Considering Westminster’s “Recreations” Clause
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].
-
The Licentiousness of False Teachers
I thought I had heard and seen the most horrific sins of licentiousness in the world of false teaching until I met a man we’ll call, “Chris.” He was a gracious and kind brother who picked me up from the airport when I arrived in a southern state for a ministry trip in the US almost ten years ago now. After a warm welcome and some small talk, “Chris” began to share his testimony. He had been active in the inner circle of a major prosperity gospel ministry and climbed the ladder of leadership. One day, upon being invited into one of the highest levels of leadership he was given the pre-requisites. To join the highest levels of leadership and thrive in the inner circle, he would be required to share his wife with other men, engage in homosexuality, and be a loyal leader at all costs.
For “Chris,” the cost was too high. He was not willing to engage in that type of lifestyle to be in leadership. Just like that, after years of building relationships, trusting his leaders, and nearing the moment when he would become one of them, he was out. Worst of all, this falling out caused major division in his marriage because his wife was unwilling to leave the church at that time. When he concluded the story during that car ride, all was not reconciled and there was deep heartache. Still, “Chris” was optimistic because Christ had saved him from the filthiness of what false teaching breeds. He was owned by Jesus now, no longer a slave to sin (Romans 6:1-7).
This story may be shocking for some of you, but it is all too common in the world of false teaching. This story is precisely why we can say that false teachers are not merely an abomination to Christ because they smear His message. They are also an abomination because they mock Him with their lifestyles of sin. In this article, I want to lay out some biblical truths to remind you that false teaching presents a variety of shady deceptions, namely, sins of licentiousness.
False teachers don’t only need to repent of their teaching, but their lifestyles of sin as well.
False Teachers and Licentiousness
In Jude 4 we read a sobering description of not merely sinful teaching, but the sinful lifestyles of false teachers. Jude writes, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
The word for licentiousness he uses also translates as “sensuality” and means “lack of self-constraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable.”(1) False teachers don’t only go too far with their doctrine, they always go too far with their deeds. They are marked by sins of “self-love” which is precisely why Paul warns Timothy that in the last days, men will be “lovers of self” (2 Timothy 3:2). -
On the Conversion of Children
Do not let the world around you move you off of the unshakable promises that God has made to his church. Pray for the next generation. Pray that God would convert our children.
Several months ago the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus provoked the ire of many with their controversial song, “We’ll Convert Your Children.”
You think that we’ll corrupt your kids,if our agenda goes unchecked.Funny, just this once, you’re correct.
The song continues,
We’ll convert your children.Happens bit by bit.Quietly and subtly.And you will barely notice it…
We’ll convert your children.We’ll make them tolerant and fair…
Your children will care about fairness and justice for others.Your children will work to convert all their sisters and brothers.Then soon we’re almost certain,your kids will start converting you.
In response to the tidal wave of criticism, chorus members released a statement claiming that the song was mere satire, tongue-in-cheek humor that was obviously lost on their hysterical traditionalist objectors. However, further comments demonstrate that lurking behind this veil of “humor” is indeed an agenda that has its sights set on the children of believers:
After decades of children being indoctrinated and taught intolerance for anyone who is ‘other,’ from using the Bible as a weapon to reparative therapy, it’s our turn. We have dedicated ourselves to being role models, teaching, spreading the message of love, tolerance and celebration through our music.[1]
Before the shock of this event wears off on us completely (if it hasn’t already), we would do well to stop, reflect, and ask ourselves the evaluative question, “What can we learn from this?” In the moment, we all felt a great deal, everything from righteous indignation to fear for our children’s future, but what are we to do now?
First, we need to remind ourselves that there is no reason for the church to fear or despair even in the face of such pervasive wickedness. The LGBTQ+ message is radically opposed to our own and holds more sway in our post-Christian culture than ever before—but it isn’t altogether new. What we’re seeing now is nothing but another wave of Romans 1 idolatry dressed in 21st century clothes:
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done…Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:28, 31).
None of what we’re seeing today takes God by surprise. This alone ought to comfort the fearful parent and concerned church member. Yet God’s Word doesn’t just describe the problem, but prescribes manifold ways in which the church can forewarn and forearm its children against the lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5). God has not left us to fend for ourselves. He has given his church grace to endure before, and so we are assured that the immutably holy, wise, and gracious God will give his 21st century church everything necessary to flourish even in the midst of cultural upheaval.
How then should the church respond to the mounting pressure being applied to our children? Using the baptismal vows provided in the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) as a guide, I want to address two groups—those parents whose children are still living under their roof and those who either have no children of their own or whose children have grown and since left the nest—and provide concrete ways for all to participate in this work of discipleship.
Christian parents need to take seriously their responsibility to train their children to be mature men and women in Christ. “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). The members of the men’s chorus are right—the slide into sin and apostasy happens “quietly and subtly”, so subtly that we “hardly notice it.” Due to the Fall, by nature we all tend toward spiritual declension, not improvement, and our children are no exception. Growth in godliness on the other hand is anything but subtle or passive, it is a supernatural work of God’s grace in the heart that works against the grain of our sinful nature. Thomas Watson reminds us, “Weeds grow of themselves; flowers are planted. Godliness is a celestial plant that comes from the New Jerusalem.”
Read More -
Christian Character
If we humble ourselves under God’s mighty hand of sanctification, we will submit to those whom God wills. We will worship Him instead of self. We will walk by faith not by sight. That means that temptations to not be honorable can be defeated and left powerless because they depend on our functioning within our flesh and pride.
18 Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things. 19 And I urge you all the more to do this, so that I may be restored to you the sooner.20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, 21 equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Hebrews 13:18-21 (NASB)
R.C. Sproul shared the following story in the September 2007 issue of Tabletalk magazine. “Several years ago I was participating in a discussion with some business men in Jackson, Mississippi. In the course of the conversation, one of the men made reference to a man who was not present at the meeting. He said, ‘He is an honorable man.’ When I heard this comment, my ears perked up as I thought for a moment I was hearing a foreign language being spoken. I realized that I was in the middle of the Deep South where customs of old had not entirely been eradicated, yet I still could not get over that somebody in this day and age was using the word honor as descriptive term for a human being.”
Is the term ‘honor’ as a descriptive term for a human being out of place in our day and time? If we look up ‘honor’ in our dictionaries we will find that its chief synonym is ‘integrity.’ Before we begin to determine the lack of this characteristic in the current body of Christian believers, especially among its leadership, let us define what we mean. Integrity describes one who has an uncompromising adherence to moral and ethical principles. It describes one who possesses soundness of character. There are many more definitions, but this is enough for now. A honorable person is a man or woman of principle. He or she puts principle ahead of personal gain. Also, they do not compromise their principles. That would mean that once they grasp the truth they would never let go, no matter the cost.
One of the major attacks against my posts on the doctrines of grace over the last several years was that I presented them as truth. Sometimes, this aroused some very ugly attacks because I did not say what I presented could possibly be wrong and the opposing views could be right. If I believed that then I wouldn’t have bothered posting them. What sort of truth is it that we can say, “this is the truth, but I could be wrong and your view could possible be true too.” That’s not standing on principle. That’s called compromise. Some would call it political correctness. This is why I despise our political system in the United States. Politicians must often compromise everything, including their principles in order to function. That is not right. That is why I could never hold public office.
Compromise is with us wherever we go. It seems that our entire lives are challenges to our principles. Those of us who are Christians experience this on an even higher plane. I promise you, the world system is anti-everything that God tells us from His Word that should makeup genuine Christian character.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Read More
