The Armstrong "Sabbath"

The Sabbath. Mentioned in the “Ten Commandments”, the Church pinned the validity on the Sabbath Day with the greater omission of the Sabbath by “worldly” churches – stating that the Sabbath was incorrectly – and wrongly – removed from the commandments as not valid today. The church, obviously, claimed differently.

One of the Big Doctrines of the church that made it different was it's understanding of the seventh-day Sabbath. Time after time, the Sabbath was touted as the “sign” that the Church had that made it different from every other church – the one church that followed and obeyed the commands of Christ by keeping – or observing – the Sabbath. “Keeping” was always church language for “observing”.

The Church wanted to be able to dispute the claim that the Sabbath was not to be kept, and, subsequently, prove that the Sabbath was to be kept by Christians today. To do this and appear to be credible, They quoted a majority of scriptures from the Old Covenant and only two from the New Covenant. In classic Armstrongist pick and choose theology, they linked them together to form their doctrine and their theologically sick explanations.

The first one they chose was Mark 2:27-28. Jesus was disputing the claim by the Pharisees that the Disciples of Jesus were breaking the law by breaking heads off of wheat – a very simple task that was considered “work” in the days of Jesus.

The Pharisees claimed it was against the Law to work by harvesting grain on the Sabbath. Jesus countered by mentioning an act of King David – that when David went into the house of God, David ate the special bread reserved for the priests, and gave some to his companions, stating that that was breaking the law too – even though they were hungry. Mark 2:27-28 simply states that the Son of Man was master even of the Sabbath – something that the Pharisees of the time thought was blasphemous to recognize. The Churches of God claimed that because Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath must still be in existance and to be kept. But this is not at all what Jesus was saying. Jesus was saying that Jesus is the master of the Sabbath, and he can determine himself what constitutes the acceptable and the unacceptable on the Sabbath Day based on the heart – in the case of David, they were hungry. On top of all of this, it is absolutely no contest whatsoever that the Law was still in effect – as was the Old Covenant. Jesus had not yet ascended and the New Covenant and the promised Holy Spirit had not yet come into effect – so the Law was, in those days, before the resurrection, still in effect. The argument that Mark 2:27 proves that the Sabbath is in effect today is not the context of the scripture and proves absolutely nothing whatsoever.

The second scripture they used is Genesis 2:1-3. The teaching of the church was that the Sabbath was made by Christ (the Word) at the same time man was made, and it was set apart as “holy time” for all mankind “forever”. Genesis 2:1-3 States that, NLV, “On the seventh day, having finished his task, God rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from his work of creation”. In this scripture alone, there is no basis of saying that it was set apart as “holy time for all mankind forever”. Those words were reading into what the plain scripture was – that God made that day holy because he rested from his work of creation. Anything added or subtracted from that verse is reading more into it then it plainly says.

The third verse they use was Exodus 16. The church taught that the nation of Israel “lost the kowledge” of the Sabbath in Egyptian slavery and God showed them which day it was in miraculous means, and “re-emphasized” what it means to keep it holy. In Exodus 16, it is true that the Lord had appointed the seventh day as holy time for the Israelites in the wilderness, and Moses gave specific instructions that food was to be double-gathered on the day before, and not collected on the Sabbath – and their efforts were proven to be futile. Yet verse 29 states, in the NLV, “Do they not realioze that I have given them the seventh day, the Sabbath, as a day of rest?” He ordained this day holy for the Israelites to give them a day of rest and relaxation from their wilderness journey. There is no implication in this scripture of it's ordination into the New Covenant, from the Old, as binding forever in judgement for those who break it.

Then, you might point out, Exodus 20:8-11, which is the Fourth Commandment of the Ten Commandments. The church quoted this too. The church taught that “God commanded all men to remember the Sabbath forever as one of the cardinal points of His spiritual law.” This was in reference, of course, to the Ten Commandments – failing to recognize that the Law and the Prophets hung first on the Two Great Laws – love God and Love thy Nieghbor. This was a cardinal point of the Law of Moses – and was not in any way repeated in the New Covenant laws enacted by Jesus Christ. The church used the word “forever”. One must recognize the word “Forever” was used many times in the commands of the Mosais Law even when it came to some temple ordinances and ritual ordinances which are no longer in effect now. Forever means as long as the terms and conditions are in effect, not “forever” as in the word “Eternal”. There is a difference, and that difference was ignored within the church.

Then, the church pointed out in Luke 4:16 that Jesus kept the Sabbath Day. Yes, of course, he did. The Law was still in effect during his life and ministry as a human – he had not yet brought the New Covenant, the age of grace, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. He was even master and Lord of the Sabbath. It is absolutely basic that He kept the Sabbath. That does not in any way prove that this generation is bound to do the same. It isn't wrong to do so – but it's not required as a salvation commandment to do so. Nowhere in the new Testament is that taught, or even implied.

To bolster the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath, they also aim to prove that the Apostle Paul kept the Sabbath too. What does this prove? Paul was not the Lord of the Sabbath. Paul understood the age of grace, and in fact, the book of Galatians makes clear the Gospel that Paul preached, the gospel of Christ, and what it means. The scripture they quote is Acts 17:2. Acts 17:2 simply states that it was the custom of Paul to go to the Synagogue service and to interpret the Scriptures to the gathered people at the service. This was, after all, the best occasion to do so and to teach the people in a public gathering. But what was not mentioned in their explanation is what Paul did at this service. At this service, Paul preached Christ. He explained the prophecies about Jesus, he explained the sufferings of Jesus, and he explained the Resurrection of Jesus. His intent was to prove that Jesus was the Christ, the long-awaited Messiah. This was the focus of these verses – not the obvious fact that he “kept” the Sabbath on that date. That date was simply the best time possible to tell them all that Christ had done and who he was. What was not told is that Paul incensed the Jewish leaders of the day and they formed a mob trying to drag them to the streets for what was being said. In fact, so outragously different were Paul's teachings to the people that many wanted to accuse him of treason against the Roman king, Ceasar, because Paul preached Christ. It was not about the Sabbath – it was the best location with the most people to preach Christ – when everyone was gathered for the Sabbath service.

And, finally, they quoted Isaiah 66:23 To prove that the Sabbath will be kept in the future when God's kingdom will be ruling the Earth. This verse simly states: “All humanity will come to worship me from week to week and from month to month”. It implies a continuation of worship in the only language that couls be understood. This selection of verse extremely well articulates the Armstrongist egotistical opinion of superiority that the ehurch embraced, based on the Old Covenant: “And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with horror.” I don't believe any other scripture defines the opinion of the Church against non-church members better then this – for the church missed the point of the

revelations of the New Testament and embraced the visions of the Old Testament without the understandings of the New. As such, they were a prideful, conceited, and egotistical people simply because they observed the seventh day Sabbath, and most of the rest of the world did not.

Clearly, they taught that the believed in the Sabbath and that it was not done away, But they also believed in grace, and they claimed to be a Christian Church. The only way that could possibly reconcile one to another was to look at the application of the Sabbath – and claim that it was the application that changed with the strict regulations of the Sabbath as no longer applicable as it was in the old generation, because that went by the strict letter of the law – which, in the generation of Armstrongism, was clearly impossible. Therefore, it was more of a “New Testament Sabbath” - holding on to the command of the Sabbath as part of the Law that is still binding – but changing the actual “impossible” laws to more of a spiritual “application” thereby allowing grace to complete the failures of those attempting to keep it but finding it impossible to do the old way.

This dissonant theology led to, obviously, a lot of questions as to what was binding and what was not. Is it okay to go to restaurants? Can we start our cars, technically starting a fire? Is driving a car “working”? Is setting up equipment on the Sabbath Day at the rented Bingo Hall working? The answer was therefore too difficult for the average member to consider – besides – the church was taught it was the ministers who speak for Christ. So the obvious answer the Church had was simple – the minister's decision on these technicalities was the binding decision, and the members, therefore, did not have to worry about it. If the minister says it is okay – going out to eat, setting up potluck, getting dressed, making breakfast, then these things were judged okay – as they were a church judgement. Other things like playing cards, playing sports, going to a sports event, and the like – were also judged by the minister – and was also am (albeit negative) church judgement. The emphasis became less on actual scripture and more on the “spirit” of the scripture according to the controlling judgement of the minister – and the decision that the minister make was considered final.

This final decision, however, did not stop the arguments within the church. There were many who continued to (wrongly, according to the church) think for themselves and judge the church as being too liberal with what they allowed. Then there were those who saw it the other way and thought the church was not liberal enough. The arguments and quarrels concerning (privately) what was not and what was allowed on the Sabbath were constant – and no one was truly unified on what was right and what was wrong. One family observed it one way, another the other way, and the only way to come in line with the “standard” was if the minister found out and issued a correction and ordered a family to submit to ministerial correction regarding how to properly “keep” the Sabbath.

At the end of the day, the Sabbath was really observed differently from congregation to congregation, from liberal to conservative, based on the power structure and edicts from that congregation's local minister, and the confusion never did cease – leading to a “don't ask, don't tell” kind of situation, especially at the Feast.

Using personal experience, I can tell you that the “Sabbath dispute” filtered strongly even with the youth who attended the Church's summer camp, the Summer Educational Program. Quite the argument broke out with a camper – and the son of one of the church's ministers over – of all things – whether or not it was okay to play a game of chess.

Most decided to just “Keep the Sabbath” the best they could – as long as the local minister said “it was OK.”

Just don't let a disagreeing minister catch you – because it'll be your fault if he does.

The Sabbath Structure and Positions

In the typical Armstrongism “Classic” Service, as I call It - that is a service that is completely normal in the 1960s through 1980s, approximately, there as a standard liturgy that was followed that members got all too used to week after week, after week.

The Three Opening Songs

At the beginning of the service, three songs were to be selected for the first portion of the song service. The only musical instrument that was allowed to play along with the music was the

Piano. Every song prior to 1993 was to be taken from “The Bible Hymnal”, and usually attempted to coordinate with the message in some form or another – but this was not by any means always the case. The congregation would beinstructed to rise, and the pianist would, on cue, play an introduction to the hymns on the piano. A trusted individual would then begin leading the first hymn using orchestral direction with his hands to hold tempo and direct volume. Only interrupted by a brief word of praise and instruction, this would repeat three times with three different songs, to be immediately followed by the Opening Prayer.

The Opening Prayer
The Opening Prayer was the first prayer in the service liturgy, and was to follow a prescribed and well learned standard and format. Male, baptized members gave the opening Prayer – and deviation from the prescribed format was unnaceptable and could easily black-list someone from the opening prayer list if one was so bold as to deviate from the official standard.
The Sermonnette or Split-Sermon
The Sermonnette – or, rarely, the Split-Sermon, was the first message given after the Opening Prayer. This message was brief, was to tie in with the sermon usually, and lasted a maximum of 15 minutes, though this brief message was usually right around the 10 minute mark. Rarely were sermonettes given for more then 10 to 15 minutes per sermonette. However, if a message had to be longer, a “split-sermon format” was developed, and could be given by a senior speaker, elder or pastor if required. During a split sermon format, one song instead of two in the middle could be deemed appropriate. The sermonnette was to be given by a baptized male on “the Speaking List” of approved speakers – usually at the rank of “Deacon” or higher. The Split Sermon was sometimes used when two sermons replaced the sermonnette-sermon formate.
Middle Two Songs (Or, Rarely, One)

After the Sermonnette were the middle two songs – led by the same song leader who led the beginning two songs. These songs were directed and sung normally – with a word of praise and instruction between the two songs – and were followed, not by prayer, but by the Pastor or the Elder in Charge of the service on that day with the Announcements.
Announcements

The next item that was on the liturgy was the Sabbath Announcements. These announcements were exactly that – just local announcements about people, places, and events in the local Church and some nationally ordered announcements if needed. This was also the place where suspensions and disfellowshipments were announced with instructions about such annoncements, if needed. These only lasted a few minutes, and were followed by Special Music or the Sermon (if there was not any Special Music.)

Special Music
“Special Music” was a musical performance usually given by a talented member of the Church. Age, race, and gender were not important during this portion of the service – anyone with talent could participate, and usually did. “Special Music” pieces also did not have to be inherently spiritual. Any piece, classical or spiritual, or “Sabbath Appropriate”, was deemed fine for the performance. Also, any musical instrument (almost) was deemed alright for special music, but piano, trumpet, and vocals were encouraged the most. On Holy Days, full church choirs often gave the Special Music for the day.
Sermon

The Sermon was the main message of the service – and normally always given by the Pastor of the local congregation. The Sermon's topic was at the discretion of the Pastor, and normally lasted about 1 hour to 1 ½ hours in length – though it was not unheard of for sermons to go longer – sometimes much longer, much to the chagrin of the congregation. Members were not to leave until the sermon completed and the service was dismissed.

If the Pastor was not available to give the Sermon, a local Elder was selected to take his place on those rare occassions.
Closing Prayer
Much like the “Opening Prayer”, the closing prayer was given by a baptized male member of the church in good standing, and immediately dismissed the service at it's conclusion at the final Amen. At that point, the service was over, and the congregation was summarily dismissed.

Service Positions Available In Services
Before and after the services, men and women were selected for certain roles within the service structure. These rolls were rotated among the baptized congregation, and were ranked in order of general importance. These positions of service were: Set Up – Take Down, Tape librarian, Librarian, Greeter, Choir Member, Sound Man, Usher/Attendance Taker, and Head Usher. Ordained positions for men were Deacon (ladies could be ordained as Deaconness), Local Church Elder, Church Elder , Preaching Elder, Pastor, Evangelist, and Pastor General/Apostle.

Deacons were ordained members in “charge” of physical leadership positions in the church. This position was often seen as a stepping stone, for some, to higher “ecclesiastical” positions in the church.

These Ecclesiastical positions started with a Local Church Elder (the first ordained ministerial rank – these were the first able to give funerals, to marry, and to preach), the Local Elder, the Preaching Elder (the first rank of ministry in charge of a local congregation), the Pastor, the Evangelist (a highly revered senior position in the Church), and the one Pastor General/Apostle.

How the Sabbath Was Observed

The Sabbath had it's own strange idiosyncrasies within the Church as to what was acceptable and what was not acceptable, using church tradition generally apart from scripture, basing judgement on what the ministry deemed was acceptable.



For example, restaurant attendance – after services – was acceptable on the Sabbath. There has never been any argument that such a position has been controversial – especially among the hardliners of the Church for observance of the Law of Moses as much as humanly possible. This was controversial because of the likelihood of restaurant workers using cookware and stovetops that unclean food was cooked on or touched with – making clean food “unclean” according to the Levitical Law. This in itself would have technically been in violation of the Sabbath and against the letter of the Law.

The other aspect that was against going to restaurants in the mind of those who were comparing the Church's policies with the letter of the Law was the fact that church members were “hiring” others to work on the Sabbath not only to prepare their food, but to serve their food. The hiring wage was, of course, the cost asked for for the food and for the service at the end of the meal.

Another controversial argument involving the proper observance of the Sabbath had to do with travel to and from services. According to the letter of the Law, the Israelites were to stay put – an impossibility. The use of motorized vehicles was also considered work. After all, if picking off grains of corn was work, how much moreso was operating a motor vehicle to go to church? Not only just thaat – but if you want to get extraordinarily technical about it, the act of starting a fire is forbidden by the letter of the Law on the Sabbath, and members traveling to church did just that by starting their vehicles, by the process of internal combustion in their vehicles.

If that was not controversial enough, members of the church were engaged in other forms of “work” on the Sabbath to prepare for services both before and after. There was set-up for services in the normally-rented halls that were not prepared for the Sabbath Services. This included set-up and also tear-down of the metal folding chairs (If this isn't work, what is?), the set-up of hymnals, the movement in place of the podium, set-up and tear down of large choir risers (and associated sound equipment), set-up and tear-down of the information tables, the library and the tape library, any other job that required labor to get things ready for the service. All of this was deemed necessary because the of the Church's policy to rent bare structures instead of building their own local church buildings, where these things would be nearly completely ready for services, with the very fewest of exceptions.
Of course, there was also the work that was most laborous involved in the set-up and service of the church's after-church potlucks. Tables had to be set up, food had to be prepared, along with the drinks, served, then taken down and the areas cleaned somewhat after the potluck was completed.

All of this, in the view of many, seemed very hypocritical in light of the strict condemnation of other forms of “work” that were not Sabbath related, such as sporting activities, school events, fun outings, games, and the like. What seemed to set these events apart from events that were seen as acceptable was “who” the work was for – or “Who” the work was for - regardless of the instructions that the same “Who” gave for how His Sabbath was to be observed in the letter of the law. Since the Church believed that in the New Testament, it was the Spirit of the Law, not the Letter of the law- along with the application of the law that changed, they felt they had the authority to issue their own judgements and criteria concerning the Sabbath themselves, with the blessing of God concering the “binding” and “loosing” of judgements. Such a structure was highly controversial among most members throughout the term of Armstrongism.