Argument IV
Its Not Business
There are few times when an argument in defense of dining out on the Sabbath has come across as more self-serving than the one presented by the United Church of God in which it defines what a business is. According to the "research" offered up by its doctrinal committee, doing "business" on the Sabbath only involves the providing of services, not the consuming of them. In other words, although they readily admit that God’s people shouldn’t sell products on the Sabbath, they claim it is not a sin if they purchase them. This assertion is made despite the fact that Nehemiah condemned both behaviors (See Neh. 10:31; 13: 15-21).
What the UCG advances as Biblical truth is a remarkably silly observation—and one that must truly disappoint God Almighty. Such arguments are not borne out of a genuine desire to understand what the Lord of the Sabbath expects of His people, but rather are an attempt to justify a behavior the scriptures soundly CONDEMN. These Biblical minds have twisted the clear intent of God's word in an effort to engage in an activity so offensive to the purpose of the Sabbath that it actually requires people to desecrate this holy time.
Watch how this major COG group makes their point by ignoring the obvious. However, before you do, consider the following sign posted on a prominent outdoor mall in the Great Northwest. Within that mall are four restaurants—two of which would be considered ‘high end.” Notice that the world has no difficulty understanding that consumers are conducting BUSINESS. However, the United Church of God argues otherwise for obvious reasons.
~~~
Notice!
This Is Private Property
Persons not conducting authorized business within this complex and/or
specific business with its tenant are considered trespassing.
Violators will be subject to arrest and/or citation for criminal trespass
pursuant to B.C.C. 10A.53.080 or RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080
~~~
United Church of God:
Question:
Aren’t you participating in a business transaction when you eat out on the Sabbath? You most certainly will be expected to pay for the meal that you consume on the Sabbath.
Answer:
This is not running your business on the Sabbath. It is simply paying for the meal you received. There is nothing in Scripture that declares this act to be a violation of the Sabbath.
Perhaps the UCG forgot this one.
Nehemiah 10:31
"And if the people of the land bring ware or ANY victuals [food] on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day..."
Our Response:
Consider what the UCG is actually saying about the True God and His great Sabbath Law. According to their wisdom, the Almighty forbids what is being done at restaurants every Sabbath, but permits His people to proactively solicit the very act He forbids. Can you say "HYPOCRACY"?
This UCG argument makes about as much sense as a get-away driver for a bank robber claiming he doesn't break the eighth commandment ("thou shall not steal") because he does not participate in the actual robbery. He only drives the car, and there is no mention of get-away cars in the Bible.
Here is a question for all of God’s people. If the Almighty told you He absolutely detested what was being done in restaurants every Sabbath, do you think He would be pleased if you told Him you buy the products they labor to make on that day? The United Church of God actually thinks He would.
At one point in their doctrinal paper, the UCG correctly states that even though the sole owner of a business can't prevent his employees from working somewhere else on the Sabbath, he should still close his business down on this day. This is because these employees are working on his behalf.
However, the UCG then contends that God's people may purchase the services of restaurant personnel who also labor for their benefit because they are already working for someone else and can't be prevented from doing so. Here is how they express this reasoning.
United Church of God Continued:
If you are the sole owner of a business, you should close it down on the Sabbath day. But the people who work for you still don’t keep the Sabbath. They may choose to work a second job for another employer or they may choose to do other activities that would not be in keeping with the Sabbath. If you don’t go to the restaurant, the waitresses will still be working. You are not causing them to work by eating out in the restaurant, nor are you causing them to break the Sabbath.
Our Response:
It is true that the decision to work on the Sabbath rests solely in the hands of restaurant personnel. But it is equally true that the decision to seek out that labor rests solely in the hands of those who purchase their goods and services. To assert that the consumer of services plays no part in the business being conducted is TOTAL NONSENSE! It also misses a greater point. The Sabbath is a profoundly sacred day. It was created by a Holy God as a memorial of both His physical and His spiritual creation. It demands to be hallowed.
God gave the fourth commandment to ensure that His people would render the proper level of respect the Sabbath deserves. Furthermore, He has made it abundantly clear that labor profanes His day and as such should be avoided. When the UCG doctrinal committee dines out on the Sabbath, they are purchasing services that trample on something their God made holy. They may find consolation in the fact that restaurant personnel would be trampling on God's Sabbath anyway, but as Ambassadors of His Kingdom, we don't.
The bottom line regarding this argument is really quite simple: You may not be able to prevent restaurant personnel from working on the Sabbath. But you most certainly can prevent them from working FOR YOU on this day!
Counter Argument
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Blow the Trumpet states the following:
"Consider what the UCG is actually saying about the True God and His great Sabbath Law. According to their wisdom, the Almighty forbids what is being done at restaurants every Sabbath, but permits His people to proactively solicit the very act He forbids. Can you say "HYPOCRACY’?”
Public transportation is sometimes sought out by those in God's Church as well, though the Blow the Trumpet paper understands this to be permissible on the Sabbath. Is that hypocritical?
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
What the UCG doctrinal group is arguing is that Blow the Trumpet is being hypocritical for suggesting that it may be appropriate to for God's people to take public transportation to services when there is no alternative, while not extending the same accommodation to God's people for dining out on the Sabbath when the Almighty has actually provided the alternative. For the UCG to see these two behaviors as morally equivalent is disappointing, to say the least.
With that said I would like to make the following observation. I sincerely believe a strong case can be made that public transportation represents an essential service--especially in larger metropolitan areas. As such it should exist even in places where God's Sabbath is the law of the land. Certainly, this service should function differently on holy time but it could operate, and even do so in the spirit of proper Sabbath observance. For example: shuttles could be operated by part time volunteers and offered without charge to customers. Furthermore, their hours of operation would be greatly reduced and their routes would be limited to conveying God's people to His places of assembly. Although this is not how they are run today, it is how they are used by those in the Church that require them.
However, the same argument cannot be made for restaurants. The only time they could be considered an essential service is during a national disaster when access to food supplies were impacted. Under that scenario I would not only support opening restaurants on the Sabbath, I would personally volunteer to assist in their work. But this is not what we are addressing in this debate. The issue at hand is whether God embraces the on-going practice of his people soliciting the labor of Sabbath breakers at restaurants. The UCG claims He does while every syllable in scripture addressing the subject cries out against it.
The point here is that except in the most extraordinary of circumstances restaurants are designed to cater to pleasure NOT to need. Therefore, there is no Biblical imperative for them to be open on holy time. Furthermore, God has already COMMANDED His people to acquire and prepare their Sabbath meals on the sixth day.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Consider Deuteronomy 14:21: "You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God..." The Israelites remained a holy people, despite their involvement in the exchange of forbidden food. The same is possible for spiritual Israelites in the exchange of food in restaurants on the Sabbath. While we all should be careful of hypocrisy, every situation is individual.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Consider what this team of doctrinal experts is suggesting. According to them, because an Israelite was permitted to sell a gentile food that was unfit for them (Israelites) to eat, God would somehow permit these same Israelites to go out on the Sabbath and purchase a meal from these same gentiles, just like the UCG does. Furthermore, they can engage in this practice without any complicity in the sin of the Sabbath breaker.
The UCG goal in presenting this point is really quite simple—to prove that because God wouldn’t hold Israel responsible for unbelievers eating something that was unfit, even though they were the ones who sold it, it stands to reason He wouldn’t hold His people today responsible for the labor taking place in restaurants even though they are the ones who buy it. In other words, if God permitted one behavior it is “POSSIBLE” He would permit the other.
However, what these ministers conveniently omit in this particular point is that although God permitted His people to sell meat that had been compromised to Gentiles, He absolutely prohibited them from acquiring or preparing their Sabbath meals on the seventh day (Ex. 16). Additionally, although God permitted "strangers" to eat food that was compromised, He absolutely prohibited these same strangers from working on His Sabbath (Ex. 20:10, Deut. 5:14).
With that said, let’s take a closer look at what God was conveying when giving His people these instructions and how they specifically relate to the issue of dining out on the Sabbath.
The REAL TRUTH about Deuteronomy 14:21
At this point, it is important to understand that God was NOT instructing His people to sell gentiles unclean animals (i.e. swine, cats, dogs etc) as food. The animals He permitted them to sell were clean. However, because of the nature of their death, God declared them unfit for His people, but not unfit for others. The question for us to consider is: WHY? Why does God state that Israelites are not to eat an animal that dies of itself while those who are not of God’s faith may eat it if they wish? In order to understand what the Eternal was conveying, let's look at His exact words.
Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21).
Notice that although an animal that died of itself was not to be consumed by God's people, it could be consumed by unbelievers—even unbelievers within the camp where God's law was in force (the "stranger that is within your gates"). Although these church leaders imply that for a gentile to eat food that had been compromised was a sin, this is not true. Actually, it was not a sin at all for them. That's right! Those "strangers" will never be judged for this, in this life or the next.
Here Is the Point
With this said, what did the Eternal mean when giving His instructions in Deuteronomy 14:21? What was His intent and motivation behind this directive? The answer is actually found in the verse itself. The issue is HOLINESS. In truth, God was speaking about how His people are to behave because they belong to Him.
Clearly, the relationship between God and His people is unique. However, the same cannot be said about the relationship between God and unbelievers. The point here is that God was not making a distinction between sin and righteousness, but rather a distinction between those who are His people and those who are not. Now here is the striking lesson God is teaching.
The True God is Different;
You be Different, Too
Throughout the scriptures it is abundantly clear that the True God is not like other deities. He is HOLY. He is divinely pure—the epitome of dignity and majesty. He would never think of eating food that dies of itself or even that which has been cooked on a stove in which an unclean animal had once died (Lev. 11:35). The Great Creator and Sustainer of the Universe is so connected to moral purity and dignity that He would never boil a calf in its mother’s milk or eat garbage out of a trash can.
When God gave these instructions, He was exhorting the children of Israel to appreciate their unique relationship with Him. In short, the Holy One of Israel was telling His people that they are to be holy as well. They are to be different from others. They are to be cleaner, more hygienic, more dignified, more modest and proper. They are not to dress in a way that is unseemly, nor behave in a way that lacks self-respect. They are not to mutilate their bodies with excessive piercings nor deface it with paintings. Their pagan neighbors may choose to behave in such a way, but God's people are to be different. Why? Because He is different.
A Lesson for God's People Today
In a similar manner today, Christians are God’s children as well. As such, they should not eat food that has been tainted by being dropped on the floor, thrown in the trash, or that which has been set out too long before being cooked. This enduring moral principle is brought out at the beginning of this chapter.
Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shal not eat any abominable thing (Deuteronomy 14:1-3).
If God’s people, including His leaders, sincerely desire to be like Him, they would never seek out "strangers" and pay them to labor on holy time. Instead, they would seek to be holy—different from those in the world—not go back into the world and partake of its sin (Eph. 5:7).
The real point being expressed in Deuteronomy is that everything about us and our way of life should reflect the dignity of our calling. In essence, God is saying: "If unbelievers want to eat garbage or food that is unseemly, let them do it. However, My people must be different because I am different."
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
P.S. With respect to the UCG’s assertion that God’s people can remain “holy” even while they solicit the services of Sabbath breakers is an interesting theory. What it is suggesting is that they bear no responsibility for the unlawful labor they specifically solicit. But is this true? The following scenarios provide some insight concerning how God views this point. These scenarios may seem contrived at first, but in the end they will all make sense.
“Am I Responsible?”
Scenario I
"The Assassin"
Imagine you wanted someone killed. However, you know that God's law prohibits murder, so you decide to enlist the services of a professional "hit man." This seems like the perfect solution. By doing this, you would not have to commit the act himself.
After soliciting the assassin's service and negotiating the terms (location, method, as well as price and how it is to be paid), the member waits for the dirty deed to be done. While waiting, he reasons that he has done nothing wrong. After all, the assassin is unconverted and is totally ignorant of God's law. Therefore, God holds him to a lower standard. Additionally, the assassin is a highly skilled professional. If he doesn't kill for the member, he would kill for someone else. That's what he does. He is a killer. It isn't as if one can prevent him from this line of work.”
The Confession
After the "hit" is carried out, the assassin is unexpectedly caught and confesses to everything, revealing all the details. This leads the authorities to serve an arrest warrant this COG member. Here is our question:
Does God Almighty consider the member
complicit in this murder?
We realize that some might consider this hypothetical as outrageous and grossly offensive. But is it? Consider how closely the facts of our "murder for hire" scenario resembles a "Sabbath food preparation for hire" behavior.
Now we will readily admit that there is not any possibility of a true child of God succumbing to murder as reflected in our scenario. A real Christian knows full well the horrific nature of this act and can appreciate the gravity of this sin. However, we offered it to illustrate that the rational for dining out on the Sabbath lacks the same moral clarity as that which was reflected in the "Hit Man" scenario. Whether the UCG wants to admit it or not, every time they seeks out the services of restaurants on the Sabbath, they are soliciting a capital crime. The fact that restaurant workers are habitual criminals changes nothing. With that said, let's try a different example.
Scenario II
"The Thief"
Imagine a different COG member wanted to purchase a large screen plasma television and was looking for a real good deal. A friend refers him to a small unassuming shop in a remote area that "specializes" in such things. After selecting the features and negotiating a price, the member is advised that his new TV must be acquired from the company warehouse and that he may pick it up on Thursday. This is great news because he will have it just in time for the NBA finals.
However, while waiting for the big day, this member does some research and discovers that some of the televisions being sold at this shop are stolen. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is true. Although he can't prove it, his information is totally reliable. Furthermore, during his investigation he even determines that his particular TV was going to be stolen from a warehouse of a large well known retail chain.
What Should He Do?
It is undeniable that the price for the TV was fantastic—less than half of that charged by others. However, the member now knows that the merchandise will be "HOT"—"RED HOT." At this point he ponders his dilemma. What should he do? Hmmmm. Let's think about this.
He first reasons that although the television is stolen, he isn’t the one stealing it. As a Christian, he would never do such a thing. Furthermore, the real thief is ignorant of God's law and truly can't appreciate his crime. Even after being confronted, the thief rationalized that he did nothing wrong because no one got hurt. After all, some rich insurance company will pay the retail chain for their loss.
The member then reasons that because of the thief's lack of conversion, God holds him to a different standard. This man will have his chance after he is called. “Therefore, if the thief is held to a lower standard by God for his "act," then God must also hold me to a lower standard for accepting the merchandise.”
Now for the question.
Does God Almighty consider this member
complicit in theft if he knew that the TV he
ordered and paid for, was going to be stolen?
Once again, we are certain that a genuine Christian would not succumb to the temptation portrayed in our scenario. God’s people could easily detect the moral defect in this behavior. Furthermore, we are confident that most people would be furious that we would offer it at all. Well, in the interest of fairness, let's try one last scenario.
Scenario III
"The Restaurant"
Imaging the United Church of God’s Advisory Committee for Doctrine is dining at an exclusive Five Star Restaurant on a Friday evening. They made reservations three weeks ago and were truly looking forward to sharing this time with their colleagues. They knew the menu was going to be a little "pricey" but it was more than worth it. After all, the food is superb and the service is legendary. Additionally, the atmosphere is wonderful—soft music, candlelit tables and a very sophisticated clientele. Add to that, this was God's Sabbath and NOTHING is too good for God. That is why they selected this particular bistro. They honestly believed it would be the perfect setting to ring in holy time.
The Conversation
After ordering wine and selecting dinner the fellowship begins. At some point, the conversation turns to dining out on the Sabbath. These long standing ministers already know this issue well and are in total agreement with the Church’s position. At this point one of the men offers his analysis. First, he explains why he and his companions are totally innocent of any trespass of God's law because even though their server is working on the Sabbath, at least they are not. He even suggested that sharing a Sabbath meal with brethren in the comfort of a nice restaurant was more in keeping with the Sabbath than dining in one of their homes because it freed them from the burden involved in preparing their own meals. He then observed that even it their server wasn’t working for them he would be assisting someone else. Therefore, they really hadn’t added to his burden.
At this point everyone voices their agreement prompting a different guest to offer his thoughts on the topic. He observes that although the entire staff is laboring on the Sabbath, they don't know any better. After all, they are unconverted and totally ignorant of God's law. Because of this, the Almighty holds them to a different standard. This being the case, He must hold God’s people, who solicit their labor, to a different standard as well. Anyway, it isn't as if God’s people can prevent restaurant personnel from profaning the Sabbath. There is not one thing anyone can do about it.
The group again nods in agreement.
Finally, a third member of the committee presents his wisdom on the matter. He explained that the command regarding not compelling servants to work only applied to “your” servants, not someone else’s servants. Therefore, God permits the soliciting of labor from others as long as they are not under your control. Furthermore, the same applies to “strangers” because the command only mentions to those “within your gates”—clearly these strangers are outside our gates.
This long standing minister then suggested that our contemporary culture is so different from the one existing during the time when God’s law was given that His people must adapt it to the context of our modern age. He also noted that God’s prohibition against acquiring food on the Sabbath ended when the manna stopped. Therefore, it is fine to acquire and prepare your meals on holy time. He concluded his comments by reminding everyone that strict Sabbath observance is Pharisaical and that dining out is really a matter of personal preference.
Here is our question. Actually, we have a few questions.
This UCG may argue all they want that they bear no responsibility for the Sabbath labor performed for them by restaurant personnel, but this is simply not true. They personally direct that labor and benefit from it. That is why they seek it out and pays for it! Although the employee would be working for someone else if the UCG wasn't there, so would the assassin and the thief.