By J. Michael Feazell
By J. Michael Feazell
Last month we looked at two important values that guide church policy regarding days of worship: 1) All our members are important and 2) Jesus tells us to love one another.
These two values have led us to a policy that allows each congregation to develop, according to its unique needs, its own annual calendar of worship days within denominational guidelines.
Therefore, a congregation's worship calendar may include any combination of the festivals of Leviticus 23 and traditional Christian festivals.
It may also include Saturday, or Sunday, or both, as a day of weekly worship.
We have adopted this policy for at least three reasons. One is that we hold the values mentioned above. A second is that our church has a 60-year history of carefully observing the seventh-day Sabbath as well as a version of the annual festivals of Leviticus 23.
A third is that we have recently come to see that we were wrong in our condemnation of worship on Sunday and on traditional Christian festivals, and many members have found joy in worshiping at those times.
Following Paul's instruction about how to handle differences in matters of forms of worship, we teach our members not to despise or condemn one another about the days they choose to devote to God in worship (Romans 14-15).
At the same time, and equally important, members are taught not to cause division in the body by insisting that their position is the only right one. Members who persist in trying to warn or convince others that a certain set of worship days are the "true biblical days," "God's days" or the "only right days," are likely to cause division.
After a couple of warnings, Paul says, those causing division are to be removed from the fellowship (Romans 16:17-18; Titus 3:10). Christians must pursue unity and the love of Christ in their diversity, not tolerance for division.
It is important for all of us to think through carefully what we do so that we might understand why we make the choices we make. In the Worldwide Church of God, we believe the Bible should be our guide into all matters of doctrine and practice. That belief is a vital aspect of our denominational heritage.
A positive aspect of our heritage as a church is that we take the Bible seriously. We have always believed that the Bible is the standard of truth and that all our doctrines must be consistent with the message of Scripture.
We strive to be honest with the Scriptures, regardless of where that might lead us. We take a stand to believe the Bible, even in the face of strong opposition, and we are committed to change when we can see from the Bible that we have been wrong.
It was precisely that commitment to Bible truth that prompted the doctrinal changes in the church over the last decade. When church leaders came to see that certain doctrines were based on misunderstandings of the Bible, there was no choice but to change those doctrines.
There was a huge price to pay in members becoming disillusioned and leaving the church. Many members were not prepared to have doctrines changed, regardless of the biblical evidence and explanations.
They could not conceive of the possibility that the church could have been wrong about such things, and preferred to reject the new teachings rather than face the pain of admitting their church had been doctrinally deficient.
How do we approach new ideas? In the Bible, we are shown a good example by the members of the Jewish synagogue in the Macedonian town of Berea (Acts 17:10-12).
When Paul presented them with amazing new concepts about the promised Messiah being the man Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem, the Bereans reacted quite differently from the way the Jews reacted in Thessalonica.
The Bereans did not reject the new teaching. Rather, they studied the Scriptures to see if the new teaching could be confirmed. They listened in order to understand the new teaching, then let the Scriptures guide them in whether to accept it.
The Bereans took quite a different approach from the one the Thessalonians took (Acts 17:1-9). Indeed, the common human approach to new ideas is to reject them immediately and then refuse to listen to any efforts to explain them.
Naturally, the result is not to understand the new idea, and therefore not to be in any real position to know whether the idea is foolish or sound.
Yet, strangely, most people are comfortable with that approach to things that are new to them.
When the Worldwide Church of God was presented with new teaching regarding doctrines, especially new teaching about the Trinity and about the Sabbath and holy days, members reacted in various ways. Some listened carefully in order to understand, then studied the Scriptures to see if the new teaching could be confirmed.
Others listened, but not in order to understand. Rather, they listened in order to find ways the new teaching was different from the old so they could reject it on the basis of it being different.
Still others listened in order to find ways the new teaching was like that of non-WCG Christians so they could reject it on the basis of it being like the teaching of non-WCG Christians.
In either case, the actual merits or non-merits of the new teaching itself were irrelevant; the only thing that mattered was whether it was different from what we currently taught, or whether it was like the teachings of people we did not respect.
When our doctrines were changed, some members did not listen to or study the new teachings at all.
Some listened only to the opinions of friends, relatives or others. Some of these accepted the new teachings, while others rejected them--again, not on the basis of a personal, Berean-style study, but simply on the basis of accepting the opinion of a person they respected.
That person, though respected, may or may not have actually given the new teaching a proper study either.
And some of those who did not listen to the new teachings at all simply rejected them because they were new.
A few of these told us they were actually afraid to study the new teachings because they feared the presentations would be such cleverly devised deceptions that they would be deceived and led into perdition.
So they chose not to allow themselves to learn what the explanations and rationale were for the new teachings, but simply to reject them because they were, indeed, different from what we had taught before.
No doubt there were many, many more variations of responses to the new teachings. And many members rejected the new teachings at first, but eventually studied them for themselves.
It is important to understand that all the above reactions are normal. But it is also important to understand that we cannot possibly give a fair hearing to an idea unless we first understand the rationale behind the idea, and we cannot bring a Christian perspective to it unless we first understand it and then review it in light of the Bible.
Our church today is learning how to respect one another's differences in regard to days of worship. It is learning how to love one another as Jesus commanded (John 13:34) and, in that love, how to have unity in diversity--that is, diversity in some matters of form, but a fiercely held unity in matters of the substance of the Christian faith.
Still, some congregations have found themselves divided over the weekly day of worship and the choice of annual festivals. Some attitudes have tended to become far less than loving on both sides, with certain vocal members of each side believing they have the "true days" in their hip pocket.
It is this spirit of condemnation and accusation, expressing itself perhaps more often in subtle, destructive, behind-the-scenes ways than it usually dares to do openly, that the apostle Paul says has no place in the body of Christ.
In some ways, the real issue that divides church members is not worship days at all, but a lack of the love of Christ.
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness," the apostle John wrote (1 John 2:9).
"Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice," Paul admonishes (Ephesians 4:31).
"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you" (verse 32).
Paul's words in Philippians 3:2-3 regarding the Judaizers who demanded that gentile Christians submit themselves to circumcision, and thereby to the whole law (Gal. 5:3), are instructive for us today.
Paul wrote: "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh."
With Paul, the church today must say, in effect: "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those who glory in days. For it is we who have entered the true rest of Christ, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, who put no confidence in mere forms and rituals."
These words, though strong, are not too strong. Those who argue that no person is a true and faithful Christian who does not set aside a Sabbath day according to the commandment wreaks havoc with the gospel.
Any doctrine that argues that a day of worship is the sign of a Christian attacks the very foundation of the saving work of Christ.
It sets up an external criterion for salvation and in doing so undermines the total sufficiency of Christ as the beginning and end of our salvation.
In other words, the Bible teaches that our salvation depends solely and entirely on God, and not on us--not even on whether or not we worship on a certain day.
The Bible teaches that the true and real Sabbath Rest has appeared, the Son of God in whom alone we are able to find the eternal rest of God of which the weekly Sabbath was a mere shadow (Matthew 11:28-30). We enter that rest by believing in Christ (Hebrews 4:3).
To declare that the weekly Sabbath day is still binding on God's people is unwittingly to declare that Messiah has not come, that he has not fulfilled all things, that he has not become the true rest of his people and that faith in his shed blood and resurrection is not sufficient for our salvation.
It is to declare that there is no new covenant, and that the old covenant is still in force.
It is to declare that one needs the law to be saved, and that without the law one cannot be saved. We will take a close look at what the Bible says on this topic in part 3 of this series.
Now, of course, as we all know, Sabbatarians (whether seventh-day or first-day) do not set out to deny the sufficiency of Christ for salvation.
They are usually appalled when they hear fellow believers assess their doctrine as I just have. Their goal, as they understand it, is to obey God, to keep his law, to do what they believe God commands them to do.
Yet, that is precisely where the subtle danger lies in the doctrine of sabbatarianism. It indeed appears to be a doctrine of faithfulness to God, but by declaring that the law is still in effect, and that the law is still binding on Christians, it denies the biblical message about the practical and spiritual effect of the gospel and God's gift of his Son, the Messiah.
It undercuts the gospel and amounts to the same heresy as that of the Galatian and Colossian Judaizers--that one cannot truly enter the kingdom of the God, or be counted among the people of God, without the law.
In short, Sabbatarian doctrine teaches that something more than mere faith in Christ is needed, specifically, the keeping of the weekly Sabbath day.
Paul addressed the heresy of the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians. The Worldwide Church of God is different from the Galatians in certain key ways, and like them in certain key ways. Yet the principles remain the same.
We are not like the Galatians in that we are not a church into which law-pushing Jewish converts have come to demand that we begin to practice circumcision and observe the Sabbaths and the purity laws.
Instead, we are a church that has been, from its inception, observing the Sabbaths and certain of the purity laws. Consequently, the warnings for us are not about rejecting the teaching of newly arrived law-pushing heretics, but rather about rejecting the teaching of long-standing members, who in spite of the light of Christ shining on us, demand that we continue observing the Sabbaths and purity laws.
It is important to notice that Paul did not demand that the Jewish converts stop following the customs of their ancestors. But he demanded forcefully that they not teach or encourage the gentile converts to take them up.
For that reason, the Worldwide Church of God has not demanded that its members stop following the church's traditional customs.
However, the church, following Paul, does demand that no one be taught or encouraged that it is better or superior to continue in them (the Sabbaths and the purity laws).
It is one thing to continue to meet on them; it is quite another to think they have any merit for righteousness or any spiritual superiority.
People who persist in teaching or leading others into that heresy are to be removed from fellowship (Romans 16:17-18; Titus 3:9-11).
By the same token, if any think that traditional Christian days have merit for righteousness in and of themselves, they likewise are grossly mistaken.
Traditional Christian festivals do have, however, the value of solidarity with God's faithful children down through the centuries. To observe them is to recognize that the body of Christ is indeed vastly larger than the Worldwide Church of God, and that God has, indeed, been at work in that body for the past nearly 2,000 years.
It is no use to say, "I know all kinds of so-called Christians, even in my own family, who keep those days and go to church on Sunday, but are no more Christian than a gnat's eyelash."
That may be true. You may know of many such so-called Christians. But that has nothing to do with the value of the Lord's Day or Christian festivals for actual Christians.
We could just as easily make the same argument for people who worship on Saturday. The lack of commitment to Christ on the part of some or even many who keep a certain day has nothing whatever to do with the choice of days; it has only to do with the fact that there are people who are uncommitted.
We cannot judge all people who meet on a certain day by the conduct or attitudes of those whose weaknesses we may happen to know about.
Many in our church would rather meet on Saturday because that is the day on which they are used to meeting.
Again, Paul did not demand that the Jewish converts stop their customs. But if we choose to meet on Saturday, we must be clear in our own minds and hearts that our former reasons for meeting on Saturday were based on an incorrect interpretation of Scripture.
You see, when we started out as Sabbatarians it was to try to be faithful to God with what we understood, or thought we understood, which of course, as far as it goes, is good.
But our God is far more faithful than we are, and he loves us so much that in due time he showed us the real Sabbath--our Savior Jesus Christ and the rest God gives us in him.
Now we have no excuse for seeing the weekly Sabbath as still commanded, or our meeting on it as superior to meeting on Sunday. Now we know that the true Christians, except for the Jewish converts, did meet on Sunday from the earliest times.
One thing is for sure: whenever we meet, we meet to honor, worship and glorify our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ--we do not meet to honor a "day."
We observe whatever days we observe as occasions to assemble as the Body of Christ for worship of the one true God. We come together in his presence (though he is everywhere, he meets his assembled people in a special way) to love him, to praise him, to thank him, to confess our sins to him, to participate in and partake of his grace and to learn from him and about him. We do not assemble to declare that we are meeting on the "right day."
Again, following Paul, the Worldwide Church of God does not demand that its members, who have a long history of meeting on Saturday and the annual festivals of Leviticus 23, stop such meetings.
But it does demand that no member teach others that God demands that we do that, or that he specially blesses us for doing it, because he doesn't.
We don't have to abandon the custom, but we do have to change the teaching and beliefs that used to lie behind the custom.
That is why church policy is to allow any combination of both sets of festivals. But in making such allowance, the church does not condone heretical teaching.
Rather, the church urges all of us to allow the love of Christ to guide our hearts in how we relate to one another about our varying preferences on days. By now, all of us ought to be able to understand and appreciate one another's viewpoints on this subject.
Last month, we analyzed some of the spiritual problems that lie behind the attitude of deciding who is and who is not a faithful, Christ-centered Christian by the choices they make about days of worship.
This month we considered the sort of attitude the Bible endorses for approaching new doctrinal concepts, and what Paul said to do about those who try to promote false doctrine in the church.
Next month, we will look at Paul's teaching about the Law.
Copyright © Worldwide Church of God, 1999