4/26/05
SABBATH PUBLIC
TRANSPORT AND THE MURRAY-MATHESON CASE
The birth of the Presbyterian Reformed Church related in part to a dispute over Sabbath public transport within the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS), a dispute which resulted in schism. Those that disagreed with the position of the synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland eventually formed the Presbyterian Reformed Church. The two central figures involved in this dispute pivotal in the formation of the Presbyterian Reformed Church were Rev. William Matheson and Dr. John Murray. This was not only an important defining moment in the history of the Presbyterian Reformed Church (PRC), it was also a defining moment in the life of the FPCS. Its implications go far beyond the narrow issue in dispute; rather the position taken by the FPCS in the case has far-reaching implications on FPCS policy concerning Sabbath observance in general, subscription to the doctrines of the Westminster Standards by communicant members, the manner in which the FPCS will uphold the doctrines of the WCF, etc. To an American this must seem like an unlikely issue for ecclesiastical contention, but in Scotland Sabbath public transport was pivotal in bringing down the ‘Scottish Sabbath’. In many towns in Scotland, it was the first obvious challenge to the societal preservation of strict Sabbatarianism that had previously endured for centuries. Sabbath public transport thus became the wedge which opened up widespread societal desecration of the Sabbath.
I have recently been in discussion over this case with Dr. Richard Bacon and some others on the r-f-w list. For those interested, I recommend you read the various posts on the yahoo-group r-f-w (reformed faith and worship) list on the topic of Sabbath public transport that occurred in April-May 2005. This article merely contains excerpts from that discussion.
My position is simply this: there
was nothing really new or surprising about the FPCS position that public
transport in systematic disregard of the Sabbath was something to be opposed.
Strict Sabbatarianism has been a mark of the FPCS from its inception, and the
historic Church of Scotland long before that. The really central question
I think is this: is the position of the FPCS concerning Sabbath public
transport an implication of the Fourth Commandment? I think yes, and I
think officers and members should be willing to comply without ecclesiastical
separation.
Dr. Bacon, on the other hand, disagrees with the FPCS in this dispute. In the discussion on the rfw list, he cited detailed information concerning the proceedings of the case from the book History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Dr. Bacon asserted that it is a reasonable application of the Fourth Commandment not to use Sabbath public transport, but that it is not an implication of the Fourth Commandment. Dr. Bacon also pointed this out in the discussion:
“Neil
Cameron moved and the General Assembly passed by unanimous consent the
following motion, "that the Synod order the Clerk to send a copy of the
Synod's finding to the Kirk-session of Ontario with the intimation that, if
they do not notify the Clerk by the last day of August, 1929, that they have
fallen into line with the Synod's decision simpliciter they will not
be considered after that a Kirk-session of the Free Presbyterian Church of
Scotland" [p. 149]. Fundamentally, the FPCS had adopted a new term of
communion and of qualification for office without ever submitting that term to
the several presbyteries for their consent and debate. Further, the
Kirk-session of Ontario did not unhesitatingly withdraw from the FPCS, the
synod of the FPCS unchurched them in an action quite similar to the old school
unchurching of the four new school synods in the 1837 General
Assembly.
In the
spring of 1930, Matheson visited Scotland and in writing distinguished between
the taking of public transportation for the purpose of church attendance and
the running of those conveyances in disregard of the Sabbath for reasons other
than church-going. Second, however, he specifically and constitutionally
affirmed that synod does not have the power to pass a rule as a new term of
communion apart from complying with the barrier act of 1697.”
Since Dr. Bacon regards the
prohibition on Sabbath public transport to have been a new term of communion in
the FPCS, he therefore argued that the FPCS should have (but did not) proceed
in a way consistent with its being a new term of communion. Hence, Dr. Bacon regards the proceedings of
the FPCS in this case to be contrary to FPCS’ own constitution, and therefore
constitutionally wrong and even tyrannous.
In rebuttal, I tried to lay out
the different positions of the disputants.
Here is what I believe the two different position to be:
In my opinion, if a prohibition on
the use of Sabbath public transport is an implication of the Bible’s testimony
on the fourth commandment, then surely it is also an implication of what the
WCF says about the fourth commandment, for the Bible and the WCF teach the very
same thing on this topic. Hence, he
should acknowledge that it had long been an implicit (albeit not an explicit)
law in the FPCS that patronization of
public transportation on the Sabbath which is being employed in systematic
disregard of the Sabbath is wrong. So I
rejected Dr. Bacon’s contention that this was a new term of communion within
the FPCS.
It was the Biblical duty of
Matheson and Murray to agree with the FPCS synod in this case. However, they refused on both allegedly
Biblical and constitutional grounds.
Unless the FPCS synod would have been willing to reverse its decision
that patronization on the Sabbath of public transportation which is being
employed in systematic disregard of the Sabbath is wrong, the FPCS synod had no
alternative but to enforce the ecclesiastical separation with Matheson and
Murray. Not to have acted, or to act in
such a way as to imply this was a new term of communion, would have been
tantamount to agreeing with Matheson and Murray. We should be clear that the inception of the ecclesiastical
separation occurred when Matheson and Murray publicly pronounced a position
contrary to the doctrine of scripture and the WCF, thus tying the hands of the
FPCS synod to either compromise religiously or act as the FPCS synod did.
Now Pastor Lanning made the following objection to the FPCS position and my argument on its behalf:
“It seems, however, that the logic of the Free
Presbyterians runs in directions they might not wish it to go. If it is
wrong to patronize these systems on one day of the week because they operate on
all seven, it must be wrong to patronize these systems on every day of the
week. If it is wrong to patronize systems of transportation because they
operate on all seven, it must be wrong to patronize systems of communication
(the internet, the telephone, radio, TV) because they, too, operate on all
seven; and the same holds true for public utilities that provide water,
electricity, gas, or steam heat, since they, too, operate on all seven days.
It would therefore be wrong to have electric lighting in our churches and
homes, or city water, gas-fired central heating, etc. In every
case, our patronage on any day of the week must needs go to reward or at least
to fund their operation on the Sabbath day.
We would have to walk everywhere we go, and do without many of the conveniences
of modern life, including this blessed little internet discussion list.
We certainly would have no way to travel to dear old
Scotland, since both airplane and ocean liner are operated on the Sabbath days.
I wonder, too, if the synod found fault with those churches that fail to
provide transportation for members without automobiles, who must forgo church
attendance if they live at any great distance from the church building?”
My essential response to Pastor
Lanning is below:
“Let’s
first be forthright here that the difference between the FPCS and the ARP (of
Pastor Lanning) concerning Sabbath observance is far more significant than just
Sabbath public transport. In the ARP
communicants may work at and shop at all sorts of retail establishments on the
Lord’s Day, without being barred from communion, based upon my own observation.
But
with respect to this specific issue, there is a significant difference between
types of services with respect to whether they are matters of necessity or
mercy, or not. Utilities such as water,
electricity and gas are matters of necessity or mercy, but retail clothing
stores and all day public bus operations stopping at shopping malls, the
amusement park, etc. are not.
Furthermore, patronizing such unnecessary services on the Lord’s Day
forces and entices employees in those establishments to engage in those
activities, whereas using their services on other days of the week does not.
The
FPCS makes provision for those people who do not have automobiles to get to
church. For instance, this is done in
the FPCS church in Singapore, where most congregants are without
automobiles.
Here is the reason I agree with the FPCS position on this topic:
1. Engaging in commercial transactions which do not fall under
the category of necessity or mercy is wrong and forbidden, and those who
unrepentantly engage in it should be barred from communion.
2. Commercial transactions and activity involve a provider or
seller, and a user or buyer. Both are
to be held accountable for the commercial transaction.
3. The user of a public transportation service is engaging in a
commercial transaction, just as the provider is.
4. Sabbath public transportation, such as was in question in
the Matheson-Murray affair, does not fall under the category of necessity or
mercy, and therefore is a wrong and forbidden commercial transaction.
5. Therefore, both the provider and user of such Sabbath
public transportation are engaging in a forbidden commercial transaction, and
therefore such unrepentant transgressors should be barred from communion.
Now if
the modern ARP does not agree with proposition 1 above, which from my
observation it does not, then I would not expect them to agree with conclusion
5.
This
case is not about a boycott of services, but about what commercial activity may
and should occur on the Sabbath.”
There were many other posts on
this topic. Below are 2 posts that I
made in response to posts by Dr. Bacon
(excerpts of Dr. Bacon’s statements appear after each “Dr. Bacon:”
below, and my responses appear after each “Parnell;” below):
From: r-f-w@yahoogroups.com [mailto:r-f-w@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of J. Parnell McCarter
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:00 AM
To: r-f-w@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [r-f-w] Sabbath Transportation
Dr.
Bacon: For your
opinion to be true that the prohibition against taking a taxi to church was
already implicitly in the fourth commandment (and the WCF & LC), you would
have to prove that it is a *good and necessary* consequence arising from the
fourth commandment.
Parnell:
That is what I believe, and that is what I think I can readily do.
Indeed, it is rather prima facia [sic]. Also, at least the FPCS men I have
spoken with on this topic believe it is a *good and necessary* consequence
arising from the fourth commandment. Apparently you are not persuaded it is a
good and necessary consequence arising from the fourth commandment?
Certainly Matheson and Murray were not, and were persistent in publicly
declaring their position.
Dr
Bacon: The FPCS's arguments did not attempt to prove that, Parnell. At least
not in the record of the case that is included in their own authorized history.
Parnell:
I would need to study the documents more to comment upon your assertions, which
I shall try to do as time permits. All I can say at this point is that
[it] is my opinion that it should have been the posture of the FPCS synod that
this was not a new term of communion, but rather a *good and necessary*
consequence arising from the fourth commandment.
Dr.
Bacon: most American churches do not require strict subscription to the entire
confession as a term of communion
Parnell:
I know, and I disagree with most American churches. Indeed, even what
many mean by "strict subscription" is not enough. There should
be full and total subscription: men who disagree with the doctrines of the WCF
are not yet qualified to be elders, whether they vocalize their disagreement or
not.
Dr.
Bacon: Many things that you and I may agree are implicit in this or that
commandment are not made terms of communion.
Parnell:
The good and necessary consequences of a commandment are and should be terms of
communion, whether or not they are explicitly stated. Making them
explicit adds no new law or term of communion. eg, Sabbath observance of
the Lord's Day is a good and necessary consequence of the Bible and a term of
communion, even though it is not explicitly said to be such in the Bible
Dr.
Bacon: It is not true that synod had no other alternative
Parnell:
on the assumption that it was not a good and necessary consequence of the
fourth commandment (as explained in scripture and the WCF), an assumption I do
not agree with
-----Original
Message-----
From: r-f-w@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:r-f-w@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
jparnellm@usxchange.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:54 PM
To: r-f-w@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [r-f-w] Sabbath Transportation
Dr. Bacon: It is certainly *not* prima facie.
Parnell: To those educated in the Westminster
Stds, which are the people in question, it should be.
Dr. Bacon:
See, though, you are extending your doctrine of absolute subscription to
the membership (thus making it not a term of office but a term of communion)
Parnell: True enough. Communicants are not to publicly and
unrepentantly disagree with the doctrines of the WCF and its good and necessary
consequences. Rather, they too should
agree to the doctrines and conform to them.
Dr Bacon: Yes, that is the tyranny to which I
object. Synod decides what is and is not a term of communion rather than the
doctrinal standards of the church.
Parnell:
The synod has a duty to enforce the standards of the WCF it is
commissioned to defend. As I say, this
is a good and necessary consequence of the WCF. I realize you probably disagree with that.
Dr. Bacon: As any logician will tell you, if
you claim it is a necessary consequence, it is up to you to demonstrate it.
Parnell:
1. Engaging
in commercial transactions [on the Sabbath] which do not fall under the
category of necessity or mercy is wrong and forbidden, and those who
unrepentantly engage in it should be barred from communion.
2. Commercial
transactions and activity involve a provider or seller, and a user or
buyer. Both are to be held accountable
for the commercial transaction.
3. The
user of a public transportation service is engaging in a commercial
transaction, just as the provider is.
4. Sabbath
public transportation, such as was in question in the Matheson-Murray affair,
does not fall under the category of necessity or mercy, and therefore is a
wrong and forbidden commercial transaction.
5. Therefore,
both the provider and user of such Sabbath public transportation are engaging
in a forbidden commercial transaction, and therefore such unrepentant
transgressors should be barred from communion.
Another list member (a Rev. Glenn
Ferrell of the OPC) made this point:
Quoting Glenn Ferrell
<jglennferrell@msn.com>:
> Parnell:
>
> You seem to have missed Dr.
Bacon's reasoning. He is not arguing
whether
> Sabbath public transport is a
violation of the Fourth Commandment.
His
> argument is whether a general
synods may impose a specific application of the
> Commandment upon
congregations, sessions, officers and members without
> following the constitutional process
making such application explicit in
Ø terms of communion or ordination vows.
My response to Rev. Ferrell is
below:
“Sir, I understand very well Dr. Bacon’s point, and I disagree with it. I believe it is an implication of the doctrine of the Sabbath taught in scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith that use of Sabbath public transport such as was under consideration in the Matheson-Murray case is prohibited, while Dr. Bacon does not. Dr. Bacon’s use of the word ‘application’ is not equal to my use of the word ‘implication’. I believe prohibition of use of Sabbath public transport is a good and necessary consequence of that Sabbath doctrine, and Dr. Bacon does not. I believe that agreement with the doctrines of the original Westminster Confession of Faith should be required of all elders and communicant members of the church, while Dr. Bacon **seemingly** does not (though I’ll let him publicly affirm or deny that). I believe that anyone who unrepentantly and publicly disagrees with any of the doctrines of the original Westminster Confession of Faith, including implications of it like prohibition on use of Sabbath public transportation, should be barred from church office and communion, until such time as the person repents.
I have
likened this case to one involving the heresy of the Framework Hypothesis. Any officer or church member who
unrepentantly affirms the Framework Hypothesis should, in my opinion, be barred
from communion (until such time as there is repentance on the issue), even
though there be no explicit statement in the Bible or the Westminster
Confession of Faith that the Framework Hypothesis is an excommunicable
heresy. The Framework Hypothesis is
implicitly contrary to what is taught in scripture, and it is implicitly
contrary to what is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith with respect
to six-day creation. Therefore, it is
not necessary for a Presbyterian church synod to have an explicit term of
communion concerning the Framework Hypothesis to bar one unrepentantly adhering
to this doctrine from communion. And
even if the church were to add an explicit term of communion concerning the
Framework Hypothesis, it would really not be a new term of communion, for it
was implicitly covered before it was made explicit.
There
are many sundry ways people may violate the Sabbath command taught in scripture
and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
For example, we have in this discussion only dealt with one particular
type of commercial transaction that is implicitly prohibited by the Sabbath
command. But given there are clothing
stores, restaurants, grocery stores, lawn services, etc., there are who knows
how many others that could be mentioned.
Does the church have to explicitly list in its constitution any and all of
these different types of commercial transaction before it could act in the way
of discipline on one of these types of transaction? I think not. The general
principle covers the multitude of specific cases for purposes of church
discipline. Dr. Bacon seems to
disagree.
But let
this be noted: the Presbyterian
Reformed Church and Dr. Bacon’s own church have not to my knowledge in their
church constitutions explicitly prohibited use of Sabbath public
transportation, nor have they explicitly prohibited use of a multitude of other
types of commercial transaction that could be engaged in on the Sabbath, so
given their own method of constitutional implementation (one that I obviously
disagree with), I am only left to assume that its members may unrepentantly
engage in these varied types of commercial transaction on the Sabbath without
their church barring them from the Communion table. In my opinion this amounts to delinquency in the enforcement of
the Sabbath command.”
My response to Rev. Ferrell drew
this response:
Quoting s.padbury@tiscali.co.uk:
>
Dear Parnell,
>
> I
cannot agree with this at all. As a member of the Presbyterian Reformed
>
Church, and a week-by-week attender of all the services and meetings in this
> my
church, I can tell you plainly that if any of our communicant members
>
(or any of the adherents) used public transport on the sabbath, or attended
> a
restaurant, or made use of any of these other things you mentioned, I am
>
certain that our pastor and other memebrs of the congregation would point
>
out that this was in voilation of the fourth commandment, and they would
>
explain why (-1- it is making use of someone who is breaking that
>
commandment;
> it
involves the carrying out of a commercial transation on the sabbath (and
>
there's no getting around this: even if the the goods/services are moved
>
from vendor to purchasor on the sabbath but an arrangement is made for the
>
money to change hands on another day of the week, that's is still a
>
commercial
>
transaction that has taken place on the Christian sabbath; and -2- the
>
foregoing
> is
sinful because it requires one to be a partaker in another man's sins).
>
>
This is clearly the position of our church, and on occasion (e.g., when the
>
Ten Commandments are being preached upon), the same is preached from our
>
pastor, and I don't doubt that other pastors of our presbytery have done
>
the same and would still do the same, and would not conflict with my pastor
> if
he preached this, all in accord with the Scripture and the westminster
>
Standards.
>
>
Should any communicant member not know this (but it would be impossible for
>
them not to know it by the time they have been accepted into communicant
>
membership), this matter would be addressed, as I said, by members of the
>
congregation showing concern for their brother, and our pastor would
>
certainly
>
address the matter, in private (at first).
>
>
But to my knowledge there has not been a case like this in our church, or
> in
any of the churches of our presbytery. I can affirm that should it ever
>
happen, not one of our elders would allow such a person, unless they repent
>
and stop doing the thing, would agree to such a person sitting at communion.
>
>
It's in the fourth commandment; it's in the Westminster Standards (by which
>
our church abides); it's in the Reformers' and Puritans' and Presbyterians'
>
writings of old, and it's preached by our church. I affirm that our church
>
and presbytery has not backslidden on this issue. What more can I say?
>
> If
you think I'm being misled on this, please prove me wrong. I don't wish
> to
offend you in any of this.
>
>
Yours sincerely,
My response to Mr. Padbury of the
PRC ran as follows, excerpted below:
“… As
you know, William Matheson and John Murray were two of the leading persons in
the formation of the PRC. They formed
it because of differences of view with the FPCS, in which they had been
members, but from which they separated.
Now presumably, they were not satisfied with any other then existing
denominations (FCS, RPCNA, OPC, etc.), to warrant creating a whole new
denomination. Given the importance of
visible church unity, it is no light thing to create a new Presbyterian denomination.
Dr.
Bacon has helpfully supplied this list with a significant body of data about
the particulars of the Murray-Matheson case with the FPCS. Included in that information was this quote,
summarizing in a nutshell the two main differences of view:
“In the
spring of 1930, Matheson visited Scotland and in writing distinguished between
the taking of public transportation for the purpose of church attendance and
the running of those conveyances in disregard of the Sabbath for reasons other
than church-going. Second, however, he specifically and constitutionally
affirmed that synod does not have the power to pass a rule as a new term of
communion apart from complying with the barrier act of 1697.”
You
will notice here two things:
1. Matheson disagreed with the FPCS and did not believe that
the use of Sabbath public transport [to attend church] was a violation of the
Fourth Commandment (as that commandment is exposited by the WCF).
2. Matheson believed that barring someone from the Lord’s
Table for use of Sabbath public transport [to attend church] would be a **new**
term of communion, because prohibition of use of Sabbath public transport is
presumably not implicit within the WCF, as it exposits the Fourth Commandment.
Now you
tell me this:
> I
can affirm that should it ever
>
happen, not one of our elders would allow such a person, unless they repent
>
and stop doing the thing, would agree to such a person sitting at communion.
>
>
It's in the fourth commandment; it's in the Westminster Standards (by which
>
our church abides); it's in the Reformers' and Puritans' and Presbyterians'
>
writings of old, and it's preached by our church. I affirm that our church
Ø and presbytery has not backslidden on this issue.
What
you seem to be telling me about your local congregation runs quite contrary to
what Matheson (and Murray) believed on this issue, and which served as the
cause of their separation from the FPCS.
For the
life of me I fail to understand why then your congregation does not join the
FPCS, since your congregation seems to me to agree more with the FPCS than with
Matheson and Murray, who started this whole new denomination in no small
measure because of these issues.
I will
tell you this. I have in the past had
opportunity to ask one PRC ruling elder and one PRC ministerial student here in
the USA their thoughts on the use of Sabbath public transport, and their view
on it was contrary to what you are stating to me your view is, Simon. (I have in the past seriously considered
joining with the PRC.) They told me
they did not think the use of Sabbath public transport was a violation of the
Fourth Commandment, and they certainly did not think it is a violation meriting
excommunication.”
This article began by pointing out
how this was an important defining moment in the life of the FPCS, even on the
issue of members’ subscription to the standards of the church. As noted in the article at http://www.puritans.net/news/fpcs062804.htm
, the first term of communion in the FPCS for all communicant members reads
thus: “A confession of faith in accordance with the word of God and the
standards of the Church.” As the same
article also points out: “Consequently, according to the manual, no one should
be admitted to the ordinances, including membership in full communion, whose
confession of beliefs is openly at variance with the doctrines of the Word of
God summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as received by the
Church of Scotland in 1647.” Those
doctrines include what is explicitly laid out in the Westminster Confession of
Faith (WCF) and what is implicitly addressed in the WCF (i.e., the good and
necessary consequences of the explicit propositions in the WCF). The church may, but does not have to, lay
out in its constitution the implications of the WCF, for those implications to
be binding upon the communicant membership.
Of course, it would be virtually impossible to lay out every conceivable
implication for every conceivable situation that may arise. The explicit principles can cover these
specific cases, without the decision regarding a specific case being considered
a **new** term of communion, as opposed to an old term of communion perhaps
made more explicit. The FPCS position
in the Murray-Matheson case rests upon a premise of the propriety of upholding
members’ subscription to these standards of the church.
I hope this discussion concerning
Sabbath public transport and the Murray-Matheson case will prove helpful to
those contemplating the various issues involved. Steve Smith supplied us with a pdf version of chapter 11 of The
History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1893-1970, which can be
viewed at http://www.puritans.net/news/FPCSchapter11.pdf
. It covers many of the issues
discussed in this article.