This book is a fine primer on the issue of the Christian Sabbath. The author helpfully takes a different approach than others have taken on the topic, challenging our allegiance to the Lord of the Sabbath, even before addressing the way that we observe the Sabbath. The first six chapters deal with this in a very helpful way.
I was somewhat disappointed by the final two chapters, however. Chapter 7 seemed to focus primarily on Sabbath observance as “attending church”. I have come across many Reformed and supposedly confessional ministers who take this approach to the Sabbath — attend corporate worship and you have remembered the Sabbath day. This is undoubtedly simplistic.
The eighth chapter deals with the issue of appropriate recreation on the Lord’s Day. I found numerous frustrating things here. First, after having borrowed the Westminster Confessions definitions of certain aspects of the Lord’s Day (works of necessity and mercy), he then goes on to subvert the Assembly’s wisdom in other ways. For instance, Ray writes that the Sabbath day is not to be given over to worship and piety exclusively (his words, p. 106, contra WLC 117). This is in an effort to prop up the validity of recreation on the Lord’s Day (again, contra WLC 117). Further, Ray critiques those who would hold to the Assembly’s descriptions of what is/is not appropriate on the Lord’s Day. Granted, the Westminster Standards are subordinate to Scripture. But if Ray considers himself to be a confessional minister, having taken a vow to uphold this definition of the faith, the double-standard is confusing, at best.
Second, Ray quotes certain authors as too strict against recreation (my words). For instance, he quoted Joseph A. Pipa, citing him as “[missing] the point” of Isaiah 58’s instruction on the Sabbath. (Which is overly dismissive in the first place, in my humble opinion.) He then goes on to favorably quote Walter Chantry, believing him to be more balanced than these other authors. However, anyone familiar with Pipa’s work would know that he is more balanced than the quotes show. Pipa believes that certain recreations are appropriate, given that they are suitable to the purposes of the day. For instance, a common example that Pipa himself uses is that it is appropriate to let children get out their wiggles by throwing a ball around outside or running around the yard, in order that they might be prepared to sit through evening worship. This very teaching is not unlike Chantry’s, although Ray pits them against one another. However, Pipa’s is on the whole more balanced in my opinion, because he speaks to the character of the activity in connection with the purposes of the day, rather than stating in a blanket fashion that all recreations are acceptable.
Third, Ray places an overemphasis, in my opinion, on physical rest in this final chapter. Realistically speaking, the Lord’s Day should be a full day for us. While physical rest is certainly permissible, to engage in Sunday School, two services of worship, making meals, and private and family worship makes for a full and tiring day. Yet, this is entirely in keeping with the purposes of the day. And that does not even include the exercises of necessity and mercy we might embark on, such as visiting the sick and ministering to the needy! The Lord’s Day is primarily one of spiritual rest, even while we may be physically exhausted by the end of the day.
And fourth, Ray uses the analogy of Calvin’s lawn bowling on the Lord’s Day to justify recreation. This is a disputed, apocryphal story. Therefore, this supposed event should not be used as a point upon which to build an argument.
One further issue with this chapter: Ray seems to allow for any recreation that would be “refreshing” to a person on the Lord’s Day. This opens the door to any number of exceptions. For instance, what if it is “refreshing” for someone to watch football throughout an afternoon, rather than engaging in acts of piety and worship all the day? That certainly should not be allowed as an exception to the recreation clause. This is where Pipa’s qualifications are most welcome: a recreation is allowable only if it is consistent with the purpose of the day. (To be fair, Ray does provide a list of questions that help one think through the appropriateness of their recreation. But I find that the majority of these questions still make just about any recreation allowable, which I questioned above.)
All in all, I was disappointed by Ray’s application of the doctrine that he had built throughout the book. However, on the whole, this book is good for laying that doctrinal groundwork. Therefore, I still give it a 4/5.