Introduction
Dear Brethren
Spring, 2006
Dear Brethren
In March of 2002, Messrs. Art Braidic and Dennis Fischer published an extraordinary book addressing the issue of dining out on the Sabbath. A Sabbath Test, which is showcased in our library, presents an overwhelming argument for refraining from this practice—one that has now become commonplace in the Church. Virtually thousands of God's people have read this work, and scores, including ministers, have been changed by its straightforward and uncompromising Biblical presentation on this issue.
At this point it is important to understand that A Sabbath Test does not try to spin an argument in an effort to make a point. It does not attempt to justify a position by employing semantics, human reasoning, or technicalities. This book is radically different from the numerous position papers produced by a host of COG groups on this subject. Quite frankly, it is one of the easiest publications to understand ever written in God's Church. As one reader put it, "A Sabbath Test makes so much sense. It shed a light that gave me a new respect for the meaning of this wonderful day. I will never treat it the same again." Even one of the leaders of a prominent COG group conceded, "You can't argue against it Biblically." Perhaps this is why A Sabbath Test is so frustrating to its detractors. The book's simplicity and honesty is so apparent that its message cries out to be heard. It proclaims a beautiful truth—one that will not be silenced.
Furthermore, A Sabbath Test is a remarkably respectful work. It shows great deference toward God as a loving Father and the wisdom He displayed when creating holy time. Despite its opposition by some, there isn't a word in it that could offend Him.
In the aftermath of the book's release, some leading COG associations have attempted to deflect its message by offering their own ideas concerning what the Bible says on this critical end-time issue. However, instead of honestly applying the scriptures when advancing their case, each group presents what can only be construed as an avalanche of human reasoning and contorted logic with each point masquerading as Biblical scholarship. These words may sound harsh but any objective examination of the numerous COG position papers on this subject shout out this truth. We at Blow the Trumpet encourage all of God's people to compare the words of those who defend the practice of dining out on the Sabbath with those contained in A Sabbath Test. As you do ask yourself which case would YOU rather present to God Almighty. In other words, which one truly honors Him?
Exhorting God's Church
For nearly two years (2004), Blow the Trumpet has exhorted God's Church to seriously address the issue of His people seeking out those who desecrate the Sabbath and actually paying them for this sacrilege. Tragically, this is exactly what takes place every time one dines out on a day that was set apart as HOLY from the very beginning.
For the most part, leaders of His Church have attempted to dismiss this topic as unimportant. Some groups have even directed their members to refrain from discussing it altogether on the grounds that it is "divisive." Others have warned members that failure to conform to the Church's position could result in expulsion. Most have taken a softer approach, calling it "a matter of conscience." However, what every one of these groups has utterly failed to do is present a legitimate Biblical argument in defense of this practice. Instead, they obfuscate the clear intent of God's law. One example of this self-justifying mindset is reflected in a document produced by the United Church of God.
In February 2003, UCG's doctrinal committee published a paper entitled Principles of Sabbath Observance/Eating Out on the Sabbath. This document, which defends dining out on the Sabbath, claims to present the Biblical view on this issue. However, it doesn't come close to doing so. Instead of presenting God's wisdom on this topic, this team of UCG thinkers employs what would best be described as sophistry when making their case.
Throughout their paper, the UCG argues that God's word is silent on this issue. After all, there is not one reference to "restaurants" in the scriptures and only two references to "buying and selling." Additionally, they claim that those who labor in restaurants on the Sabbath are not "their servants," but rather the servants of restaurant owners. Therefore, God doesn't care if His people seek them out and pay them to labor on their behalf on holy time. After all, they would be working anyway. At one point, the UCG actually argues that dining out on the Sabbath can be more in keeping with the fourth commandment than eating at home. Here is how they put it.
"It is actually less work for many to eat in a restaurant and pay for the meal than it is to have a group of people in your home to eat on the Sabbath. Even if you work diligently to prepare everything the day before, there will still be work involved when one entertains others in his home."
Noticeably absent from their position is a deep and profound reverence for the Sabbath and what it pictures. At no time does the UCG address the fact that this day looks forward to God's Kingdom—a Kingdom in which no one will engage in such a sin. Furthermore, they never mention that God's people are ambassadors of that Kingdom and should act out the great hope it holds. Instead, these church leaders attempt to prove that His people can go back into spiritual Egypt and avail themselves of the very sin they were once enslaved by.
Additionally, the UCG never addresses what dining out on the Sabbath requires. At no point do they acknowledge that what takes place in restaurants every Sabbath is an act of sacrilege—although the scriptures say just that. They never mention that those who labor in restaurants on the Sabbath are desecrating that which God made holy—although the scriptures say just that. At no time do they admit that the God who created the Sabbath ABHORS what is being done by restaurant personnel on His day—although the scriptures say just that. Instead, they argue that God's word only condemns spending the entire Sabbath day in a marketplace, not just an hour or two at a restaurant where His Sabbath is being trampled on by others.
This wing of our site examines the position offered by the United Church of God with respect to this critical issue. It is presented in a collection of articles addressing each UCG argument. As you read each response, we appeal to you to honestly ask yourself which position sounds more like the wisdom of the Holy One of Israel. After all, this debate is not about what man thinks but rather what the Great God of Heaven desires of His people. With that understanding, we think the answer will be obvious.
Finally, although we are very aggressive in our criticism of the UCG position, we do not for one minute believe this issue stands as a referendum on their legitimacy as a true Church of God. It is the official position of Blow the Trumpet that this body of believers is genuinely dedicated to God's way and His work. However, they are HUGELY mistaken on this issue. Because of the gravity of this error, we feel compelled to cry out to them and to all who hold their view.
Respectfully,
Blow the Trumpet
Counter Argument
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16, 2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
This is a response to your paper titled "The United Church of God vs. A Sabbath Test," which has been circulated within our Church membership. We appreciate your zeal to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath and will respond to the points you presented in your paper that seeks to invalidate the conclusions of the United Church of God's study paper regarding eating out on the Sabbath. The reply to your paper was assigned to the Advisory Committee for Doctrine, whose work is overseen by the Doctrine Committee of the Council of Elders.
Your main points seem to he based primarily on your understanding of the Sabbath instructions in Exodus 16, Nehemiah's prohibition of buying and selling "victuals" and the Sabbath commandments recorded in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The example of Nehemiah is often referenced in regard to restaurants on the Sabbath, e.g. "Would Nehemiah have permitted restaurants to operate during his day or would he have closed them down too?" (p. 23).
A recurring theme throughout this paper is that it's a sin to seek out services on the Sabbath from those who are desecrating the Sabbath. For example, page 3 of the Blow the Trumpet paper says:
"For nearly two years, Blow the Trumpet has exhorted God's Church to seriously address the issue of His people seeking out those who desecrate the Sabbath and actually paying them for this sacrilege. Tragically, this is exactly what takes place every time one dines out on a day that was set apart as HOLY from the very beginning."
Yet the Blow the Trumpet paper contradicts the non-compromising tenor of the paper with the following statement, "Paying for public transportation on the Sabbath may be unavoidable under certain circumstances" (page 53, emphasis added). The paper does not appeal to the example of Nehemiah in this regard, e.g. would Nehemiah have allowed Israelites to seek out and spend time among unbelievers, while financing those who desecrate the Sabbath via their public transportation work? No, he wouldn't. However, this demonstrates how such examples alone do not always define a transgression of the Sabbath.
Given the acceptance of public transportation, it's not farfetched to apply the same rationale to the time spent fellowshipping with brethren (e.g. discussing God's Word, encouraging one another, etc.) in a restaurant. The entire context and other related factors must be weighed. This is one of the major weaknesses in the Blow the Trumpet paper.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Throughout the UCG letter, their advocacy of dining out on the Sabbath is defended with terms like: "possible," "plausible," "not farfetched," and other vagaries. This seems like a fairly weak foundation on which to build such an important Biblical argument. However, this is what they offer. It sure would be more compelling if they could cite one example of Jesus dining at a local inn on the Sabbath. There certainly were such places. But alas they don't, for obvious reasons. With that said, here is my response
The "Not Far Fetched" Argument
In all due respect to the UCG, there is a huge difference between having to take public transportation to Sabbath services because there is absolutely no alternative, and them making Sabbath reservations at a fine restaurant when God has actually provided them with an alternative. To suggest that it is "not farfetched to apply the same rationale" to both behaviors is not only untrue, it's insulting, and mocks the very God who sanctified this day at the beginning (Gen. 2:2-3).
With respect to their comment regarding Nehemiah and public transportation, they are mistaken. Personally, I believe that if Nehemiah was in charge of Sabbath observance today he may very well see a legitimate need for public transportation in larger metropolitan areas. If such was the case, local governments could facilitate a solution. For example: they could arrange for shuttles to be operated by part time volunteers and offered without charge. These shuttles would be used exclusively to convey God’s people to their places of assembly. The point here is that it can be reasonably concluded that transportation, in some parts of today’s world, could represents an essential service—even in a Sabbath keeping society. This would also be the case with respect to security, fire and rescue, emergency care and other functions operating for the public good. Certainly, the ancient Israelites must have applied this principle. It is virtually inconceivable that they didn’t have security forces guarding the camp—including on the Sabbath. Even Nehemiah dispatched sentries to protect Jerusalem from Sabbath breaking merchants (Neh. 13:19). Certainly these services would function differently on holy time but I am confident that they could operate without compromising God’s Sabbath law.
However, the same argument cannot be made for restaurants. Nehemiah would have closed them down in a heartbeat. Not only does God’s law prohibit what they do on the Sabbath (Ex 16), but their services are not designed to cater to need, but rather to pleasure. This is not to suggest that if there was a natural disaster impacting the people’s access to food, Nehemiah would still keep restaurants closed, for indeed he wouldn’t. This would constitute a genuine emergency and would require unique action to ensure the public good. However, this is NOT what this debate is about. The discussion at hand is whether God’s people may engage the services of a commercial business on holy time simply because it’s an enjoyable activity. If God's people are honest with the scriptures they would have to conclude that the practice of seeking out Sabbath breakers at restaurants is absolutely excoriated in God's word.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
P.S. I find it interesting that the UCG’s portrayal of Sabbath dining always involves Christian fellowship in which brethren are edified and God’s word is at the center. Having participated in hundreds of such gatherings I am persuaded that for the most part there is nothing unique taking place there. Furthermore, what the UCG doesn’t say is that it is the official position of their Church that if one of their members wants to hop off to a diner Saturday morning and enjoy a stack of pancakes before going to church, God is perfectly fine with it. Or, equally acceptable would be for a couple to make Friday evening dinner reservations at a romantic restaurant, as long as they comported themselves appropriately. The point here is that their description of Sabbath dining is simply an attempt to rehabilitate this sin. The truth is that these COG leaders advocate this practice because it is an experience that brings them pleasure. However, this is not the criteria for measuring its moral standing with God.
Argument I