Make a Donation

Argument III

They're Not Our Servants

In 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 profane His Sabbath 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:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work. You nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant. However, you may compel someone else’s manservant or maidservant to labor on your behalf, provided they are not under your direct authority or responsibility and would be working anyway (Ex. 20:8-10 revised)

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:

Isn’t it wrong to have someone serve you in a restaurant?

Are they working for you?

The answer to both questions is “no.” The waitresses, waiters, cooks, etc., in a restaurant are not your servants. They do not live in your household. This was the principle given in Exodus. Those who live under your roof or are under your control were not to work on the Sabbath. This cannot be applied to a waitress unless you have control over her and can force her not to work.

Our Response:

Here, the UCG adopts a very narrow view of the term "your" when offering their explanation of 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? After all, those commandments only mention "your neighbor" with respect to bearing false witness and coveting. Are they suggesting that God's people can covet the wife of someone else's neighbor?

Furthermore, what the United Church of God asserts as the "principle given in Exodus" is totally UNTRUE! Contrary to their 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.Furthermore, what the United Church of God asserts as the "principle given in Exodus" is totally UNTRUE! Contrary to their 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.

A Sabbath Test

God first addressed the issue of work on the Sabbath when He made the seventh day. At that time, the Great Creator of heaven and earth rested from His labor (Gen. 2:2-3). Later, when giving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, God made reference to this rest. Through the Sabbath commandment, God is declaring that our lives should be like His. Labor should not be a part of this day – directly or indirectly.

Additionally, God knew that there were only two broad sources of labor – the work you perform, and the work that is performed for you. The fourth commandment addresses both types. First, "you shall not do any work" (Ex. 20:10). That addresses your part. Secondly, no one who comes into your sphere of influence shall be compelled to labor on your behalf. This includes family, servants, strangers, and even livestock (same verse). That part addresses everybody else His people would come in contact with on the Sabbath. Everyone else on earth was outside the camp and God had already forbidden His people from going outside the camp on this day (Ex. 16:29).

A Sabbath Test Continued

Surprisingly, there are many in God’s church today who believe the fourth commandment is limited in scope. In other words, although it prohibits His people from engaging in labor, it does not prohibit them from orchestrating the labor of others for their benefit. As a result of this thinking, many contend that when God gave His law regarding the Sabbath, He intentionally made provisions for His people to be the beneficiary of the labor of others.

Today, all too many in God’s church advance an endless stream of technical arguments in an attempt to circumvent God’s law. But in the final analysis, God’s word is clear. When He told his people they were not to work on the Sabbath, He was declaring that labor profanes the day He made HOLY! Even God Himself ceased from His labor on this day. Does anyone sincerely believe He would avail Himself of the labor of someone else?

The point God was making when He uttered the fourth commandment was that Israel was not to be a party to profane work in any way, shape, or form on this day unless it specifically related to a Levitical duty (Mt. 12:1-5). Going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is not such a duty. It is a pleasure that God’s law prohibits (Isa. 58:13). (A Sabbath Test, Appendix I)

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:

There are even occasions where someone under your roof cannot be forced to keep the Sabbath. An example would be a son or daughter who is older, yet chooses to live at home. Many people today have 25 and 30-year-old children living at home. Should you force them to keep the Sabbath? Can you forbid them from working?

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 doesn't 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 integrity 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 pay for it being done on their behalf. Those who think otherwise are just fooling 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 innocent enough, but looks can be deceiving. God calls labor on His Sabbath a MORTAL SIN (Ex. 31:15). 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.

Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Ro. 6:16)

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 solicit 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. Our Great Lawgiver actually explained why His people were to release their servants from labor on the Sabbath. Notice the commandment:

But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shall not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you.

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:14-15)

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.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)

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
April 16,2007

Dear Mr. Fischer,

"The point God was making when He uttered the fourth commandment was that Israel was not to be a party to profane work in any way, shape, or form on this day unless it specifically related to a Levitical duty (Mt. 12:1-5). Going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is not such a duty. It is a pleasure that God's law prohibits."

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, despite this fact, 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 guilty of this very thing. Furthermore, they are making a very subtle misdirection with this argument. In it, they conveniently neglected to say what they would do if an unbelieving adult child living at home, wanted to work for their benefit (e.g. 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 answer they offered would contradict their point—so they simply stood down on this one. In other words, if they admitted they would reject their child’s offer, even though they can’t force Sabbath observance on him, then why would they claim that they may seek out the services of a restaurant on the grounds that they can’t force Sabbath observance on them? On the other hand, if they said they would accept their unbelieving child’s offer, how can they reconcile that with the fourth commandment which prohibits family members as well as unbelieving “strangers” from working on God’s Sabbath?

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

Counter Argument continued

United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007

Dear Mr. Fischer,

Matthew 12:15 [sic] 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,

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. In truth, the Messiah's own words contradict their understanding. First, consider what the UCG is contending in this point. They claim 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. Here are their exact words.

"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 because of what they did, but because they were given special dispensation this one time for doing it. In truth, the Messiah actually acknowledged that God’s law HAD BEEN VIOLATED. Notice that He specifically likened what they did to David eating the shewbread and to the Sabbath labor of the Levites. In both cases He readily acknowledged 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 that made David and the Levites guiltless. In the case of these Old Testament examples each had been given specific permission from God to do what the law prohibited. With respect to David, he actually sought permission from the priest to take the bread, and the priest sought permission from God. It is my personal opinion that the disciples also asked Jesus for permission to pick the grain because they too knew it was unlawful.

Even the UCG’s invocation of Deuteronomy 23 is a distortion of the Biblical record. There is nothing that even remotely hints that verse 25 applies to the Sabbath. On the contrary, Jesus’ response to the Pharisees proves just the opposite. If what the disciples did was lawful why wouldn’t Jesus simply defend them on legal grounds? Furthermore, who honestly believes that the Pharisees were unaware of the provision in the Torah for gleaning on another man’s field?

At this point it is interesting to note that during this confrontation Jesus NEVER challenged the Pharisee’s understanding of the Law, but rather their understanding of mercy. In truth, this MERCY was the foundation on which He defended His men. Clearly, this entire pericope addresses a unique event. What it is NOT is an invitation to the UCG to seek out Sabbath breakers and purchase their labor on holy time.

More Desperation

The UCG also posed some questions they feel are germane to their argument. I would like to address them at this time.

Question 1:In Exodus 16, would Israelites have been permitted to go out and pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath?

Answer:The simple answer is NO! This is because their Sabbath food had been provided on the sixth day. Furthermore, God had given them specific instructions concerning its acquisition and preparation.

However, if something totally beyond their control prevented some of them from having access to their food supply through no fault of their own, I am confident that God would accommodate their special circumstance. This is what unquestionably took place with David and the shewbread as well as the disciples in the grain field. In both these cases Jesus' accommodation was a once in a lifetime act.

Turning Grace into License

What the UCG is attempting to do is exploit God's mercy into an invitation for them to seek out Sabbath breakers to pick the grain, prepare it with special seasonings and some vegetables on the side, and serve it with a nice bottle of wine. Furthermore, they want to repeat this practice every month or so. This would be tantamount to the disciples asking the Messiah, "Why don't we go out to some nearby fields today? We understand there are some unbelievers there who have a great recipe for making special cakes that are just out of this world." Or, "Why don't we go out to lunch after services. There is a great little Italian restaurant in town."

What the disciples did and what the UCG wants to do aren’t in the same universe. Despite this fact, these long time COG leaders pursue their sin as if it was perfectly analogous to what took place when the Messiah extended mercy to those who were greatly in need of it.

Question 2: Should Jesus have warned [the disciples] not to pick the grain?

Answer:I have absolutely no doubt that the disciples were fully aware of God’s prohibition against gleaning on the Sabbath, just as I have no doubt that David knew that it was unlawful to take the shewbread. The only way they could satisfy their unique problem was to go straight to God for help. I would bet everything that in both cases they did just that.

~~~

Question 3: Should the disciples have prepared twice as much food on Friday to avoid this scenario?

Answer: If the UCG is suggesting that this event proves that God no longer requires His people to prepare their Sabbath meals on Friday, they are greatly mistaken. Everything about this act reveals that it was an exception to the rule, not a new application of Sabbath observance. Clearly Jesus did not hold the disciples negligent in this matter. However, this only proves that something TOTALLY beyond their control either prevented them from preparing their Sabbath meals the day before, or, have access to the food they had prepared. Whatever the case, it is clear that Jesus' mercy was appropriate, and He graciously extended it.

~~~

However, if the disciples persisted in picking their Sabbath meals on a regular basis, I am confident Jesus' approach would have been much different. God is merciful. But His mercy is not to be exploited, nor is He one to be mocked. What the UCG teaches in their advocacy of dining out on the Sabbath does both.

Creating an Artificial Distinction

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 the meal acquired and the degree of labor involved in its preparation is what determines its acceptability with God. Here is how they express this.

"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."

My Response:

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, 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' giving His disciples permission to pick a small handful of grain once in their life 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
April 16,2007

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

Dear Friends,

Although the UCG insists that Blow the Trumpet believes in compelling all who are in our sphere of influence to keep the Sabbath, this is not true. It is the official position of Blow the Trumpet as well as the authors of A Sabbath Test that God’s people are not to compel others to do that which goes contrary to the Sabbath. In other words, although we cannot force Sabbath observance on anyone, we will not contribute to others profaning this day. The UCG on the other hand argue that if you lack the capacity to impose Sabbath observance it doesn’t matter if you solicit that which violates the command.

With respect to the UCG’s intimation that restaurant personnel don’t labor for the benefit of those who seek out their services, I can only say that 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 behalf of their customers reflects a level of denial that is totally dishonest. One of the great pleasures of dining out on the Sabbath, or any other time, is that instead of you working to prepare your own meal someone else works to prepare and serve it to you. Despite this obvious fact, the UCG claims that no one is working on their behalf. To me this argument reaches the height of silliness, but the UCG proclaims it with great pride. Why?—because if they don’t make this assertion they know that what they advocate would contradict God’s law. Their remedy is simply to redefine the role restaurants perform as beyond the scope of the fourth commandment. Therefore, in their mind, they (the UCG) may now seek out such labor and still “obey” God.

Throughout their doctrinal paper as well as their letter to me, the UCG insists that they would shut down restaurants on the Sabbath if they could—they simply don’t have the authority. Well, here is a question for them. If they had the authority to reduce a restaurant's customer base by 90 per cent every Sabbath, would they? What about 80 percent or 70 percent? What about 60, 50 or 40 percent? What about 30, 20, 10, or 5 percent? Finally, what if they could only reduce a restaurant"s customer base by one person, would they? Our guess is no—not because they believe that the sin taking place can’t be diminished by fewer customers, but because they are that “one person.” Therefore, they argue semantics in order to protect their right to partake of the sin they seek out and pay for. Consider just some of the arguments they promote when justifying this behavior.

The UCG claims:

Those who work in restaurants on the Sabbath are not in the world

A restaurant laboring on the Sabbath is not in spiritual Egypt

Those who labor on the Sabbath are not in bondage

People who work in a restaurant are not working for you

Restaurant personnel are not within your sphere of influence

You are powerless to prevent them from laboring for your benefit

Nehemiah never told His people to not buy their daily meals on the Sabbath

Exodus 16: is irrelevant because God doesn't provide mamma anymore

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 accomodate their sin. To me it is clear that their judgment in this issue cannot be trusted. They have been so blinded by their own appetite that they deny the obvious and embrace the ridiculous.

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

Counter Argument continued

United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007

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.

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,

"...They trespass against this wonderful law every time they comply with orders given to them by their patrons, including God's people."

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 now free to exploit this ignorance for their own Sabbath pleasure. Personally, I believe this particular wisdom reveals that the restaurant worker is not the only one in ignorance.

Additionally, the UCG’s argument of “degrees” is classic denial. In truth, these Church leaders are as complicit in the sin of restaurant workers as they would be in purchasing merchandise they knew was stolen. Even though the thief would sell his “take” to someone else does not absolve these church leaders of anything. The bottom line is this. Those who dine out on the Sabbath are, of their own free will, seeking out the sin of those who profane God’s law. If they think they bear no responsibility in the very act they are soliciting they are just fooling themselves.

Finally, although the UCG asserts 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 out Sabbath-breakers 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
April 16,2007

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

It is interesting that the fourth commandment mentions their entire slavery, not just their inability to rest on the Sabbath as the UCG claims. God did not simply deliver them out of one day of oppression. He completely liberated them from all the bondage they were subjected to.

In the first commandment, the Almighty referred to Egypt as the "house of bondage." The Sabbath was, and is a symbol of deliverance from that bondage and Israel's entrance into FREEDOM. This wonderful command is far greater in scope than the UCG is willing to acknowledge. And until they do, they will persist in their sin.

UCG continued:

We do not think that "refusing to allow" someone to 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, I have placed it here as well. Please read it carefully. This is what the UCG finds objectionable.

From Blow the Trumpet

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:

However, our calling reveals that a Great Deliverer has again rescued His people from a world that does not know Him or His way. 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.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)

Dennis Fischer continued:

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 proactively seek them out and purchase 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, I believe that until they can accept the FACT that all sin is a form of SLAVERY (Rom. 6:16), they will continue to promote this bondage.

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

Counter Argument continued

United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007

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 belief that God approves of His people seeking out and paying those who engage in profaning the Sabbath. Does anyone honestly believe this makes sense?

In truth, the point Paul was making was that it is impossible to not be a part of a world dominated by sinners. However, I don't believe for one minute that he was implying that because of this fact, God's people are now free to patronize its sin.

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

P.S. Wasn’t it Paul who said, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness…” (Eph. 5:11)

It's Not Business

They're Not Our Servants

RELATED LINKS