Sabbath apart from law?

[jwithnell]

I've been Reading Reformed & Evangelical a history of Presbyterianism with a foreword by George Marsden. I was a bit surprised about the rationale for the sabbath debate by Lyman Beecher et al: that the keeping of the sabbath is required by man's nature and the need for rest; plus, it provided time for Christian education (pg 183).

The authors might have oversimplified the rationale to avoid getting off topic, but it just seemed odd that these earlier Presbyterians wouldn't have argued from a position of the 10 commandments and creation ordinances. This was also the time that prohibition started to be discussed, culminating later, at the turn of the 20th century, in the social gospel. Might a man-centered approach for the sabbath have been part of an overall social perspective for the church? Do you have other thoughts regarding this line of argumentation?

 

[Shanny01]

My guess is that it was the easier argument to make and that which would be more compelling to the country and legislators. In a country which determined it wasn't going enforce (strictly speaking anyway) the first table of the law at the national level, it wouldn't do to argue solely on moral or natural law premises. Rather, it probably seemed the more persuasive course to argue for the good (natural and supernatural) it does to human nature (which is a genuinely good argument, and ought to be brought out in the idea of Sabbath legislation). A bit of political wisdom being exercised by them. That being said, it failed, so we can question whether it was the wisest course, but I doubt arguing from the obligation of moral law would have done any better.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Doesn't "man's nature and the need for rest" = "creation ordinances"?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The Sabbath was made for Man. The Covenant came after Adam was created,, correct?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I want to echo that arguing from natural-law--i.e. that form of good order that is accessible to all men (even if they are sinfully disposed to resent, resist, and repress all or any part of it)--is a completely reasonable course, depending on the audience.

I don't know the context for Beecher's debate. I do know that Machen, not in his capacity as a theologian or moral authority but as a citizen and a Christian, wrote op-eds and offered other public commentary in favor of the social observance of Sabbathing, defended local "blue-laws" and other like ordinances. His argument in those venues seems to fall in line with what is reported above as Beecher's stance. The basic thrust of the argument is that human nature and society arising from it has natural rhythm, among its other qualities. Rest is a boon and salutary.

Society's laws for the general welfare largely proceed from a natural foundation. Positive laws (meaning laws that are instituted more for preference sake, than natural order) are much more likely to take on the cast of "oppression" if mood shifts faster than legal accommodation. Not being familiar, or able to make a distinction between laws of a more natural basis versus a positive basis contributes to the growing oppressive quality of the social and legal order. The trend in law seems to have gone wholly toward the theory that all law is positive; that the only natural laws are found in the realm of physics. Even the order of and necessary to practice in other sciences is regarded as relative, and may succumb to force. Philosophically, our legal system has reverted to "might makes right," leading to the death of political compromise.

If there is a "nature" to things, then flourishing of individuals and society is only sure to occur when nature is obeyed, at minimum by most participants. Opposition to norms puts certain people in a fringe position. Often, that's fine if such people are willing to accept what their "oddity" makes of them. They don't respect society's rules, so they exist on the edge of that "accepted" social order. We see all around us today what happens when (for whatever reasons) there is a push to demolish what is generally accepted for the sake of accelerated change, for the sake of centering what was fringe.

One of the strengths of Christianity and its moral order is that the One God who ordained that morality for mankind is also the Creator of all things, and the ordainer of natural law. We observe a sensible consistency between the moral and natural order. Those who revere the moral Lord acknowledge his moral right to direct them, even when other men ignore that order. Those reverent also respect the Lord's positive commands, his "house rules" and preferred order--things that conceivably could be different than he has willed, but this is how he likes them and his people conform to them.

I should think it obvious that arguing to men who have rejected the Lord: that they ought to abide in their rebellious society according to his positive commandment--is going to be inefficient. They have adopted other "house rules," as their society makes and serves new lords. If they also reject nature's law, their society will disintegrate as it must, being at war with the law of their nature. Deny nature all you want, you will not defeat it or bend it to conform to man's will with flourishing results. Adopting evolutionary philosophy (permanent change) as the chaotic basis for one's existence ends in chaos. Thinking that such evolutionary chaos can be directed by the will of a product (man) of that chaos is exponentially irrational.

Absent widespread conversion to God, through faith in the gospel, the best Christians can hope is that the society around them remains stable through its submission to the natural order (however they imagine its source). Or, that such a society will recover is natural footing before it passes a point of no return. When social orders dissolve, when warfare sweeps in from outside, or ruptures come from within to tear it apart, believers take shelter in the Lord our Refuge.

The answer is not: "put the Christians in charge" (a condition militant unbelievers fear and rage about). When the Christians elevated for their religious identification inevitably reveal their corruption, they discredit not only their claim to wise, competent, God-directed social leadership; they also expose to ridicule their whole religion with its true and proper focus on spiritual concerns. Let a wise Christian (scarcely more probable in his own community than found in another) be sought out for his demonstrated wisdom, observable to all natural men, and he may bring credit to the faith he represents.

Yeah, kinda drifted off topic by the end there... Unless people are convicted or (better) converted by encountering God's moral law and justice, the Christian's appeal to express divine moral will (ala the 10 commandments) contains little appeal to the natural, unspiritual man. It makes sense to try reaching him for persuasion on topics of social harmony and cooperation through his intellect and intuition, to the extent it still functions within him. That is why men like Machen made the appeal to the natural law when writing or speaking for a mixed audience.

 

[jwithnell]

Thanks y'all for your considered responses, especially Rev. Buchanan.
You clearly put a great deal of effort into this and I appreciate it. I still can't quite wrap my mind around natural law but I haven't looked into it enough to converse meaningfully.