Thread: Should My Business Be Open on Sundays?

I am opening up a gym, its a franchise called "LA Boxing". Its a smaller facility, only about 5000 sq. ft. It is "class driven", meaning 90% of the members will come to participate in the "heavy bag training classes" provided by my instructors. You also have the strength training and other machines found in most gyms. It should be up and running in 2-3 months.

My dilemma comes in knowing whether or not I should be open on Sundays. Its not that I want to "make money," I just think that my main calling in this business is to serve people, and some people are so busy during the week that they might need to exercise on Sunday in order to get their 3 sessions per week in.

I don't like the thought of depriving members of what could amount to an essential service in their fitness routines; but I also don't like having to make any employees work on Sundays. I passed by a competitor's gym last Sunday and noticed the place was very full, meaning people definitely like to work out on that day.

Any input from my wiser brethren and sisters?

From the directory of Public Worship:

Of the Sanctification of the Lord's Day

THE Lord's day ought to be so remembered before-hand, as that all worldly business of our ordinary callings may be so ordered, and so timely and seasonably laid aside, as they may not be impediments to the due sanctifying of the day when it comes.

The whole day is to be celebrated as holy to the Lord, both in publick and private, as being the Christian sabbath. To which end, it is requisite, that there be a holy cessation or resting all that day from all unnecessary labours; and an abstaining, not only from all sports and pastimes, but also from all worldly words and thoughts.

That the diet on that day be so ordered, as that neither servants be unnecessarily detained from the publick worship of God, nor any other person hindered from the sanctifying that day. That there be private preparations of every person and family, by prayer for themselves, and for God's assistance of the minister, and for a blessing upon his ministry; and by such other holy exercises, as may further dispose them to a more comfortable communion with God in his public ordinances.

That all the people meet so timely for publick worship, that the whole congregation may be present at the beginning, and with one heart solemnly join together in all parts of the publick worship, and not depart till after the blessing.

That what time is vacant, between or after the solemn meetings of the congregation in publick, be spent in reading, meditation, repetition of sermons; especially by calling their families to an account of what they have heard, and catechising of them, holy conferences, prayer for a blessing upon the publick ordinances, singing of psalms, visiting the sick, relieving the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy, accounting the sabbath a delight.

From Exodus.

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. For in six days the Lord God created the heavens and the earth, and the seventh day he rested. Therefore you shall not do any labor, you or your manservant or your maidservant....

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

The real question is "What brings glory to God?" If people's lives are so busy that they don't have time to get to the gym except for one day that's meant for rest and worship, that's their choice, but should you equip them in that decision?

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by ChristianasJourney]

I appreciate the wise counsel. I'm just not sure, however, if it can really be made applicable to the reprobate, since they 1) Will not give any thought to God that day; 2) have no intention of public assembly; 3) will in no other way sanctify or even give thought to sanctifying that day; 4) will use their time in no way that honors God

Am I still held accountable for not interfering with these people's Sabbaths even though they have no intention of honoring it?
Should they not be served on this day in a way that will benefit them?

I really just want to do the right thing....

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I passed by a competitor's gym last Sunday and noticed the place was very full, meaning people definitely like to work out on that day.

I like eating at Chik-fil-A and would love to on Sunday. All the other restaurants are full on Sunday, but Chik-fil-a still maintains a huge profit when compared to competitors despite being closed on Sunday.

I know it comes down to an economic decision, but I firmly beleive God will bless your business if your honor Him.

Chris - I appreciate your desire to obey God's word.

If you decide to be open on Sunday, then I would encourage you to make working Sunday an option... don't force it upon your employees. I understand that some people work 6 days a week and have little time to exercise... If someone wants to enjoy the Lord's Day by (in part) exercising, then fine. You won't be condemned by me.

That said, please think about this: in an age of moral relativity and self-absorbtion, is closing your business on the Lord's Day not a marvelous VISIBLE and CONCRETE testimony to the world that you trust in God as Lord of creation to meet the needs of you and your family?
Of course, just closing on Sunday won't necessarily convey that message... but perhaps (if you choose to go that route) you could hand out a flyer - or have a sign posted on the wall inside - informing members of why the gym is closed on Sunday. Just a thought or two.

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by SolaScriptura]

If I may offer a few thoughts...

1. The Fourth Commandment, like all of the Decalogue, is binding upon all men at all times and in all places, both the unregenerate as well as believers.

Westminster Confession, Chap. 19:

V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;(h) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: (i) neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.(k)

(h) Rom. 13:8, 9, 10; Eph. 6:2; I John 2:3, 4, 7, 8.
(i) James 2:10, 11.
(k) Matt. 5:17, 18, 19; James 2:8; Rom. 3:31.

2. In fact, there is a particular use of the moral law for the unregenerate, according to the Catechism:

Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q95: Of what use is the moral law to all men?
A95: The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God,[1] and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;[2] to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives;[3] to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,[4] and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,[5] and of the perfection of his obedience.[6]

1. Lev. 11:44-45; 20:7-8; Rom. 7:12
2. Micah 6:8; James 2:10-11
3. Psa. 19:11-12; Rom. 3:20; 7:7
4. Rom. 3:9, 23
5. Gal. 3:21-22
6. Rom. 10:4

Q96: What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?

A96: The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come,[1] and to drive them to Christ;[2] or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable,[3] and under the curse thereof.[4]

1. I Tim. 1:9-10
2. Gal. 3:24
3. Rom. 1:20; 2:15
4. Gal. 3:10

3. The Fourth Commandments prohibits work on God's holy day except for works of piety, necessity and mercy.

Westminster Confession, Chap. 20:

VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations,(o) but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.(p)

(o) Exod. 20:8; Exod. 16:23, 25, 26, 29, 30; Exod. 31:15, 16, 17; Isa. 58:13; Neh. 13:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.
(p) Isa. 58:13; Matt. 12:1 to 13.

4. There is a particular responsibility laid upon employers in the Fourth Commandment:

Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q118: Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
A118: The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.[1]

1. Exod. 20:10; 23:12; Josh. 24:15; Neh. 13:15, 17; Jer. 17:20-22

There is a great testimony is not only keeping the Sabbath holy ourselves but refraining from employing others on this day as well.

"Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." (1 Sam. 2.30) [Inscription on a note given to Eric Liddell in regards to his Sabbath-keeping stance at the 1924 Paris Olympics]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I appreciate the wise counsel. I'm just not sure, however, if it can really be made applicable to the reprobate, since they 1) Will not give any thought to God that day; 2) have no intention of public assembly; 3) will in no other way sanctify or even give thought to sanctifying that day; 4) will use their time in no way that honors God

Am I still held accountable for not interfering with these people's Sabbaths even though they have no intention of honoring it?
Should they not be served on this day in a way that will benefit them?

I really just want to do the right thing....

...then why are you letting them interfere with your Sabbath? And should you really choose this day "to serve people, who are so busy during the week that they might need to exercise on Sunday in order to get their 3 sessions per week in?"

Chick-Fil-A is one of the highest-profit restaurants in the fast-food business, and they are closed an entire month and a half during the year (for Sundays).

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
Am I still held accountable for not interfering with these people's Sabbaths even though they have no intention of honoring it?

Intention does not determine ethic. Whether people intend to follow or deny God's commands does not determine if God's commands should be followed. They should be followed because God commands it. That is the only reason that really matters. God's truth is eternal and objectively true, regardless of our intentions, opinions, failures, obedience, desire, etc.

To repeat what Andrew already quoted:

Westminster Larger Catechism
Q118: Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
A118: The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.[1]

1. Exod. 20:10; 23:12; Josh. 24:15; Neh. 13:15, 17; Jer. 17:20-22

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by RAS]

Hmmm....

When I started this thread I was almost convinced that I SHOULD be open on Sundays so my customers could be served by it (not that I'd need to be there, but I'd just need to make sure it was open). Now after reading thru some of the reasoning, I'm beginning to think that being closed might be the best bet.

One of my hesitations is: lets just say I'm closed on Sunday and now the same person that would have worked there is either working somewhere else, or in some other way dishonoring the Sabbath; .... and my customers who would have greatly appreciated having the option to work out, no longer have that option and therefore are not served by my business.

A lengthy Puritanisque exposition of the fourth commandment by James Durham is posted at the link below. The full set of lectures by Durham on the Ten Commandments in a single hard bound volume are on sale at http://www.naphtali.com

Durham on the Fourth Commandment
http://www.naphtali.com/4intro.htm

One of my hesitations is: lets just say I'm closed on Sunday and now the same person that would have worked there is either working somewhere else, or in some other way dishonoring the Sabbath; .... and my customers who would have greatly appreciated having the option to work out, no longer have that option and therefore are not served by my business.

Needless speculation. You know in your heart what is right, and what honors God best. Follow His Word and He will bless you, even if that blessing isn't how you envision it should be.

A lot of this depends upon your view of the Lord's Day. Personally, I think you could open after lunch on Sundays with a clear conscience given some positions on the question. Other positions such as the Puritan ones on this board would set apart an entire day, and in those views it wouldn't be licit for you to exericse on Sunday, much less require your employees to enable the exercise of others.

Another wrinkle, though, is that if you're a franchisee, the parent company may not allow you to be closed on Sundays. Definitely check on that issue before you assume you'll have liberty to make a decision on this issue in the first place.

I think this is a hard issue, and that you're getting some good Puritan advice above. But you've got to sort out the arguments though and decide whether you think the Puritans are right on this issue. If you had a hotel or a restaurant, historically the questions would be much different. You've got to apply the normative standards to the situation at hand and further you have to ask how behaving one way or the other will affect your character (normative, situational, existential perspectives).

I think, at the very least, that unless you need to serve people breakfast, that having a later opening time on Sundays would be in order for most business. Even the most minimalist approaches to the Lord's Day don't exempt the believer from attending corporate worship and, in the case of employers, you are answerable to God for forcing someone to work rather than attend church.

Originally posted by smallbeans
A lot of this depends upon your view of the Lord's Day. Personally, I think you could open after lunch on Sundays with a clear conscience given some positions on the question. Other positions such as the Puritan ones on this board would set apart an entire day, and in those views it wouldn't be licit for you to exericse on Sunday, much less require your employees to enable the exercise of others.. . .

Jonathan Barlow
Under Care, Missouri Presbytery, PCA
Grad Student, St. Louis University
From Picayune, MS, now a St. Louisan

This type of thinking is one of the very problems with the PCA! This is such a non-confessional view that if it were not a view held by some in the PCA it would be funny. It passes neither the Confessional or Biblical smell test for service much less the view of the Sabbath. It does not depend on your view of the Lord´s Day your view is already regulated you are not allowed to have your own view. It is no more optional than adultery and could you please tell me when I have the right to commit adultery? The right to commit adultery is certainly a ludicrous position and untenable so why such a difficulty with the rest of the 10 commandments? We have so convoluted our view of subscription that we can just re-interpret what the Confession says and means and the sad fact is that there is no logical reason to resist the same thing being done to the scriptures themselves. It is not a hard issue except in as much as we do not want to submit to the biblical injunction and examples.

Christopher - I'd point you to Turretin as an excellent proponent of the Continental position. Not all Christians - not all Reformed Christians - not all thoroughly God-centered, Bible loving, Christ exalting, Spirit led Believers - hold to the strict Sabbatarianism presented as the majority opinion here.
I simply refuse to be so dogmatic regarding something about which even folks within the Reformed camp disagree - and yes, there are GOOD reasons for not being a strict sabbatarian. Just read Turretin - arguably the best Reformed theologian ever.

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
This type of thinking is one of the very problems with the PCA! This is such a non-confessional view that if it were not a view held by some in the PCA it would be funny. It passes neither the Confessional or Biblical smell test for service much less the view of the Sabbath. It does not depend on your view of the Lord´s Day your view is already regulated you are not allowed to have your own view. It is no more optional than adultery and could you please tell me when I have the right to commit adultery? The right to commit adultery is certainly a ludicrous position and untenable so why such a difficulty with the rest of the 10 commandments? We have so convoluted our view of subscription that we can just re-interpret what the Confession says and means and the sad fact is that there is no logical reason to resist the same thing being done to the scriptures themselves. It is not a hard issue except in as much as we do not want to submit to the biblical injunction and examples.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
This type of thinking is one of the very problems with the PCA! This is such a non-confessional view that if it were not a view held by some in the PCA it would be funny. It passes neither the Confessional or Biblical smell test for service much less the view of the Sabbath. It does not depend on your view of the Lord´s Day your view is already regulated you are not allowed to have your own view. It is no more optional than adultery and could you please tell me when I have the right to commit adultery? The right to commit adultery is certainly a ludicrous position and untenable so why such a difficulty with the rest of the 10 commandments? We have so convoluted our view of subscription that we can just re-interpret what the Confession says and means and the sad fact is that there is no logical reason to resist the same thing being done to the scriptures themselves. It is not a hard issue except in as much as we do not want to submit to the biblical injunction and examples.

I'd also like to add that this is not just "Puritan"(a stream of the historically reformed) advice as smallbeans suggested. It is consistent with the Continental reformers also. The continental and Puritan view differ over recreation and works of mercy, but they do not differ on employing people for business. I have yet to see where even in the continental view that employment is allowed on Sunday, unless of course it is necessary (hospitals, hotels, etc). Please correct me if I am wrong. This thread from the past may be helpful, alwaysreforming- http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi....php?tid=10472

It should help clarify what historically the reformed postion is and where the differences lie within the reformed position. And also check out the Law of God forum where this has been discussed more thoroughly.

Michael-
How prevalent would you say this problem is in the PCA, specifically among it's elders? I know it is a problem among the laity, but as the saying goes..."water runs downhill".

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by RAS]

Well, allow me to simply respond that I think Michael's approach is what is wrong with the PCA - namely, people lashing out before reading carefully and thinking about what someone else has written. Such rhetoric is reaching epidemic proportions, and hopefully through the course of seminary he'll learn to moderate his reactions to people and read them more carefully. Nowhere in my post did I advocate a particular position on the Sabbath. Thus Michael's sentence "This is such a non-confessional view" really can't apply to anything because I didn't promote a view. I simply said that some positions on the Sabbath would allow this in good conscience, some wouldn't. The point may be trivial, but that was my point. Further, the man asking this question is not a pastor, he is not required to subscribe to the Westminster Confession.

So here was my post:

paragraph one: various positions exist, some allow this, some don't

paragraph two: research your responsibilities as a franchisee

paragraph three: giving him some helpful perspectives on moral decisionmaking

paragraph four: giving him the bad news that he's not going to find anybody supporting his opening before lunchtime, and finally that his calculation here is as an employer which puts him under a heavier obligation than if he were a wage slave somewhere.

I miss where I advocate a non-confessional position. I do advocate his thinking through all the positions, even those that differ from the WCF, however. And nowhere did I make a distinction between continental and Puritan positions - I just simply said that there are other positions besides the Puritan one.

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
This type of thinking is one of the very problems with the PCA! This is such a non-confessional view that if it were not a view held by some in the PCA it would be funny. It passes neither the Confessional or Biblical smell test for service much less the view of the Sabbath. It does not depend on your view of the Lord´s Day your view is already regulated you are not allowed to have your own view. It is no more optional than adultery and could you please tell me when I have the right to commit adultery? The right to commit adultery is certainly a ludicrous position and untenable so why such a difficulty with the rest of the 10 commandments? We have so convoluted our view of subscription that we can just re-interpret what the Confession says and means and the sad fact is that there is no logical reason to resist the same thing being done to the scriptures themselves. It is not a hard issue except in as much as we do not want to submit to the biblical injunction and examples.

The sermon Sunday morning was on Matt 22:34-40. Jesus' response not only turned aside the attack of the Pharisees, but also emphasized the unity of the moral law.

BTW: Didn't the continental view approve of private recreation, but would still disapprove of organize or formal recreation. For example an informal pick-up game of basketball among neighbors vs league play.

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by smallbeans
A lot of this depends upon your view of the Lord's Day. Personally, I think you could open after lunch on Sundays with a clear conscience given some positions on the question. Other positions such as the Puritan ones on this board would set apart an entire day, and in those views it wouldn't be licit for you to exericse on Sunday, much less require your employees to enable the exercise of others.. . .

Jonathan Barlow
Under Care, Missouri Presbytery, PCA
Grad Student, St. Louis University
From Picayune, MS, now a St. Louisan

This type of thinking is one of the very problems with the PCA! This is such a non-confessional view that if it were not a view held by some in the PCA it would be funny. It passes neither the Confessional or Biblical smell test for service much less the view of the Sabbath. It does not depend on your view of the Lord´s Day your view is already regulated you are not allowed to have your own view. It is no more optional than adultery and could you please tell me when I have the right to commit adultery? The right to commit adultery is certainly a ludicrous position and untenable so why such a difficulty with the rest of the 10 commandments? We have so convoluted our view of subscription that we can just re-interpret what the Confession says and means and the sad fact is that there is no logical reason to resist the same thing being done to the scriptures themselves. It is not a hard issue except in as much as we do not want to submit to the biblical injunction and examples.

Who defines the continental view and where did this idea of Sabbath receations being allowable come from? Not from Calvin; and I don't recall John Primus advocating it (a recent Reformed scholar of Calvin's view and the Puritan view as expounded by Nicholas Bownd). So where does it come from?

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Who defines the continental view and where did this idea of Sabbath receations being allowable come from? Not from Calvin; and I don't recall John Primus advocating it (a recent Reformed scholar of Calvin's view and the Puritan view as expounded by Nicholas Bownd). So where does it come from?

Does the idea of Apocryphal Fictional or of Dubious origin mean anything?!?
:bigsmile: You already know the answer.

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
Does the idea of Apocryphal Fictional or of Dubious origin mean anything?!?
:bigsmile: You already know the answer.

Originally posted by RAS

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
This type of thinking is one of the very problems with the PCA! This is such a non-confessional view that if it were not a view held by some in the PCA it would be funny. It passes neither the Confessional or Biblical smell test for service much less the view of the Sabbath. It does not depend on your view of the Lord´s Day your view is already regulated you are not allowed to have your own view. It is no more optional than adultery and could you please tell me when I have the right to commit adultery? The right to commit adultery is certainly a ludicrous position and untenable so why such a difficulty with the rest of the 10 commandments? We have so convoluted our view of subscription that we can just re-interpret what the Confession says and means and the sad fact is that there is no logical reason to resist the same thing being done to the scriptures themselves. It is not a hard issue except in as much as we do not want to submit to the biblical injunction and examples.

I'd also like to add that this is not just "Puritan"(a stream of the historically reformed) advice as smallbeans suggested. It is consistent with the Continental reformers also. The continental and Puritan view differ over recreation and works of mercy, but they do not differ on employing people for business. I have yet to see where even in the continental view that employment is allowed on Sunday, unless of course it is necessary (hospitals, hotels, etc). Please correct me if I am wrong. This thread from the past may be helpful, alwaysreforming- http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi....php?tid=10472

It should help clarify what historically the reformed postion is and where the differences lie within the reformed position. And also check out the Law of God forum where this has been discussed more thoroughly.

Michael-
How prevalent would you say this problem is in the PCA, specifically among it's elders? I know it is a problem among the laity, but as the saying goes..."water runs downhill".

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by RAS]

Yes, water runs downhill and it runs fast especially from the head waters of the TE's, IMHO. I cannot remember going to a presbytery meeting where some TE with at least one significant exception and sometimes more than one exception to the Confession was allowed into the Presbytery. Fundamentally, I see the PCA as being quite broad and getting more broad.