Over the months that my web page has been up, I received some communication from a fellow (I'll call him "Joe") who was contemplating joining one of the Worldwide Church of God offshoots. We had several e-mail communications. We discussed the nature of law, the 10 commandments, and the Sabbath. I sent the following 10 page letter, which outlines my view of of how a Christian relates to law. It is not a theological treatis, rather it is a personal accounting of the highlights of 30 years of living from "law-and-Christ" premise.
Don't bother reading this if you want
It is rather an account of "law keeping" from the inside and how I came to realize that this premise was wrong.
[Written July, 1997 with minor revisions since - the last one being 5/24/98]
Dear Joe,
One of your friends wrote this:
If there is no need for the law than we can do anything we want. Look at 1 John 3:4 in the bible. "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." (NIV)
Anyone who says the law is done away is promoting sin, or lawlessness. If there is no law, why even bother studying the Bible or going to Church? You can do anything you want. You can murder, steal, and dump your wife for a new one every two years like you trade cars.
And you asked me "Do you see the lack of logic in this theology?"
So my purpose in this fairly lengthy letter is to explain, in my own words, my understanding of the function of law in a Christian's life, and to give you an insight into what my life was like when the Worldwide Church of God had a different view of law - the view that many Sabbatarians seem to hold and many of the offshoots of the Worldwide Church of God seem to hold. At the outset, I will say that that life was positive - this is not a treatise in bashing our old understanding or bashing those who still have that understanding. Yet I came to realize that there are Christian theological flaws in the reasoning outlined in the communication above.
When I started my journey into the Worldwide Church of God in 1964, I was attracted by the fact that the Worldwide Church of God was presenting things about the Bible that no one else seemed to know. Also, there was a preaching style and writing style that communicated life and zeal, that was generally not a part the Christian experience of my youth. The focus was on Christianity as a way of life, and I found that attractive
But the real hook was knowing things that other people didn't seem to know - so there was a good bit of vanity and self-righteousness at the start. What initially caught my attention was the statement that Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong made on the on the broadcast: "The Bible never promises heaven as the reward of the saved." This was my introduction to the millennial thrust of the Worldwide Church of God message. The millennium and the associated prophecies (with added speculation) was presented as the Gospel.
As I continued my study with the Worldwide Church of God throughout the late 60's (my college years) I learned many other things that the Worldwide Church of God seemed to know that the rest of Christianity didn't seem to know. There was the correct mode of baptism, the United States and Britain in prophecy, the Sabbath and Holy Days, and tithing (including tithes to cover Holy Day attendance and tithes for an in-house welfare system).
All of these special truths were bricks in "my old house" (if you remember my web page). Yet, to this day, I remember studying Mr. Armstrong's booklet, "What Do You Mean Salvation?" and being emotionally moved to make a commitment to God, and become baptized. The booklet described salvation imperfectly in the light of what I know now. [3/7/2000 - See my analysis of this booklet in this site.] But the message that Christ forgives our sins; that this is a gift; and that we must commit our lives to him was clear. I kept studying Worldwide Church of God literature along with the Bible. At the last Sabbath of 1969 I was baptized.
I kept studying. By the mid 70's I was giving sermonettes (short sermons) in Church services. The speaking experience and my teacher training was good for me in that I genuinely tried to make sure everything I said was sound logically and theologically. I never said anything I didn't believe at the time. I did a lot of study on my own, though I would refer to in-house literature in studying almost any topic.
Sometimes the process of study would turn up a weak brick in my house. So when a brick seemed weak, I would look at the surrounding bricks, and say "Well the structure as a whole seems sound, so this brick must belong." This is what anyone does with their world view; I don't think it's unsound thinking.
Most of these weak bricks dealt with the idea of why we do what we do - in other words - the nature of law.
I discovered one "weak brick" very early on - before I even attended Church. When I first learned of the Holy Days, I was concerned about how to keep the seven day spring season (Days of Unleavened Bread) and the eight day fall festival (Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day). The concern being fifteen days of time off from work - impossible for a teacher. I was relieved when the a minister told me that I only had to take off for the fall festival. When I asked him for a scriptural justification for taking one group of days off and not the other, his answer was totally economic - people who took that much time off found it difficult to hold a job. I subsequently tried to find a scriptural basis for this; I may have found one; but I don't recall what it was right now. But the general thinking was - there were a lot of strong bricks, so this brick that I thought was weak, (scriptural justification for how to keep the holy days now), must really be part of the building.
All in all, however, I never had a clear idea of how we decide what to do and what not to do. There were others who didn't either, and many "jumped ship" on one side or the other. Some left the Church because they felt we should be keeping the new moons; others left because they felt we should make tabernacles for the Feast of Tabernacles out of tree branches as it says in the Old Testament. And some came to see that historical grace-based Christianity was biblical after all, and they "jumped ship" on the other side.
A most striking example of grappling with the idea of why we do what we do was probably only 5 years ago when I was pondering what kind of a law unclean meats was. I wasn't much interested in eating greasy pork, and the looks of a lobster doesn't attract me at all. But, I thought "Why should a physical health law be important enough to be on our list of basic doctrines." If it were a "health law", it seemed that I could abuse my body a lot more by being a couch potato than eating the bacon bits on my salad. I asked a question about this at our church Bible study once, and gist of the answer, as I remember it, was "It's just one of the things God says to do." It wasn't a really satisfying answer. I pondered it some more, and over a few months I decided "The other bricks are solid; this is the Church God seems to be working in; so the meats law must be a brick that should be there." I simply personally decided that I would use this law to remind me that I was called of God. I couldn't see it as a health law that was more important than exercise and a balanced diet. (So much has happened in our church that this seems a lot longer than 5 years ago!)
Another brick that I discovered to be weak was our definition of the Gospel. Much of the 70's and 80's preaching of the Church related to preaching the Millennium. It was the Gospel - no question about it. We even said for years, that the gospel about the person of Christ was a "false gospel." By the mid 70's a significant number of members and ministers got onto the present New Covenant teaching and left the Church. One issue of the time was our commission - the preaching of the millennial Kingdom. I read through the book of Acts, I think, at the time - or perhaps some Epistles - I'm not sure which now. And I found that "this millennium stuff" (please excuse my irreverence) was not pounded in the New Testament writings like the Worldwide Church of God pounded it. Instead, the sacrifice of Christ, and its meaning for us was emphasized over and over. My own personal house needed a little shoring up at that time with this realization. I simply decided that the Government of God, and the sacrifice of Christ were all "parts of" the Gospel message. What happened here is very important, but I didn't understand it until 20 years later. The lesson is that you have to be careful when pulling out a verse here and a verse there and building a theology. When you read whole New Testament books through you don't get narrow denominational points of view; you get what is really important. Joe, I strongly urge that you try this - read Acts all the way through. And/or pick a couple of the major epistles and read them through for the overview of how Paul and other New Testament writers see Christianity. There will always be questions - mainly because we don't always understand the historical setting - but try to discern what the clear thrust of the New Testament message is.
Back in 1976, there was another onslaught of people leaving the Worldwide Church of God - in England primarily. But I got wind of an acquaintance in Milwaukee who said that he had read the book of Galatians and could not fit that book into Worldwide Church of God theology. I read the book through and could see the same. The thrust of the book, not just a verse here and there, seemed to conflict with Worldwide Church of God theology. As it happened, I spent 5 weeks at Ambassador College in Pasadena that summer - the one time they offered a summer program for the general membership. I took a class in the epistles of Paul and I chose the book of Galatians as my required background paper. Before the research began, each of us in class was asked what the topic of our paper was to be. I remember the teacher's response when I said I was going to do Galatians: "Well that should be interesting." (Greg Albrecht was the teacher. He is the current editor of the PT, and has had the responsibility, along with two others, of explaining the New Covenant teaching to the ministry.)
I picked Galatians as my study paper because I already knew it was tough from a Worldwide Church of God standpoint; and I picked it because of the incident of my friend leaving the Worldwide Church of God over what he read in Galatians.
It really WAS tough fitting our theology into Galatians! Galatians 4:10 was the big verse, because Galatians 4:10 seems to threaten the whole Sabbath/Holy Day framework. (Gal 4:10-11 NIV "You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! {11} I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
And the whole context of Galatians seemed to cast great doubts on the Worldwide Church of God view of law.
So what did I do on the paper? I did what any Worldwide Church of God speaker would do - and I did it sincerely. I found some verses that seemed to say that Paul kept the Sabbath in a Old Testament way. I found some verses that seemed to say that Paul kept the Holy Days in an Old Testament way. I found some verses that seemed to say that Paul supported law in the Old Testament sense. (The only law in real contention in my mind was the Sabbath, and to a lesser degree the Holy Days.) Then after using these verses to establish that Paul could not be doing away with the Sabbath and Holy Days, I found enough quotes from history books and enough background on the geographical area from Acts and theological books to substantiate that the Galatians had a dual problem - a Jewish influence and an pagan influence. The logic then is: Since Paul could not be doing away with the Sabbath and Holy Days, Galatians 4:10 must be referring to pagan days. So my conclusion on Galatians 4:10 was that Paul was correcting the Galatians for returning to pagan days.
It was difficult to put it all together this way because the weight of scholarship is on the side of Galatians 4:10 referring to Jewish days and because the weight of the context of the whole book certainly leans that way as well.
Greg gave me an A on the paper, but the whole topic continued to bother me - so much so, that in the next decade I gave a sermonette on the subject of Galatians 4:10 and gave a Spokesman Club (Church speech club) background talk on the subject. These were given because I was always suspicious of my own research in 1976, and the speaking opportunities were motivating tools to get me to re-study the topic. It bothered me so much, that every time I found a new translation of the Bible I would check out how they translated Galatians 4:10.
But my house held together - to a great degree because the Sabbath seemed to be a solid brick that could never be removed. The position of the Sabbath command in the 10 commandments seems to give it a solid base for being binding today. There are also many references to the Sabbath in the New Testament.
My background with the ten commandments goes back to the my teenage Lutheran days. I was taught the ten commandments, even before confirmation class. I am a logical person. If the ten commandments have a special position in our life then if the fourth one says "Keep the Sabbath", I'll keep the Sabbath. To repeat, this was the biggest, most solid brick in my house. It "proved" to me that much of Christianity was off-base and the "true" church was a very small group that did not include the broad majority of Christianity.
Believe me, in late '94 when it was clear that this brick was being chipped away at, I was alarmed because either I had to shore up my house against what the Worldwide Church of God was teaching or I had to tear down and rebuild. Either option would be traumatic.
My logic was exactly what you described in your last e-mail. If I can break the Sabbath, then can I also steal, lie and murder, or dump my wife for another. Despite the clarity of the fourth commandment, there were some questions on how to implement it in our society. "No work for 24 hours" seems easy enough - but not really. The Worldwide Church of God never had a list of do's and don'ts with regard to the Sabbath, but nevertheless there was a cultural understanding. For example, some recreation was OK as long as it wasn't too demanding physically. We might allow our kids to shoot buckets on the Sabbath but tell them "Remember, it's the Sabbath", which meant, "Don't get into a heavy sweat game." Recreation that other Christians did on Sunday was out - fishing, golfing, etc. We felt that the Biblical principle was that the Sabbath was a Holy Day, not a holiday.
The problem is, just plain living in a different culture required some puzzling choices. For example, "No servile work" required that member's businesses had to be closed down on the Sabbath. Nor could we pay non-church members to operate our businesses on the Sabbath. Yet most of us would go to a restaurant on the Sabbath - which included paying a waitperson a good part their wages. So it was OK to pay a waitperson for work done, but not OK to pay an employee for Saturday work. Furthermore, I remember telling our older kids that I didn't approve of going out the Dairy Queen on the Sabbath, but it was OK to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath. I did not give many sermonettes on the Sabbath because I did not want to justify my personal list of Sabbath do's and don'ts!
The Days of Unleavened bread were interesting from a speaker's standpoint. There really was nothing strange about not eating leavened products for seven days; it was no stranger than giving up something for the forty days of Lent. The only thing "strange" was that we were all faithful at it and we tried to do it somewhat alike. But it is interesting to reflect on the sermonettes I gave on preparing for the Days of Unleavened Bread. I probably gave a half a dozen of them in my speaking career. There was somewhat of an evolution of them. I remember in one of my first ones I told the congregation about sneaking the last of my leaven out to a park dumpster because garbage pickup wasn't timed correctly. This was in obedience to Exodus12:19 "Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses"
By the time I gave my last Days of Unleavened Bread preparation sermonette, I (and the Church) had come to realize that we couldn't make a list of do's and don'ts for the "how to keep" the Days of Unleavened Bread. The official teaching (paraphrased) was "Do enough to make it meaningful." and "Don't make it so much work that it dominates the meaning of the Days".
I cite these examples to show that a lawkeeping culture of the kind we were requires that each person avoid the two broad ways of self-righteousness and needless guilt. It took a really mature person to realize that in matters like Sabbath keeping and putting out leaven for the Days of Unleavened Bread require personal decision and, therefore, a personal commitment to not judge others who made different decisions. I resigned myself to that approach towards the end of the old Worldwide Church of God era - and was happy with it. My wife was happy with it - we pretty much agreed on our family list of do's and don'ts. Our children didn't always agree, but they were in our household, and we gave them more slack than we gave ourselves - enough to avoid a family blowup.
But it was very easy to become judgmental of how others kept the Sabbath, or other laws. To repeat, it is very difficult to avoid self-righteousness or needless guilt in a culture that emphasizes law-keeping.
So how did this all play out?
The New Covenant doctrine was announced in late 1994 in a three hour sermon by Mr. Joseph Tkach, Sr. So, as I already stated, I was faced with the decision of shoring up my house or tearing down and re-building. Most everyone described this period as a period of mourning - regardless of which camp we ended up in, our lives would never be the same.
The mourning came to a head for me in only a week or two. I don't find it easy to "cry on somebody else's shoulder" but this was serious, and as a leader in the local Church, I couldn't take too long deciding. So I sought the counsel of one who was not close to the situation - a fellow teacher and a fellow lay minister. He is a Baptist. I have observed his Christianity in action over many years, and I felt sure would give me insight into the nature of the ten commandments and law without a denominational theology lecture. (Let me remind you that Mr. Herbert Armstrong was likely baptized by a Baptist minister because he saw more sincerity in a particular Baptist preacher than in the Church of God ministers in the Oregon area.)
It was only a 15 minute "counseling session" and I only remember two things besides the expected sincerity of the man. First he said that "Christ is above the ten commandments" and secondly, as we parted he said "I'll pray for you." I did not understand the statement "Christ is above the ten commandments" very well at the time. The second statement gave me an assurance that the Worldwide Church of God was not the only group of Christians in town, and that assurance was supremely comforting.
The next day, Thursday, January 12, 1995, I took off work (which I never do) and fasted and prayed over the whole matter. I realized then that we do not treat the Bible as a mass of data that is to analyzed to come to a conclusion. We rather study the bible with a premise in mind and fit what read into that premise. Up until that point I had read the Bible from a "Christ-and-law" premise. I decided to read the Gospels from a "Christ-before-law" premise and tried to decide if what I read could be fit into that premise. I used a Harmony of the Gospels that used bold print to form a story flow from all four Gospels from beginning to end.
In my reading, one scripture jumped out at me, a statement of John the Baptist. "He must become greater; I must become less." (John 3:30 NIV). I realized that my identity was in what I DID. I did all the good things - faithful spending of time and money. But I had to say with John the Baptist "He (Christ) must become greater in importance and the things that I DO must become less important."
Even so, "What if this is wrong?", I thought. But I also thought, I've read enough of the Bible to know that it's hard to intellectually nail somebody's hide to the wall and make them admit that the New Testament justifies the kind of law keeping we were doing. I also knew the problems with making books like Galatians fit our theology. And I knew that even in a law keeping culture what really counted was what was inside, not what people saw on the outside. I have enough of an IQ to have gotten an A in most of the undergraduate physics classes I have taken. If I found these theological things hard to understand, what about my grandmother who could barely read English who raised 11 children, and went through the trials and triumphs of life reading the Bible everyday - and "kept" Sunday. Could I say that she is not a Christian because she accepted the Christ of the Lutheran Church and never learned to interpret the book of Galatians in the Worldwide Church of God way? I don't think the God we serve judges us on how well we understand the nature of law. If I was wrong I had faith in a God who would forgive me for being wrong.
So I made my decision. Yes, I could read the life of Christ from a "Christ-before-law" premise. It was a great relief.
And as I began life with my new "premise" (or in my new house) some things began to click.
Of course, other people also made their decisions. Families were split. The time of our annual Lord's Supper observance arrived in April. Several in our congregation chose to take the Lord's Supper with the Global Church of God or the United Church of God. I don't think I am simplifying if I say that these decisions were based on the fact that the Worldwide Church of God was saying that Saturday sunset-to-sunset was not holy time.
Where, I thought, is there any basis in the New Testament for splitting up families and splitting up the Lord's Supper over holy time? The New Testament THUNDERS Christ FIRST - "I am the WAY". Basing who we are to keep the Lord's Supper with on understanding of holy time is putting the commandments before Christ. I began to understand the statement from my friend, "Christ is above the ten commandments".
So does that mean we have no law? First we need to understand that Christ is a law to us. Paul mentions this: (Gal 6:2 NIV) "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." It is what Christ was talking about when he said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Mat 5:17 NIV)
How is Christ a law to us? My best explanation of "how" Christ is a law to us is my article "Living Today" . It shows that points of law are inadequate compared to Christ. Please read it again.
I will mention an analogy which I heard Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong give - probably a quarter century ago. This analogy is also mentioned in an article in the current Church of God International web site. [Since the this was originally written, Garner Ted Armstrong has been removed from leadership in the CGI.] He talked about a husband going off on a business trip. Mr. Armstrong said that the "no law folks" would argue "When I go off, I don't put ten rules on the fridge for my wife - like 'Don't entertain the milkman', 'Don't steal money from the household budget for yourself', etc. I don't put up these laws because my wife loves me." The "pro-law folks" would retort, "But with no law you couldn't complain if she did entertain the milkman, etc." It's the same argument that I quoted at the beginning of this letter.
The problem with this analogy is that any husband with any sense DOESN'T put commandments on the fridge before he leaves. In a marriage, relationship takes precedence over law. Paul's analogy of the Christ/church relationship to husband/wife is beautiful and sufficient. (Ephesians 5 - last part.) In a marriage any written list of laws is inadequate. The human experience with government should be enough to teach us that there are not enough laws to regulate human behavior. Go to any lawyer's office and see how many law books there are. What would you like in your marriage - 5 laws? -10 laws? - 100 laws? - or would you rather have a relationship?
And this gets to your original question on 1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."
Again, I have to say that Christ is a law. Christ before law is NOT lawlessness. My article "Living Today" explains this. Look at the New Testament sin lists and virtue lists - they are on my web site. Read the context of each of these verses in the lists - is their basis law? Do any of them go to the 10 commandments for justification? Or is their basis relationship with Christ? Check them out. I guarantee that no one in the Worldwide Church of God who believes in the sacrifice of Christ and its power has the impression that they can now do "anything they want".
Some might say, "Yes but there has to be SOME stated law, otherwise we wouldn't know what to do at all." That's not as strong an argument as you might think. There are a good many people in many cultures that have figured out that it's good to be faithful to your wife, good to not steal, good to tell the truth, etc. Even a gang member has a sense of loyalty to his clan. The opening chapters of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" elaborates on this internal law. I found this short book very interesting.
There is another thing that you will certainly think about. The new approach of the Worldwide Church of God "allows" more people to be included as Christians. Before this, the most conservative of us would say that Worldwide Church of God members are the only Christians - some "liberals" might have included other Sabbatarians. And the problem is, not all of those who claim they believe in Christ do Christian things. Many are not involved in preaching the Gospel. Many are not active in their Church. Many have little knowledge of the Bible. Many cannot recount a specific conversion experience. And there are many who are active in Churches yet they promote sexual lifestyles that are permitted in culture but prohibited in scripture.
Seeing all of this thirty years ago certainly gave credence to the idea that "what we need is law". How do we look at these Christians with whom we cannot agree? First, Christ is more important than being "right" in doctrine, so we should give other Christians leeway, even if we don't see eye-to-eye doctrinally. Secondly, we cannot judge other people's relationship with God; we only see the outside; God sees the inside.
Thirdly, there seems to be some plan for those who have neither accepted nor rejected the Gospel - and that seems to describe some people who call themselves Christians. Christ said to those who were crucifying him, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34 NIV) I would have to say that some of these people who witnessed Christ's crucifixion went to their graves still not knowing what they were doing. So will they yet have a "real" opportunity? My eternity section of my web page deals with this a bit, but there is not a clear-cut scriptural answer to the question of how those who have never had a real opportunity to accept or deny Christ before they die get saved.
We simply have to follow Christ, prayerfully seek God's will in our life, not judge, preach the Gospel as we have opportunity, help others find Christ and live like Christ, and wait for God to make it clear how it will all play out.
"Following Christ" may mean that we will be active in a Church like the WCG that has gone down an orthodox road - or be active in a mainstream Church - or not participate in any Church. Or it may mean that we will seek - and find - Christ in a legalistic culture like CGI or the "old" WCG. Such cultures have their problems. For me it was a problem theologically - as I have outlined. I never experienced financial or emotional hardship in the "old" WCG. God was merciful. I took off for the Feast twenty-seven times; teachers aren't supposed to have an easy time getting off for the Feast. I plan to continue to do so.
Most any Church can bring one to Christ - not all, because some are downright Satanic.
In coming up from Shreveport, my wife and I stopped at Arthur, Illinois which bills itself as a town displaying and selling the wares of Mennonite and Amish culture. I picked up a tri-fold brochure which describes a few things about them - including their view of Salvation. I quote this section below:
(From "Answers to Questions About The Amish and Mennonites" Published by Calvary Publications, Middlebury, IN.)
Most would describe the Amish culture as legalistic, because it is common knowledge that they have a great many do's and don'ts. Yet there are some in that culture who experience the joy of a simple life and have the salvation that the quote above describes. If Christ is first, and all the extra things they do add to their relationship with Christ, then they have the abundant life Christ promised in John 10:10. Those for whom legalistic rules take precedence over Christ do not have that life.
In legalistic cultures, there is a great tendency for the external acts to take precedence to Christ. The result of following this tendency is self-righteousness, judging one another, and needless guilt. When both ministry and members of a church have these problems, serious offences can occur because the fact that Christ died for all is overshadowed by rules and regulations. The offences that occur are extremely difficult to heal. I would not want that to happen to you or anyone. But, it is possible to find Christ wherever He is preached, because ultimately each of us has our own personal relationship with God.
In Christian love,
John Torgerson