Sabbath
When I took the DSC survey I got pretty annoyed with all of the questions concerning sabbath and so I think this may be an issue where enough difference exists to allow for healthy debate. Clearly some thought sabbath language important enough to have so many questions, and I think Chapman assigned a book specifically on sabbath, so here are my thoughts baiting a reaction.
Sabbath does not equal rest. Rest does not equal sabbath. Rest does not equal not working. Not working does not equal working on something other than your occupation. (This list would have been easier with not equals signs, but I do what I can).
To say that we can choose our own sabbath is take to completely hollow out the meaning of sabbath, which I hold coming from the end of Genesis 1 and the Decalogue (I would also through in parts of Revelation, but I think that is for another time). Sabbath is a reaction to what God has done and what God has commanded to be done. It is not a method for greater efficiency or stress control. It is not a method for anything. To take the name sabbath for a personally chosen day of rest is to create an idol of yourself in that you can choose when rest is and that sabbath is about you and not God (choosing your own sabbath and devoting it to devotionals is not an answer out of this predicament).
The other main difficulty I have with this conception of sabbath is the understanding of work which undergirds it. If being a divinity student is work, reading something outside of class is work just the same. So are recreational activities, or even service activities. Sabbath is not about keeping us sane. Call it rest. Say your not going to do school work on Tuesdays or on Saturdays because you need rest. That is probably the case, but because we may need it does not make it sabbath.
Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. I really want to start talking about eschatology now, peacefulness, creation, etc., but I think I am going to leave what I have.
Sabbath does not equal rest. Rest does not equal sabbath. Rest does not equal not working. Not working does not equal working on something other than your occupation. (This list would have been easier with not equals signs, but I do what I can).
To say that we can choose our own sabbath is take to completely hollow out the meaning of sabbath, which I hold coming from the end of Genesis 1 and the Decalogue (I would also through in parts of Revelation, but I think that is for another time). Sabbath is a reaction to what God has done and what God has commanded to be done. It is not a method for greater efficiency or stress control. It is not a method for anything. To take the name sabbath for a personally chosen day of rest is to create an idol of yourself in that you can choose when rest is and that sabbath is about you and not God (choosing your own sabbath and devoting it to devotionals is not an answer out of this predicament).
The other main difficulty I have with this conception of sabbath is the understanding of work which undergirds it. If being a divinity student is work, reading something outside of class is work just the same. So are recreational activities, or even service activities. Sabbath is not about keeping us sane. Call it rest. Say your not going to do school work on Tuesdays or on Saturdays because you need rest. That is probably the case, but because we may need it does not make it sabbath.
Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. I really want to start talking about eschatology now, peacefulness, creation, etc., but I think I am going to leave what I have.
posted by Unknown at 9:13 AM
27 Comments:
When I taught my seniors the Sabbath commandment last semester--and I'm about to do it again with a new batch of students next week--I began by reading the Sabbath commandment, then reading the relevant section of Hebrews. That really confused them. But then I explained that it's really quite a natural move. Taken together, Exodus and Deuteronomy ground the Sabbath commandment in mercy and Israel's experience of redemption from slavery. Hebrews celebrates the Day of Christ's redemption (Today) as the Sabbath rest we have entered. What is the Day of Christ's redemption if not a Day of mercy and redemption from slavery?
Of course, it might be appropriate to celebrate that redemption from spiritual slavery through very tangible departures from the mundane things that feel like our slave masters (even as we realize what a pathetic conception of slavery we have). This is similar to the way in which the tangible and quite frankly trivial act of refraining from eating food reminds us of intangible and profound realities. But doing so is not necessary.
I was surprised to glance at Calvin's commentary on the Sabbath commandment later and see that he agreed. To make literal observance of the Sabbath commandment mandatory today is tantamount to requiring circumcision and is at a grave risk of missing the big point that Hebrews makes clear.
Amen Wilson.
Amen Tom.
Is it significant that the Sabbath commandment is one of the big ten? Whatever our conception of Sabbath is or is not, it seems to me that given its preeminence in the tradition through the Decalogue, it ought not to be taken lightly.
Wilson, I agree with your estimation of "personal" Sabbath. I think Sabbath is more communal in nature than personal. I'd be curious if you have suggestions on how to make Sabbath less "personal" and more "communal."
My own experience of practicing Sabbath this year is that it is a discipline that directly dethrones idolatry. Whatever I think I have to do that I don't have the luxury to not do on the Sabbath is probably an idol.
In the end, I think a lot of debate about what Sabbath is and is not tends to end up being an excuse for doing nothing. It would be the equivalent of not taking Eucharist because we didn't have all the details firmly agreed upon. Very antinomian.
Dean Arthur,
The decalogue itself is a point of contention with me, especially its relation to Christian practice. I mean, scripturally, there is little beyond the theophany that separates the decalogue from the rest of Torah. It is only the catechistic tradition which holds it above the rest. I only mentioned it in direct relation to creation, but i would like to separate from any distinct authority over the rest of Torah.
Concerning Sabbath proper, I think your analogy to the Eucharist is only because of your very low Eucharistic theology. Eucharist is commanded by Jesus Christ. As Christians, we claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and all our acts should principally move through that following and what that means. The decalogue cannot be read apart from Christ's death and resurrection and that fact that in the accounts of the passion, the Sabbath is only mentioned tangentially even though the Tridiuum occurs across the span of the Sabbath should not be taken lightly.
Though your experience may differ, I don't think sabbath should be a discipline. It is good to rest and dedicate time to God. It is good to do this communally, but I don't think that this is sabbath. I don't think that this is shabbat. I think it actually is one of the Christian distinctives to shift Sabbath from the weekly to the eschatological (Hebrews 4). This in itself does not deny Sabbath as a practice, I just don't think that the way that Christians articulate Sabbath can be very faithful.
Tom, if your church together plans a sabbath meal and practices in a way akin to Leviticus, I think that would earn the name Sabbath more than anything else. This is not an excuse for doing nothing. Rest is good, Tom. Rest can be Christianly. It is in claiming that it relates to the end of Creation that I find problematic.
Dean Pruitt,
First, maybe you just haven't played it out yet here, but what then does Sabbath mean practically if it is rooted more in an eschatological reality than a weekly practice? Does it mean doing anything or does it have any weekly or daily significance?
I think that your main argument here is based on a christological reading of the OT. I might even describe it as a supersessionist christological reading of the OT. Anything that the OT meant pre-Christ is trumped by the christological reading. I don't deny the appropriateness or necessity of a christological reading of the OT. But I think I want to push back on the idea a christological reading necessarily entirely overlays or cancels out any pre-christological meanings and resonances. Thus, rest in the creation story is just as significant for the Christian's understanding of sabbath as any eschatological understanding. The eschatological does not obliterate the creation significance.
My reference to Eucharist was entirely secondary in nature. It was an illustration, not the heart of the matter. I could have used an illustration about prayer, or reading the Bible, or fasting, or adultery/lust, or any number of things. So I'd prefer not to go down the Eucharist debate road in this thread. (Though I'd be happy to do so elsewhere and let my low eucharist theology shine...or dim as the case may be.)
Tom,
Are you arguing that weekly ceasing-from-work practices today can be tied to the Sabbath commandment, or that the Sabbath commandment necessitates weekly ceasing-from-work practices today?
I think the former is viable as long as it's acknowledged to be a shadows-to-reality type connection: "My weekly discipline of ceasing from work is one tangible way in which I remind myself of the eschatological Sabbath-rest into which Christ has brought me."
On the other hand, I think the latter forces you to circumcise your sons and excise Paul from your Bible.
Tom
Dean Arthur,
I am not one to cancel out meaning of Scripture in any way. And yet, some how I feel that it is more supersessionist to say that Christ's sayings about the Sabbath (or Hebrews 4) do not apply to how Christians understand the Sabbath commandment. If we take the Sabbath commandment apart from Christ, we are appropriating historical Judaism and claiming that we are a part of it, thus completely denying Jewish identity. And though you may be historically-critically minded, I would caution you that saying that there was something 'pre-Christ' is almost Arian. If there was a time when the Son was not, then yes, we should not read the OT Christologically. But I am not really even arguing for that, I just want to read it Trinitarianly: which I believe means as if what we confess in the creeds is true. That is a claim of faith, to believe that the God of the Old Testament is Trinity and the God of the New Testament is Trinity and that there is no difference. This is not a claim based on archeology or textual studies, but faith.
In regards to what this means practically, as I said, I think rest is great. I think people need to rest. I don't think we need to find a biblical category to put that into when it may not apply to Christians. I don't really know how the eschatological significance of Sabbath relates to the practical, but I don't think it means I can pick whichever day to rest and do whatever I want that is not what I think is work.
My biggest issues are not the OT readings (though those are big), it is the conception of work and rest which underly the questions concerning sabbath. I already mentioned this but I need to point it out again.
And I know your reference to the Eucharist was only an example. You think that you can get me by making fun of my sacramental theology, but I don't think mocking things people care deeply about (like the body and blood of Christ) is a helpful illustration, which is why I mentioned it.
Dear Tom,
Good distinction. And the answer is: I don't know. Here's the tricky part for me. The Sabbath commandment is part of the Decalogue. The rest of the Decalogue's commandments are still pretty binding, morally speaking. Is the Sabbath commandment then something entirely different than the other nine? Or is it too a moral imperative just like the moral imperative to not kill, etc.? And can one even make this distinction about a category of commandments called "moral" (which implies others that are "ceremonial" or "civil")? I'm open to suggestions on this.
Wilson,
First, let me apologize for speaking in such a way that communicated mocking. This was not my intent, though I can understand looking back how it can be read as such.
Second, my reference to "pre-Christ" was not in any way meant as Arian. I probably should have said pre-incarnation to be more specific and exact. There once was a time when the Word was not flesh (and I ran that saying by Dr. Smith at one point and it gets his stamp of approval). Thus, there is a pre-incarnational understanding of special revelation in the OT. The post-incarnational understanding certainly carries significant weight, but it does not, I think, cancel out the pre-incarnational resonances.
Third, in relation to rest as a significant theological and biblical understanding of Sabbath, I think these are certainly legitimate understandings of a Christian Sabbath. And yes, I agree, that doesn't mean one chooses which day and which work, etc. But an improper or less than full practice of the communal aspect of Sabbath is better than no practice at all. I think your argument leads to this implication: that we must practice a Christian practice perfectly before we practice it at all. This, I think, is antinomian. It is probably not what you intend, but I think it is the end result.
Fourth, I have not yet bought into Duke's anti-supersessionist post-liberalism. But I opened another thread on this topic and it is probably best dealt with elsewhere. I did go to the Living Faiths dialogue tonight and that is sparking my curiosity about it further. But I do in some way think that I am tied into the nation of Israel or else I would have gotten rid of the OT. But again, I'd suggest we deal with this in another thread, and I admit up front my own general ignorance and naivete on this topic and look forward to being thoroughly enlightened by others on the shortcomings of my own views.
Tom,
The fact that the Decalogue enjoins some things that remain morally binding does not mean that everything it says is therefore morally binding in the same way it always was. Things that remain morally binding (such as, say, "Love your neighbor as yourself") are scattered through the rest of the law, yet we don't think that everything else therefore has the same moral force by association.
The end of the ENTIRE law is Christ. Everything in the law (including the Decalogue) points to Christ. This is a dogmatic Christian claim, but I think I have some important Christians (like Jesus :) ) on my side here. Christ transforms everything, but some things appear more transformed than others. When some things look untransformed (e.g., don't murder), we get confused and think that nothing has changed.
If a distinction could be drawn between the moral, ceremonial, and civil law (with the moral continuing on), then Paul's job would have been a lot easier. When accused of getting rid of the basis for a moral life by getting rid of the need for fleshly circumcision, he could have just said, "Hang on, guys, hang on. That's not what I meant. I just meant that the ceremonial and civil law has been fulfilled in Christ; the moral still stands, so no need to fear moral anarchy." But does he say this? No. He says, "Live by the Spirit," and then gives a bunch of descriptions of what living by the Spirit looks like (the fruit of the Spirit). He also sometimes describes this life as one lived according to the "law of Christ."
Therefore, I don't think the Sabbath's provenance in the Decalogue makes it an exception to the rest of the law.
Tom
Dear Tom,
These are good thoughts. Here's some further reflections:
1. Jesus never overturned the Sabbath entirely (as far as my memory is currently serving me). He tweaked its strict observance and certainly spoke directly to healing on the Sabbath.
2. Paul never overturned the Sabbath (in fact, I can't even think of a time when Paul talks about the Sabbath).
3. I'd like to suggest that the Decalogue is its own kind of genre. Thus it holds together as a unit more fully than it might hold together with another unit in the Torah or OT. Thus, any Christological reading of it must have some unity in the way that it changes the whole unit, not the individual parts of the unit. (I'm thinking out loud here.) Thus, Jesus' tweaking of the Sabbath might also apply to the rest of the Decalogue. Humans were not made for the decalogue but the decalogue for humans. But Sabbath still sits within this unit as one part amidst a unified whole.
On a somewhat different note, I asked Peter Ochs, the Rabi on the panel last night for Living Faiths, about the Sabbath. He said that many rabis take Sunday as a Sabbath because the Sabbath is a work day for them. Coming off this conversation, I was quite shy about referencing a "personal sabbath" but he seemed to have no such problem and suggested it was a good practice for rabis. Now rabis and Christians are certainly not the same, but I think the rabbinical concept is not entirely irrelevant either.
Dean Tom,
I don't see how the Decalogue can be understand as self coherent, other than being a theophany. And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by binding "morally speaking". You completely skirted the issue of Paul and how Paul reads the law and reads Christ's completion of the Law. Just because you (and many others) like the Decalogue does not mean that it is different.
The distinction between pre-Christ and pre-Incarnation is moot if you accept John 1 as canon, Christ must be a reality of the Old Testament: you cannot read the Old Testament apart from Christ. I do not want to restrict readings, but the faith claim "I believe in Jesus Christ" has to be a part of a Christian reading of the Old Testament, just like the faith claims "I believe in the Holy Spirit, etc."
Regarding antinomianism, I am not at all arguing that we should wait until we figure everything out before we do something. Flat out, I don't think Sabbath (as understood in the Old Testament) is a Christian practice. I think rest can be a Christian practice, but if you read Hebrews 4, if you read Luke, there are nuances that are hard to overcome.
But again, I think the crux of the issue is your focusing on the Decalogue as a moral law separate from the rest of Torah and thus immune from any Christological or Trinitarian interpretation. Jesus never talks about the ten commandments. Paul never talks about the ten commandments. Elijah never talks about the ten commandments. Deborah never talks about the ten commandments. Why is it so different? And where is Israel in your account of the Decalogue? Is this just a universal law completely independent from the theophany and the exodus?
Jesus never overturned the Sabbath, but he made it so that the Sabbath (for a Christian) must be understood through him and his Lordship. Those claims trump any attempts at a pre-incarnational understanding of the Decalogue.
And why do we need to call rest Sabbath? Who made it a Christian practice? What is the Lord's Day to you, Tom?
Dear Wilson,
There are several issues here that are hard for me to keep straight. I think in one sense, we're speaking past each other. I am not hearing myself in your description of my thoughts and I suspect you are not hearing yourself in my description of your thoughts. The things you are charging me with are not things I want to hold to. This is probably due to my own lack of clarity in communication. I appreciate the opportunity to try to be more clear, both in my communication and my ideas.
I will do my best to answer one of your questions (I will thus be ignoring several others, but as I said, I'm having a hard time keeping all these thoughts straight). You ask, who made Sabbath a Christian practice?
There are several potential answers to this question. One answer is the United Methodist Church and the bishop of the West Michigan Conference when he set before the clergy of the conference an initiative on Sabbath as rest. Given that scripture is always interpreted by a community, the community I am a part of and am responsible to and its leader/bishop has provided this kind of an interpretation. Thus, my church has said that Sabbath is a Christian practice. Now given, what this "Sabbath" is exactly is also an interpretation.
Second, given that Jesus did not abolish Sabbath nor Paul (nor any other writer of the Old or New Testament) and both were well within a Jewish context, there seems no reason for me to throw it out either. Jesus did tweak Sabbath. But by the act of tweaking it, does he not also implicitly suggest that at its basic nature it is something worth keeping. If he had thought it was something completely antithetical to his completion of the law, would he have not said so and removed this burden from us? I see no reason why Hebrews 4 and its eschatological understanding of Sabbath erases an understanding of Sabbath as rest. It seems to me that it takes the weekly rest and magnifies it to its obvious conclusion in the eschaton. But this does not cancel out Sabbath as weekly rest. I hear you saying that it does cancel out Sabbath as weekly rest, though rest can potentially be a Christian value just built on other foundations.
This leads me then to the question I too have been trying to get an answer from you: what then does Sabbath mean practically for a Christian? If it is not a Christian practice (as I think I hear you implying/arguing that it does not), then what is it?
I have not answered all your questions or charges. I have attempted to answer one. I will look forward to your answer to my one question about what Sabbath means practically for the Christian if it does not mean rest. How do I live differently because of a Christological understanding of Sabbath?
Read Colossians 2, especially vv. 16-17.
Dear Tom,
This is one of my favorite chapters in the NT. Especially the first half of the chapter. Although, I'm not sure what you are intending me to get out of this reference. If it is coming across that I am judging someone for not practicing Sabbath in the manner in which these verses suggest than I am making several communication mistakes. Let me reflect on this a bit further.
First, the passage and the verses that you mention do not overturn the Sabbath. They suggest that one ought not be "judged" based on the Sabbath.
Two, what does it mean to "judge"? I am under the impression that the word "judge" as it is used here and elsewhere (most notably Jesus' statement about not judging) is more about making overarching JUDGMENTS about one's status in the eyes of God. I would never make such an overarching claim (at least in my better moments...).
Third, I do not think that "judging" in this context or elsewhere is meant to categorically rule out discernment about what is good, not so good, and bad. This is a kind of contained judging. In other words, I judge that if you were doing crack, that your decision would be incompatible with following Jesus. But I would not JUDGE that you are entirely out of God's grace (again, at my better moments). To use an illustration more similar, if one did not pray at all, I would judge (small j) that their lack of prayer was not in line with following Jesus, but I would not JUDGE (big J) that they were out of God's grace.
Fourth, I am under the impression that Paul is speaking here and in most of his letters to specific situations. In this case about being judged based on certain Sabbath observances. This is similar to Jesus' own statements about Sabbath. In out context where people do whatever they want with Sabbath if they do anything, it seems entirely plausible that Paul and Jesus might have some things to say that would "tighten up" Sabbath rather than loosen it.
Again, if I am in some way communicating that one's observance of Sabbath makes or breaks a right relationship with God, I have communicated very poorly.
One last thought about Sabbath, if we practice the daily office and pattern the hours after certain parts of the creation and redemption story, thus living into that grand narrative each and every day, would it not be appropriate to have some kind of Sabbath practice each and every day?
Well, I have left both Tom and Wilson speechless. This is quite a feat I have somehow pulled off.
I have been thinking about this a bit more and would like to propose a possible recantation. I offer it to you for feedback:
I hereby recant my practice of Sabbath observance. It is not a Christian practice. I will, therefore, work seven days a week. I will still go to church on the Lord's Day, but when I come home, I will continue to try to be as productive as I can be. I will do my school work and read as much on my syllabus as possible. I may even be able to read it all with this extra day for studying that used by taken up by Sabbath practice. I will also do what I want when I want since I have the freedom in Christ to not observe any old crusty Jewish laws such as the Sabbath. I now realize that these Old Testament commands such as the Ten Commandments no longer have any hold on me since I am a Christian. Thus, I've probably spent too much time taking a break to write this recantation, so I should get back to work.
Now, yes, that's sarcastic. And I'm sure that's not what you're arguing for. But tell me why that's wrong without reference to the Sabbath.
That is wrong because you are making a silly hyperbolic argument that you know you will elicit a response.
Damn it worked!
Tom,
It is wrong because of your conception of work and productivity. Why do you want to be as productive as possible and why do you need to be told to stop working and worship God? What is it about your job that demands you be "productive" and "efficient"? Why do you think that you need a bible word to rest? Why do you think being suspicious of a practice demands antinomianism/
The "old crusty laws" is the part of your characterization which i don't understand. You say there is a distinction between laws which call to stone people and the sabbath. Jesus tweaks that as well but does not abolition it. My argument was that there is no difference between the decologue and the rest of the five books of moses, nothing interior to the text which says that these are universal moral laws and these are cultural constraints of the context.
"The old crusty laws" was just thrown in for theatrical effect. I apologize, Graham, for giving it to the temptation to use theater to continue the conversation. But while it appears that Tom and Wilson were done with the conversation, I wasn't (or maybe I wasn't patient enough...once again my own shortcomings).
Wilson, you're doing a great job of tearing down my own inconsistencies (and I admit there are plenty), but not a very good job of building anything positive in its place. Give me some theological/biblical reason why I shouldn't approach life like that. If you can't do that, then there's no reason why I shouldn't approach life as being as productive and efficient as possible.
I propose the Sabbath as a way of theologically and biblically responding to the call to productivity and efficiency in our culture? You've been tearing that down. So now I'm left with nothing to stand on. What have you got to give me in its place? What do I share with my parishioners who are workaholics because they're following the pattern their pastor is setting for them?
Tom,
I have to agree with Wilson and Tom that one of the basic problems here is the way the OT laws are being appropriated. The Christian church does indeed seem to understand Sabbath differently than Jews do i.e. not just a straight reading for this is our Shabbat. As such we do not have a strict definition of how exactly sabbath is to look apart from the fact that we normally observe it on Sunday.
I was just re-reading an excerpt from Lauren Winner's book Mudhouse Sabbath. Her reflections are intriguing certainly with her conversion first to Judaism and then to Christianity. What seems to be a problem, however, is what exactly constitutes a Christian sabbath aside from personal decisions on Sunday.
That being said perhaps I will switch sides a bit an indeed say Sabbath as linked to a practice of Sunday worship and cessation from work is in line with Christian tradition and can be a point of emphasis. It does indeed do theological work to redirect questions about productivity and effeciency within time as directed toward a day of rest. To pretend it is exactly Jewish shabbat is silly though and Tom Mcglothlin analogy of shadow is helpful.
As to how exactly that is supposed to work on Sunday I am not sure. I guess I'm def with "Pruitt" in being against the arbritary I need a rest during the week "oh it's my sabbath! time"
And finally I sincerely doubt that parishoners are driven to workaholism by any pattern that a pastor is setting .
Just some thoughts
Tom,
My silence has been due both to the demands of my job (irony of ironies) and to my struggling to think of how I can express myself more clearly.
My short prescription is that you need to think more deeply about the problem of circumcision. Is it abolished? Is it "tweaked" (or, I would prefer, "transformed")? If the latter, does the "tweaking" have significant consequences for the form of its observation?
The problem of circumcision is relevant to this discussion because Paul links the circumcision issue to the Jewish liturgical calendar issue in Galatians (e.g., 4:10). The way Paul discusses circumcision in Galatians parallels what he says about the liturgical calendar, and Colossians 2 does the same thing, this time explicitly including Sabbath observation.
What, then, does Paul think about circumcision? It has not been abolished, but it has been transformed (Col. 2:11-12). It is bigger than it used to be. This move does not in itself entail the conclusion that literal observation of the circumcision commandment is no longer necessary, but Paul takes it there. Elsewhere, Paul shows that he is OK with people continuing literal circumcision as long as they do not see what they are doing as necessary. Of course, to many of his contemporaries, this sounded like an abolishment of the commandment, and it cost Paul dearly. But he did not back down.
Thinking that we are still under the authority of the law in the same way that those before Christ were is a denial of Christ. This is the argument of Galatians. This is why it is natural that Paul has to address the issue of moral anarchy in the closing chapters of Galatians, and why it is so significant that he does not address that prospect by distinguishing between different parts of the law and keeping the moral law in force. Your suggestion that what we are saying about the Sabbath leaves you powerless against the demands of workaholism is exactly parallel to the criticisms of Paul's view of the law based on a fear of moral anarchy.
How does Paul respond? "Live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature" (Gal. 5:16). This is where the fruit of the Spirit comes in. There is no room for moral anarchy in a life guided by the Spirit.
So we live circumcision as Christians today through the putting off of the sinful nature. How do we live Sabbath? We live lives that are responses to God's work of creation and redemption (see the rationales for Sabbath in Exodus and Deuteronomy)--and what is it to be in Christ if not to live in new creation and redemption? What is workaholism if not a denial of those very characteristics of God? Can the practice of resisting that pressure--mocking that pressure--through a weekly day away from the pressures of the things we think we need to do in order to survive be a good way of tangibly living a life of acknowledgment of God as creator and redeemer? Sure! But if you want to call that "Sabbath," remember that it is only Sabbath in a derivative sense: it is Sabbath only because it is a practice you use to remind yourself of the true Sabbath in which you live every day (the Hebrews 4 Sabbath). But ceasing from "work" one day a week is not the only way of living that life. That particular practice, mandated in no uncertain terms in Exodus and Deuteronomy, is no longer necessary. What is necessary is a whole life lived in acknowledgment of God as creator and redeemer, however the Spirit leads you to do that.
I hope that is helpful and gives you something positive to build upon (or push against).
Tom
Dear Tom,
I would have missed the irony had you not pointed it out! :)
I'm not sure I've been attempting to argue that Sabbath is exactly the same thing in practice for a Christian as it is for Jew. I think that may be a characterization of my own position (though one I may have been leaving myself open to...remember, I'm approaching Socratic Club and this blog as an opportunity not to bring my perfectly formed theological ideas to the table for everyone to agree with, but as a forge for those ideas to be tried and tested and formed and reformed).
Jesus' comment that the Sabbath was made for humans and not humans for the Sabbath would suggest to me a significant tweaking in practice. I am in no way wanting to imply that a practice of Sabbath is directly essential to one's justification (though I might make the argument that how one uses one's time is indirectly a sign of what one's true master is and thus is something of a marker, though not necessarily, of one's salvation).
I appreciate your connection with circumcision. It is a helpful tie-in. I also like your connection with living by the Spirit.
If I have come across sounding more "legal" in this regard, it is probably out of reaction to Wilson's initial suggestion that the DSC survey's questions about Sabbath lead one to believe that Sabbath can be whatever one wants it to be whenever one wants it to be. I'm not sure that's a Christian practice of Sabbath. It still puts one at the center of deciding when one will and will not take Sabbath. Thus, it does not do much to dethrone the idols of our culture.
Graham, as for the weekly "sabbath" time, I think there may be president in Christian tradition for a daily sabbath as well (small s). Its called the daily office. What would it mean if we stopped work and prayed at certain times of the day. It certainly does something to push back against our culture of productivity. And the daily office is certainly quite different than what most American Christians mean when they might say, "I'm taking my Sabbath today" as they're playing another round of Halo.
Tom,
the DSC questions asked what sabbath is for people, how is that not whatever people want it to be? There is no common understanding of what sabbath is for Christians to draw on, so it becomes another aspect of personal choice in modern america.
Wilson,
The two questions on the DSC survey were:
1. Do you observe Sabbath by intentionally taking one day off a week from studying?
2. In what ways do you observe Sabbath?
Could they have been worded better? Yes. Are they still helpful? Yes. The answers to these kind of questions (however poorly they are worded or the theology behind them) are a place to begin conversations.
The answers by the way were:
#1
54% occasionally
24% Every week
22% never.
#2 top 4:
Fellowship/Family/Friends,
Catch up on sleep, Exercise/Sports/Work-out/Hike,
TV/Movies/Video Games.
I agree with you, Wilson, that there is no communal consensus. But how do we begin a conversation about it without asking people what they practice? And what does it mean that less than 1/4 of students take one day off a week from studying every week? Is that not the symptom of something seriously wrong?
Tom,
Sabbath does not mean a day off, that is the problem. So the survey is not symptomatic of anything. I still don't think school is work. Plus, I take multiple days off from school every week and don't call it sabbath. The answers to your survey don't mean a thing because, since there is no understood meaning of sabbath, everyone interprets it how they will. It has nothing to do with work, rest, or God, it only has to do with personal choice.
Dear Wilson,
Yes and no. The first question provides a definition within it: a day off from studying. So the first question is very clear about what is being asked. If you (and others) chose to subvert the question by answering "no" because you don't call this day off from studying "sabbath", then there is probably nothing that a team who is preparing a survey like this can do. But I don't think that the vast majority of people who took the survey chose to subvert the question in this manner.
The second question is much more open and the interpretation of it should probably be much more open.
Wilson, in the end, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. My own experience (and my general read of the experience of the student body at DDS) read through my received tradition's (a heavy dose of holiness) reading of scripture tells me that this has everything to do with God; that the choice to not take a day off from what you do the rest of the week amounts to idolatry (though not always..."The Sabbath was made for humans and not humans for the Sabbath). And the best way to subvert that idolatry and be faithful to cooperating with God's grace at work in one's life is to practice Sabbath. Sabbath is about rest. But it is not entirely about rest. It is also reinterpreted through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the new practice of the Lord's Day to be also about worship and Christian community. And in the end, poor practice of Sabbath is better than no practice of Sabbath. We grow in our practice by doing just that, practicing. We are growing from glory to glory.
P.S. this last post of mine is probably the fullest description I've given of Sabbath. Wilson, you may not agree with it, but this conversation has helped me considerably in fleshing out and correcting some ways I was not describing the practice of Sabbath very well. Thank you for pushing me on it.
P.S.S. Continue to do so if you wish. But I suspect we've probably run the gamut on this one unless someone else throws another voice in here.
Follow-up after a face-to-face with Wilson:
My view of the sabbath is always couched within the ideal of being in some kind of covenant with a community of others who are seeking to discern and follow Jesus faithfully. Thus, discernment of one's practice of sabbath is always couched in my mind within a covenant community discerning these things together.
Post a Comment
<< Home