 article in The Southern Presbyterian Review by the Rev. James B. Ramsay that addressed “The Deaconship.” One of Ramsay’s excellent thoughts was, “A man cannot be a Christian without seeking to assist, comfort and elevate, all that are Christ’s, to the extent of their wants and his ability.” The Apostle Paul gave considerable attention to the taking up of collections and their proper distribution to the poor of the churches he ministered to, Ramsay pointed out. The Virginia pastor argued that the deacon “as a distinct officer” is to have charge of that important, “distinct function of the church.”[1]
Following the welcome and introduction, TE Jere Scott Bradshaw of Covenant PCA (Auburn, Ala.), preached a sermon from Acts 6-7 on the life and ministry of Stephen, one of the seven men full-of-the-Spirit and wisdom chosen to serve the Jerusalem church as a deacon, thereby enabling the elders to focus on prayer and the ministry of the Word. Pastor Bradshaw had three main teaching points: the character of the deacon, the confidence of the deacon, and the incompetence of the deacon.
The writer of Acts, the apostle Luke, relates that Stephen’s character was marked by grace and power, wisdom and evidence of the Spirit, and tenacity in the message of grace in Jesus Christ. Stephen’s confidence was reflected in his message, “one of the greatest speeches in the history of the world,” as Bradshaw said. Stephen emphasized to his audience that God was not confined to Israel. But the problem his audience faced was not one of the distribution of bread or of church resources; rather, it was the defilement of sin. His audience needed a new creation, a new birth, a new LORD, a new witness. Stephen courageously pointed them toward Jesus Christ, the one who fulfills all that the scriptures had led God’s covenant people to anticipate. Yet Stephen was unable to bring about their change of heart. Pastor Bradshaw observed that, like the elder, the deacon is utterly incapable of bringing about change in another’s heart; only the True Deacon, Jesus Christ, is competent to change the heart. Connecting with the biblical account of Stephen’s death, Bradshaw reminded the men that it was this True Deacon who changed the murderous Saul into the Apostle Paul.
Pastor Bradshaw continued, “Dear brother, you will be utterly incompetent in your service as a deacon.” Your service often will go unnoticed; it will receive unmerited criticism; it will be ineffective in bringing about lasting change in people. “And, beloved, this is the joy of being an officer in the church” (both elder and deacon). Because we, as mere men, are unable to produce transformation – neither in ourselves nor others – we must look to Jesus Christ. Deacons must live for the approval of only one voice . . . the Glorious God, who says, “Well done, good and faithful servant. . . .” Jere Scott Bradshaw closed with these words to deacons: “May you rest and work in the power of the Holy Spirit as you manifest the gospel of grace in acts of mercy.” “Then,” added Bradshaw, “you will truly be serving ‘with much advantage.’”
Bradshaw’s closing remarks played into the title and theme of the conference, taken from the PCA’s Book of Church Order, section 9-6: “The deacons may, with much advantage, hold conference from time to time for the discussion of the interests committed to them” (emphasis added).
Following the sermon, the group watched a recorded interview that Sam McLure had conducted with Pastor Harry Reeder of Briarwood PCA (Birmingham, Ala.), specifically for this conference. Pastor Reeder encouraged the men to be concerned with “church health” rather than “church growth.” Normally, a healthy church will also grow numerically. In some churches, however, he noted, the pastor is doing the work of the elders, the elders are doing the work of the deacons, and the deacons are “just doing some work.” Focusing on Acts 6, he suggested the partiality of the elders toward the Hebrew widows at the expense of Gentile widows was “functional but not spiritual” partiality, or prejudice. The earliest elders at Jerusalem were ethnic Jews and so, by virtue of prior relationships and traditional networking in today’s parlance, they easily were aware of the needs of the Jewish widows in their midst to a degree that could not be duplicated among the Gentiles. Keep in mind that by this time the Jerusalem church probably numbered between fourteen and eighteen thousand. As the church grew, new men were needed to continue doing what the elders had been handling, that is, if the elders were to continue to focus on the Word and prayer. The deacons took up three duties that formerly had been done by the elders: the administration of the church, the resources of the church, and the mercy ministry of the church. The reason deacons are to be ordained is because they perform roles the elders formerly did. One very practical tip Reeder gave to elders and sessions was this: try not to redo the work of the diaconate. Enough said.
Following Harry Reeder’s talk and a short break, Eastwood’s diaconate chairman, Brian DeHuff, spoke on the duties of the deacon. “The work of a deacon is sacrificial,” he observed, and if they don’t do their job then the elders will have to pick up the slack. In the imagery with which Alabamians so easily relate, the deacons are “the offensive line for elders” in the church. Deacon DeHuff went on to discuss several duties of deacons today, including collecting and distributing the resources of the church, promoting the members’ giving and stewardship, the care of widows and orphans, maintaining the buildings and grounds as well as the church’s financial and budget records, and preparing the sanctuary for worship. He encouraged deacons to look for opportunities to secure other men in the church with gifts or qualifications in certain areas to assist in ministry. Men with carpentry or other home skills might assist in repairs for a widow. A CPA might help with financial counseling of a member in debt, and so on. An insightful observation he gave the men was this: God looks at giving in terms of how much we keep back. The poor widow in the gospels who kept nothing back was the one who gave the most from Christ’s perspective. “Our wealth is meant to be shared with those who have need,” DeHuff said, and, “One of the cures for greed is generosity.” The best deacons are “do-ers” and “pray-ers.”
Following Brian DeHuff’s talk, the men enjoyed a lunch and fellowship time before wrapping up, and were done by one-thirty in the afternoon. The 5-hour conference was instructive, encouraging, insightful, practical, and cheerful. We recommend other churches and presbyteries consider doing a deacons’ conference of their own. To that end, we note the conference website, WithMuchAdvantage.com, created to encourage deacons to zealously and faithfully own their domain.
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.
[1] James B. Ramsay, “The Deaconship,” The Southern Presbyterian Review, vol. 12, no. 1 (Apr. 1859): 1-24.

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, October 25, 2021
James I “transmitted the Declaration to his bishops with an order that it be read from pulpits, but resistance was immediately forthcoming. Some clergy, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, determined to refuse compliance, while a few bold spirits preached against the royal proclamation.” The king withdrew the order, but the declaration’s impact upon England was felt for decades, if not longer, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Readers may already know that last week a Canadian pastor, Artur Pawlowski, was arrested again for holding worship services in Calgary, in the Province of Alberta. Previously, Pastor Pawlowski had been charged with civil contempt and jailed for holding church services in violation of a court order forbidding the organizing or attending an “illegal public gathering.” Following the most recent incident, Pawlowski was sanctioned by a judge to 18 months of probation. As Fox News reported, in addition to the hefty court costs and fines, one of the conditions of Pawlowski’s probation requires him “to parrot ‘the majority of medical experts in Alberta’ regarding social distancing, mask wearing and vaccines, even when he speaks in church.”[1]
The purpose of this short piece is not to take sides in the legal matters at hand nor delve into the technicalities of Pastor Pawlowski’s dealings with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta; the October 13, 2021, citation of which is available online. Neither is it to argue the merits or demerits of various COVID-19 developments or responses to it, in Alberta, Canada, nor anywhere else. Rather, the focus here is on the citation’s “requirement that whenever [Pastor Pawlowski or his brother] are opposing the AHS [Alberta Health Services] Health Orders in any public forum, (including social media forums), they must also place the other side of the argument on the record.” Moreover, the court directed exactly what “the other side of the argument” entailed. Artur Pawlowski “must indicate in his communications” the following:
I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta. While I may disagree with them, I am obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favour social distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding large crowds to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program unless for a valid religious or medical reason you cannot be vaccinated….[2]
Pawlowski’s attorney and Fox News note that the court’s directive does not exclude the worship services of the church. So, a Canadian pastor has been told the very words he must speak to his congregation in order to comply with the law. Sobering, but not without precedent.
Nearly four centuries ago, in the third week of October, 1633, King Charles I reissued a declaration that his father, James I, had first announced in 1618, known as The Book of Sports or Declaration of Sports. The declaration encouraged various forms of “lawful recreation” during the afternoon following divine service. Activities included dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, “. . . or any other such harmless recreation.” While James appeared mainly concerned with encouraging his male subjects to engage in “such exercises as may make their bodies more able for war, whenever we or our successors shall have occasion to use them,” the decree became entangled in the religious controversy in England regarding the proper observance of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, which itself was integral to the social-economic disequilibrium involved in the transition from premodern England to a modern nation-state.[3]
As historian Winton Solberg wrote four decades ago, James I “transmitted the Declaration to his bishops with an order that it be read from pulpits, but resistance was immediately forthcoming. Some clergy, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, determined to refuse compliance, while a few bold spirits preached against the royal proclamation.” The king withdrew the order, but the declaration’s impact upon England was felt for decades, if not longer, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.[4]
James died in 1625, bringing his son, Charles I, to the throne. Under his arbitrary rule which included dissolving Parliament in 1629, Sabbath-related issues between Anglicans and Puritans and their allies – the king and Parliament, respectively – grew even more divisive. On October 18, 1633, Charles reissued his father’s Book of Sports, adding his own preface. Bishops were to ensure that the document was read, and published, in all parish churches. In fairness, however, Solberg wrote that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, “. . . does not seem to have punished refusals to read the Declaration with particular severity.” But some bishops “enforced the requirement vigorously.”[5]
While the Puritans’ Great Migration to New England from 1620 to 1640 – the vast majority arriving during the second decade – is well known, it is noteworthy that the Declaration of Sports, including its reissuance, was influential. Solberg wrote, “Emigration to New England greatly quickened as a result of the Book of Sports. Many clergymen, including John Cotton, John Davenport, Thomas Hooker, and Thomas Shepard, fled at this time.” Solberg’s book is highly regarded, and I confess I found it quite useful in my own studies in graduate school in the 1990s. If his conclusion on this point was basically correct, then the fact that such a momentous decision on the part of pastors and parishioners was made to some degree because of the interference of the state upon matters of the church and her worship – to the extent of compelling the speech of pastors – should grab our attention today. It strikes at the all-important issue of who is the rightful head of the church: Jesus Christ, or anyone else. If a pastor in England in the 1630s, or one in Canada in the 2020s, can be compelled to speak certain messages at the state’s command, then religious liberties are at risk. Christians must think, pray, and plan for the issue coming to a church near you.[6]
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Jon Brown, “Canadian pastor defiant as judge orders him to parrot ‘medical experts’ from pulpit: ‘I will not obey,’” Fox News, Oct. 15, 2021, including quotes. See also Jon Brown, “Jailed Alberta Pastor Alleges Abuse In Prison But Remains Hopeful; Lawyer Condemns ‘Bizarre’ Detention,” The Daily Wire, May 10, 2021; Dewey Roberts, “Former ARP Canadian Pastor, Steve Richardson, Under Attack and Needs Our Help,” The Aquila Report, Jul. 8, 2021.
[2] “Citation: Alberta Health Services v Pawlowski, 2021 ABQB 813,” Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Oct. 13, 2021, pp. 8-10, including quotes (filed on Oct. 15, 2021), pdf accessed at the Fox News article above.
[3] Winton U. Solberg, Redeem the Time: The Puritan Sabbath in Early America (Cambridge, Mass., and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1977, pp. 71-72, including quotes.
[4] Solberg, Redeem the Time, pp. 73-74, including quote.

[5] Solberg, Redeem the Time, pp. 75-77, including quotes.
[6] Solberg, Redeem the Time, pp. 77-78, including quote.