Blue Laws Fall, Society Stumbles....

This from the November 2006 Atlantic Monthly reminds me of a non-Christian college friend regretting the collapse of Massachusetts' blue laws in the early 80s. My friend, now a district attorney in Maine, said that while he might find it hard to justify blue laws constitutionally, their departure would deprive his commonwealth of something uniquely gracious by turning Sunday into just another day of commercial activity.

Sunday Morning Coming Down

Churches may have God on their side, but they can easily lose parishioners to the lure of the shopping mall, the cubicle, or even demon rum, a new study suggests. Two economists examined the effect of repealing "blue laws"--regulations banning certain retail activity on Sundays--on church attendance in the sixteen states that have done away with such laws since 1955, and found that when the laws fall, so too do church attendance and church donations. The drop-off in church attendance was steepest among people who had previously attended weekly, while those who attended more than once a week were unaffected by the laws' repeal. States that repealed their blue laws also saw a noticeable increase in the consumption of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine, and this spike was concentrated among precisely the people whose churchgoing had dropped off.

--"The Church vs. the Mall: What Happens When Religion Faces Increased Secular Competition?," Jonathan Gruber and Daniel M. Hungerman, National Bureau of Economic Research

Comments

[Jack Brooks]

It mattereth not to me. My opinion is that the Sabbath was a ceremonial law applicable to Jews only (and only refers to Saturday, as we see from the word's use throughout the book of Acts). I don't accept the Puritan view of the 4th commandment.

What I care about is that there be laws that forbid companies from firing or failing to hire Christians whose tradition/denomination does regard Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.

[Eric Wilson]

Jack,

It matters to me whether my neighbor attends church or stays home and drinks. The point of the law is not merely that we have our rights protected. When these laws were repealed, our weaker brothers had a protection from sin removed.

Your reponse seems strangely cold and self-interested to me, given that there have been tragic results, such as families being destroyed by addictions. It seems that 'loving the least of these' includes consideration for those that are tempted to stop attending church.

[Rebecca]

Interesting post. By the way, I think New Mexico still has laws against selling and serving alcohol on Sundays.

I wanted to comment on Eric Wilson's comment:

"When these laws were repealed, our weaker brothers had a protection from sin removed.

Your reponse seems strangely cold and self-interested to me, given that there have been tragic results, such as families being destroyed by addictions."

As we know by the failed experiment of the Prohibition, such laws really do not protect from sin, or prevent addictions. Not being able to buy alcohol on Sunday certainly did not end alcoholism, as many of us know too well who grew up in areas where stores were closed on Sundays.

As far as the noticeable increase in the consumption of alchol --- that didn't surprise me at all. If someone drinks a small glass of wine while dining out in restaurants, for example, and now is able to dine out on Sunday as well as Saturday, this would create a noticable increase of consumption, as would being able to buy alchohol seven days instead of six days. What did surprise me is the increase in marujana and cocaine consumption. I had no idea drug dealers had followed the blue laws. LOL.

[Keith]

I don't know what I think about these laws. It seems like our legislative energies would probably be better spent somewhere else, though.

[Lance Roberts]

While I don't believe the Sabbath Laws apply anymore, I wanted to point out that even in OT times the Sabbath wasn't Saturday. The way the Jewish Calendar worked the Sabbath ended up on a different day each year.

[Eric Wilson]

Rebecca,

It is worth noting that there is a difference between repealing a law that is in force, and outlawing vices that had currently not been legislated. Yes, the prohibition didn't help. But do you really think that legalizing all drugs would not effect drug consumption?

Moreover, we know from this study that this particular type of law was effective in protecting some people from certain sins.

The blue laws are gone, and we shouldn't try to bring them back. But keep these results in mind the next time a law is being repealed. Our friends may laugh at the thought that people would choose to eschew same-sex intimacy because of sodomy laws, but that is no stranger than people replacing church with cocaine in the absence of blue laws.

[Robert Perry]

Eric, I appreciate what you're saying here, but I don't know absolutely that this study proves it. Under the glossy cover sheet could be an ocean of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" errors, or even "pre hoc, ergo propter hoc." How do they know, for example, that the drug busts specifically on Sundays were among people who were going to church a few years ago?

[Jack Brooks]

If someone wanted the supply needed to booze on Sunday, all he needed to do was stock up on Saturday.

It isn't as if, by keeping restaurants or stores closed on Sunday, that we successfully forced people to go to church. Christianity is a voluntarist faith, the U.S. isn't the covenant nation, and the civil laws of Israel are expired, so it's wrong to forcibly compel people to attend church anyway.

We're all still bound by the universal moral law (which includes worshiping the Lord, obviously), and yes, it's a sin not to do so. People are sinning by not assembling together on the Lord's Day to seek Christ. But I see blue laws as a confused application of sabbatarianism. God hallowed the seventh day in creation, but there's no indication He gave revelation about it until Moses. John Bunyan pointed out that God punished violations of all nine other commandments prior to the Law, but not the fourth. Then, when He did speak directly on the subject, He defined it as a special covenant sign between Him and Israel only. I would need to see some other Biblical basis for blue laws, apart from sabbatarianism.

newcovenantliving @ blogspot

[Jack Brooks]

And I agree with the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" comment. Outlawed drugs weren't legally sold any time, let alone on Sundays. One could as easily suggest that a rising cultural tide of hedonistic amorality and lawlessness -- partly expressed through drug and alcohol use -- led to increasing indifference about Sunday blue laws. Once politicians registered that a majority of their people no longer cared about, respected, or wanted blue laws, the elected officials got rid of them (in order to obtain more state and federal tax revenues). So the changes could have started at the grass roots, with fundamental moral attitudes among the citizenry, then percolated upward to the legislative level. Even if we wanted the blue laws back -- and I didn't really mind them, I just didn't think they were necessary applications of Scriptural morality -- the only way to restore those laws will be to change the cultural consensus.

newcovenantliving @ blogspot

[David Bayly]

It's kind of telling that a group of those who profess faith in the Word are less willing to think Sabbath observance could produce good in society than the editorial staff of the Atlantic Monthly.

Men, your "post hoc" assumptions are actually just the betrayal of tender consciences on the subject. On the basis of nothing--sheer unmitigated supposition--you deny the accuracy of a study the Atlantic saw fit to publish. Guilt, methinks.

David Bayly

[Jack Brooks]

Sunday t'ain't the Sabbath, brother David. I can't speak about anyone else in this little thread, but for me, there's a genuine theological disagreement in play. So no guilty conscience here; just Romans 14 at work.

[Brian]

This is just sad. People disagree thoughtfully and gracefully and the best "pastor" David can do is accuse them of a guilty conscience. So the message is clear - disagree with me and it's a sign of some moral shortcoming. Yep, that's much easier that actually dealing with the opposing arguments.

[Jack's Pipe]

Without sermonizing on either side of the blue law argument, I'm reminded of something Howard Phillips said once during a debate: When you legalize something, you get more of it.

Jack, how do you explain the 4th Commandment? It's right in the middle of nine other moral commandments that we (I'm sure you'd agree) are to directly obey today. The Ten Commandments seems a strange place to put a ceremonial law.

[Jack Brooks]

Well, I won't clutter this up with a wordy explanation. Briefly: Moses' Law was always a mixture of all kinds of laws -- the moral, ceremonial, and civil are mingled together throughout. E.g. Leviticus 18. In the midst of moral restrictions about intercourse all Christians would agree are timeless, there's a rule about menstruation that should be considered a ceremonial law (since it deals with the symbolic sacredness of human blood). So having a ceremonial law included in the 10 commandments is true to form with the rest of the Mosaic Covenant. It's not odd -- it's what the rest of the Law is like.

It's also fitting that there be a Sabbath commandment contained in the 10 Commandments, since the Sabbath was a unique covenant sign between the Jews and the Lord. The Sabbath is comparable to circumcision in its ceremonial importance to the Jews. It was a death-penalty law, which gives it great weight.

No Sunday work restrictions are taught by the Apostles; yet we do have teaching from them that the sabbaths were fulfilled in Christ (just like all the rest of the ceremonial system). The majority of early Christians were slaves who worked on Sundays. Yet they weren't disciplined or disfellowshiped for doing so.

The NT nevers transfers the Sabbath to the first day of the week. Just being analogous to the Lord's Day isn't enough in itself to justify that idea. The word "Sabbath" always refers to the seventh day in Acts. The word is used more broadly (in Colossians) for all the various sabbaths (plural), and Hebrews 4 seems to use sabbath as a "type" of salvation-rest in the Savior.

[Eric Wilson]

Brian,

You are quite willing to make moral judgements about David's words, yet for some reason his suggestion that ulterior motives may play into other men's reasoned arguments is unacceptable.

Moreover, David engaged the issue in two relevant ways: He brought out the question of why would Christians be MORE skeptical of the effectiveness of blue laws than the Atlantic Monthly, and he pointed out that the post-hoc arguments were not, in fact, arguments, but statements of a lack of knowledge.

In a very brief comment you have managed to be both hypocritical and deceptive.

I'm not sure why it is that you seem unable to believe that David and Tim sometimes suggest sin in the part of commentors because of legitimate concern for souls. (I'm assuming that you are the Brian that has commented here before.)

[Brian]

Eric,

I'm detecting a tinge of guilt - perhaps a tender conscience - in your unwillingness to accept the validity of my observations. I'll interact with your actual arguments when you get that cleared up.

[Eric Wilson]

I am so thankful for the work of David and Tim in caring for souls, and lovingly calling Christians to a life of repentance.

That this work is so rarely attempted in our churches today is demonstrated well by the indignate responses that surface whenever there is a suggestion that a doctrinal disagreement could have a moral component. So many believers, like Brian, really can't imagine that David suggested "tender consciences" out of love. Rather the assumption is that this must be a cheap argument tactic, a way of avoiding the real issue.

In fact, it is likely a step towards the real issue, as "out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

[Jeff Moore]

Jack;

I appreciate you bringing this discussion out. I fear, out of perhaps weariness of the battle, or sinful indifference and apathy, we stop talking about areas of the faith in which there has been divergent opinion; such as The Sabbath/Lord's Day.
I understand your view and others that have made it.
I'm not at that doorstep right now, but if convinced, I'd like to think I would not cling to something against scripure or conscience.
It is an interesting area since so many titans of the faith have had similar, yet also divergent views on the Sabbath. Calvin was given the tag by other scholars as "a Sabbatarian that was against the practice of Sabbatarianism." I find that so funny, as I see this sort of two-step taking place in many explanations on this subject. I try to read all I can on all sides. I lean toward the traditional Covenant Theological stance on this, and believe you may miss the Sabbath as a creation ordinance and pattern given for people to live, etc. Certainly there are cermemonial aspects to the old testament Sabbath when it became codified, but I am not about to throw out a creation principal in the process. Of course, I can call on centuries of the Church's history and innumerable scholars that accept this position and interpretation. I do not take that lightly, knowing these men dedicated their lives to the study of the word and to try to rightly divide it. However, I see other learned and Godly men, take an interpretation closer to yours in some ways and I am sure you could offer your view with adequate scholarship as well. Not to make too small a point of this, but they're more likely to make much better and more learned arguements that you or I. In the modern day, MacArthur and some others seems to hold to the "New Covenant Theological" view, whilst Sproul and others a traditional Covenant Theological view, etc.
I hold the view I do, but still press on trying to learn as I do see the weight of the opposing view.
I read and read and it is hard and to be blunt, sometimes confusing work. Many scholars and Pastors can make good arguements from scripture,reason and logic, etc to support each view.
I confess my gladness so many have undertaken the blood, sweat and elbow grease to leave such a rich legacy to learn from. Sproul once gave this summary after going through both sides:
"Questions of proper Sabbath observance continue to be debated among theologians. Most agree that the Sabbath includes a mandate to rest from all but necessary commerce or labor. The Sabbath is also a time for corporate worship and special attention to the study of God's Word. It is a special time of rejoicing in Christ's resurrection and in the hope of our Sabbath rest in heaven."
I am glad David posted this.

[Keith]

Here's a link to the actual study, if anyone's interested:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12410

[David Bayly]

Brian,

I don't mind in the least what you think of me. But I do care that you are unwilling to provide a name and valid email address as we request. Until you provide such identification you'll have further comments pulled from the blog.

David Bayly

[Joseph Bayly]

For those of you who balk at this post, is your argument simply that we should not legislate morality or are you actually saying that this is not a moral issue? It seems clear to me that God set up this idea of a holy day of rest from the beginning--ie from creation, much like marriage. I'm open to arguments about what *exactly* this moral law looks like for us today, but not that it has nothing to do with morality. (For in 6 days to Lord made the Heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. But the Lord rested the 7th day, therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. --from memory, I hope it's right.)

So maybe you think that these laws were not exactly the same thing that God calls us to today. Maybe you think it is a bad example of "legislating morality." Regardless, you are actually arguing that these laws *could not have had* a positive influence -- even though the whole point of the post (and the article, I assume) was that they *were* having a positive influence on society. The reality is that you are thus arguing against the use of the civil law to protect the peace and stability of society, and at the same time arguing against it being able to even *remind* us of our moral duties before God.

Do you really think that these laws had no positive effect at *all*? I'm sorry, but I must agree with my uncle. It seems to me that such a vehement and unthinking attack on so simple a statement (laws against doing certain things on Sunday tended to keep people *in* church and *out* of trouble) must in part be motivated by some sort of bad conscience concerning the practice of being faithful with our time and having faith that God will honor that faithfulness.

[Brian]

David,

My name and e-mail address are real. The URL is not. It is just an obfuscation so the general viewer will not see my e-mail. You however, being the owner of the blog, should have access to see what e-mail address I entered. And I gurantee that it is quite legit.

[Joseph Bayly]

This is from the abstract of the study. I've broken particularly interesting sentences out from the rest.

"We then use a variety of datasets to show that when a state repeals its blue laws religious attendance falls, and that church donations and spending fall as well.

**These results do not seem to be driven by declines in religiosity prior to the law change,**

nor do we see comparable declines in membership or giving to nonreligious organizations after a state repeals its laws. We then assess the effects of changes in these laws on drinking and drug use behavior in the NLSY. We find that

**repealing blue laws leads to an increase in drinking and drug use, and that this increase is found only among the initially religious**

individuals who were affected by the blue laws. The effect is economically significant; for example,

**the gap in heavy drinking between religious and non religious individuals falls by about half after the laws are repealed.**"

In other words yes, they did think about which was cause and which was effect. And it is not surprising (to me anyway) that the protection went away first, and then the people began to wander. I suppose you could claim that it is just an indication that the ones who wandered were legalists, but I don't buy it.

[Jack Brooks]

We ought not mingle and confuse issues together. The question, "Is Sunday the Christian Sabbath?" is a distinctly theological question. The WCF says yes; I don't agree with the WCF. The question, "Did people with religious backgrounds at a particular place and time begin to drink more heavily after blue laws were repaled, than before?", depends on the veracity and quality of the study. Since it's a social-sciences study, it can't claim divine inspiration and therefore (obviously) is fallible. The study would only pertain to those people made subjects of the study. The material basis on which it claims to be based could be challenged, as well as the reasoning within the study and the conclusions drawn. Science can only describe; it can never prescribe. So in the end, even if the study is entirely correct in its descriptions, it being accurate still does not make Sunday the Christian Sabbath. If Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath, then what you have in the study is proof of foolish people getting more drunk than before, because they had easier access to alochol one more day out of the week than prior. Since hard drugs aren't sold commercially, I don't see how blue laws are relevant one way or the other. The Church likely has plenty of alcoholic Reformed who don't buy alcohol on Sundays; and society at large probably has liberals who consume alcohol in moderation.

In any event, every neighborhood everywhere could repeal blue laws and become the Roaring Twenties revisited, and that still wouldn't mean that Sunday is the Sabbath.

[Kyle S.]

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for the address and extracting those bits of the study. I think the causal story is more complicated than the one the authors tell. One thing they don't say anything about is how much these churches were involved in discouraging alcohol and drug abuse before the blue laws were repealed. I would expect to see a big difference between the tendencies of people in churches where they had very little protection besides the formal legal one, and people in churches where they had, in addition to that, the protection of a good pastor and caring brothers and sisters in their church. The upshot, then, might not be in what the law can do to protect weaker brothers, but what churches should. It's relevant, as well as a bit ironic, to note here that your uncle, David, is rather exceptional in the care and concern he devotes to the potential dangers of alcohol. See his post from about a year ago where he called out reformed churches for failing to be sufficiently vigilent about this.

Look, people should be protected from heresy, too, which causes a lot more harm than alcohol or drugs. And I have no doubt that fewer people would have been harmed by heresies if laws against them had never been repealed. But we shouldn't blame liberal enlightenment for these lost souls; it's not the state that failed them. Their churches did.

[Robert Perry]

Guilt complex? Well, I've actually been doing my best to make the Lord's Day a day of rest for myself and my family, so no. Maybe guilt for when I fail, but not related to my post.

All I was saying is that peer review does not guarantee good research, and that one of the key fallacies in economics is the "after, therefore because". I looked at the brief summary, and absent the data--or at least a good graphical presentation--I can neither endorse nor reject their work.

Joseph asks a good question, and I think the only reasonable answer is "yes and no." Is it good that nominal churchgoers are kept from sinning on "yom echad"? Absolutely--if one's figure of merit is police reports, liquor tax receipts, and so on. Or absolutely not--if one suspects that allowing these men to freely sin on Sunday might lead them to repentance.

One thing the study makes absolutely clear, by the way, is that the effect is concentrated on those who attend once weekly or less. I'd have to infer that these people just might not be "born again," so we're really asking about a tradeoff between public sin and the chance that public sin might lead to repentance.

But that's another subject. :^)

[Joseph Bayly]

"it's not the state that failed them. Their churches did." --Agreed

"But that's another subject. :^)"--Agreed

:-)

But I still see a difference between legislation on a day of worship and rest (which I see as part of basic morality from the beginning of time) and legislation on what people can and cannot believe (ie what constitutes proper Christianity versus heretical Christianity). Blue laws did not require people to believe that Sunday was the modern equivalent of the Sabbath. You know what I mean?

[Kyle S.]

I know what you mean, but there's no real difference. Laws against heresy don't force people not to believe heresy. They force people not to express or publicize it. Why not see this as a valuable protection for our weaker brothers who are more susceptible to heresy? Would your only objection be that legislators couldn't be counted on to identify properly which views are heretical?

But you also seem to be relying on a different consideration now. Before, the reason repealing blue laws was a bad idea had to do with the danger of exposing weaker brothers. Now it has to do with what is a part of basic morality from the beginning of time (or what is knowable through general revelation). Problem is, there are obvious problems with this kind of reason, too.

[Joseph Bayly]

No, my comment was not making an argument for the weaker brother. My first post states quite clearly that I see this as an issue of morality from the beginning of time, and that I'm open to discussion of what that looks like properly observed. However, I then went on to say that I could not believe that the argument was immediately put forward that this study was a bunch of bologna and that really it is obvious that these laws could not have had a positive influence on society. This was argued from lack of knowledge, theoretical hypotheses, and an appeal to common knowledge. Whereas, the original post did not even really make an argument. It simply provided a quote from the article. I'm not saying you can't doubt the study, but I've seen no reasonable argument to dismiss it outright. Briefly, and to quote, "Blue Laws Fall, Society Stumbles...."

The weaker brother was mentioned by Eric Wilson. In fact. I believe that he is correct. Given the evidence put forward by the study--which ought not simply be ignored--the repeal of these laws has harmed many families and individuals who used to attend church weekly and no longer do, but are now heavy drinkers and addicted to drugs. You can say that the laws should never have been put in place at all. Maybe you're right, but I would argue that they should not have been repealed either. Tell me how they were causing more harm by being in place and I might listen. Telling me "JESUS DOESN'T MAKE ME DO THAT!", doesn't really address the issue in my mind. Eric rightfully reprimands us for not loving our neighbor by caring that the removal of this law has endangered his body and soul.

Now, beyond the weaker brother argument and back to my original statement that somehow this is a part of general revelation. I know I have not really defended it, but I still believe it. And you say there are problems. I'm sure there are. However, given my presupposition there is a *distinct* difference between the two types of legislation.

[Kyle S.]

Joseph,

Sorry. I see that you actually raised both reasons in your initial post. I was refering to the part of your initial post where you sort of seconded Eric Wilson's. You said:

"Regardless, you are actually arguing that these laws *could not have had* a positive influence -- even though the whole point of the post (and the article, I assume) was that they *were* having a positive influence on society."

I took it that the law's positive influence you refer to has to do with providing a protection for people who would be susceptible to abusing alcohol. Anyway, since you do agree with this, I do wonder why you wouldn't see a law against expressing or publicizing heresy as a valuable protection for people who would be susceptible to heretical views. There's at least as much danger in repealing these laws as there is in repealing blue laws. This is true whether or not Sabbath ordinances and the wrongness of heresy are part of general revelation.

I guess I've always assumed that Sabbath ordinances were part of general revelation. So the problems I was talking about wasn't in your thinking that Sabbath ordinances are part of general revelation. Rather, I meant that there are problems in thinking that general revelation provides a good guide for coercive laws. For example, it's also a part of general revelation that at least certain heresies are wrong. I know some people do think that legislation prohibiting them shouldn't have been repealed. Do you?

Finally, about the study: I don't doubt the results it presented. I just deny that the lesson to take from these results is that we shouldn't have repealed blue laws.

[Joseph Bayly]

Kyle, I just wrote a very long response, but I'm beginning to think that I'm arguing for all the wrong reasons: I like to hear myself, I like to argue, I'm proud, I like to win. So, it has been a great discussion. Thanks for your thoughts and your patience. Peace be upon you.
--Joseph