“At a time when faith in institutions is waning, public conversations led by Theos serve to remind us of the timeless potential of religion to build community, to read the signs of the times, to cultivate wisdom and encourage human flourishing.”

Revd Canon Lucy Winkett, Canon Precentor, St Paul’s Cathedral

The Current Debate

30 JUN

Do we need to observe a Sabbath?

Mark Pargeter
33
Comments | Latest by Scarthin Nick , 6 Jul

In the 1960s the Department of Architectural Studies at Sheffield University undertook a survey which showed that buildings which were used heavily every day of the week suffered from stress and were unlikely to last. Those that had just one 24-hour period of "refreshment" each week had time to recover and lasted longer.

If a building requires regular rest, how much more those who work in it?

Today, the 24/7 mantra dictates otherwise. Although holiday periods and weekly hours are regulated, employers have more power over the lifestyles of their employees than at any time in decades. Annualised hours contracts force employees to work when there is demand for their labour, regardless of the consequences to home life or commitments. In a recent survey by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, (USDAW) 62% of employees said they were under pressure to work on Sunday. That pressure is particularly severe on those just beginning their careers. Every church congregation will contain at least one young person who is working on Sunday and unable to attend services, however involved and committed they may have been before they started work.

This pressure might be a necessary evil if there were a serious pressure for a 24/7 culture. But research suggests there is not. A GfK NOP Telebus poll taken in July 2007 reported that two thirds of those polled felt that Sunday had lost its special feel, and almost three quarters said they would not be bothered if the large stores were not open on Sunday. Two fifths of respondents said that it was very important for family stability and community life to have a shared common day off each week. Only 3% said that was unimportant. Almost a third of respondents said that they never used large stores on Sunday.
 
Nor is there much evidence that abolishing a shared day of rest improves economic productivity. There was a time in the 1970s when the country went on a three day week. Lack of fuel reduced the capacity to provide sufficient electricity for industry and commerce. Instead of production levels plummeting, however, output remained virtually constant.
 
Indeed, there is evidence that enforced rest can improve productivity. My father-in-law was a senior banker in the City of London. When he was responsible for bank inspections he was always suspicious of managers who never took their holiday. The Financial Services Authority think the same way and have called for all those who have responsibility for money to take two consecutive weeks off each year. It makes good sense. Those who are engaged in fraud or practices which place unscheduled risks on their employers find it much more difficult to do this when they are away from their desks and their work is being undertaken by someone else.
 
Taking holidays is not, of course, a modern concept. Not only were the people of Israel mandated to rest every week, but they were told to take a camping holiday of eight days every year as an extended August Bank Holiday after the harvest had been gathered in. Until recently, that practice was deeply ingrained in the British national conscience.
 
After the Reformation the Quakers rediscovered the economic advantages that could be obtained from an ordered life of limiting work by adhering to a cycle which included a Sunday completely free of work. From that was developed a range of industrial and commercial enterprises in which the workers had time to take their leisure. Cadbury’s model village of Bourneville in Birmingham was designed around a normal pattern of family life in which the workers were encouraged to engage in sports, cultivate their gardens, maintain their health and participate in religious activities.
 
More recently, the Gower Handbook of Management notes, ‘Relaxation can be achieved in two ways. The first is to carry out any activity which distracts the mind from work. A happy home life, religious activity, gardening, sport, hobbies; all of these are good forms of relaxation. ..’
 
Religions make space for many different patterns of life. But the importance many, not least Christianity, attach to a shared period of rest is to be ignored at our peril. Whether that rest should be every day, every week, every month or every season will be open to debate. But the point is that simply leaving the business of rest to the marketplace of personal choice results in a relentless 24/7 culture, with all the personal, social and environmental stress that we are becoming familiar with. 24/7 is unsustainable. Everyone would benefit from taking a Sabbath.
 
 
Mark Pargeter is a lay minister at St Andrew's Caversham. He helped form the World Development Movement in the 1960s, was a member of the Lichfield Diocese Higher Education Advisory Group in the 1980s, and was China researcher for Keston Institute more recently. He is now a member of the advisory group for the Centre for the Study of Christianity in China.

33
Jump to Latest Comment

Join the debate


Paul Rodden 30 Jun

Yes, if you're a Christian. If not, do what you like.


As always, I can't talk for other the manifold of other Christians. But from my tradition, taking a day off a week because benefits me would be heresy. It is the command of God, plain and simple, and is not linked to any earthly reward or benefit.

Joanna 30 Jun

Isn't it the command of God BECAUSE it is for our benefit?

Greywizard 30 Jun

What a horrible way to live a life! Obeying God's commands because they are of benefit is heresy! Good Dog!


I agree that a shared day off is a good idea. It's very difficult for families to get time together otherwise. But if the Sabbath is commanded, it is Saturday, not Sunday. The church changed the rules so that Christians did not meet on the same day as the Jews, who did obey the commandment. Of course, they could hitch it up to the story of the resurrection too, so they had a good excuse.


Of course, divine commandments are like oracles. They are only addressed to those who hear them. Otherwise, they are simply words spoken (or written) by some other human being. If we do want a shared day, perhaps we should pick one that itsn't already chosen by some religion, Wednesday (Woden's Day) perhaps.

jonhunt 1 Jul

Paul


How do you interpret: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"?

Paul Rodden 1 Jul

johnhunt. If the Sabbath was made for man, why can't a person do absolutely anything they want then, if it's just for our benefit?


Notice who uses those words: Christ. Who is the Lord of the Sabbath: Christ. Who were the disciples spending time with: Christ. That is, they were spending their time with God, and what's the purpose of the Sabbath? To spend time with God. The Sabbath was made for man to... It is not intransitive. It was not made for man, full stop, it had a definite purpose, and the disciples were fulfilling it. They were worshipping God by spending their time with Him on that appointed day and keeping it holy - which is the purpose of the Sabbath, isn't it?


The issue of the Sabbath is that it's an allotted day, not just 'having a day off'. If it was, then any day would do. And the benefits from having a day off a week (if not two!) is clearly beneficial, but the Sabbath doesn't mean that, does it?

polly 1 Jul

I'm surprised that your understanding of the common good and human wellbeing appears so thin Paul. If the Sabbath was made for man, a person "shouldn't do absolutely anything they want", because that's not for their benefit. It was Irenaeus who said that "The glory of God is seen in a human being fully alive". In other words, love of God and neighbour is part of what makes us human. In addition to the cultic significance of the commandment, there is an associated emphasis on living well. The jubilee laws were similarly directed. The rest and worship elements of Sabbath are integrated and should not be separated.

Nicholas 1 Jul

No reference, of course, to the alleged "survey" by Sheffield. Cathedrals, for example, don't get 24 hours of "refreshment" every week, and lots of them haven't fallen down yet. A building left unused for 168 hours a week, on the other hand, decays. And why should there be any parallel between buildings and humans? I mention these points just to highlight the complete absence of critical thinking in Mark Pargeter's article.

Employment law says everyone is entitled to at last one day off each week, and to several weeks holiday a year.

The only issue is whether everyone should have the same day off each week. It has never happened. Where it almost happens, on mad Calvinist Scottish islands, or behind a wire in Golders Green, it is misery. Even there, someone works cooking the Sunday lunch, but that doesn't count because they are women, or something. And even there, people are no longer stoned to death for collecting firewood on Sunday.

I bet Mark Pargeter expects his lights to work, and his sewage to flow away, 24/7.

His article simply confirms the utter moral bankruptcy of the so-called 'ten' (the count depends on how you divide the text, of course) so-called 'commandments'.

Are there reasons why humans will be happier if they have a rest from time to time? Yes. Therefore, we can know those reasons, and have no need of a supernatural commander. (Still less an absurd egocentric one which tells us to have a rest 'because' it had a rest after creating the universe.)

Or must we, like Paul Rodden, have a rest because an alleged supernatural source is alleged to have commanded us to? If so, this supernatural source is a wicked tyrant, and deserves our contempt and defiance. And yes, Plato did point all that out long ago, in a dialogue I occasionally mention in this forum...

Joanna 1 Jul

Greywiz, heresy to believe I was created by a God who loves me and designed me to gain my greatest fulfillment in loving, serving and obeying Him? A horrible way to live believing that He commands things because He knows they are the way the world will function best?



Surely anything else would be heresy and misery, wouldn't it? Believing He is a tyrant who commands things on a whim just to make us miserable while giving himself a good laugh?



I'll stick with my way, thanks.

Greywizard 1 Jul

Joanna, by all means, stick with your way, but please, please, don't imagine that you can know the mind of God (for any god). To put it in logical terminology, what you are saying, when you say that God commands something, is that, for any X, where X is a god, X commands Y (where Y is something you believe that God commands). How can anyone be so sure that they know? Besides, talking about greatest fulfilment in terms of serving and obeying someone seems a bit of a stretch to me, and probably inconsistent with love. (Oh yes, I know, I know, service is perfect freedom, and all that!)


While we're at it, though, let's look at the word 'heresy' a moment. The word 'heresy' comes from the Greek word meaning (basically) 'to think differently,' in other words, to dissent. So heretics are those who think differently than the orthodox. But of course those called heretics by the orthodox called the orthodox heretics in their turn. So heresy itself doesn't identify anything absolutely, but just from a point of view. Roman Catholics think that all other Christians are heterodox in some respect (and therefore heretical), and they're not quite sure, as Paul has pointed out from time to time, about some of their own number.


Great analysis Nicholas, and some excellent points about the difference between buildings and people! And I am old enough to remember Presbyterian Sundays: no games, no bicylces, only church and improving books -- sacred, boring, oppressive days which seemed to stretch endlessly into a future fossilised by sedimented layers of holiness.


At the same time, there is no reason why we shouldn't make some effort to ensure that families have a chance to be together on a regular basis, even if that means some way of coordinating work schedules for partners, both of whom are employed outside the home.

Zak Bishrey 1 Jul

I don’t believe my eyes. First Paul comes with his usual heap of ill thought out garbage, and can’t wait to use his busted trump card “God” whenever he is short of a sensible argument, regardless of how stupid he looks doing it.



Then there is a discussion about whose “ShBT” it is (can’t do Hebrew script here and no vowels anyway). Surely you all know that the Jewish days of the week are numbered from the first day, what is also called Sunday to what is also called Friday, with the seventh day called, quite properly, “Rest”.



The truth of the matter (according to Genesis) is that God was knackered after creating the universe in six days so he took a day off to Rest. It had nothing to do with Christ, and the day of rest was not for Jesus but for his dad, some 4004 years before he was born (according to Archbishop Ussher). And if you want to be precise about it, alright then, God rested on the evening of Friday 28th October 4004 BC, exactly six days after he started the project on the evening of Sunday the 22nd of October. Honest.



It was that upstart Constantine (of Istanbul fame) who messed about with the days of the week. First, by making people work on the proper day of Rest and renaming it after the god Saturn. Secondly, by making the following day the new Roman day of rest and renaming it after the Sun. Well what else do you expect from a Sun worshipper (look at his coin). And why shouldn’t Constantine mess about with the days of the week when his own mother Helena could discover the exact spot where Jesus was born (by Caesarean section, else how would his mother remain a virgin), more than 350 years after the stable was bulldozed flat to the ground.



What was the question? Oh yes: Do we need to observe a Sabbath? Yes Mark, if you mean a common and convenient day of rest for all (or most) of us. No, if you drag God into it and pretend that your god gives a damn or a single solitary hoot about who tires and who rests, and who is born a cripple or blind or deaf, and who gets blown to smithereens in a holy Crusade, or a Jihad, or a Milhemet Mitzbah.


polly 1 Jul

Come on Zak! I think you can do better than that. I think most of us know how Jewish days are numbered. I don't ask you to believe in the Christian tradition, but it would be helpful if you understood it a bit better (especially the relation between old and new Testaments) and parodied it a little less, however tempting that is. Clearly there are some important questions to ask about what OT laws remain relevant in the NT. I don't think that there is an absolute requirement to keep a particular day aside, but I do think it's in our society's interests that we do so, and I do think theology is relevant in this regard. The liberalisation of the UK's Sunday Trading laws have had a hugely disproportionate effect on the poorest in society who are usually the people forced to work in supermarkets to satisfy our consumer demands. Scripture has a lot to say about this, given that God’s intention is for human beings to be whole and fulfilled.

Greywizard 1 Jul

Oh dear, Zak's inimitable scorn and polly's unquestioning acceptance of revelation. First of all, why are there 'some important questions to ask about what OT laws remain relevant in the NT?' Relevant to whom? Why? No one can establish that these laws are really divine laws, any more than the Qur'an is a divine book, with its divine laws, or the Mahabharata's strictures apply to contemporary people.


Of course, contrary to Zak, memorialising the first day of the week amongst Christians came before Constantine, though he had reason enough to confirm it. Still the point is that, if there is a commandment at all in the OT-NT corpus, it concerns the seventh day and not the first.


Agreed, some of the less well off suffer more than most from the change to business seven days a week, and we need to look at this from the standpoint of justice. It has nothing, however, to do with divine commands. It has to do with the fact that a common day of rest, at least for members of the same family, is a good thing, and helps to preserve and build relationships that may be important for society as a whole. In this connnexion, Zak's point stands: we do need a time of rest. It's good for us. And it would be best if members of families could share their rest time together. That seems easy enough. Why drag a god into it?

Zak Bishrey 1 Jul

Polly: If I tried to “do better than that”, the Christians would throw me to the lions! And Greywizard, if I sound a little scornful it is because I was accused by my grandma of being a Freemason for asking her what Kiri eleison meant (I was seven at the time), and because for 3000 years we have had the OT shoved down our throats as being the very word of God, then when verses and chapters in the OT are proven mathematically to be a load of incredible bullshit, we are told that it was not meant to be taken seriously, or that God was playing Star-Trek games with us.



I agree wholeheartedly that it is in every society’s best interest to set aside a day or two in the week for rest, recreation, and family cohesion. No one knows that better than those who have to leave for work before their infants wake up in the morning and return when it is nearly their bed-time. In these circumstances the weekends are precious, not least because the children would get to know their parents. But what has any of this to do with any god?



If you really want to know Polly, my tradition was approved by Jesus in the 1st century AD, by Hillel in the 1st century BC, and by Kung-Zi in the 5th century BC, which is that “I do not do unto others that which I do not wish done unto me”. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence that this doctrine is widely practiced by the followers of Jesus, Hillel, or Confucius. Just how big a failure does any god has to be before he is discarded as a non-working prototype?



However, I agree with you that the 7-day working week is detrimental to family life, since it is difficult, if not impossible, to synchronise in most cases the free time of both the parents and the children. So now we can all relax together in this warm and amicable concord, as long as no one tries to shove down my throat the notion that I am getting my free weekends as a courtesy from a god, or that I owe him anything in return.



I will see you again in a few days when I have returned from my son’s estate in France.


Nicholas 1 Jul

If Y_hw_h exists, and if its "intention is for human beings to be whole and fulfilled", why did it "command" that male infants should have their foreskins chopped off, thus lessening their capacity for sexual fulfilment? As to the "relation" between OT and NT, it is obvious. The compilers of the gospels invented various events that would 'fulfil' OT 'prophecies'. They hadn't a clue whether Jesus was out to undermine barmy OT precepts, or reinforce them, but had him ranting on at tedious length about torture for unbelievers after their death. This last is the most striking new thing in the NT.

Where is the evidence about the number of people now working on Sunday who would prefer to be with other members of their families? And what would they be doing, that would not entail yet other people working? How is it known that they wouldn't rather be going for solitary walks, or down the pub with their mates, or buying stuff themselves? The dismal Scottish Sunday was all too real. But the cornflakes-packet family flying kites on the common (or whatever) was ever a rarity.

Paul Rodden 1 Jul

OK. I need to clarify.


My initial post was about motives and intentions. It was about the teleological grammar of action (i.e., ends, objects, acts, intentions, etc.) within an Aristotelian/Thomistic framework. An analogy from the Memoirs of St Louis de Joinville:


"As they were on their way from their lodgings to the sultan's palace Brother Yves caught sight of an old woman going across the street, with a bowl full of flaming coals in her right hand and a flask filled with water in her left. 'What are you going to do with these?' he asked her. The old woman answered that with the fire she intended to burn up paradise and destroy it utterly, and with the water she would quench the fires of hell, so that it too would be gone for ever. "why do you want to do that?' asked Brother Yves. 'Because,' said she, 'I don't want anyone ever to do good in the hope of gaining paradise, or from fear of hell; but solely for the love of God, Who deserves so much from us, and Who will do us all the good He can.'" This is broadly the Catholic position.


Firstly, the CCC states, "[2007] With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. [2008] The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit." Therefore, we shouldn't expect 'benefit' in a syllogistic fashion from keeping the commandments, which I think has more in common with Pharisaism or the 'prosperity gospel', rather than orthodox Christianity.


And when the Catechism gets to the ten commandments, there is no mention of the commandments being primarily for our material benefit. And, as far as I can see, there are no scriptural passages which uphold the view of the commandments being for our benefit either, rather than God commanding them. I will revise my view if anyone produces a conclusive text from scripture to the contrary. In relation to the Sabbath, I think Exodus 31:12-17 is pretty clear.


That said, the commandments are for our happiness, but happiness (beatitudo) doesn't mean joy, but human flourishing, and is related to the natural law in general. Therefore, it is still only as a side effect, or offshoot of, following the law, not as the end in itself.


To give a crude example, sometimes my son behaves well because he knows if he does, he thinks he'll be given a treat. Other times, he behaves well because he wants to please us, and thereby show his love. I think it is clear, which action is the morally superior one: when he acts from the motive of not receiving anything in return.


My reaction to the article was that it seemed to be prostituting one of God's commandments by underselling it as beneficial per se, when it has a very specific theological dimension, and by doing this, I find it somewhat blasphemous. But then again, how much of modern 'evangelistic outreach' is a commodification of the Gospel and scalp-hunting, rather than a genuine love for those victims of its machinations? 'Hookers for Jesus' wouldn't exist otherwise, for example. Anything to get the punters in.


lastly, health, and as a result, possible longevity, is of interest to the secular. However, the ten commandments also cover the evils of abortion, euthanasia, adultery, divorce, fornication, unfair wages, etc.. These would receive a very different reception if any of these were used as examples, but at the same time, shows how this article distorts the commandments in general through the abuse of a specific, in my opinion.

Greywizard 1 Jul