Make a Donation

Argument IX

Yea buts and what ifs

In an attempt to justify dining out on the Sabbath, the United Church of God advances the argument of "moral equivalence." They contend that going to such places as a hospital on the Sabbath is morally no different than going to a restaurant because both involve people working. Therefore, because God would never condemn the act of calling 911 if someone had just been hit by a car on the Sabbath, He would never condemn it if someone called a five star restaurant and made Sabbath reservations for his family and some UCG friends. After all, work is work.

This team of Biblical scholars then presents a host of examples where Sabbath labor is involved and argues that if it is permissible to engage ANY labor on the Sabbath then it must be permissible to engage ALL labor, or at least the labor of those who work in restaurants.

But is this true?

Furthermore, can you imagine presenting this argument to God Almighty in defense of willfully going out into spiritual Egypt and seeking out those who desecrate His Sabbath, and paying them to do so simply because their particular sin gives you pleasure?

Blurring the Lines

What the UCG is clearly attempting to do in this particular argument is blur the lines between exceptions and rules. They even manipulate certain situations that may call for Sabbath labor and insist that if it is good in one case it is good in their case. What is most disappointing about this approach is that each of their examples is offered without presenting the whole truth concerning it. Instead, these COG leaders pick and choose the part of their example that benefits their position, but intentionally omit the part that would undermine it.

As you read each point, consider that the issue at hand is whether it is acceptable with God for His people to willfully seek out Sabbath breakers and pay for their labor on holy time. The UCG argues that God approves of this behavior despite the fact that it is soundly condemned throughout His law.

We will first present the UCG argument in its entirety. We will then respond to each point, omitting nothing. Once again, remember, the issue is whether or not God condones the practice of dining out on His Sabbath.

United Church of God:

If you conclude that a waitress is working for you, then the same logic could be applied to those who work at the power plants producing electricity for you (and others) and those who work at the water plants or those who work in the hospitals. According to this logic, Sabbath observance would require that you not turn on electricity or use any water in your home on the Sabbath in order to be consistent. What if you need to take public transportation to get to services on the Sabbath? You will need to pay the taxi driver or purchase a subway ticket. In the Church we rent halls on the Sabbath for services. In some cases we are required to have a janitor present. If one believes he is “doing business” by eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath, then, in principle, this would also be a problem. What about people who rent a home or apartment? The rent does not cease on the Sabbath. These examples and questions support our position that eating in a restaurant does not violate the Sabbath.

There are other areas that would be affected if one takes the position that eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath is a violation of the Sabbath. For example, when one goes to the Feast of Tabernacles, would we expect him to check out of his hotel room on Friday evening and not return until Saturday evening in order to keep from violating the Sabbath? By staying in a hotel on the Sabbath you are being served and you are being charged for that service. An entire staff of people is on duty 24 hours a day to serve your needs.

Another area of concern would be a nursing home or a hospital setting. A fee is charged for the meals in both locations and someone has to serve those meals. Are members of the Church who live in nursing homes or find themselves in a hospital over the Sabbath violating the Sabbath by eating their meals? We do not believe they are.

Our Response:

It is amazing to see the lengths people will go to when justifying sin. In the case of the United Church of God, they argue that there is no difference between the behaviors they presented above and going to a restaurant on God's day. They do this because they desperately want to go out into spiritual Egypt on a day God consecrated and purchase the fruit of its sin. Remember, when one dines out on the Sabbath, he or she must seek out unbelievers who desecrate holy time and pay them for the fruit of their sacrilege. This is done despite the fact that God specifically prohibited His people from acquiring their meals on the Sabbath, preparing their meals on the Sabbath, and going outside their place (community of faith) on the Sabbath (see Ex. 16).

However, in the interest of fairness let us take a closer look at the examples presented by the UCG when defending their behavior. As we do, it will become abundantly clear that there is virtually no comparison between the UCG points and dining out on God's Sabbath. Notice what they argue. Once again, imagine presenting this wisdom to God Almighty when explaining your Sabbath behavior.

UCG Example I

Our Response:

While the UCG insists that there is no difference between using energy for one's home on the Sabbath and going to a restaurant on God's day, this is simply NOT TRUE. Consider the obvious differences. First, God's people do not, or at least they should not, seek out utility companies on the Sabbath. In other words, they should not subscribe to utility services on that day. Furthermore, we don't believe the UCG would condone such a practice.

However, when it comes to dining out on the Sabbath that is exactly what takes place. Those who engage in such a behavior must seek out, on holy time, unbelievers who are desecrating the fourth commandment and place an order for the fruit of this sacrilege. We think this represents a huge difference in these two behaviors.

Secondly, God's people do not, or at least they should not, pay their utility bills on the Sabbath. Once again, we believe the UCG would agree. However, when it comes to dining out on this day that is exactly what they do. They are purchasing a specific service that was provided for them, at their request, on and for a specific day—GOD'S DAY! In other words, they are buying something exclusively for Sabbath use that was produced exclusively on holy time. We think this also represents a huge difference in these two behaviors.

Thirdly, when God's people subscribe to a utility service, they are not requiring that labor be performed for them on the Sabbath. That is not how utilities work. It is not as if someone at a power plant must crank a generator so that your home receives its power on God's day. As a matter of fact, power generated by utility companies can be sustained for considerable periods of time without the aid of any manpower. When one subscribes to receive energy, his home, which is already connected to a power source, is simply allowed access to that source.

However, when it comes to dining out on the Sabbath, the opposite is true. Manpower is absolutely essential. Those who engage in this practice depend on that labor--without it they don't eat. Although the UCG argues that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is the moral equivalent of turning on a light switch, it is NOT! These behaviors are vastly different and we believe the UCG is aware of this fact.

Finally, we at Blow the Trumpet believe that it can reasonably be argued that utilities are a necessary part of the operation of a modern home. However, no such argument can be made about restaurants. Furthermore, although the Bible is silent on the issue of using utilities on the Sabbath, it speaks with great force regarding Sabbath meals. The Bible specifically mentions that food is not to be acquired on the Sabbath, prepared on the Sabbath and that God's people are not to go outside their community of faith to procure it on the Sabbath (Ex. 16). However, instead of heeding the scriptures, the UCG cites the "utility defense" to justify their SIN.

UCG Example II

What if you need to take public transportation to get to services on the Sabbath? You will need to pay the taxi driver or purchase a subway ticket.

Our Response:

Paying for public transportation on the Sabbath may be unavoidable under certain circumstances. Going out to a restaurant is a different thing altogether. Those who do it have a choice. They can honor God's command and prepare their food in advance as He directs them (Ex. 16:23). But the UCG argues that God's instructions don't apply to them in this modern age.

The UCG decision to dine out on the Sabbath is driven by convenience and pleasure. Obedience to God never enters into that equation. This prominent COG organization may call what it advocates "a wonderful way to spend a portion of the Sabbath," but it is not. What they do in a restaurant on the Sabbath no more honors their Savior than what millions of professing Christians do during Easter sunrise services. Their words cry out to Him but their actions reject everything He stands for.

UCG Example III

In the Church we rent halls on the Sabbath for services. In some cases we are required to have a janitor present. If one believes he is “doing business” by eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath, then, in principle, this would also be a problem.

Note From Blow the Trumpet

The UCG states that they "rent halls ON the Sabbath." It is our understanding that this is not true. In truth, they do not sign leases or pay rents on the Sabbath. Therefore, their words would be more accurately stated, "We rent halls FOR the Sabbath." With this said, here is our response.

Our Response:

Although the UCG fails to admit it, there is a HUGE difference between renting a hall for services and going to a restaurant on the Sabbath. The halls which are rented by COGs around the world are specifically dedicated to the service of God's people and their worship of Him. Furthermore, although some halls require their personnel to be there, it is not a requirement of the Church. The Church does not need facility staff in order to conduct services. In essence, such personnel provide NO SERVICE whatsoever to God's people. They are simply protecting the interests of those who own or manage the hall. In truth, the Church is renting space, not manpower.

When it comes to dining out on the Sabbath the personnel working at a restaurant are absolutely essential to what the UCG is advocating. Labor is what is being contracted. In other words, there must be people there to prepare and serve the food as well as a host of other functions.

If the UCG really believes this point, here are some questions for them: What would happen if the halls you use for services gave you the option of not having any of their people present? Would your services be able to go on without them? The answer should be obvious--of course they would! Now let's suppose that the restaurant you go to on the Sabbath gave you the option of not having anyone serve you or prepare your meals on the Sabbath.

Do you see the difference now?

UCG Example IV

What about people who rent a home or apartment? The rent does not cease on the Sabbath. These examples and questions support our position that eating in a restaurant does not violate the Sabbath.

Our Response:

The only thing these examples and questions prove is that the objective of the United Church of God is not to seek out the Lord's will in this matter, but rather to justify their own sin. Furthermore, these points don't possess a hint of honesty. According to this logic God's people can spend money all day on the Sabbath because they rent their apartment all day too. Even the UCG doesn't believe this.

The truth that this prominent COG group wants to ignore is that rent on apartments as well as the mortgage on homes is accrued over specified periods of time. There is nothing that compels God's people to seek out these products and services on the Sabbath, let alone pay for them. If the UCG wants this example to be consistent with their argument, they must conclude that God would actually approve of His people going apartment hunting for an hour or two on the Sabbath, including filling out applications and giving deposits. Why? Because that is exactly what God's people do when dining out on the Sabbath. First, they go out into the world and seek out a restaurant of their liking. They then look at a menu to determine which product(s) appeal to them. They then place their order and consume it—ALL ON HOLY TIME! They also pay for it on the Sabbath, including a tip for the service.

At this point it is important to understand that when one rents or buys a home it is done so with the purpose of spending a protracted period of their life in it. Dining out on the Sabbath is totally different. It is an activity that only involves the buying of goods and services to be consumed on a day consecrated by God Himself. This entire transaction involves God's Sabbath. While the UCG sees no difference between living in an apartment and dining out on God's day, we think the differences are HUGE.

UCG Example V

Our Response:

Here the UCG is hiding behind God's command to keep the Feast of Tabernacles in order to justify a practice that goes totally contrary to the scriptures. Remember, God specifically prohibited His people from acquiring their food on the Sabbath, having it prepared on the Sabbath and from going outside their place on the Sabbath to gather or consume it (Ex. 16). Additionally, He prohibited them from purchasing goods and services on the Sabbath (Neh. 10:31).

Somehow, the UCG believes that going to a restaurant on holy time is the moral equivalent of staying in a hotel during the FOT. They then reason that if God's people may do one, they most certainly may do the other. But is this really true?

The Sabbath is sacred. As such, it is to be treated with great deference and respect. It is not a time that should be spent engaging in the normal activities of the week. It is a time to come out of the world, not go back into it. The reason God's people should not dine out on the Sabbath is the same reason they should not check in or out of their festival housing on a Sabbath. The appropriate time for arriving at and departing from the FOT is prior to its start (a Sabbath) and after its conclusion (another Sabbath). Sadly, just as so many of God's people take a more casual approach when it comes to dining out on holy time, many of them also take a more casual approach to honoring this special festival.

With respect to the UCG assertion that "an entire staff of people is on duty 24 hours a day to serve you," an important point is omitted. Although a staff is there, God's people do not have to avail themselves of their service on the Sabbath any more than they have to avail themselves of golf course personnel at a resort during holy time. The bottom line is this: God’s people no more need hotel staff working on holy days during the Feast of Tabernacles than they need the restaurant they patronize to offer shrimp on the menu. The fact that it is there is irrelevant.

Do Not Disturb

There are many amenities at hotels that are available to guests every day. However, when it comes to the Sabbath, God's people are commanded to conduct their lives differently. The scriptures make it abundantly clear that labor profanes the Sabbath. Therefore, He prohibits His people from being a part of it. Of course there are exceptions, but dining out is NOT one of them.

At this point some may ask, "What about housekeeping services offered by most hotels and resorts? They will want to clean your room on the Sabbath. Isn't it a little hypocritical to accept their service on this day?" The answer is yes. The good news is that God's people do not have to accept this service, let alone solicit it. Those who correctly observe the Sabbath and holy days will generally place a "Do not disturb" sign on their door. They do this in order to not compel hotel personnel to labor on their behalf on holy time. Although these people will be working anyway, this is not an excuse to take advantage of their labor.

UCG Example VI

Our Response:

This is one of the most self-serving arguments the UCG offers when justifying their behavior and they should be ashamed of themselves for presenting it. In essence, they are hiding behind the weak and infirmed in order to excuse indulging their own appetite for pleasure on God's Sabbath.

While the UCG fails to see the difference between these two examples and dining out on the Sabbath, we see them quite clearly. For example, who would ever consider being a patient in a hospital "a wonderful way to spend a portion of the Sabbath"? But that is exactly how the UCG characterizes dining out on holy time. Furthermore, what member of the UCG doctrinal committee would describe being confined in a nursing home by saying it "can be one of the highlights of a person’s week"? But, once again, that is how the UCG describes going to restaurants on God's day. Furthermore, if given a choice between being able to live a life filled with vibrant health or living in a nursing home, what would these ministers choose?

God's word makes it clear that there are circumstances that may necessitate labor on the Sabbath, but this is an exception, not a rule. The authors of A Sabbath Test rightly understand this principle because they are not trying to play semantical games with God's great moral law. Notice how they explain the principle of "an ox in the ditch."

A Sabbath Test

If God’s people are going to invoke the principle of “an ox in a ditch” to justify dining out on the Sabbath, they would be well advised to understand the principle the Messiah was conveying when giving this lesson.

When Jesus gave this very important principle regarding the Sabbath, He was dining at the home of a prominent Pharisee. Also there was a man suffering from “dropsy,” an abnormal and painful accumulation of fluid in the tissue of the body. Some believe this man was placed in front of Jesus in an attempt to see if He would heal on the Sabbath.

Jesus seized upon this moment to teach a valuable lesson about compassion. He began by asking these religious leaders if it was wrong to heal on the Sabbath. When they did not answer Him, Jesus healed the man. Perhaps anticipating a reaction from these “pious” leaders, Jesus posed another question:

"Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Lk. 14:5)

Jesus’ question silenced these men because it not only appealed to their understanding of the scriptures, but also to rabbinical law, which provided for such acts of mercy. By invoking the law, Jesus was cutting through all the potential arguments these men may have been crafting. However, His words and actions were saying much more. The point He was making was that sometimes life does not go according to plan. There can be unexpected twists and turns. In short: an ox can fall into a pit.

The action Jesus took illustrated that when there is danger to life or property, God understands and even expects His children to take measures to correct the problem, even if it occurs on His Sabbath. In other words, save the ox.

This principle can be applied to other situations in life. There may be a time when the car breaks down or an injury occurs. These are not planned events. They are unforeseen emergencies. The fact is that our lives can be interrupted by events that are simply beyond our control.

However, there is a principle here that must be respected. The ox in a ditch is the exception, not the rule. In other words, just because you had to change a flat tire last Sabbath does not mean it is okay to set up an auto repair business that is open seven days a week.

A Genuine Emergency

There are times when purchasing something on the Sabbath might be appropriate based on the principle of an ox in a ditch. For example: suppose you are taking a Sabbath walk and notice an elderly gentleman has collapsed on the sidewalk. When you approach to offer assistance, he informs you that he is diabetic and asks if you could buy him a specific kind of candy bar. Across the street is a convenience store and in your pocket is a five dollar bill. This is an ox in a ditch. This act is not about engaging in business on the Sabbath. It is about healing on the Sabbath. This being the case, there may be times when it might be necessary to buy food on this day. But this should only take place in a genuine emergency where the alternative may be catastrophic.

Additionally, it is important to understand what an ox in a ditch is not. Poor planning is not an ox in a ditch. A messy home that is not ready for company is not an ox in a ditch. Running into old friends that you haven’t seen in years is not an ox in a ditch. An ox in a ditch is something to regret, not something to anticipate – or even celebrate.

Furthermore, when Jesus gave the lesson of an ox in a ditch, it was in the context of healing, not dining. The principle is there to be sure, but it is not to be manipulated. To do so would be a HUGE mistake. Those who use Jesus’ teaching regarding mercy to justify going to restaurants on the Sabbath should ask themselves, “Is it really an emergency?” Or is it possible that you are just exploiting for your own benefit the compassion and mercy of the very Savior who made provisions for dealing with a real tragedy that may arise on God’s holy Sabbath?

Counter Argument

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

Dear Mr. Fischer,

Blow the Trumpet states:

"While the UCG insists that there is no difference between using energy for one's home on the Sabbath and going to a restaurant on God's day, this is simply not true. Consider the obvious differences. First, God's people do not, or at least they should not, seek out utility companies on the Sabbath. In other words, they should not subscribe to utility services on that day. Furthermore, we don't believe the UCG would condone such a practice. However, when it comes to dining out on the Sabbath, that is exactly what takes place. Those who engage in such a behavior must seek out, on holy time, unbelievers who are desecrating the fourth commandment and place an order for the fruit of this sacrilege. We think this represents a huge difference in these two behaviors."

Nehemiah would not have allowed Israel to reap the benefits of anyone desecrating the Sabbath, regardless of whether the businesses were sought out. He would not have allowed Israelites to work in the first place. That's a major difference between his situation and ours today.

Consider some of the businesses that Church members, including those who do not eat in restaurants, encounter on the Sabbath. While driving to Church, some listen to classical music stations, weather reports, traffic updates, news of world events, etc. The employees providing media services are breaking the Sabbath, as much as the restaurant employees. Some members have their trash set out for pickup if it's scheduled on Saturday. They don't "lock out" these businesses on the Sabbath by simply keeping their radios off or not sitting their trash out.

Some members have opted to take transportation services, choosing to pay to travel an hour, rather than driving perhaps three hours for free. This can enable them to avoid bumper-to--bumper traffic, especially in urban areas, and greatly reduce stress on the Sabbath.

Sincerely,

Advisory Committee for Doctrine

Response from Dennis Fischer

Dear Friends,

Once again the UCG offers the argument of moral equivalence to defend their sin. They claim that there is no difference between you listening to classical music on the radio on the Sabbath and them proactively seeking out unbelievers and paying them to labor on their behalf on this day. They make this argument not because they love classical music, but because they love dining out on holy time.

To me this is nothing more than desperation disguised as wisdom. It is a cynical attempt to prove that it is not only impossible to obey God Almighty on this issue, but it is impractical as well. Once again, their goal is to prove that God is in full support of His people seeking out and paying Sabbath breakers to cook their meals on holy time.

Personally, I believe if the UCG honestly sees no moral distinction between listening to the radio and dining out at a commercial restaurant on a day God consecrated, I would advise them to stop listening to the radio. Unfortunately, these learned men would rather seek out a behavior that is totally innocent and arbitrarily declare that it is no different than what they do. Even sadder is the fact that this approach is a constant refrain throughout their doctrinal paper as well as their letter to me. Consider some of the lengths they go to when advancing their arguments.

They believe God's instructions to not acquire or prepare your Sabbath meals on the seventh day (Ex.16) are not applicable because God no longer provides manna for His people. Therefore, they may now acquire their from Sabbath breakers.
They believe that because it is acceptable with God for His people to pull an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath, it is also acceptable with Him if His people make Friday night reservations at a fine restaurant.
They believe that what takes place at a restaurant on the Sabbath satisfies a "NEED" in this present age. Therefore, they may now seek out these Sabbath breakers and pay them to labor on their behalf.
They believe that seeking out unbelievers who labor in restaurants on the Sabbath is appropriate because it frees God’s people from having to labor themselves.
They believe that if it is acceptable with God for His people to pay for public transportation to services because they have no other way to get there, then it is also acceptable with Him if they pay unbelievers to labor on their behalf in a restaurant.
They believe that if David could eat the shewbread once in his life, which Christ acknowledged was unlawful, then God's people can pay unbelievers to periodically cook for them on the Sabbath, which God also said was unlawful.
They believe that because God permitted the Israelites to sell meat that died naturally to unbelievers, on days other that the Sabbath, He now gives the UCG permission to buy food from unbelievers on the Sabbath.
They believe that if you can go to a market on Tuesday and buy food that "may have been" harvested on the Sabbath, then they can go to a restaurant on Saturday and pay for food that must be prepared on the Sabbath.
They don't believe restaurants that labor on God's Sabbath are in the "world." Therefore, God's warning to come out of the world is not applicable in this regard.
They don't believe that those who work in restaurants are in "spiritual Egypt." Therefore, God permits His people to seek them out and solicit the fruit of their Sabbath labor.
They don't hate what is done in restaurants on the Sabbath because it is done out of ignorance. Therefore, they see no reason to refrain from paying for the fruit of that ignorance.
They believe that if God would permit one of His children to live in a nursing home which requires round the clock care, including the Sabbath, then they should be able to be served by restaurant personnel on the Sabbath as well.
They believe that if one of God's people may live in a nursing home which requires assistance on the Sabbath, then they should be able to be served by restaurant personnel on the Sabbath.
They believe that if you can listen to the radio on the Sabbath where unbelievers are working, then they can seek out unbelievers at a restaurant and purchase their labor.
They believe that if God's people may live in an apartment where part of the rent covers 4 to 5 Sabbaths per month, then they may also pay for someone to prepare their food on the Sabbath.
They believe that if God's people can have electricity in their home on the Sabbath, then they may seek out unbelievers at restaurants to labor for them on holy time as well.

Every one of these beliefs is proclaimed without shame by some of the most prominent minds in the United Church of God. At every turn these church leaders parade out a never ending list of "what ifs?" and "yeah buts" with the express purpose of proving that they can seek out strangers and pay them to desecrate the Sabbath, because they would be working anyway.

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

Counter Argument continued

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

Dear Mr. Fischer,

Blow the Trumpet continues:

"Secondly, God's people do not, or at least they should not, pay their utility bills on the Sabbath, Once again, we believe the UCG would agree, However, when it comes to dining out on this day, that is exactly what they do. They are purchasing a specific service that was provided for them, at their request, on a specific day-GOD'S DAY! We think this also represents a huge difference in these two behaviors.

"Thirdly, when God's people subscribe to a utility service, they are not requiring that labor be performed for them on the Sabbath. That is not how utilities work. It is not as if someone at a power plant must crank a generator so that your home receives its power on God's day. As a matter of fact, power generated by utility companies can be sustained for considerable periods of time without the aid of any manpower. When one subscribes to receive energy, his home, which is already connected to a power source, is simply allowed access to that source."

We are not suggesting that eating out on the Sabbath is the same as using utilities, but the principle is still the same. In both cases we are paying for labor that is done on the Sabbath. If people are employed at power plants on the Sabbath, by your reasoning we are "paying for the fruits of their sacrilege" because we are paying for work done on the Sabbath.

We do not think that paying for something on the Sabbath is necessarily wrong. Nor do we consider buying a meal to be the same as treating the Sabbath as an ordinary day for shopping and marketing. Otherwise, how could a minister purchase gas while traveling to and from Sabbath services? You refer to paying for public transportation on the Sabbath as "unavoidable under certain circumstances." Are you reasoning that some sin is unavoidable and thus permissible?

Sincerely,

Advisory Committee for Doctrine

Response from Dennis Fischer

Dear Friends,

Let me begin with the last question. I believe there are times when certain acts that go contrary to God's law may be done without Him imputing guilt. Jesus said as much. This was the case with David and the shewbread as well as the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8). However, when advocates of dining out on the Sabbath attempt to blur the lines between what is clearly a unique situation and what they simply want to do because of the pleasure they derive from it, God's purpose is never served. Sadly, this is exactly what the United Church of God does with respect to this issue—THEY BLUR THE LINES. In essence these Church leaders are asking, "What is the difference between, having to sit alone on a bus with a bunch of non-believers as it takes you to assemble on God's Sabbath, because it is the best choice available to you, and them pro-actively seeking out the services of unbelievers working at a restaurant simply because you think it is an enjoyable place to fellowship?" To me the answer is simple.

What about utilities?

When I subscribe to a utility service my home is connected to a power source that continues to operate twenty four-hours a day, seven days a week. Contrary to the silliness the UCG claims, I do not require manpower to labor on my behalf on the Sabbath. Furthermore, although they claim that the principle of dining out on the Sabbath is the same as having utilities, this is TOTALLY FALSE. When the UCG dines out after services, they are paying people to specifically work on the Sabbath. In other words they are paying for Sabbath labor as opposed to Tuesday labor, or, Wednesday labor. I on the other hand do not require Sabbath labor for my utility service, any more than I need my bank to be open on Saturdays for my checking account to work, which is also assessed a service charge. In truth my home and accounts will function perfectly whether they are there or not.

Furthermore, I am 100 per cent certain that technology will exist in the millennium. Included in that technology will be a variety of power sources that will be a part of everyday life, including the Sabbath. That’s right! There will be utilities that power homes and ensure proper sanitation during the rule of Jesus Christ and His saints. These are essential services that facilitate order and ensure proper health. Furthermore, there is not one syllable in God’s word that contradicts their service.

However, that is not the case when it comes to restaurants. The very nature of any Sabbath function they provide requires God’s law to be compromised. As much a the UCG loves the pleasure of dining out on holy time God Almighty condemns it and promises that there will be a day of reckoning for this sin.

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

Counter Argument continued

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

Dear Mr. Fischer,

Blow the Trumpet states:

"Although the UCG fails to admit it, there is a HUGE difference between renting a hall for services and going to a restaurant on the Sabbath. The halls which are rented by COGs around the world are specifically dedicated to the service of God's people and their worship of Him. Furthermore, although some halls require their personnel to be there, it is not a requirement the Church. The Church does not need facility staff in order to conduct services. In essence, such personnel provide NO SERVICE whatsoever to God's people. They are simply protecting the interests of those who own or manage the hall. In truth, the Church is renting space, not manpower."

This issue goes beyond personnel simply in the building. Would Nehemiah have allowed Israelites to rent halls from people desecrating the Sabbath, elsewhere in the same hotel building during Sabbath services? The Church has also met in VFW halls where veterans are smoking elsewhere in the building during services. We've met in movie theaters where carnal movies were shown the night before or after the church service as well as advertised on the walls of the building during the service. Nehemiah certainly would not allow this and neither would we if these businesses were under the Church's jurisdiction, as they were in Nehemiah's day.

Sincerely,

Advisory Committee for Doctrine

Response from Dennis Fischer

Dear Friends,

This attempt by the UCG to justify the SIN of going to restaurants on the Sabbath illustrates how far people will go to deny the obvious. Their purpose in this particular piece of silliness is to prove that if it is acceptable with God for His people to hold services in a theater where an inappropriate movie was shown the night before, then it must also be acceptable with Him if His people proactively seek out Sabbath-breakers and pay them for the fruit of their lawlessness. Once again these COG leaders attempt to blur the lines between two entirely different behaviors.

What they refuse to acknowledge is that their Sabbath and holy day services are not the least bit dependent on smokers in adjoining rooms or, the promotion of inappropriate movies on walls. The same however, cannot be said about the sin that takes place at a restaurant every Sabbath. When it comes to dining out on holy time, the UCG is totally dependent on lawlessness--without it they don't get to do what they desire. In other words, while the UCG doesn't require smokers in the room next door in order to hold services, they do require people to profane the Sabbath in order to eat at a restaurant. That is what they are seeking out and paying for.

The [human] reasoning offered by the UCG to justify their sin may fool them, but it doesn't fool the Almighty. In truth, it OFFENDS Him. There is absolutely no command prohibiting God's people from holding services where those outside may be sinning. However, the Bible absolutely condemns soliciting sin, which is exactly what takes place whenever the UCG dines out on the Sabbath.

Respectfully,

Dennis Fischer

P.S. I’m just curious. But has the UCG ever made it a requirement for renting a hall that Sabbath breakers must be in adjoining rooms? I didn’t think so. Now, what about restaurants? Has the UCG ever gone to a restaurant on holy time and not sought out Sabbath breakers? Can you see the difference now?

Causing Division

Return to Directory