by Jason Cunningham | April 2, 2024
Having briefly analyzed the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath as it is articulated in the doctrinal Standards of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and explicated its biblical basis in parts one and two of this three-part series, I now intend to provide a working definition of confessional adoption that upholds the doctrinal Standards of the PCA without requiring “gnat-straining” over every single word.
Defining the Terms of Adoption
The purpose of confessional adoption, or subscription, in the PCA is to protect the doctrine of the Church. While remaining subordinate to Scripture, creeds and confessions articulate what various churches believe about the Bible. The PCA is committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, as adopted by the denomination in 1973. As Dr. Morton Howison Smith wrote in Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America:
These standards are the bond of union on which we have agreed. That is, they are the doctrinal standards to which the PCA is committed, and which serve as the bond of our unity together. If we are not agreed on these matters, then we have no bond of unity to hold us together in a single denomination.[1]
Subscription to these doctrinal standards is a formal commitment by ordained officers of the Church to the Standards as defined by the denomination. There is a long history filled with controversy surrounding the definition of confessional subscription.[2] Although these very important historical events have served to shape our view of subscription, for the sake of brevity we will leave the history to others and limit our discussion here to definitions.
For the last one hundred years, subscription has primarily been defined by two terms, “strict” or “loose.” Smith, as well as many others, asserts that there are better ways to articulate these two positions.[3] Strict subscription is better understood by using the term “full subscription.” In adopting the Standards of the Church, a full subscriptionist position would hold to the totality of the confessional Standard(s) as the system of doctrine adopted by a candidate. Loose subscription, on the other hand, is more charitably described as “system subscription,” and holds to a system of doctrine not explicitly defined in the confessional Standard(s), but rather contained in them. In other words, the system position would subscribe only to the fundamental and essential doctrines of a given Standard. As to whether or not a particular candidate’s divergent views leave the system intact is a matter for the Presbytery to decide.[4]
Taking the definitions above at face value, we can determine quickly that there is a marked difference between the two positions. System subscription allows for a greater degree of variation in adopting the Standards, leaving the determination of what is an acceptable variation to the courts. Full subscription maintains that each point of doctrine articulated in the Standards is non-negotiable as matter to be adopted by all candidates. Surprisingly, to maintain my thesis that one can accept the “no recreation” language of WCF 21.8 as written while still allowing some Christian liberty in its application, I will not be contending for a system subscription position. Instead, the argument I propose here lies within a historic understanding of full subscription. As one of the founders of the PCA and a studied authority on confessional subscription, Dr. Smith again is instructive:
Note that full subscription does not require subscription in terms of adopting every word of the Confession and Catechisms, but rather in terms of every doctrine or teaching of the Confession and Catechisms… When the full subscriptionist insists on the fact that our subscription includes all of the doctrines in the Confessional standard, he is not insisting on every statement regarding each of these doctrines, but rather that each of the areas of teaching dealt with by the Standards is included in his subscription.[5]
For further support of this definition, William Barker quoting Charles Hodge writes:
In professing to adopt the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrines taught in the sacred Scriptures, a man professes to believe the whole series of doctrines constituting that system, in opposition to every other. That is, he professes to believe the whole series of doctrines which go to make up the Calvinistic system, in opposition to the Socinian, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or any opposite and inconsistent view of Christianity.[6]
Herein lies the argument for not stating a difference with WCF 21.8.
Questions will immediately arise because we naturally desire a list of acceptable Sabbath Day activities as a measure of the veracity of our subscription to the Standards. Can one truly adopt WCF 21.8 but also enjoy walking in the park with his wife or playing outside with his children without being out of accord with the system of doctrine? The answer lies in the fact that a) full subscription is not tied to a literal adoption of every word and phrase, and b) our often-spontaneous Sunday recreations are unique to the Sabbath and beneficial to our rest.
Please take note that I am not asserting that one is free to do whatever he wants on Sunday. The entire point regarding confessional subscription as an act of personal adoption of the doctrines of the Standards is to understand that making the Sabbath a delight by setting aside the things that please us will take effort. Certain activities “should” be excluded, but how we approach the question and examine our weekly routine matters greatly. Do we maintain our current Sabbath practice out of a desire to “go our own way,” or can we recognize that some physical activities are both pleasing to the Lord and distinct from our normal weekly activity? The Sabbath should be filled with rest, worship, feasting, and mercy. If we fill our day with those things, we may find that we have pushed out the desires of own heart and replaced them with that which delights our Savior.
Conclusion and Practical Application
When the world around us treats the first day of the week like any other day, our tendency is to fear that we will fall behind or miss something important when we rest from certain worldly employments and recreations. While there are any number of worldly activities that can be addressed here, consider just the number of professional and organized sports activities that take place on the Lord’s Day as a signal testament to the sad reality that the world believes six days are not enough time for recreation.
As Christians, we must reject the world’s calculus and faithfully obey the Scriptures by recognizing the distinctness of the Sabbath. Finally, we must address our imperative as Christians to love one another. Christians are to be imitators of their Savior and Redeemer by seeking to prioritize the needs of others (Jn. 13:34, Phil. 2:3, 1 Jn. 3:11). This certainly applies to our Sabbath practice and speaks directly to the topic of recreation. While some might contend that all recreation is organized, I will make a distinction here by speaking particularly of recreation that requires others to labor on our behalf.[7] If we participate in a Sunday recreation (or any activity) that requires others to serve us for pay, we would do well to ask if we are loving our neighbor and encouraging them to rest.
It is critically important in maintaining the peace and purity of the PCA that ordination candidates understand what the Confession teaches, what it means to adopt and receive the doctrinal Standards of the Church, and what the Scriptures that purportedly undergird our system of doctrine teach. It is even more critical that Christians understand that God takes the Sabbath very seriously and so should we.
In many cases, ordination candidates may not have thoroughly examined these matters prior to stating differences to the “no recreation” clause in WCF 21.8. The arguments presented in this three-part series of blog posts have shown that by developing a proper definition of confessional subscription together with a high view of the Sabbath rooted in the doctrine of creation and specifical textual support (e.g., Is. 58:13-14), a candidate can adopt and receive the Confession on this particular point in good conscience even as he believes that taking a walk or throwing a ball is lawful family activity for Lord’s Day afternoons.
The question as to what recreation is permissible on Sunday and what is not will continue to be debated. However, if we are diligent to ask the question not based simply on what we want to do (or are currently doing) but rather on the basis of what is to be considered restful and worship-promoting, what shows love to our neighbor, and what makes the Sabbath properly distinct from other days, we can avoid the bondage of legalism while also advancing the Christian’s freedom to rest in the finished work of Christ.
[1] Morton H Smith. Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America. Greenville (GPTS Press, 1992), 2
[2] For a collection of essays on subscription, see ed. David W. Hall, The Practice of Confessional Subscription (Lanham: University Press of America, 1995).
[3] Morton H Smith. Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America. Greenville (GPTS Press, 1992), 2
[4] PCA BCO 21-5, 24-5
[5] Smith, Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church in America, 3, 4
[6] William Barker. “System Subscription” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 63 (2001) 8.
[7] Ryan M. McGraw, The Day of Worship: Reassessing the Christian Life in Light of the Sabbath (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 51.
Jason Cunningham is a PCA Ruling Elder serving on the session of Chestnut Mountain Presbyterian Church in Flowery Branch, GA.
One thought on “A Day Set Apart: Revisiting the “No Recreation” Clause of WCF 21.8, Part 3”