Christ is the foundation of our faith

To all who labor with us in the gospel:

It has now been about one year since my dad explained the implications of the new covenant on observances such as the Sabbath and the festivals. As we know, many disciples considered this a hard saying they could not accept, and they no longer walk with us. But where can we go but to Jesus, who has the words of eternal life? We look to him throughout all our trials, and to him we give the praise and worship for all our joys.

In this letter, I want to share with you the slightly edited text of a letter I recently sent a member who was having some difficulty in understanding the doctrinal change. Perhaps other members have similar questions. Here's the letter:

Thank you for your letter of September 17. So much has happened in the last few months that it's taken quite some time to get to our letters. Please accept my apologies. I do want to address several points you raise in your letter. Spiritual healing First, you mention the emotional trauma of the doctrinal change, and I must agree. Thousands of members have had quite an emotional struggle. Even those who are thoroughly convinced that the change is biblically accurate often experience a time of confusion and emotional turmoil. This is normal, even if it is disturbing. That is why our current round of ministerial conferences is focusing on the theme of spiritual healing. You seem quite upset that we choose to meet on the Sabbath because it is our tradition. You state, "Something so important as the day of worship should have a biblical basis!'' However, I would like to point out that your statement is an assumption, without a biblical basis. The early New Testament church was free to worship on any day of the week, even every day of the week (Acts 2:46). They could do this without any particular biblical command to do so. Later, in Ephesus, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) without any particular command. Although we might like the Bible to tell us when to meet, it does not. We could just as easily say that something so important as the location of the Feast of Tabernacles should also be based on the Bible. After all, the Bible clearly designates a site for the Feast, and the Bible clearly says that the site is important. Then, to paraphrase some of your arguments, if we are going to choose a site, shouldn't it be the one that God chose? It shouldn't matter why he chose it, it shouldn't matter to whom he commanded it, it doesn't matter whether it is old covenant or new, and we certainly shouldn't base our decision on whether it is convenient! I think that the example of the Festival site shows that we can't just make a lot of assumptions about what is important and how the New Testament church should approach Old Testament laws. We have to be careful. Old covenant is obsolete You write, "There is also no scripture that says [the Sabbath] is done away!'' Of course not, not in those exact words. But there is also no verse that says Passover lambs are done away. Nor does the New Testament say that the requirement for tassels (Numbers 15:38) is done away. What it does say is that the entire old covenant is done away (Hebrews 8:13). The law that was added 430 years after Abraham was in force only until Christ came (Galatians 3:19-25). Gentiles do not have to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15). Moreover, the Sabbath is not a matter on which Christians should let others judge them (Colossians 2:16). When we read the Bible, we must put all the relevant scriptures together, and what we find is that Old Testament laws are done away. Some God-given laws are obsolete, and the only biblical explanation for this is that the old covenant is obsolete. Christians are under the new covenant, and it makes a great deal of importance whether a particular law is in the old covenant or the new. When we teach people to obey God, we should not be teaching them to obey obsolete commands. It is important for us to clarify which laws are included in the new covenant and which are not. We cannot just proclaim that tassels and Passover lambs and tree-branch booths are important, as if our judgment were authoritative. No; we have to accept God's revelation of what is important. You ask, "If you are going to set aside a day of worship, should it not be the one that our Great God chose?'' But we must rephrase the question: "If you are going to require a particular day, should it not be one that God requires in the covenant we are under?'' You write, "It shouldn't matter to whom God presented it to,'' but I say it makes a great difference to whom he commands it. If he commands something only for Israelites, then we have absolutely no authority to command it for anyone else! That is why the early church understood that gentiles did not have to obey the law of Moses. If we are going to teach a command with divine authority, it makes a great deal of difference whether the New Testament commands it, or whether the only commands for it are found in a covenant that has been declared obsolete. Our opinion of what's important doesn't matter. We have to have biblical authority--new covenant authority--for what is important for Christians today. Continue to assemble You are correct in saying that Hebrews 10:25 says we should continue to assemble together. But it says neither where nor when. Jesus set an example for us, it is true, but we must be careful as to which aspects of his example we teach as commands. Are we commanded to assemble in synagogues, like he did? Are we commanded to go to Jerusalem for the festivals, like he did? Are we required to follow his example of commemorating the Feast of Dedication? No, of course not. We can command only those things that are commanded in the new covenant. You are correct: "Tradition does not give us a rock-solid foundation!'' That is precisely why people have gone through an emotional turmoil with our doctrinal change. They had built on a tradition. They thought it was rock-solid, but it was not, so when it changed, they became uneasy. (Of course, I hasten to add that we still meet on the Sabbath, and many members still keep the Sabbath. We have not forced anyone to change that practice. All we have changed is our doctrine of whether this practice is required or optional. But many members have found even that change to be disorienting because we had built so much of our self-concept on the Sabbath as a requirement.) Christ is the foundation We should ask, what does give us a rock-solid foundation? The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ. He is the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11) and the rock on which we should build (Matthew 7:24). As it turns out, some members had built their spiritual house on Jesus Christ. They have found the doctrinal change easy. Some had built partly on Christ and partly on the old covenant. Part of their houses have been damaged, and so they have to heal the damage and move their faith onto Christ alone. And some, as it turns out, seem to have built almost exclusively on the old covenant, and they have found it exceedingly difficult to move their houses. It seems that some need to dismantle what they have built so they can start all over to become a new creation in Christ. You describe an analogy in which the old covenant days were the structural beams holding the house together--but your analogy was invented just to support the old covenant days. Perhaps we could invent a different analogy to explain what's happened. We were living in a tree-branch booth. We liked it and grew attached to it, even though it was inconvenient at times. But Christ came along and offered us a new house next door. It was nice, and we moved part way in, but we still thought it essential that we spend part of our time in the booth. Someone finally came along and told us that the booth was not a requirement any longer, and we found it emotionally traumatic! An analogy, of course, doesn't prove anything. All it can do is illustrate the particular point for which it was created. Your analogy illustrated your feelings about the importance of the old covenant days. This new analogy would illustrate the feelings of some other Christians. But feelings don't prove anything. We have to go by what the Bible says. Our identity is in Christ You say, extending your analogy, that "we no longer have a home; therefore we no longer have an identifying address.'' We do have an identity--the greatest identity that anyone could ever have--our identity is in Christ. We belong to him, and we live in Christ. But as we know, that's not good enough for some people. They want to be different, more distinctive. They want special signs that set them apart from others. People like to have special customs that give them the feeling of entering a "protective haven that gave us relief from the `storms' of the week.'' I cannot deny the psychological value of special customs--but I also recognize the spiritual danger of calling them required for authentic Christianity. You say that you have lost joy and peace because your "safe haven'' is "gone.'' I remind you that the Sabbath still exists, and we still meet on the Sabbath. The safe haven is still there. Our meetings still provide relief from the storms of the week. So what have you lost? Perhaps it is the feeling that you have tangible proof (i.e., Sabbath-keeping) that you are more obedient than other people who claim to believe in Christ. And where is our joy and peace supposed to come from? From Jesus Christ, of course. When we trust in Christ and him alone, we do have great peace. We do have joy even despite our trials. You express more of your concerns when you write, "Tradition is not a good enough reason for being different than our neighbor!'' And I ask, is this supposed to be our purpose as a church? Of course not! You write, "Tradition does not give newcomers enough reason for leaving their old church ... [to] come to ours!'' And I comment, sheep stealing is not our purpose, either. If the gospel of Jesus Christ is being preached in their current church, we aren't asking them to leave. (But if their current church obscures the gospel with heavy doses of legalism, then maybe they should leave.) Our purpose as a church is to preach the gospel, to baptize those who believe and to disciple them in the faith. We want to reach people who haven't already responded to the gospel. We want to reach the unchurched. Why continue our tradition? So why do we continue in our tradition if it's not required? I discussed that briefly in the previous Worldwide News. Yes, we realize our Saturday meetings are not convenient for everyone. There is no one day and time that will suit everyone, but we have to choose one. Since the Bible doesn't command us to change, we have continued our tradition. I ask, Are you attending regularly, in obedience to Hebrews 10:25? Are you encouraging others in good works, in obedience to verse 24? You find it emotionally upsetting to meet on Saturday by tradition, but it seems that you favor doing it as a requirement because the Sabbath gives you emotional comfort. It gives you a sense of identity in addition to the identity of believing in Christ. In other words, you would rather ostracize many other Christians, calling them counterfeits, just so you can have emotional comfort. I put it in these stark terms to help you see that your approach isn't really Christlike. The bottom line is that we can't teach it as a requirement unless the Bible teaches it as a requirement. The old covenant specified the location and the day (and even the hours of sacrifice), but the new covenant does not. Traditions are important even if they are not based on biblical command. We have traditions about how church services are conducted--we have opening prayers, piano music, etc. We have traditions of greeting people, of carrying Bibles, of taking notes and many other things on which the Bible is silent. Some of these are emotionally more important than others. I must disagree with you when you say, "Tradition is only good and sound when the reason for the tradition is biblical example!'' Certainly, a decline in attendance can be disheartening. Even in Pasadena, where the congregations were large, we have lost many friends who no longer walk with us, and it grieves us. Not only can the doctrinal changes be emotionally traumatic, the separation of friends can be traumatic as well. But what can we do? Go back to our tradition of teaching the Sabbath as a requirement? No; tradition isn't a good foundation for doctrine. Nor are our feelings, whether good or bad. Christ is the foundation of our faith You write, "If our foundation is to be biblically based, then that basis has to be 100 percent biblical--not tradition!'' I agree. The foundation for faith is Jesus Christ; the foundation for doctrine is the Bible. The Bible reveals to us what we need to know about Jesus Christ. The Bible calls us to put all our faith in him. We have to go by what the Bible reveals to us. It tells us the old covenant is obsolete, including its requirements for circumcision, thrice-annual trips to Jerusalem, tassels and many other worship requirements. These things were important to God and his people under the old covenant, but God himself, in the Bible, tells us they are not important under the new covenant. I know that these things are emotionally unsettling. I am sorry that we taught erroneous ideas as if they were articles of faith. But I am thankful that Christ has lifted the veil and helped us see his gospel in greater clarity (2 Corinthians 3:13-18). Enthusiasm is growing in many congregations for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although I grieve for those who have joined old covenant groups, I am confident that our Savior will supply everything we need to do his will. I hope that this unusually long letter has helped you understand the situation a little better. I pray that Christ will give you peace and joy and faith and understanding. "Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen'' (2 Peter 3:18).