Argument III
|
I n an attempt to justify purchasing the services of restaurant personnel on God's Sabbath, the United Church of God employs what is unquestionably the most popular argument in this debate. They claim that those who labor in restaurants are not THEIR servants but rather the servants of someone else. Therefore, because the commandment only mentions "your servant" God must approve of His people seeking out unbelievers who desecrate this holy time as well as paying them for the fruit of this sacrilege. In other words the actual meaning of the fourth commandment in the eyes of the UCG doctrinal committee would be something like this:
The UCG presents this phase of their case by posing two questions and then confidently providing the answer. Notice their words carefully. As you read them ask yourself the following: "Would I be comfortable advancing this argument before God Almighty?"
United Church of God:
Our Response: The UCG adopts a very narrow view of the meaning of the word "your" when explaining God's intent when giving the fourth commandment. We're just curious, but what do they believe God meant by the word "your" when He gave the ninth and tenth commandment?
Furthermore, what the United Church of God asserts as the "principle given in Exodus" is totally UNTRUE! Contrary to this claim, God's purpose when giving the fourth commandment was not to define who could work on the Sabbath and who couldn't. When the Almighty was presenting this part of the Decalogue He was not crafting some elaborate labor code. He was declaring in no uncertain terms that the Sabbath is HOLY and that work profanes this day no matter who performs it. The authors of A Sabbath Test understand this truth. Here is their assessment of God's purpose when giving this command.
Despite this wonderful truth, the UCG doctrinal committee offered more excuses in defense of dining out on the Sabbath. According to this body of Biblical thinkers there are times when God's people today should even allow those living in their home to labor on the Sabbath. What they fail to do is take their hypothetical question to its logical end. Notice what they write.
United Church of God Continued:
Our Response: These are interesting questions. What they are saying in effect is: Can a true believer today require those living in his home to worship the true God? The answer is: Of course not. Why? Because the worship of the true God must be voluntary. It cannot be forced on anyone. But here are some questions the UCG does not ask: Can a true believer prevent those under his roof from offending his God? For example: What if your adult son brought his girlfriend home to sleep with him? What if he brought drugs into your home? Or cigarettes? Could you as the homeowner prohibit such things? What if he wanted to put up Christmas lights or bring a tree into the house? Could you say "no"? The answer to these questions should be obvious. The believer would not only have the right but the obligation to prevent such behaviors. This is not cramming your faith down someone else's throat. It is preserving the spiritual dignity of your home. It is our belief that every Christian has a moral obligation to do just that. However, there is another hypothetical that is even more applicable to the issue at hand. What if your adult son wanted to wash your car or mow your lawn on the Sabbath? What if he wanted to labor FOR YOUR BENEFIT during this holy time? Should you consent, knowing he doesn't worship your God anyway? Or, once again, should you defend the spiritual integrity of your home and forbid it? While the UCG believes that if you can't control everything you don't have to control anything, we see it much differently. Although God's people can't prevent this world from profaning the Sabbath, they don't have to make reservations to watch it being done. Those who think otherwise should be ashamed of themselves. Furthermore, to argue that God's people cannot prevent restaurant personnel from laboring on the Sabbath leaves one question unanswered. Imagine if God presented this query: "Do you have the power to prevent them from working for you?"
Whose Servants are They?
Perhaps the greatest error in UCG's thinking is in claiming whom the waiters and waitresses, as well as other restaurant workers, serve. Most think they serve restaurant managers and owners. But is this true? At this point, it is important to understand that those who labor in restaurants on the Sabbath are SINNING! That's RIGHT, it is a SIN. It may look like just another person trying to provide for themselves and their family, but looks can be deceiving. God calls labor on His Sabbath a sin, unless it is performed by those He specifically designates. This being the case, those who work on the Sabbath are actually SLAVES to SIN! The apostle Paul understood this profound truth. Notice what he said in a letter written to the Church at Rome.
Today, those who work on the Sabbath are truly slaves to sin—a sin that has been sold by mankind’s greatest enemy (Rev. 12:9). Furthermore, those in God’s Church who avail themselves of this sin are condoning both the slavery and the SLAVE MASTER (2 Cor. 4:4). This is what God was conveying when He gave the fourth commandment. This Great Lawgiver actually explained why His people were to release their servants from labor on the Sabbath. Notice the commandment:
Here, God is telling His people that labor on the Sabbath is a form of bondage. This is the very bondage He freed them from when He delivered them out of Egypt. This being the case, it is hard to understand why anyone would want to return to that bondage, even to look at it. Now think of this in terms of our own lives.
The scriptures reveal that just as the children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt until God miraculously delivered them, those whom He has called in this present age were also once enslaved in “spiritual” Egypt. God’s people today were once in bondage. We once believed the things the world believes, taught the things the world teaches, and practiced the things the world practices. We even profaned God’s Sabbath and holy days. We did so because we served the same SLAVE MASTER the world serves today.
However, our calling reveals that a Great Deliverer has again rescued His people from a world that does not know Him or His way (Eph. 2:1-5). For this reason, God’s people today should never compel the unbeliever (a slave in Egypt) to work on their behalf on the Sabbath. We must refrain from this practice because we were miraculously delivered from this very practice ourselves. Remember, YOU were once a SLAVE in Egypt.
With this in mind, God’s people must understand that their Great Deliverer would no more permit His people today to return to this world and avail themselves of its sin than He would permit the Israelites of yesterday to return to Egypt and avail themselves of their sin. As much as the UCG may want to go back to Egypt, God forbids it and warns of its consequences. Notice what He says.
Consider these words in the context of dining out on the Sabbath. In order to engage in this practice, God’s people must return to a world that does not know Him—a world that tramples on this great day. In the Old Testament that world was called Egypt. In the New Testament it is called Babylon. But make no mistake about it; these worlds are one and the same.
When God commanded His people to cease from working on the Sabbath and to not compel others to work on their behalf, He was making a powerful statement. He was commanding His people to COME OUT OF EGYPT, to COME OUT OF BABYLON! In other words, God’s people are not to be a part of the very sin that once gripped their lives. This is because they are now FREE!
Although the world today is truly in bondage, God’s people stand as proof that it will not always be that way. By refusing to allow the slave of this world to labor for them on God’s Sabbath, His people are proclaiming a great hope – a hope that one day all who are enslaved will be FREE. At that time they, too, will “remember the Sabbath and keep it HOLY.”
A Final Thought
God’s plan is that all mankind will ultimately be free from the tyranny of ignorance and sin. The Sabbath pictures that freedom. It is not by accident that when giving the fourth commandment, God reminded His people that they were once slaves in Egypt (Dt. 5:15). It is for this very reason that every Sabbath God’s people are to be liberators. In other words, they are to declare everyone they come in contact with "FREE!" Nowhere in the commandment does it remotely hint that God condones of His people going back into “Egypt” to avail themselves of the very sin they were once a part of (Dt. 5:14-15). The Sabbath is about liberty, not slavery.
Those who work in restaurants and are ignorant of God’s law may not understand why the faithful would be so considerate of them by not compelling them to labor for their benefit on the Sabbath. But God’s people do understand. By releasing the unbeliever from labor on the Sabbath and holy day, they are acting out what their King will ultimately do when He returns to earth.
They declare all the slaves FREE!
Counter Argument United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer, Blow the Trumpet says:
Leading the ox from its stall to water on Sabbath is work (Luke 13:15) and pulling an ox from a ditch on Sabbath is work (Luke 14:5). Circumcision, which involves someone working, was allowed on Sabbath (John 7:22). God allows for unavoidable emergencies. Our points should not be twisted to include sins, such as adultery, when we are specifically talking about the Sabbath. Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends, We are fully aware that God has made provisions for Sabbath labor under certain conditions such as those the UCG enumerates. However, working in a restaurant is not one of them. Additionally, we are very confident that the UCG leadership making reservations for their families to dine out at a nice bistro on a Friday evening is not what Jesus had in mind when giving the lesson of an ox in a ditch. However, they don't hesitate to make those reservations. With respect to the UCG's accusation that Blow the Trumpet is guilty of "twisting their points," it is actually they who are are guilty of this very thing. Furthermore, they are making a very subtle misdirection with this argument. Below is the point they claim we "twisted" followed by our comment. You be the judge of whether we twisted anything. As for the misdirection, in their "counter letter" they conveniently neglected to say what they would do if an unbelieving adult child living at home, wanted to mow their lawn or wash their car on the Sabbath. My guess is that they thought long and hard on this and concluded that whatever they offered would contradict their point--so they simply stood down on this one. I encourage you to read what follows and ask yourself if the UCG ever really addressed our rebuttal. It begins with a quote from their doctrinal paper followed by our response. Although this section appears earlier in this page, it bears repeating.
While the UCG claims we twisted their point, we did no such thing. We illustrated that their claim to be helpless in their dealings with unbelievers working on the Sabbath is totally untrue. Regrettably, the best counter argument they could offer in their letter was a false accusation and silence. Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer, Matthew 12:15 is not restricted to a "Levitical duty." These heads of grain were plucked by "His disciples," not the Levitical priesthood. Their reason, simple hunger, had nothing to do with Levitical duties. Yet the disciples did this as if it were a norm under these circumstances. Deuteronomy 23:25 says, "When you walk along a path in someone else's grainfield, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle." Should the disciples have prepared twice as much food on Friday to avoid this scenario? Should Jesus have warned them? In Exodus 16, would Israelites have been permitted to go out and pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath? Matthew 12 shows the potential shortsightedness of such questions. Were this not permissible on the Sabbath, Jesus would have brought it to their attention. The Pharisees made the mistake of thinking that they had higher standards of Sabbath keeping simply because they were more strict. There's a difference between eating enough for a meal and reaping food to cover multiple days. Similarly, there's a difference between eating a meal in a restaurant and grocery shopping. Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
I suppose the point the UCG is attempting to make is that because the disciples picked grain on the Sabbath (which was not a Levitical duty), God's people today may now seek out unbelievers and pay them to gather their food and prepare it for them. Once again the UCG tries to blur the lines between what the disciples did once in their life and what the UCG wishes to do as an on-going practice. In all due respect to the United Church of God, their analysis of what took place when the disciples picked grain on the Sabbath is not supported by the facts. Actually the Messiah's own words contradict their understanding. The UCG implies that it did not go contrary to God's law to pick a small amount of grain on the Sabbath, therefore the disciples did it without a second thought. In the words of the UCG, "Yet the disciples did this as if it were a norm under these circumstances." However, that is NOT what Jesus said. The Messiah specifically stated that the disciples were "guiltless," not that no law had been broken. When defending them Jesus likened what they did to David eating the shewbread and to the Sabbath labor of the Levites. In both cases He said those acts were "unlawful." It makes no sense for Him to cite these examples if what the disciples did was not unlawful as well. At this point it is important to understand that the thing that made the disciples "guiltless" is the same thing thing that made David and the Levites guiltless--each had been given permission from God to do what that they had done. In the case of David, he specifically sought permission from the priest, and the priest sought permission from God. It is my personal opinion that the disciples also asked Jesus for permission to pick the grain. It was not done casually. The UCG also posed some questions they feel are germane to their argument. I would like to address them at this time.
At the conclusion of this part of their letter, the UCG makes a statement that they believe supports their teaching regarding this sin. They contend that the volume of meal acquisition and preparation being purchased by them is what determines its acceptability with God.
There is also a difference between playing golf all day on the Sabbath and simply going to the driving range for an hour and hitting a bucket of balls. However, despite their differences, both are sins, as is dining out on the Sabbath. This issue is NOT about degrees as the UCG suggests. It is about an act that contradicts God Sabbath law, regardless of the degree. Furthermore, when it comes to acquiring your Sabbath meals only, God has also spoken forcefully. Exodus 16 addresses that very thing. And once again the ALMIGHTY proclaims an emphatic "NO!" The UCG may try to blur the lines in this issue, but there is a HUGE difference between Jesus' disciples picking a small handful of grain on the Sabbath and the UCG's on-going practice of paying Sabbath-breakers to acquire their meals, prepare their meals, and clean up after the meal is finished. What this prominent COG group advocates was NEVER done by Jesus, the disciples, or any other servants of God throughout the Bible. Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer, The main point that you glean from the Fourth Commandment, as stated in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, is that working on the Sabbath is prohibited for God's people and that "no one who comes into your sphere of influence shall be compelled to labor on your behalf," including family, servants, strangers and even livestock. You believe that this commandment requires the head of the household to compel all of these people (and even livestock) who are "within our sphere of influence" to keep the Sabbath. So you conclude that when we eat out on the Sabbath, we are causing restaurant workers (whom you deem to be working for us and thus "within our sphere of influence") to break the Sabbath. Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends, It is a sad thing to see the leaders of God's Church so committed to sin that they reject what is patently obvious. To suggest that restaurant personnel are not laboring on their behalf reflects a level of denial that is totally dishonest. One of the pleasures of dining out on the Sabbath, or any other time, is that instead of you working to prepare your meal someone else works to prepare and serve it for you. Despite this obvious fact, the UCG claims that no one is working on your behalf. To me this argument reaches the height of silliness, but the UCG proclaims it with great pride. Throughout their study paper, as well as their letter to me, the UCG attempts to reinvent God's law in a way that actually invites sin. At every turn they deny the scriptures. Consider their claim.
These are just a few of the arguments advanced by the UCG in defiance of God and His great Sabbath law. Despite the clear meaning in the scriptures regarding proper Sabbath observance, the UCG redefines God's word to fit their lawlessness. To me it is clear that their judgment in this issue cannot be trusted. They have been so blinded by their own bias that they deny the obvious and embrace the ridiculous. Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer, Careful reading of the Sabbath commandment reveals that the fundamental point is to "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy." Not working on the Sabbath is one way of acknowledging one's reverence for the Sabbath and what it means. Note from Blow the Trumpet
UCG continued: People outside the Church who work on the Sabbath lack that understanding and conviction and therefore do not keep the Sabbath holy, whether they are working or not. So we do not cause them to sin by preparing or serving a meal on the Sabbath. Their sin is based on their lack of understanding and conviction of the need to recognize the Sabbath as a holy day. Instead they consider it as simply another day, common and profane rather than holy. So we do not cause them to break the Sabbath by preparing or serving a meal. You state,
Preparing and/or serving one more or one less meal does not increase or decrease their sin. In that sense there are no degrees of keeping or breaking the Sabbath. Nor does our eating or not eating there on the Sabbath have any effect on their lack of understanding and commitment regarding the Sabbath. Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends, Notice what the UCG is advocating. They claim that because those who profane the Sabbath by working in restaurants don't know any better, God's people are free to exploit this ignorance for their own Sabbath pleasure. Personally, I believe this particular UCG wisdom reveals that the restaurant worker is not the only one in ignorance. Additionally, although they assert that the primary focus of the fourth commandment is to "keep the Sabbath holy," their behavior says just the opposite. The word "keep" means to preserve something in the state it was given. When God created the Sabbath as well as when He gave the fourth commandment, He never intended profane labor to be performed on it. Today, the UCG actually considers such sin as necessary in our modern world. Furthermore, they teach that God approves of His people seeking Sabbath-breakers out and paying them for the fruit of their sin. I am just curious, but how does that "keep (preserve) the Sabbath holy"? Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer,
We also believe that you are missing the point of the reference to Israel's past slavery in Egypt [in the fourth commandment]. We understand this to mean that Israelites need to allow family members, servants and even animals the opportunity to rest on the Sabbath, realizing what it was like in Egypt when they as slaves were not allowed that opportunity, So we do not agree with your conclusion that Sabbath breaking as a form of spiritual slavery is the point of this passage. Note from Blow the Trumpet
UCG continued: We do not understand this passage as a command to heads of household to compel family members, visitors or others who may be "within our sphere of influence" to keep the Sabbath. While it may be possible to prevent someone from working on the Sabbath, it is certainly not possible to force someone to consider the Sabbath holy. Sabbath-keepers can make household rules, especially for children living at home, to prevent an atmosphere not conducive to the Sabbath; but we do not believe that God expects us to force anyone else to keep the Sabbath. Note from Blow the Trumpet
UCG continued: We do not think that "refusing to allow" someone labor on the Sabbath is "proclaiming a great hope" to "all who are enslaved" to be "FREE." In fact the very terminology of "refusing to allow" is contradictory to the concept of freedom. True freedom allows for individuals to make their own choices, even if they are wrong, God grants all of us that kind of freedom. We believe in allowing that freedom to fellow human beings as well. Furthermore, not eating out on the Sabbath does not release the unbeliever from labor on the Sabbath." They will continue to work, whether we eat a meal there or not. Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends, The position of Blow the Trumpet being referred to by the UCG, as "contradictory to the concept of freedom," is one of the most powerful declarations of hope ever published in this era of the church. For the UCG to reject it reflects a calloused indifference toward those who are currently enslaved by the god of this world. My question for you is this: What part of our position do you think offends God's desire to free mankind from slavery? Although our statement appears earlier on this page, I have placed it here as well. Please read it carefully. From Blow the Trumpet
Dennis Fischer continued: The more I read the UCG letter the less respect I have for them as ministers of the gospel. I say this because of their brazen disregard for truth in this debate. The entire point we are making is that while you are powerless to compel a non-believer to keep the Sabbath holy, you do have the power, and the obligation, to refuse to allow them to impose their lawlessness on you. The UCG is arguing just the opposite. They contend that because you cannot compel the un-believer to keep the Sabbath, you may now seek them out and avail yourself of the benefits of their Sabbath-breaking. That is what they do every time they dine out on the Sabbath. How can any true follower of Christ preach such nonsense? The most telling aspect of their position is that they do not believe that profaning Sabbath is a form of spiritual slavery. Personally, until they can respect this absolute truth, they will continue to promote this bondage. Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued United Church of God Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Dear Mr. Fischer, Throughout your paper, you seem to advocate a boycott of all forms of Sabbath breaking. This is not biblically required, nor is it even possible to boycott all forms of sin. As Paul writes in Corinthians 5:9-10, "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." Sincerely, Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends, Let me see if I understand the UCG correctly. Are they suggesting that Paul believed it was acceptable with God if a UCG member paid to watch someone in the world engage in sexually immoral behavior. I ask this because they are employing this argument to defend their teaching that God approves of His people seeking out those who profane the Sabbath and pay them for the fruit of this sin. It is our opinion that the point Paul was making was that it is impossible to not be a part of a world dominated by sinners. However, we don't believe he was implying that because of this fact, God's people are now free to patronize its sin, much the way the UCG does when dining out on the Sabbath. Respectfully, Dennis Fischer
|
RELATED LINKS
