Eating out on the Lord's Day

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andres

Puritan Board Doctor
Is the following analogy correct or is it reaching too far?

When we go out to eat on the Lord's Day, we are causing others to sin because we are causing them to work unnecessarily. This is akin to hiring a hit-man to carry out a murder. While you may not be sinning directly, you are still playing a role in causing someone else to sin and therefore you are guilty as well.

I am trying to think along the lines of people who would argue that employees at restaurants "are going to work anyway so it doesn't make a difference if I eat there or not."
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I am not sure the hit-man analogy will gain you any traction with those who differ with you on the Sabbath issue, but might rather encourage them to dismiss your view even more since you have equated lunch with murder.

Maybe a better method might be to focus on loving our neighbor and wishing that they, too, could be part of our wekly fellowship - an impossible thing if they were standing by at the restaurant to serve the huge church crowd as soon as church lets out.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
The 4th does say "On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates"..... so if someone is serving in any manner not related to acts of mercy or need etc then they are acting as servants who should rest.
 

Andres

Puritan Board Doctor
I am not sure the hit-man analogy will gain you any traction with those who differ with you on the Sabbath issue, but might rather encourage them to dismiss your view even more since you have equated lunch with murder.

Maybe a better method might be to focus on loving our neighbor and wishing that they, too, could be part of our wekly fellowship - an impossible thing if they were standing by at the restaurant to serve the huge church crowd as soon as church lets out.

You're right Perg that one would have to be careful in using this analogy not to offend. In the past, when I have said something along the lines of wishing the waitress at the restaurant could come to church instead of working, I am often countered with, "no, she wants to work, that's why she's there. If she wanted off for church, she would have taken off." This is partly why I am trying to think through a different angle to explain why we shouldn't eat out on the Lord's Day.
 

Andres

Puritan Board Doctor
The 4th does say "On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates"..... so if someone is serving in any manner not related to acts of mercy or need etc then they are acting as servants who should rest.

So would you agree with my analogy? I would take your position Sarah, that the server in a restaurant is sinning by working the unnecessary job on the Lord's Day. But the problem for people I talk to is that even when they buy that position, they don't see their eating there as being sinful since they aren't the one working.
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
I am not sure the hit-man analogy will gain you any traction with those who differ with you on the Sabbath issue, but might rather encourage them to dismiss your view even more since you have equated lunch with murder.

Maybe a better method might be to focus on loving our neighbor and wishing that they, too, could be part of our wekly fellowship - an impossible thing if they were standing by at the restaurant to serve the huge church crowd as soon as church lets out.

Lunch is murder, though ... chicken murder!

View attachment 3026
 

Caroline

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am not sure the hit-man analogy will gain you any traction with those who differ with you on the Sabbath issue, but might rather encourage them to dismiss your view even more since you have equated lunch with murder.

Maybe a better method might be to focus on loving our neighbor and wishing that they, too, could be part of our wekly fellowship - an impossible thing if they were standing by at the restaurant to serve the huge church crowd as soon as church lets out.

You're right Perg that one would have to be careful in using this analogy not to offend. In the past, when I have said something along the lines of wishing the waitress at the restaurant could come to church instead of working, I am often countered with, "no, she wants to work, that's why she's there. If she wanted off for church, she would have taken off." This is partly why I am trying to think through a different angle to explain why we shouldn't eat out on the Lord's Day.

I think that it is extremely naive to assume that people who work on Sunday want to work on Sunday, especially low-income people. I had one job when I was a teen that I specifically asked for Sunday off, and they gave it to me.... for two months, and then they told me I had to start working Sundays or lose my job. My husband used to work for the restaurant business, and that restaurant wouldn't even hire someone who said they wouldn't work Sundays.

I'd just say that it is best not to be part of the problem. If it were not for the big after-church crowds, restaurants would be a lot more flexible about letting waiters and waitresses take Sunday off.
 

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
What if the waitress is Jewish or Muslim (or SDA, for that matter). Does that reduce it to manslaughter?
 

Martin

Puritan Board Freshman
Eating out on the Sabbath is something I have been working over lately so I am interested in this thread.

so if someone is serving in any manner not related to acts of mercy or need etc then they are acting as servants who should rest.

I have a thought as to where do we draw the line? For example, why use electricity? Someone has to be at the plant to monitor the nuclear reactor or the coal and boiler. I would not say electricity would be of necessity. People 100+ years ago would have food preservation methods that did not need electricity ( salt pork, cellars, canning, etc.), wood burning stoves for heat and cooking and such. Just a thought.
 

Caroline

Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, electricity may not have been a necessity 100+ years ago. But I do not have a wood burning stove, and I can't remotely afford to have one installed, nor do I think my landlord would allow it. I also do not know any food-preserving techniques. I think electricity is a necessity now. I don't think anyone would argue that children and elderly (or anyone, for that matter) should be left with no heat in zero degree winter weather on the Sabbath, with the risk of freezing to death. Whether we like it or not, times have changed, and people do not have the resources to do without electricity as they used to. Whenever there are power-outages during very hot or very cold weather, there are deaths.

In that sense, I think electricity production is just as much as necessity as medical care (which, incidentally, also depends upon electricity to keep ventilators and other medical equipment going). No one dies from eating at home instead of at Cracker Barrel on Sunday.
 

Martin

Puritan Board Freshman
In that sense, I think electricity production is just as much as necessity as medical care (which, incidentally, also depends upon electricity to keep ventilators and other medical equipment going). No one dies from eating at home instead of at Cracker Barrel on Sunday.

I would agree. Hospitals, nursing homes, and such I would think would be a necessity or at least a great act of mercy. As for electricity to homes, for example in 1935 less than one percent of Mississippi’s farms and rural residents had electric power, so to say that it is a necessity would be somewhat a new concept (though I greatly appreciate it during our summers!). So to say that an operator at a plant has to work and miss church to keep the electricity coming to our homes for our comfort is a necessity is not quite correct. It is a modern convenience, and in the history of the world a somewhat new convenience. I know that you cannot leave a nuclear reactor unattended, and I am not necessarily advocating we all become Amish. Just flushing out a thought.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I think this thread seems not to be about the 4th Commandment itself and its legitimacy, but rather about the best way to promote honor for the Sabbath and how best to convince others of the general doctrine.

As a general principle I have found that people object to defences of the Sabbath which rely upon arguing mainly from OT texts or Isaiah or by focusing on the "can'ts" of the Sabbath. People seem to respond best to pleas based on the general principle that we ought to love our neighbor and provide opportunities and not hindrances for our neighbors to worship God with the assembled saints.

It also seems best to pre-emptively explain that societies still have aspects which need to function on the Sabbath such that police and nurses and firemen can work and perform acts of mercy and necessity, so that your hearer does not hold onto these things as mental roadblocks to acceptance of the ongoing nature of the Sabbath. I would also avoid advocating civil penalties for Sabbath-breaking lest the hearer is given unecessary reasons to recoil at the doctrine.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
The 4th does say "On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates"..... so if someone is serving in any manner not related to acts of mercy or need etc then they are acting as servants who should rest.

So would you agree with my analogy? I would take your position Sarah, that the server in a restaurant is sinning by working the unnecessary job on the Lord's Day. But the problem for people I talk to is that even when they buy that position, they don't see their eating there as being sinful since they aren't the one working.

I would agree with your analogy in that they approve of the sins of others and give rise to that sin by eating at the restaurant which Romans 1:32 (Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them ") condemns. I guess I don't understand their position entirely. Either they believe in the 4th or they don't. They can't have it both ways by cutting it in half and leaving part of it intact for themselves and ridding themselves of the other half when it comes to other ppl. Even when I didn't believe in the Sabbath I never cut the law in half saying I can follow the 4th but I'm not going let others do so. I have to say that would be very selfish indeed to allow rest from their own work to enjoy the Sabbath but not allow rest to others for the studying of God's word or other writings and fellowship with the brethren not to mention they have just sliced and diced God's law and approve of such things in others.

If they don't believe in the 4th, well then you have a whole set of problems on your hands. It took me a long time to believe the 4th was necessary and I still am not the hardcore 4th keeper as maybe some others are. What convinced me of keeping the 4th was John Calvin. As others thought so did I in the past on his softness of the 4th. But he wasn't I just didn't understand him rightly at the time, bc I was so focused on proving the 4th was no longer valid physically and it was a spiritual rest from our works. What I did see in his writings at the time that did convince and maybe will help your friends is this: (remember this is what I thought back a few years ago)... "he didn't really care if ppl wanted to make Sundays the Sabbath bc taking at least one day to do nothing but spend time in church and dedicating oneself to the things of God was the most profitable thing to do for oneself and to not keep others from doing such things." And so I slowly came around to keeping the 4th on such an idea. What a wonderful concept it would be to devote one day completely to God and to allow others the same benefit. It rang true to my heart even though my mind continued to reject that it was called the Sabbath. After sometime I eventually just accepted the Sabbath as being such and not too long ago my pastor gave the best reason why the Sabbath day was changed from Sat to Sun. It use to be Sun because God rested from his work after working six days and commanded that we mimic his actions. Then it changed to Sun bc Christ died and rose again bringing in a new era where we rest from our work right out of the horse gait without ever starting to work for salvation and rest in his work (of course, my pastor said it much better than i just have)...BAM! It connected with me finally bc it was the change of days that kept tripping me up. OK I've gotten off topic. ahem...

I would ask them this: "What about the Sabbath do you (that is your friend) believe or not believe or how would you define the Sabbath?" Allow them to state their position so that they can see from their own words how flawed their view on the Sabbath really is when you do explain it to them. Then I would ask them why they want to go out to eat on the Sabbath. Is it to have fellowship with the brethren? If so, what a better way of showing love through action than to prepare a home cooked meal for those same brethren in an atmosphere of quietness where they can enjoy each in Christ? If it is more a cultural thing as it is in the south, then maybe show them God's law prevails over culture. If it is just a treat, encourage them to treat themselves on another day. They may have an entirely different reason for doing it which you'll have to address. However, it all comes down to "are you making the Sabbath God-centered or self-centered?"
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
The 4th does say "On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates"..... so if someone is serving in any manner not related to acts of mercy or need etc then they are acting as servants who should rest.

So would you agree with my analogy? I would take your position Sarah, that the server in a restaurant is sinning by working the unnecessary job on the Lord's Day. But the problem for people I talk to is that even when they buy that position, they don't see their eating there as being sinful since they aren't the one working.

I would agree with your analogy in that they approve of the sins of others and give rise to that sin by eating at the restaurant which Romans 1:32 (Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them ") condemns. I guess I don't understand their position entirely. Either they believe in the 4th or they don't. They can't have it both ways by cutting it in half and leaving part of it intact for themselves and ridding themselves of the other half when it comes to other ppl. Even when I didn't believe in the Sabbath I never cut the law in half saying I can follow the 4th but I'm not going let others do so. I have to say that would be very selfish indeed to allow rest from their own work to enjoy the Sabbath but not allow rest to others for the studying of God's word or other writings and fellowship with the brethren not to mention they have just sliced and diced God's law and approve of such things in others.

If they don't believe in the 4th, well then you have a whole set of problems on your hands. It took me a long time to believe the 4th was necessary and I still am not the hardcore 4th keeper as maybe some others are. What convinced me of keeping the 4th was John Calvin. As others thought so did I in the past on his softness of the 4th. But he wasn't I just didn't understand him rightly at the time, bc I was so focused on proving the 4th was no longer valid physically and it was a spiritual rest from our works. What I did see in his writings at the time that did convince and maybe will help your friends is this: (remember this is what I thought back a few years ago)... "he didn't really care if ppl wanted to make Sundays the Sabbath bc taking at least one day to do nothing but spend time in church and dedicating oneself to the things of God was the most profitable thing to do for oneself and to not keep others from doing such things." And so I slowly came around to keeping the 4th on such an idea. What a wonderful concept it would be to devote one day completely to God and to allow others the same benefit. It rang true to my heart even though my mind continued to reject that it was called the Sabbath. After sometime I eventually just accepted the Sabbath as being such and not too long ago my pastor gave the best reason why the Sabbath day was changed from Sat to Sun. It use to be Sun because God rested from his work after working six days and commanded that we mimic his actions. Then it changed to Sun bc Christ died and rose again bringing in a new era where we rest from our work right out of the horse gait without ever starting to work for salvation and rest in his work (of course, my pastor said it much better than i just have)...BAM! It connected with me finally bc it was the change of days that kept tripping me up. OK I've gotten off topic. ahem...

I would ask them this: "What about the Sabbath do you (that is your friend) believe or not believe or how would you define the Sabbath?" Allow them to state their position so that they can see from their own words how flawed their view on the Sabbath really is when you do explain it to them. Then I would ask them why they want to go out to eat on the Sabbath. Is it to have fellowship with the brethren? If so, what a better way of showing love through action than to prepare a home cooked for those same brethren in an atmosphere of quietness where they can enjoy each in Christ? If it is more a cultural thing as it is in the south, then maybe show them God's law prevails over culture. If it is just a treat, encourage them to treat themselves on another day. They may have an entirely different reason for doing it which you'll have to address. However, it all comes down to "are you making the Sabbath God-centered or self-centered?"

OPC'in:

You wrote:

Either they believe in the 4th or they don't

I would suggest that the issue is more complicated than that.

One can believe that the 4th commandment abides forever and is part of the moral alw which will never be abrogated and still disagree about how one ought to apply Sabbath-keeping.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
OPC'in:

You wrote:

Either they believe in the 4th or they don't

I would suggest that the issue is more complicated than that.

One can believe that the 4th commandment abides forever and is part of the moral alw which will never be abrogated and still disagree about how one ought to apply Sabbath-keeping.

I agree but I would see that as more of a list of do's and don'ts'. It sounds like his friends affirm parts of the law in that they will not work themselves (the first part of the law), but don't affirm the second part of the law (servants should rest too) and also help others to break the law by not allowing their fellow man to rest. That type of behavior isn't a matter of how one should keep the Sabbath, but instead, it is actually breaking the law and allowing others to break the law. Running a restaurant isn't an act of mercy or need etc period. The saying "Well they will work whether I come here or not" is not a valid argument in any form. Even though we cannot control the actions of others, going out to eat on the Sabbath makes you a law breaker in two manners: you are not allowing others the opportunity to rest and you are giving approval to their law breaking.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Sarah,

Like I have said before, the route of charging one with law-breaking seems not as effective in gaining love for the Sabbath as appealing to love towards fellow man and enabling others to worship with us.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Sarah,

Like I have said before, the route of charging one with law-breaking seems not as effective in gaining love for the Sabbath as appealing to love towards fellow man and enabling others to worship with us.

Can you explain what you mean by "as appealing to love towards fellow man" in regards to the Sabbath before I comment?
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Sarah,

Like I have said before, the route of charging one with law-breaking seems not as effective in gaining love for the Sabbath as appealing to love towards fellow man and enabling others to worship with us.

Ok, I kept rereading what you said and I think I know what you mean. I don't think one can show love towards another person by not showing how they are breaking the law. I don't believe that's a loving thing to do. You would have never won me over to Sabbath keeping by just showing me love. It was everyone around me telling me how I was breaking the law and then telling me the joys of keep the Sabbath and the grace that God extends towards us in keeping the Sabbath bc we all break all the laws all the time (and my own trying to disprove the Sabbath) that was the instrument that God used to change my heart.
 
Last edited:

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
With a bit of forethought, and buying enough food on the six days, there is no necessity to eat out on the Sabbath.

Electricity is a different matter. If it wasn't for electricity supplied from power stations - and everyone had their own generator - there would be more work to do on the Sabbath.

Pergy
I would also avoid advocating civil penalties for Sabbath-breaking lest the hearer is given unecessary reasons to recoil at the doctrine.

The reason that the death penalty was attached to presumptuous Sabbath breaking under Moses - in the context the man collecting sticks on the Sabbath was being presumptuous, but such behaviour would not be presumptuous today - was to teach the Israelites that without a sacrifice for sin there was no remission of sins. Under the Mosaic ceremonial law, being a shadow, there was no typological expiatory sacrifice for presumptuous sins.

People like kings David and Manasseh, who committed offences for which there was no typological expiatory sacrifice, had to not just look through the types to Christ, but beyond the types to Christ.

See e.g. Patrick Fairbairn "The Sin Offering" in his "Typology of Scripture", and e.g. Roy Gane's commentary on Numbers: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leviticus-N...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345457839&sr=1-1

In a modern Christian society there would possibly be heavy fines for opening shop, workplace or restaurant on the Lord's Day.

There should also be church sanctions where there is presumptuous Sabbath-breaking today.
 
Last edited:

J. Dean

Puritan Board Junior
Is the following analogy correct or is it reaching too far?

When we go out to eat on the Lord's Day, we are causing others to sin because we are causing them to work unnecessarily. This is akin to hiring a hit-man to carry out a murder. While you may not be sinning directly, you are still playing a role in causing someone else to sin and therefore you are guilty as well.

I am trying to think along the lines of people who would argue that employees at restaurants "are going to work anyway so it doesn't make a difference if I eat there or not."
Depends on your view of the Sabbath. Since not all Christians (even among the Reformed) are not convinced that Sunday is to be treated as the Sabbath (like me-see Colossians 2:16, among other Scriptural reason), we believe that it isn't a sin.
 

Elizabeth

Puritan Board Sophomore
"Depends on your view of the Sabbath."

For certain. What I find odd are the folks who say ''no eating out'', but will watch TV on the Sabbath. Surely partaking of TV causes many more people to work than stopping by a diner for lunch after services. :2cents:
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
Depends on your view of the Sabbath. Since not all Christians (even among the Reformed) are not convinced that Sunday is to be treated as the Sabbath (like me-see Colossians 2:16, among other Scriptural reason), we believe that it isn't a sin.

But this is a confessional board, so I would ask that you not promote a view contrary to the confessions.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
"Depends on your view of the Sabbath."

For certain. What I find odd are the folks who say ''no eating out'', but will watch TV on the Sabbath. Surely partaking of TV causes many more people to work than stopping by a diner for lunch after services. :2cents:

I don't watch tv on the Sabbath only bc it's a time I dedicate to God and his ppl
 

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What if people are members of a church 140 miles from home and regularly attend a morning and a mid-afternoon service at that church, and what if usually, they pack a lunch for themselves to eat between services (and they also pack their Christian books, for they will have a couple of hours on their own), or they are invited to someone's home for lunch - but sometimes, this just doesn't pan out? When the weather is not conducive to sitting in one's car for two or two and a half hours because it's either well below freezing or extremely hot, and - at least I - have a severe aversion to inviting myself to someone's home for lunch, then what is it proper to do? This presents a real problem on occasion...
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Is the following analogy correct or is it reaching too far?

When we go out to eat on the Lord's Day, we are causing others to sin because we are causing them to work unnecessarily. This is akin to hiring a hit-man to carry out a murder. While you may not be sinning directly, you are still playing a role in causing someone else to sin and therefore you are guilty as well.

I am trying to think along the lines of people who would argue that employees at restaurants "are going to work anyway so it doesn't make a difference if I eat there or not."
Depends on your view of the Sabbath. Since not all Christians (even among the Reformed) are not convinced that Sunday is to be treated as the Sabbath (like me-see Colossians 2:16, among other Scriptural reason), we believe that it isn't a sin.

I used to use this Scripture as one of my strongest, supportive Scripture to deny the Sabbath, but you look at the rest of Scripture and also this Scripture closely, it doesn't support it. I did months and months and months of studying on it using different theologians and found it in the end to not work. For one, if you take the whole of Col 2, you see that the is speaking of "holidays" or festivals" and ceremonial washings etc and that is why it says "a" Sabbath and not "The" Sabbath. I went through ALL of the OT Scripture concerning EVERY Sabbath to prove it was The Sabbath and it just isn't.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
What if people are members of a church 140 miles from home and regularly attend a morning and a mid-afternoon service at that church, and what if usually, they pack a lunch for themselves to eat between services (and they also pack their Christian books, for they will have a couple of hours on their own), or they are invited to someone's home for lunch - but sometimes, this just doesn't pan out? When the weather is not conducive to sitting in one's car for two or two and a half hours because it's either well below freezing or extremely hot, and - at least I - have a severe aversion to inviting myself to someone's home for lunch, then what is it proper to do? This presents a real problem on occasion...

I have a HUGE HUGE aversion to inviting myself to ppl's homes bc of my pride, but I would do it if I had to even though it's a hard task indeed! However, I would have a hard time thinking that the pastor wouldn't be extremely happy to have you over to his home EVERY Sunday if needed. I would also think (we would at our church) that he would talk to the congregation about your need. It's what the church does and it's our joyful duty to God and his ppl.
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I believe we should look at the "work of necessity" clause in the confessions. In our convenience driven society, we blur the line of what is a necessity and convenience. To eat and drink on Sunday is a necessity. To have a four course dinner served to you because you think you deserve it, is not. Sometimes, or should I say most of the time we can prepare some eats in advance. Sometimes we have to deal with the unexpected. Let conscience make your decision, not convenience.
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
I have a HUGE HUGE aversion to inviting myself to ppl's homes bc of my pride, but I would do it if I had to even though it's a hard task indeed! However, I would have a hard time thinking that the pastor wouldn't be extremely happy to have you over to his home EVERY Sunday if needed. I would also think (we would at our church) that he would talk to the congregation about your need. It's what the church does and it's our joyful duty to God and his ppl.

When I attended the OPC church in Birmingham, AL, my drive was 55 miles each way. The people were so very good to me and one other man who lived in my area. We always had a place to go for lunch. I will likely remember this hospitality as long as I live.

However, some congregations don't seem to do this as well. I am not exactly sure how this can be encouraged if you are not in a position to be an example yourself. What I mean is that a college student may understand the value of hospitality, and wish to be hospitable in this way, but can't very well host a family in his college dorm room* so that he can set the example for others.

Example is often the best way to learn these matters. Some congregations set this example; some don't so much. We need to be working toward a congregational culture of Sabbath fellowship at homes, rather than Sabbath fellowship at restaurants.

*I was only using this to make the point. It would be unwise to live in a college dorm, in my opinion.
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
I believe we should look at the "work of necessity" clause in the confessions. In our convenience driven society, we blur the line of what is a necessity and convenience. To eat and drink on Sunday is a necessity. To have a four course dinner served to you because you think you deserve it, is not. Sometimes, or should I say most of the time we can prepare some eats in advance. Sometimes we have to deal with the unexpected. Let conscience make your decision, not convenience.

Yes. And I would say that addressing matters in the way you have articulated would eliminate 98% of these instances. We can discuss the unexpected and extraordinary 2% to see if they fall under mercy and necessity.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
I have a HUGE HUGE aversion to inviting myself to ppl's homes bc of my pride, but I would do it if I had to even though it's a hard task indeed! However, I would have a hard time thinking that the pastor wouldn't be extremely happy to have you over to his home EVERY Sunday if needed. I would also think (we would at our church) that he would talk to the congregation about your need. It's what the church does and it's our joyful duty to God and his ppl.

When I attended the OPC church in Birmingham, AL, my drive was 55 miles each way. The people were so very good to me and one other man who lived in my area. We always had a place to go for lunch. I will likely remember this hospitality as long as I live.

However, some congregations don't seem to do this as well. I am not exactly sure how this can be encouraged if you are not in a position to be an example yourself. What I mean is that a college student may understand the value of hospitality, and wish to be hospitable in this way, but can't very well host a family in his college dorm room* so that he can set the example for others.

Example is often the best way to learn these matters. Some congregations set this example; some don't so much. We need to be working toward a congregational culture of Sabbath fellowship at homes, rather than Sabbath fellowship at restaurants.

*I was only using this to make the point. It would be unwise to live in a college dorm, in my opinion.

I'm assuming she's going to a reformed church where they practice the Sabbath and her pastor would encourage her to do so. I assumed this bc of her interest in how to make it work. I guess only she can say whether or not she does. I dont think it does anyone any justice for Sabbath keepers to come up with "what if's" unless it is an actual problem to solve, don't you agree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top