Chapter 5 is called “Subversive Sabbatarianism,” and addresses the countercultural nature of sabbath observance. It provides a great test case for Jason’s thesis because it is a command that has to do with living, breathing bodies, as well as with competing claims on those bodies. Unfortunately, I don’t think Jason sees this.
First, the agreement. Jason is right to lament the fact that for many Christians, the Lord’s Day is just “Saturday, Part Two” (p. 51). At the same time, he wants to reject sabbath-keeping as a transformational impuluse — which is what it was in the 19th century. We also agree that Meredith Kline’s restriction of the sabbath to the time of the worship service only is misguided. Jason and I agree that the Lord’s Day is a full day. So much for the agreement.
The bulk of this chapter focuses on whether Christians ought to urge “blue laws” on the unbelieving culture around, to which I would reply “of course not.” Abraham and his heirs inherit the world through the righteousness of faith, and not through the law (Rom. 4:13). So lack of legislative zeal on our part shouldn’t keep the transformational leaven from working through the loaf. We should celebrate the sabbath in the kind of gracious liberty that makes our frenetic 24-7 neighbors go pop-eyed with envy. And then we baptize them, teaching them obedience afterwards.
But the real problem for Jason here is not what we Christians try to make the heathen do. The real problem is what they are obligated to respect with regard to our practices. You see? This is how transformation works. If the outside culture has no obligation whatever to respect our sabbath observance then we are back in the Roman empire, when Sunday was just one more work day. I take Jason’s point that he does not want to make the heathen sabbath-keepers. But does he want them to be forced to respect our sabbath-keeping, by allowing us that day off? And if they do respect it, how is that not a transformational impact, altering and rearranging their calendar? It seems to me that consistency on this point would require Exile Presbyterian to start having their worship services before dawn (as the early Christians did) so that the unbelievers will not be discommoded in any way by our scruples as they line up the work schedules for our members. Right?
Just a couple other things. In this chapter, Jason quotes Hauerwas and Willimon on the same point for a second time: “The church has its own reason for being, hid within its own mandate and not found in the world. We are not chartered by the Emperor” (P. 60, emphasis theirs). This having been quoted twice, I decided that I would chase it down the road a bit. Christ Church here in Moscow is not a 501(c)3 corporation precisely because we declined, on religious grounds, to be chartered by the emperor. Christ is the Head of the church, and so the position ought not to be filled by Idaho’s secretary of state. And so here is the question, offered without guile. What about Exile Presbyterian? Are they chartered by the state? Are they a 501(c)3? If not, we can shake hands on that one and move on to other issues. If so, then what on earth does Jason mean by saying that the church is not chartered by the emperor when his church in fact is?
One last thing. Jason thinks that transformation is simply a question of direct influence. “After all, such withdrawal [in sabbath keeping] ends up costing the transformationist fifty-two days a year that could be spent for the noble goal of redeeming art, sports, and the civil magistrate” (p. 58). Right, but only in the sense that a huge metal engine under the hood slows a car down. Worship and rest is the engine of grace that drives the cultural car.