AN OPEN LETTER TO PASTOR JOSEPH TKACH AND THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD
=====================================================================

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
Professor of Theology and Church History,
Andrews University


Dear Pastor Tkach:

	Thank you for your letter of January 31, where you raised some 
questions about my recent article: "A Church in Crisis: Causes and 
Lessons." Several of your supporters, both ministers and members of the 
Worldwide Church of God, have written to me expressing similar concerns. 
In the interest of time I have decided to prepare an open letter where I 
will endeavor to address some of the major points raised by these letters 
as well as the numerous posts that have appeared on the internet. For the 
sake of clarity, I will submit my response under major headings.

CANCELLATION OF SCHEDULED APRIL 29 MEETING

	After reading your letter I concur with you that the scheduled 
April 29 meeting at Andrews University would be unproductive. When you 
first proposed to meet with me, I assumed that your intention might be to 
reexamine and reconsider some of your doctrinal changes, especially your 
interpretation of the Sabbath and Holy Days in the light of your new 
covenant theology. My assumption was based on a brief telephone 
conversation I had with your Executive Editor, Dr. Herman L. Hoeh. He 
offered to review my latest book God's Festivals in Scripture and History 
and told me on the phone that he still holds to the validity and value of 
the Sabbath and Holy Days . His positive remarks, coupled with the 
excellent comment he wrote for my book, led me to believe that perhaps 
you also were rethinking some of the doctrinal changes you have 
introduced in your church at large. Thus I assumed that the purpose of 
your proposed visit might be to do some "damage control," by reexamining 
some aspects of your new theology.
	Your letter as well as your editorial "A Church Reborn" in the 
February issue of The Plain Truth make it abundantly clear to me that I 
had misunderstood your intentions. It is evident that you are not 
inclinedat this time to reexamine the method and the content of your 
doctrinal changes. This means that any dialogue between us would be 
fruitless. The most I can do at this point is to respond to some of the 
questions you and your supporters have raised, hoping that this might 
clarify some misunderstandings and stimulate some reflection. I wish to 
reassure you that I am writing this open letter as a caring Christian. I 
respect your convictions and your sincere desire to liberate your church 
from "a legalistic interpretation of the Old Testament" (The Plain Truth, 
February 1996, p. 1). I trust that we can disagree without becoming 
disagreeable to one another. Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue 
with you and your supporters through this open letter, which I wrote with 
a sincere desire to be helpful.

EXPLOITATION OF WCG CRISIS TO AVERT A SPLIT IN THE SDA CHURCH

	Let me begin by answering the allegation that my article exploits 
the crisis of the WCG by making it "the whipping boy to rally support 
around yours [that is, mine] traditionalist views." You believe that 
the "Seventh-day Adventist church is under stress" because "significant 
and foundational doctrines of the SDA church are being questioned from 
within." To warn my fellow Adventist church members of the potential 
danger deriving from Adventists who "do not embrace what many consider 
its distinctive doctrines," I am allegedly exploiting your crisis.
	I find this viewpoint unwarranted for two reasons. First, I am 
not aware that the unity of the Adventist church is being threaten by the 
questioning of "foundational doctrines" on the part of some. If you are 
thinking of the women's ordination issue agitated in recent years, you 
might be interested to know that such an issue is not a "foundational 
doctrine." It is not even included among our twenty-seven fundamental 
beliefs. The issue belongs to a small minority of feminists primarily 
in North America. I would dare to say that over 90% of our eight 
million Adventist members do not even know that such an issue exists in 
our church today. Recently I lectured for 10 days in San Paulo, Brazil, 
where we have over 200,000 members in the city alone. When I asked the 
pastors if they wanted me to address the issue of women's ordination, 
they replied , "Please do not waste our time. That is an American issue. 
For us it is not an issue."
	In my article I mention that "in recent memory some of our own 
best and brightest have challenged our teachings on the sanctuary, on 
prophetic interpretation, and on the Spirit of prophecy." The challenge 
to which I refer has come from a few individuals, such as Desmond Ford 
and Walter Rea, both of whom resigned from church employment and have 
faded into obscurity. As of now I do not know of any particular 
individual who is challenging "foundational doctrines" and threatening to 
split the Adventist church. The truth of the matter is that the threat 
to the future of the Adventist church today comes not so much from 
divisive theological controversies as from cultural conformity, that is, 
the pressure to conform to the secular values of our society and thus 
loose its identity and mission. In the light of these considerations I 
find the allegation that I used your church as the "whipping boy" to 
rally support against those who are challenging "foundational doctrines" 
to be unfounded.
	A second reason for rejecting your accusation is the fact that 
the intent of my brief survey of the developments which led to the crisis 
in your church was not to use your church as a "whipping boy," but 
rather to provide a much needed historical perspective on what can happen 
when a church adopts radical changes. I am a church historian by 
training and profession, and I like to look at developments from a 
historical perspective to see what lessons can be learned. The dictum 
"history repeats itself" is true because often we fail to learn the 
lessons that history teaches us.

A LESSON TO BE LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF OTHER CHURCHES

	Church history teaches us that introducing the kind of radical 
doctrinal and practical changes you and your father have brought to the 
WCG, can have devastating consequences. I am thinking especially of the 
changes dictated by your adopting the New Covenant theology which, as you 
put it, "resulted in our abandoning past requirements that Christians 
observe the seventh-day Sabbath as 'holy time,' . . . annual festivals . 
. . tithe . . . and that Christians must not eat foods that were 
'unclean' under the old Covenant" ("A Church Reborn," Plain Truth, 
February 1996, p. 1).
	Rather than taking time to discuss what has happened during the 
course of Christian history to churches that relaxed their doctrinal and 
moral standards, I will briefly refer to the classic study Why 
Conservative Churches Are Growing, by Dean M. Kelly, Executive Director 
for Religious Liberty, National Council of Churches. Kelly traced the 
growth pattern of six mainline American Protestant churches that had 
been growing for nearly two hundred years and then started going down. 
	In a nutshell Kelly's conclusion is that denominations stop 
growing and start declining when they relax their doctrinal and moral 
standards by reducing salvation to love and faith in Jesus Christ. In 
an article Kelly explained that "the trouble with these unstructured 
simplifications is that they're too easy. There is almost nothing you 
cannot justify doing, if you hold yourself to the criterion of love as 
you interpret it. It's too easy. It is too self-indulgent. Rather than 
being guilt-ridden, most of us are prone to be innocence-ridden, that is, 
to find justifications and excuses for doing what we want to do anyway. 
And if we can justify it in the name of love, all the better. These 
oversimplifications are inadequate because they deprive faith of its 
unique and necessary texture and practice and cost" (Dean M. Kelly, "How 
Adventism Can Stop Growing,"Adventists Affirm, Spring 1991, p. 49).

	How to Stop Growing. Kelly applied the conclusions of his research to 
our own Seventh-day Adventist church by asking: "How can the 
Seventh-day Adventist church stop growing?" His answer was 
very simple, " Be like the Methodists," (ibid. p. 49). By this 
he meant that if the Adventist church follows the example of the 
Methodist church which has gradually relaxed the high doctrinal 
and moral standards of early Methodism, it will eventually stop 
growing and start declining. Kelly cannot be accused of using 
the Methodist church as a "whipping boy" to warn the Adventist 
church, because he is himself a Methodist. He simply looked at 
his own church from a historical perspective and warned that 
what has happened to the Methodist church can happen to the 
Adventist church.
	It was in the same spirit that I wrote my article about 
the crisis of the WCG. My intent was to reflect on the 
lessons to be learned from the recent developments that have 
occurred in the WCG. I had no intention to exploit your crisis, 
but simply to understand the causes in order to learn how to 
avoid similar consequences. There is a big difference between 
examining the crisis of a church to learn possible lessons and 
exploiting such crisis to the advantage of one's own church.

THE LESSON OF HISTORY FOR THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD

	What concerns me, Pastor Tkach, is that you may be so 
involved in making history that it may be difficult for you to 
learn the lesson of history. You say, for example, "Gone are 
our obsession with a legalistic interpretation of the Old 
Testament. . . . We have embraced and now champion the New 
Testament's central theme: the life, death and resurrection of 
Jesus Christ. . . . We teach salvation by grace, based on faith 
alone, without resort to works of any kind" (The Plain Truth, 
February 1996, p. 1). By the way saving faith is never alone, 
because, as Paul puts it, it is a "faith working through love" 
(Gal 5:6). Your triumphalistic interpretation of the doctrinal 
changes you and your father have introduced to the WCG, may make 
it difficult for you at this point to understand the lesson of 
history, namely, that by rejecting your old doctrines and 
liberalizing church standards you may be paving the way for the 
gradual dismantling of your church. 
	The impression I get from reading the material you and 
your associates have produced is that you interpret the freedom 
of the Gospel as freedom for your members to pursue their 
inclinations. They are free to rest or to work on the Sabbath, 
they are free to go to church or to the shopping mall on the 
Sabbath, they are free to tithe or not to tithe, they are free 
to eat clean or unclean meat, they are free to observe pagan 
holidays like Easter and Christmas, or Biblical Holy Days like 
Passover and Tabernacles, they are free to use or not to use 
excessive cosmetics and jewelry.
	Several of the letters I received from your supporters 
express a sense of satisfaction over this new-found freedom. 
This was confirmed to me also by a recent conversation with a 
WCG member whom I met while visiting my son in Arlington, 
Virginia. When I asked him how he viewed the doctrinal changes 
of the WCG, he said: "I have no problems with them. They make 
my life much easier. Before I had problems with the Sabbath 
because of my job as a security officer. Now I have no more 
problems because I am free to do what I like. I can work on the 
Sabbath without any sense of guilt and I can go to church when I 
am free."
	
	Freedom of the Gospel. This interpretation of the 
freedom of the Gospel as freedom to pursue on the Sabbath one's 
personal pleasure and profit, rather than the presence and peace 
of God, can have disastrous consequences for the future of the 
WCG. It can weaken the commitment of your members to God and 
their church. Let me use an example to illustrate my point. 
Some time ago I was invited by the Seventh-day Baptist Church to 
speak in Rhode Island at a rally of about 50 of their pastors 
from the Eastern States. As I listened to the pastors 
discussing some of their doctrinal beliefs, it soon became 
evident that there was a great diversity of beliefs and great 
freedom in interpreting the nature of the Gospel. Even the 
Sabbath was viewed by some more as a holiday than a holy day. 
When I asked them how did they feel about so much diversity in 
their church, one of them replied: "This is what makes our 
Seventh-day Baptist Church great. Members can believe and do 
what they like and still be members of the church." 
	Do doctrinal diversity and moral permissiveness really 
make a church great? The historical record of the Seventh-day 
Baptist Church speaks for itself. As the church became more 
permissive in its beliefs and practices, its membership 
gradually declined from about 100,000 at the turn of the century 
to less than 10,000 at the present time. Can the same thing 
happen to the WCG? No one can tell for sure. Much depends upon 
 the way you, Pastor Tkach, and your close associates interpret 
and translate your new understanding of the Gospel into the 
practical life-style of your members. The more permissive your 
church becomes in its beliefs and practices, the more it will 
lose its identity, mission, and purpose for existence.
	I would urge you, Pastor Tkach, to reflect seriously 
upon these insightful observations by Dean Kelly: "There need 
to be a few rather rigorous and specific demands in every 
religious group to bolster its explanation of life and make it 
convincing, because convincingness derives from seriousness, 
which derives from strictness. How can a religion expect anyone 
to take it seriously if it doesn't take itself seriously? . . . 
Effective religious faith requires that you do something 
different, that you be something different, than you would 
otherwise do or be if you didn't have it. It must make some 
significant difference in your life, something that will cost 
you a lot, because that's what makes religion work. If it 
doesn't cost, it can't be worth much" (Adventists Affirm, Spring 
1991, pp. 49, 56). Are the doctrinal changes that you and your 
father have introduced making the religious life of our members 
 more or less costly, more or less serious, more or less 
different from the life of society in general? These are 
questions you may wish to ponder.

FAILURE TO HEAR YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY

	You and some of your supporters feel that in 
researching for my article I "chose to believe what some in the 
United Church of God told you [that is, me] without seeking to 
verify their claims." Some allege that my failure to consult 
your office has resulted in some misrepresentations on my part. 
For example, the figure I gave in the internet of about 50,000 
people who left the WCG is allegedly exaggerated. This hardly 
seems to be the case because the figures that you, Pastor Tkach, 
gave on your recent interview with radio talk show host Hank 
Hanegraaff, suggest that the estimate given to me was actually 
low. You estimate that 30,000 to 35,000 people have left and 
joined "splinter groups," with some 40,000 still "sitting on 
the sidelines doing nothing." This means that between 70,000 to 
75,000 members have left the WCG, which is much more than the 
figure I quoted. 
	Similarly it is not true that I made no effort to 
contact your office to hear your side of the story. The truth of 
the matter is that I did contact your office last year. In fact 
if you check the correspondence you will find that I offered to 
come to Pasedena to meet and talk with your father. It was your 
local WCG pastor that suggested that I contact your office, 
which I did. The person with whom I spoke was Mr. Carroll 
Miller. He requested my three Sabbath books and discussed with 
your father my proposed visit. A few days later he wrote to me 
a letter expressing appreciation for the books received but he 
informed me that it would not be advisable for me to visit your 
office. Thus it is not fair to say that I made no attempt to 
contact you to hear your side of the story.
	Furthermore, my contacts have not been limited to 
ministers and members of the United Church of God. Many WCG 
ministers have called me to order my Sabbath books and have 
discussed with me some of the issues they are facing. Even this 
past week I had a lengthy conversation with a local elder who 
still belongs to the WCG. He expressed his satisfaction with 
some of the changes and his disappointment over others. At this 
point he is not sure whether he will stay in the WCG or join 
another Sabbathkeeping church. He mentioned that there are many 
members like him who are still undecided.
	I should also mention that I did receive some of the 
study papers issued by your office, like the one on the 
"Sabbath," dated May 2, 1995. Thus my evaluation of your 
interpretation of Scripture is based also on my reading of the 
literature produced by your office.
	
THE INFLUENCE OF LIBERAL THEOLOGIANS

	What seems to have displeased you most in my article, Pastor Tkach,
is my reference to the influence of three key liberal theologians who have
been largely responsible for the doctrinal changes in your church. The
three theologians I am referring to, as you know, are yourself and your
two close associates, Greg Albrecht, editor of Plain Truth, and Mike
Feazell, director of Church Administration. You strongly resent my
labelling you and your associates as "liberal theologians," because, to use
your own words "we have based all of our changes on the Scriptures." 
	The problem that I see is my failure to define my understanding of
"liberal theologians." For this failure I apologize. In my view there are
two different types of "liberal theologians." On the one hand there are
those who accept the higher critical method of Biblical interpretation and 
consequently reject a priori the notion of any supernatural revelation and
inspiration of the Bible. For them the teachings of the Bible are of only
relative value because they are the product of human religious insight
rather than divine revelation. It is evident that you and your associates
do not belong to this group. On the other hand there are those who in
theory accept the divine revelation and inspiration of the Bible, but in
practice they find ways to explain away some of its fundamental teachings.
For lack of a better term I will call this second group "Evangelical
Liberals." From the reading of your material I have reason to believe that
you and your associates belong to this group.
	Evangelical liberals are present in practically all the evangelical
seminaries and churches. My own Seventh-day Adventist church is not an
exception. For example, in the ongoing discussion of women's role in the
church, some Adventist theologians explain away the Biblical teaching on
role distinctions as being culturally conditioned and consequently not
applicable to our time. In my writings I have endeavored to show that the
reasons given by Paul for his teachings on role distinctions, are not
cultural but creational.

THE SABBATH AS AN EXAMPLE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
	
	To give some concrete examples of liberal method in your Biblical
interpretation, I will refer to your exegesis of three Sabbath texts
examined in the study paper on the "Sabbath," released by the WCG on May 
2, 1995. The paper recycles the arguments against the Sabbath presented
by Robert Brinsmead in Verdict, Dale Ratzlaff in Sabbath in Crisis, and the
symposium From Sabbath to Lord's Day edited by D. A. Carson,. Anyone
interested in my extensive analysis of these arguments is welcome to read 
my Sabbath books, especially The Sabbath in the New Testament. In this
open letter I will limit myself to your exegesis of Genesis 2:2-3, Mark
2:27, and Hebrew 4:9, to exemplify the liberal method of interpreting the
Bible. I have chosen these three texts because their probative value for
the creation origin of the Sabbath which is negated by your method of
interpretation.

	Genesis 2:2-3. Your paper challenges the creation origin of the
Sabbath by arguing that Genesis 2:2-3 "does not say that humans were told
to follow God's example. It does not say that humans were told to rest..." (p. 1).
	I find this method of interpreting the Bible liberal because it
ignores the witness of the rest of the Bible. In Exodus 20:8-11 humans are
explicitly told to follow the example of God by working six days and
resting the seventh day. Your argument makes Moses guilty of distortion
of truth or, at least, a victim of gross misunderstanding. He traced the
Sabbath back to creation when in reality it was his own new creation. Such
a charge, if true, would cast serious doubts on the integrity and/or
reliability of anything else Moses or anyone else wrote in the Bible.
	May I ask you, Pastor Tkach, What is it that makes any divine
precept moral and universal? Do we not regard a law moral when it reflects
God's nature? Could God have given any stronger revelation of the moral
nature of the Sabbath than by making it a rule of His divine conduct? Is a
principle established by divine example less binding than one enunciated by
a divine command? Do not actions speak louder than words? The reason for
the absence of a divine command to observe the Sabbath in Genesis 2:2-3 is
to be found in the very nature of the book . Remember that Genesis is a
book of origins and not a book of commandments.

	Mark 2:27. In Mark 2:27 we find a fundamental Sabbath pronouncement
of Christ: "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." 
Surprisingly your paper argues: "Jesus did not say when the Sabbath came
into existence. Nothing in the context indicates that Jesus was alluding
to creation week. We cannot assume that something made for humans
necessarily had to be made immediately after humans were. . . . We cannot
assume that it [the Sabbath] was made at creation, nor that it hasn't been
superseded by a better blessing in the new covenant" (pp.11-12). Your 
conclusion is that the value of the Sabbath "has been eclipsed by Christ"
(p. 11). 
	I ask you, Pastor Tkach, "Was it necessary for Jesus to say 'when
the Sabbath came into existence' when He said that it was made for our
human well-being?" Your suggestion that God could have established it
later, presumably at the time of Moses, presupposes that He saw a need for
it later. Such reasoning makes God shortsighted, to say the least. Why
would God establish the Sabbath long after the human creation , when He
already knew that it was essential to human well-being? Does God learn as
He goes along, as we humans do?
	Our Lord's choice of words is significant. The verb "made-ginomai"
alludes to the original "making" of the Sabbath and the word
"man-anthropos" suggests its human function. Thus to establish the human
and universal value of the Sabbath, Christ reverts to its very origin,
right after the creation of man. Why? Because for the Lord the law of the
beginning stands supreme.
	The importance of God's original design is emphasized in another
instance when in reproving the corruption of the institution of marriage,
which occurred under the Mosaic code, Christ reverted to its Edenic origin,
saying: "From the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Christ then
traces both marriage and the Sabbath to their creation origin in order to
clarify their fundamental value and function for mankind. Contrary to what
your paper says that "the value [of the Sabbath] has been eclipsed by
Christ" (p. 11), by this memorable affirmation Christ establishes its
permanent validity by appealing to its original creation when God
determined its intended function for the well-being of mankind.

	Hebrews 4:9. Your exegesis of Hebrews 4:9 will serve as the last
example of liberal interpretation of Scripture which negates the
creation-origin and universality of the Sabbath. The text reads: "So
then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." Your study
paper recognizes that the Greek term for "Sabbath rest," sabbatismos, 
"clearly refers to the weekly Sabbath " (p. 22), but it argues for a
figurative interpretation, namely, as a symbol of the salvation rest to be
found in Christ. The reason given is that "if the author wanted to talk
about the Sabbath day, he could have used the word for Sabbath. If he
wanted to talk about keeping a law, he could have said that, too. But he
did not use those words because he is not talking about the Sabbath day
itself. . . . Hebrews 4 is not exhorting us to keep a weekly Sabbath, but
to enter the rest of God by having faith in Christ" (p. 22).
	This attempt to negate Sabbathkeeping by reducing it to the
salvation rest we experience in Christ ignores several important points. 
First, it ignores the historical usage of the term "sabbatismos-Sabbath
rest." This term occurs only in this text in the New Testament, but it is
used several times as a technical term for Sabbathkeeping in post-canonical
literature by Plutarch, Justin, Epiphanius, the Apostolic Constitutions and
the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
	A. T. Lincoln, one of the contributors to the symposium From
Sabbath to the Lord's Day used as a major resource for your study paper,
acknowledges that in each of the above instances "the term denotes the
observance or celebration of the Sabbath. This usage corresponds to the
Septuagint usage of the cognate verb sabbatizo (cf. Ex 16:23; Lev 23:32;
26:34f.; 2 Chron 36:21), which also has reference to Sabbath observance. 
Thus the writer to the Hebrews is saying that since the time of Joshua an
observance of Sabbath rest has been outstanding" ("Sabbath, Rest, and
Eschatology in the New Testament," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, ed.
Donald A. Carson (Grand Rapids, 1982), p. 204).

	The Nature of the Sabbath Rest. Second, the nature of the "Sabbath
rest" that is still outstanding for God's people (4:9) is clarified in
verse 10 which describes the basic characteristic of Christian
Sabbathkeeping, namely, cessation from work: "For whoever enters God's
rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his" (4:10). The point of
the analogy is simply that as God ceased on the seventh day from His
creation work, so believers are to cease on the same day from their
labors. This is a simple statement of the nature of Sabbathkeeping which
essentially involves cessation from works. Thus, both the reference to
cessation from work found in v. 10 and the term
"sabbatismos-Sabbathkeeping" used in v. 9 make it abundantly clear that the
writer is thinking of a literal Sabbath observance.
	Third,, your interpretation fails to recognize that the recipients
of the Epistle (whether Gentiles or Jewish-Christians) were so attracted to
Jewish liturgy (of which the Sabbath was a fundamental part) that it was
unnecessary for the author to discuss or to encourage its actual
observance. What those Christian "Hebrews" actually needed, tempted as
they were to turn back to Judaism, was to understand the deeper meaning of
its observance in the light of Christ's coming.
	The deeper meaning of the Sabbath can be seen in the antithesis the
author makes between those who failed to enter into God's rest because of
"unbelief-apeitheias" (4:6, 11)-that is, faithlessness which results in
disobedience-and those who enter it by "faith-pistei" (4:2, 3), that is,
faithfulness that results in obedience. For the author of Hebrews the act
of resting on the Sabbath is not merely a routine ritual (cf.
"sacrifice"-Matt 12:7), but rather a faith-response to God. Such a
response entails not the hardening of one's heart (4:7) but the making of
oneself available to "hear his voice" (4:7). It means experiencing God's
salvation rest not by works but by faith, not by doing but by being saved
through faith (4:2, 3, 11). On the Sabbath, as John Calvin aptly expresses
it, believers are "to cease from their work to allow God to work in them" 
(Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, 1972), vol. 2, p.
337). The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God (4:9) is not a
mere day of idleness for the author of Hebrews, but rather an opportunity
renewed every week to enter God's rest, that is, to free oneself from the
cares of work in order to experience freely by faith God's creation and
redemption rest. 
	Fourth, your spiritual interpretation of the Sabbath rest ignores
the fact that while Hebrews declares the Levitical priesthood and its
services "abolished" (10:9), "obsolete" and "ready to vanish away" (8:13),
it explicitly presents the "Sabbath rest" as a divine benefit that still
"remains" (4:9). The verb "remains-apoleipetai," literally means "to be
left behind." Literally translated verse 9 reads: "So then a Sabbath rest
is left behind for the people of God." The permanence of the Sabbath is
also implied in the exhortation to "strive to enter that rest" (4:11). 
The fact that one must make efforts "to enter that rest" implies that the
"rest" experience of the Sabbath also has a future realization and
consequently cannot have terminated with the coming of Christ. This
dimension of the future Sabbath rest shows that Sabbathkeeping in Hebrews
expresses the tension between the "already" and the "not yet," between the
present experience of salvation and its eschatological consummation in the
heavenly Canaan.
	The foregoing analysis of your interpretation of three Sabbath
texts should suffice to show what I perceive to be some of the weaknesses
of your "liberal" method of Biblical interpretation. This method has been 
largely determined by your adoption of the New Covenant theology, to which
we must now turn our attention.

THE MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY

	Pastor Tkach, the doctrinal changes that you and your father have
introduced have largely been dictated by your new understanding of the
difference between the Old and New Covenants. For the sake of brevity and
clarity, I will endeavor first to state what I perceive to be your
understanding of the nature and ethical implications of the Old and New
Covenants, and then to show what I consider to be the major fallacies of
this position. My summary of your position is based on some of the papers
your office has released, especially the Pastor General's Report of
December 21, 1994, titled The New Covenant and the Sabbath, which devotes
about 20 pages to explaining to your ministers the difference between the
two covenants.

	Your Understanding of the Two Covenants. Your Report defines the
covenant as "a formal agreement . . . or a relationship between God and a
human individual or nation" (p. 1). It argues that in the Old Testament 
the covenant with Abraham was "unconditional," that is, without obedience
as a requirement, while the covenant with the Israelites at Mt. Sinai was
conditional upon obedience. God's covenant with Abraham was unconditional 
because "God didn't say, I'll do this if you do that. Abraham had already
done enough. He had accepted God's call, went to the land as God had
commanded, and he believed God and was therefore counted as righteous" (p.
2). This statement contain a glaring contradiction. On the one hand it
says that God's covenant with Abraham was unconditional. On the other hand
it says that God made a covenant with Abraham because the latter accepted
God's call and did what God commanded him to do. If God made a covenant
with Abraham because he obeyed, then it was not unconditional.
	Genesis 17:1-2 clearly indicates that God's covenant with Abraham
was conditional upon obedience: "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be
blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you." The call to
obedience is part of the covenant process. There is no such a thing as
unconditional salvation. Salvation is free to those who freely accept it,
by living in accordance with God's principles by His enabling grace. 
	The Report argues that the covenant God made with the Israelites
at Sinai was conditional, because it was based on the people's commitment
to obey. "The Abrahamic covenant had emphasized God's promise, and the
Sinai covenant emphasized human responsibility" (p. 4). The Ten
Commandments and the Sabbath in particular formed "the core of the
Sinaitic, or old covenant. . . . The Sabbath was a perpetual reminder of
the covenant that Israel made at Mt. Sinai" (p. 5). Briefly stated, the
Report implies that in the Old Testament God offered salvation to Abraham
on the basis of faith in His promise but to the Israelites at Sinai on the
basis of obedience to His commandments. The fallacies i perceive in such
reasoning will be mentioned below.
	According to the Report "there was something wrong with the Old
Covenant" (p. 5). "The Old Covenant is set aside because it was weak. It
could not make anyone perfect. It could not change their hearts" (p. 8). 
The problem was that the Israelites "didn't have the heart to obey-and God
knew it from the very start. Therefore another covenant was needed" (p. 6).
 Pastor Tkach, if God knew it from the start that it wouldn't work, why
did He give it in the first place? Why did He give a faulty covenant that
could not change the hearts of the people? Was the problem with the
covenant itself or with the way the people related to the covenant? We
shall address these questions below. 
	The Report says that the advantage of the New Covenant is that 
"each person will want to obey God, not because of some list of rules
written down somewhere, but because he or she has an obedient attitude-a
circumcised heart, God calls it. The laws will be internalized. People will
keep the spirit of the law. They will be in allegiance with God, no longer
in rebellion against him. . . . God will forgive His people without need
for sacrifices" (p. 6). Do you mean to say that New Covenant Christians in
general have a more obedient attitude than the Jews? If that were true,
how do you explain the fact that the rate of divorce, spouse and child
abuse, alcoholism, etc., is just as high among Christians today as among
non-Christians? Is it perhaps because the "cheap grace" approach of the
New Covenant theology does not work? Are you sure that in the Old
Testament God's law was not meant to be internalized as in the New
Covenant? What about the appeal of the prophets to internalize God's law
(Jer 31:31-34; 32:37-41; Ez 36:26; 16:60)? 
	The Report indicates that the Old Covenant did not work because it
was based "on a package of laws" that "could not cleanse a guilty
conscience" (p. 6). On the other hand, the New Covenant works because it
is based on the blood of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the
heart. "The Holy Spirit changes their [God's people] hearts. The people
are transformed, and they grow more and more like Christ. . . . The New
Covenant affects our innermost being. The blood of Jesus Christ changes us.
. . . His sacrifice sanctifies us, makes us holy, sets us aside for a holy
purpose" (p. 7). Are you saying that the blood of Christ has some kind of
magic power that automatically changes anyone who believes in Him? Are you
attributing the same kind of magic power to the Spirit and to the Blood
that the Jews attributed to the Law? Isn't this another form of legalism? 
	The Report says that the fundamental difference between the Old and
New Covenants is that the Old was based on obedience to God's laws, while
the New is based on faith. "In the New Covenant, faith is required" (p.
8). "Christians have a relationship with God based on faith, not on law. .
. . We are saved on the basis of faith, not on law-keeping, . . . In
other words, our relationship with God is based on faith and promise, just
as Abraham's was. Laws that were added at Sinai cannot change the promise
given to Abraham . . . That package of laws became obsolete when Christ
died, and there is now a new package" (p. 11). The Sabbath is part of the
old package of laws and this is why "we don't find the Sabbath commanded in
the New Covenant" (Pastor General's Report, January 5, 1995, p. 1). May I
ask you, Pastor Tkach, Can a person truly obey God's laws without faith? 
Is there such a thing as a saving faith that is not manifested in obedience
to God's commandments? Is the problem of legalism resolved by changing
packages of laws? 

	Evaluation of the New Covenant Theology. A detailed analysis of 
New Covenant theology espoused in your literature would require far more
space than this open letter allows. I will limit myself to a few
fundamental observations. If you or your members, wish me to prepare a more
detailed analysis, I would be glad to work on such a project as a labor of
love. Feel free to express your interest on this matter. My latest book
God's Festivals in Scripture and History came about as a result of the many
requests I received from your people to reexamine the question of the Holy
Days. The fact that I changed my views on this subject shows that I try to
approach the study of the Word of God with an open mind. 
	A fundamental problem that I see with your New Covenant theology
is the faulty assumption that during the course of human history God has
offered salvation to different bases at different people. God started out 
by offering salvation to Abraham unconditionally on the basis of faith,
but at Mt. Sinai He agreed to save the Israelites conditionally on the
basis of obedience to His commandments. When God discovered that such an
arrangement did not work, because the law "could not make anyone perfect.
It could not change their hearts," He decided to revert to the "faith
arrangement" He had worked out with Abraham. To make it easier, in the New
Covenant God did away with most of the package of the Old Covenant's laws,
including the Sabbath, and decided this time to work in the heart through
the Holy Spirit.
	If this scenario were true, it would surely open to question the
consistency and fairness of God. It would imply that in redemptive history
God has offered salvation on two radically different bases: on the basis of
human obedience in the Old Covenant and on the basis of divine grace in the
New Covenant. It would further imply that presumably God learned through
the experience of His chosen people, the Jews, that human beings cannot
earn salvation by obedience because they tend to disobey. Thus, He finally
decided to change His method and implement a New Covenant plan where
salvation is offered to believing persons as a divine gift rather than a
human achievement.
	Such a theological construct makes God changeable and subject to
learning by mistakes as human beings do. The truth of the matter is that
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb 13:8). 
Salvation has always been in the Old and New Covenants first and foremost a
divine gift of grace and not a human achievement. No man or woman will
ever be saved because of what they have done.
	
	Sinai Covenant: Law and Grace. Part of the problem is your failure
to realize that the Sinai Covenant reveals God's gracious provision of
salvation just as much as the New Covenant. Note that God revealed to Moses
His plan to deliver Israel from Egypt and to set her up in the land of
Canaan (Ex 3:7-10, 16), because Israel is "His people" (Ex 3:10). God's
deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt reveals His
gracious provision of salvation just as much as does His deliverance of
Christians from the bondage of sin. Note that the Israelites responded
with faith to the manifestation of salvation: "Thus the Lord saved Israel
that day from the hand of the Egyptians . . .and the people feared the
Lord; and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses" (Ex
14:30-31). When the Israelites believed, God revealed to them His covenant
plan: "Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you
shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine,
and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex 19:5).
	These words show the gratuity of the divine election of Israel. God
chose Israel without merit on her part (Deut (9:4ff), simply because He
loved her (Deut 7:6ff). Having separated her from pagan nations, He
reserved her for Himself exclusively. "I bore you on eagles' wings and
brought you to myself" (Ex 19:4). Through the Sinai covenant God wished
to bring people to Himself by making them a worshipping community dedicated
to His service, living by the principles of His Law. This divine plan
revealed at Sinai was ultimately realized at the Cross when types met
antitypes.
	The prophets appeal to the Sinai Covenant with emotional overtones
drawn from human experiences, to explain the relationship between God and
His people. Israel is the flock, and the Lord is the shepherd. Israel is
the vine, and the Lord the vinedresser. Israel is the son and the Lord is
the Father. Israel is the spouse, and the Lord is the bridegroom. These
images, as The Dictionary of Biblical Theology remarks, "make the Sinaitic
covenant appear as an encounter of love (cf. Ez 16:6-14): the attentive and
gratuitous love of God, calling in return for a love which will translate
itself in obedience" ("Covenant," p. 95). 

	Faith is not Alone. The obedience called for by the Sinaitic
covenant was meant to be a loving response to God's provision of salvation,
and not a means of salvation. Unfortunately, in time the Law came to be
viewed as the guarantee of salvation, just as Faith alone is considered a
guarantee for many Christians today. But saving faith is never alone, it
always accompanied by loving obedience (Gal 5:6). Such distortions make the
Old and New Covenant ineffective for many people.
	Please note, Pastor Tkach, that at Sinai God invited His people to
obey His commandments because He had saved them, not so that they might be
saved by His laws. As George Eldon Ladd puts it in his classic work A
Theology of the New Testament, "The Law was added (pareiselthen) not to
save men from their sins but to show them what sin was (Rom 3:30; 5:13, 20;
Gal 3:19). By declaring the will of God, by showing what God forbids, the
Law shows what sin is" (p. 507). Ladd rightly explains that "the line of
thought in Galatians 3 and Romans 4 is that all the Israelites who trusted
God's covenant of promise to Abraham and did not use the Law as a way of
salvation by works were assured of salvation" (p. 507). 
	Another point overlooked in the Report is that at Sinai God
revealed to the Israelites not only principles of moral conduct but also
provision of salvation through the typology of the sacrificial system. It
is noteworthy that when God invited Moses to come up on the mountain, He
gave him not only "the tables of stone, with the law and the commandment"
(Ex 24:12), but also the "pattern of the tabernacle" (Ex 25:9), which was
designed to explain typologically His provision of grace and forgiveness.
	The major difference between the Old and New Covenants is not one
of methods of salvation, but, we might say, of shadow versus reality. The
Old Covenant was "symbolic" (Heb 9:9) of the "more excellent" redemptive
ministry of Christ (Heb 8:6). Consequently, it was necessary for Christ to
come "once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself" (Heb 9:26). 
	The effect of Christ's coming is described as "setting aside" (Heb
7:18), making "obsolete" (Heb 8:13), "abolishing" (Heb 10:9) all the
Levitical services associated with the Old Covenant. It is unfortunate
that you interpret these statements as indicating that Christ by His
coming has abrogated most of the Old Testament laws, including the Sabbath.
This interpretation ignores the fact that such statements deal with the
Levitical priesthood and services of the Old Covenant, and not with the
principles of God's moral law, which includes the Fourth Commandment.
	It is noteworthy that while Hebrews declares the typological
services of the Old Covenant as "abolished" (10:9), "obsolete" and "ready
to vanish away" (8:13), it explicitly teaches, as I have shown earlier that
a "Sabbathkeeping is left behind for the people of God" (4:9).

PAUL AND THE LAW

	The practical implications of your New Covenant theology are
manifested in your teachings that Christians are no longer under the law,
but under grace, consequently they are no longer bound to observe most of
the Old Covenant package of laws, including the Sabbath. To support this
view, your reports and study papers frequently appeal to those Pauline
passages which speak negatively of the law. Unfortunately your published
material makes no attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction between
Paul's condemnation and commendation of the Law. Let me share with you few
thoughts on my attempt to resolve the "double concept of the law" in the
writings of Paul.
	In Ephesians 2:15, Paul speaks of the law as having been
"abolished" by Christ, while in Romans 3:31 he explains that justification
by faith in Jesus Christ does not overthrow the law but "establishes" it. 
In Romans 7:6, he states that "now we are discharged from the law" while a
few verses later he writes that "the law is holy, and the commandment is
holy and just and good" (7:12).
	In Romans 10:4, Paul writes that "Christ is the end of the law"
while in chapter 8:3-4, he explains that Christ came "in the likeness of
sinful flesh . . . in order that the just requirements of the law might be
fulfilled in us." In Romans 3:28 he maintains that "a man is justified
by faith apart from works of the law," yet in 1 Corinthians 7:19 he states
that "neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but
keeping the commandments of God." In 2 Corinthians 3:7 Paul designates the
law as "the dispensation of death" while in Romans 3:2 he views it as part
of the "oracles of God" entrusted to the Jews.
	How can we reconcile Paul's apparently contradictory statements
about the law? How can Paul view the law both as "abolished" (Eph 2:15)
and "established" (Rom 3:31), unnecessary (Rom 3:28) and necessary (1 Cor
7:19; Eph 6:2, 3; 1 Tim 1:8-10)? The solution is to be found in the
different contexts in which Paul speaks of the law. When he speaks of the
law in the context of salvation (justification-right standing before God),
he clearly affirms that law-keeping is of no avail (Rom 3:20).
	On the other hand, when Paul speaks of the law in the context of
Christian conduct (sanctification-right living before God), then he
maintains the value and validity of God's law (Rom 7:12; 13:8-10; 1 Cor
7:19). For example, when Paul speaks of the various forms of human
wickedness in 1 Timothy 1:8-10, he explicitly affirms that "now we know
that the law is good" (v. 8).

	The Cross of Christ. Central to Paul's understanding of the law is
the Cross of Christ. From this perspective, he both negates and affirms
the law. Negatively, the Apostle repudiates the law as the basis of
justification: "if justification were through the law, then Christ died to
no purpose" (Gal 2:21).
	Positively, Paul teaches that the law is "spiritual, good, holy,
just" (Rom 7:12, 14, 16; 1 Tim 1:8) because it exposes sin and reveals
God's ethical standards. Thus, he states that Christ came "in order that
the just requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us" through the
dynamic power of His Spirit (Rom 8:4).
	Three times Paul states: "neither circumcision counts for anything
nor uncircumcision" and each time he concludes this statement with a
different phrase: "but keeping the commandments of God . . . but faith
working through love . . . but a new creation" (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15).
 The parallelism suggests that Paul equates the keeping of God's
commandments with a working faith and a new life in Christ. The Christian,
then, is not under the law as a method of salvation but is under the law as
a standard for Christian conduct.
	To see Paul's criticism of the law in perspective, it is important
to realize that Paul's letters were written to congregations made up
predominantly of Gentile converts, most of whom were former "God-fearers"
(1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 12:2; Gal 4:8; Rom 11:13; 1:13; Col 1:21; Eph 2:11). A
crucial problem among Gentile Christians was their right as Gentiles to
enjoy full citizenship among the people of God, without becoming members of
the covenant community through circumcision.

	Gentile Legalism. Lloyd Gaston perceptively notes that "it was
because of this unclarity that legalism-the doing of certain works to win
God's favor and be counted righteous-arose a Gentile and not a Jewish
problem at all" ( "Paul and the Torah" in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations
of Christianity, ed. by Alan T. Davis [New York, 1979], p. 58). Salvation
was for all who were members of the covenant community, but since the
God-fearers were not under the covenant, they had to establish their own
righteousness to gain such an assurance of salvation.
	Marcus Barth has shown that the phrase "works of the law" is not
found in Jewish texts and designates the adoption of selected Jewish
practices by the Gentiles to ensure their salvation as part of the covenant
people of God (Ephesians (Anchor Bible, 1974), pp. 244-248). Recognition
of this legalistic Gentile attitude is important to our understanding of
the background of Paul's critical remarks about the law.
	Before his conversion and divine commission to the Gentiles, Paul
apparently believed that Gentiles had to conform to the whole Mosaic law,
including circumcision, in order for them to be saved. This is suggested
by the phrase "but if I still preach circumcision" (Gal 5:11), which
implies that at one time he did preach circumcision as a basis of
salvation.
	After his conversion and divine commission to preach the Gospel to
the Gentiles, Paul understood that Gentiles share in the blessing of
salvation without having to become part of the covenant community through
circumcision. To defend this conviction, Paul appeals in Romans 4 and
Galatians 3 to the example of Abraham who became the father of all who
believe by faith before he was circumcised.
	In proclaiming his non-circumcision Gospel, Paul faced a double
challenge. On the one hand, he faced the opposition of Jews and Jewish 
Christians because they failed to understand ("Israel did not
understand"-Rom 10:19) that through Christ, God had fulfilled His promises
to Abraham regarding the Gentiles. On the other hand, Paul had to deal
with the misguided efforts of the Gentiles who were tempted to adopt
circumcision and other practices to ensure their salvation by becoming
members of the covenant community (Gal 5:2-4).

	Law as Document of Election. To counteract the double challenge
from Jewish and Gentile Christians, Paul was forced to speak critically of
the law as a document of election. Several scholars have recently shown
that the concept of the covenant-so central in the Old Testament-came more
and more to be expressed by the term "law" (torah-nomos). One's status
before God came to be determined by one's attitude toward the Law
(torah-nomos) as a document of election and not by obedience to specific
commandments.
	The law came to mean a revelation of God's electing will manifested
in His covenant with Israel. Obviously this view created a problem for the
uncircumcised Gentiles because they felt excluded from the assurance of
salvation provided by the covenant. This insecurity naturally led Gentiles
to "desire to be under law" (Gal 4:21), that is, to become full-fledged
covenant members by receiving circumcision (Gal 5:2). Paul felt compelled
to react strongly against this trend because it undermined the universality
of the Gospel.
	To squelch the Gentiles' "desire to be under law," Paul appeals to
the Law (Pentateuch), specifically to Abraham, to argue that the mothers of
his two children, Ishmael and Isaac, stand for two covenants: the first
based on works and the second on faith (Gal 4:22-31), the first offering
"slavery" and the second resulting in "freedom." Hagar who bears "children
of slavery," is identified with the covenant of Mount Sinai (Gal 4:24).
	Why does Paul attack so harshly the Sinai covenant which, as we
have seen, contained provisions of grace and forgiveness (for example,
tabernacle-Ex 25-30) besides principles of conduct (Ex 20-23)? The answer
to these questions is to be found in Paul's concern to establish the
legitimacy of the salvation of the Gentiles as Gentiles.
	To accomplish this goal, Paul attacks the understanding of the law
(covenant) as an exclusive document of election. This does not mean that
he denies the possibility of salvation to Jews who accepted Christ as the
fulfillment of the Sinai covenant. On the contrary, he explicitly
acknowledges that just as he was "entrusted with the gospel to the
uncircumcised," so "Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the
circumcised" (Gal 2:7).
	To defend his Gospel to the uncircumcised, Paul emphasizes that
justification (right standing with God) is "by faith apart from works of
law" (Rom 3:28; Gal 3:8). It is noteworthy that while the term
"justification" and words related to it occur in Paul's writings over
eighty times, the terms "forgiveness" and "repentance" are spectacularly
absent. Why? One reason is suggested by the fact that "repentance"
implied turning back to the God of the covenant, but Paul was appealing to
the Gentiles to turn to God for the first time.
	The foregoing considerations suggest that Paul does not attack the
validity and value of the law as a moral guide to Christian conduct. On
the contrary, he emphatically affirms that Christ specifically came "in
order that the just requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Rom
8:4). What Paul criticizes is not the moral but the soteriological
understanding of the law, that is, the law viewed as a document of election
that includes the Jews and excludes the Gentiles.
	In the papers sent out by your office, Pastor Tkach, I see a
failure to distinguish in Paul's writing between his moral and
soteriological usages of the law. There is also a failure to recognize
that Paul's criticism of the law is directed not toward Jewish Christians
but toward Gentile Judaizers. Such a failure has led many to conclude
fallaciously that Paul is an antinomian who rejected the value and validity
of the law as a whole. Such a view is totally unwarranted because, as
mentioned earlier, Paul rejects the law as a method of salvation but
upholds it as a moral standard of Christian conduct.

CHANGES NEEDED IN THE METHODS AND STRUCTURE OF THE WCG

	In closing this open letter I would like to briefly address two
questions: (1) The method you have used to implement the doctrinal changes
in the WCG, and (2) The organizational structure of your church.

	A Democratic Method to Introduce Doctrinal Changes. In your
letter, Pastor Tkach, you reject my suggestion that doctrinal changes
should be widely discussed and adopted only with the broad support of the
membership. You feel that "some things are so morally reprehensible that
consensus is out of the question. . . . Paul did not wait for consensus to
proclaim the gospel unadulterated with Judaism. Neither should we."
	Pastor Tkach, may I remind you that you are not the Apostle Paul.
Furthermore Paul himself did lay before the brethren "the gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in
vain" (Gal 2:2). If Paul felt that he would be running in vain without
gaining approval for his "Gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal 2:7) from the
leaders of the church, don't you think that it would be wise for you to
submit your new-found truths to your ministerial council or a
representative body of your church?
	A person appointed to serve as the leader of a church accepts the
responsibility to uphold the beliefs and practices of the church. If the
leader perceives that radical changes are needed, he should work to gain
consensus from the bottom up and not dictate changes from the top down.
Remember, you were appointed to administer your church, and not to use your
position of authority start a new church.
	If I as a teacher were to use my classes to promote new teachings
that are contrary to the beliefs of my church that pays my salary, I would
be betraying the trust of those who have appointed me. The only ethical
thing for me to do would be to resign and look for a job elsewhere. Pastor
Tkach, the moment when you felt that in good conscience you could no longer
subscribe to the fundamental beliefs of your church, you had two options:
(1) Submit your new doctrines to the consideration of your ministers and
members and wait for them to accept them and support you; or (2) If that
proved impossible, you could have resigned and started your own church,
like some of your ministers have done when they could not accept the
doctrinal changes which your father began to introduce.
	Lest I be misunderstood, I would like to make it clear I am not
critical of all the doctrinal changes you have introduced. On the contrary,
I believe that some of them were desperately needed. What I find unethical
is the autocratic method you have used to bring about such changes. 

	Church Government. Your literature discusses at great length the
need for doctrinal changes but is notably silent about the need for 
changes in the government of the church. This surprises me because you
have a great desire to bring your church back to the teachings and
practices of apostolic Christianity. Yet I find no support in the
Apostolic church for such an autocratic form of church government. I never
read of an apostolic church leader who appointed his son to take his place.
 This was true of kings but not of church leaders. When later during the
Middle Ages church leaders appointed relatives to church positions, this
practice was condemned as nepotism. 
	It is only in the Old Testament priestly system that blood was a
factor in holding an office. But that was part of the Old Covenant that
you have rejected. For the sake of consistency it would be advisable for
you to reject such an outdated Old Covenant practice, and adopt instead the
New Covenant democratic form of church government.

	Final Appeal. This open letter has become much longer than I 
anticipated. It is my fervent hope that God may use this dialogue to help
many appreciate more fully His saving plan for our lives. Yesterday one of
your WCG members who had just finished reading one of my Sabbath books
called me from Canada and shared with me for almost an hour some of the
things that are troubling him. He told me that he thinks you have gone too
far, but he does not want to leave the WCG, because he still hopes that
you might reconsider some of the doctrinal changes, especially regarding
the Sabbath and Holy Days. My final appeal to you, Pastor Tkach, is that
you not disappoint thousands of members like this man who are still hoping
that you will reconsider some of the unacceptable changes. If I can be of
any help, do not hesitate to contact me. On my part I will always be glad
to meet with you and your close associates at any time you think such a
meeting could be profitable.

May the Lord richly bless you and your people with His wisdom and grace.

Christian regards,

Samuele Bacchocchi, Ph.D
Professor of Theology and Church History
4990 Appian Way
Berrien Springs, Michigan, 49103, USA