This article was posted on Michael Hess II’s blog page and we thought it was excellent. It is reprinted here with permission.

The letter banning Conrad Vine from Michigan Conference pulpits, signed by conference president Jim Micheff, included this paragraph as justification:

During a camp meeting in Maine from August 13-17, Conrad Vine, president of Adventist Frontier Missions, delivered messages that raise significant concerns and undermine the unity and integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We strongly disagree with the views expressed by Conrad Vine, including, but not limited to, his statements regarding the remnant church and leadership, the establishment of a parachurch organization, and the redirection of tithe. We find his assertions to be inconsistent with the clear teachings found in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.

The letter did not attempt to describe how Elder Vine’s statements contradicted the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy (a phrase often used in Adventism to refer to Ellen White’s writings). Others have attempted to fill this gap with their own explanations. Most notably, Mark Howard, Associate Director of the Sabbath School and Personal Ministries Department of the Michigan Conference, released a video on his personal YouTube channel. Howard’s video cites several passages from the Bible and Ellen White’s writings that he believes contradict Vine’s statements. He even goes so far as to accuse Vine of preaching “false doctrine” and suggest that he should have been disciplined for it.

The charge of false doctrine is no light accusation, especially when brought against an ordained minister in good standing, as Conrad Vine is. If correct, it certainly constitutes grounds for banning him and for further discipline. But it comes with a high burden of proof, which Elder Micheff has not even attempted to meet, either in the ban letter or in subsequent public statements. Howard’s video did attempt to demonstrate from scripture that Vine has taught false doctrine. As this article will show, it did not succeed.

The reader should remember that Howard is not the enemy. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to say nasty things about those they disagree with. While I think Howard is wrong, I have no desire to engage in personal attacks. I hope others contending for the truth can do the same.

At the beginning of his video, Howard notes that he may not say everything exactly right, and asks his viewers to “show mercy and follow the admonition of scripture that says not to make a man an offender for a word” (a reference to Isaiah 29:21, KJV). Let us apply the same charitable principle to our examination of Vine’s words.

What Is False Doctrine?

To determine whether someone is teaching false doctrine, we should first have a clear understanding of what that term means. A literal “translation” into other words might be “incorrect teaching”—but closer inspection will show that this is not what most people mean by the term false doctrine.

Consider, for example, debates over difficult passages of scripture. Adventist theologians differ in their interpretations of passages such as Daniel 11. These interpretations cannot all be accurate; at least some of them amount to incorrect teaching. Yet it would be hyperbolic for their proponents to accuse each other of false doctrine. Them, as they say, is fightin’ words.

Clearly, what we mean by calling something false doctrine is not simply that it is wrong. We mean that it opposes the fundamental principles God has revealed in scripture. We use false doctrine as a barely-less-provocative synonym for heresy.

It is not enough, then, to argue that Vine’s suggestions are bad policy, or that he is mistaken about the state of religious liberty in Canada, or that he is breaking with Adventist tradition, or even that he has misunderstood a particular passage of scripture. To sustain the charge of false doctrine or heresy, one must show that his views run contrary to foundational biblical truths.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual describes “reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline” (p. 67), the first of which has to do with false doctrine.

Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.

The Bible contains many truths, some more vital than others. Christians throughout history have worked to define and systematize the most essential biblical teachings. Adventists have distilled the truths we see as most crucial into a list of 28 Fundamental Beliefs. The preamble to the list summarizes its intent:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.

The Fundamental Beliefs, being a human-made summary subject to change, are not the final authority on matters of doctrine: the Bible is. Nevertheless, they provide an important filter when identifying false doctrine. If a teaching directly contradicts the Fundamental Beliefs, it has a high probability of being heretical, though we must still go directly to scripture for the final word. Going the other direction, if one can affirm a teaching without denying any of the Fundamental Beliefs, Adventists should tread carefully with labels like heresy and false doctrine.

This article will consider the two main points on which Howard has accused Vine of false doctrine, tithing and the remnant church. For each one, we will examine whether Howard has successfully demonstrated one or more of the following:

That Vine’s statement contradicts a fundamental teaching of scripture.
That Vine’s statement contradicts the inspired counsel given through Ellen White.
That Vine’s statement contradicts one or more of Seventh-day Adventism’s 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

What Conrad Vine Said

The sermon that got Vine canceled, titled “Remnant, Respectable or Regime Church?”, can be watched in full on his YouTube channel. The full sermon provides context for Vine’s concerns and recommendations, and anyone critiquing him should first listen to it in its entirety.

Below is a transcription of the section that has drawn the most controversy. Referring to a slide titled “Options for Bible-Faithful Adventists Today”, Vine said:

The third point there is more contentious. I put there, if the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members—that’s an important caveat—if the GC in the future supports future mandates over the consciences of [members], I think we are well within our rights to establish a para-church movement within the Adventist Church. And what is that? A para-church movement would be a gathering or lay conference of laity; they gather, they maybe incorporate, they return their tithes to that new lay entity that covers the whole of the North American Division, and then the committee allocates that tithe to conferences who are faithful to scripture. And that way the conferences that go woke will go broke—very simple. And the members will determine where that tithe goes based on fidelity to scripture and whether they are willing to contend for the faith that has been passed on to us. I recognize this is uh—when you touch the question of tithe, this is the sacred nerve in the Adventist Church. But Elder Wilson did say in his first sermon, “Hold your leaders to account.” so we’re gonna hold our leaders to account. And if more mandates are imposed that override your conscience, and the church throws us under the bus once again, I believe that someone somewhere will take the first steps to establish a parachurch movement. And we’ll say with modern Banking and modern legal systems we don’t need the Conference/Union/Division/GC hierarchy; we can collect the tithes ourselves and allocate them to the conferences that are faithful to scripture. It’s a revolutionary idea. It’s kind of crossing the Rubicon from many administrators’ perspective, but it’s what we can do as members, because we were encouraged to hold our leaders to account by our current GC president when he was elected. And this is about the only way we can do it. So this may well happen if the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members.
(1:09:09)

The slide Vine showed while making his recommendations.

Note both what Vine said and what he did not say.

He did not say this should be done now; he repeatedly used the words if and future.
He did not suggest that individual members should send their tithe wherever they please.
He did not say that members should withhold their tithe.
He did not say that tithe should be diverted for use by entities outside the church.
He did not say that the entire church organization would have fallen in the scenario described, but implied that “conferences that are faithful to scripture” would still exist.

Arguments based on these or other distortions of what he said may be ignored.

I have my own reservations about his plan as described. But remember, the question at hand is not whether what he said is a bad idea, or even contrary to Adventist tradition, but whether it rises to the level of false doctrine.

Tithing

An aside for clarity: I myself continue to pay tithe through my local church in the Michigan Conference, even though I disagree with the conference’s recent actions. I believe this should be the default channel for tithepaying, and I do not think a threshold has been reached to do otherwise. Current controversy aside, I also believe the Michigan Conference has done and continues to do work that advances the spread of the gospel. At the same time, for the reasons outlined below, I do not see enough biblical evidence to say that those who choose to send tithes to other portions of the Lord’s vineyard have apostatized.

The Fundamental Beliefs mention tithe only once, in belief #21, Stewardship.

We are God’s stewards, entrusted by Him with time and opportunities, abilities and possessions, and the blessings of the earth and its resources. We are responsible to Him for their proper use.
We acknowledge God’s ownership by faithful service to Him and our fellow human beings, and by returning tithe and giving offerings for the proclamation of His gospel and the support and growth of His church.
Stewardship is a privilege given to us by God for nurture in love and the victory over selfishness and covetousness. Stewards rejoice in the blessings that come to others as a result of their faithfulness.
(Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; 1 Chron. 29:14; Haggai 1:3-11; Mal. 3:8-12; Matt. 23:23; Rom. 15:26, 27; 1 Cor. 9:9-14; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; 9:7.)

According to this statement, tithe

acknowledges God’s ownership of what He has entrusted to us,
is given for the proclamation of the gospel, and
is given for the support and growth of God’s church.

I believe Vine would agree with all three points, and there is no obvious way his statement contradicts any of them. Indeed, the intent of the para-church organization he proposes is clearly to ensure that tithe goes to conferences that use it for its intended purpose: the proclamation of the gospel and the support and growth of the church. It only runs afoul of Fundamental Belief #21 if one holds to a very specific view of what the church is, which I will address in the section on the Remnant.

Even if Vine’s statements on tithe contradicted the Fundamental Beliefs, anyone accusing him of heresy would still need to prove it from scripture. Since what he said actually harmonizes with Fundamental Belief #21, the scriptural case becomes even more important.

To his credit, Howard puts forward a series of scriptural arguments, something the conference leadership behind the ban have so far failed to do. Do these scripture passages show that Vine’s statements on tithe are false doctrine? Let’s read them together and see.

Holy to the Lord

Howard’s first argument draws on the fact that tithe is consecrated to the Lord.

Let’s start with the use of the tithe, or the misuse of the tithe. Scripture’s clear that all the tithe of the land is the Lord’s, it is Holy to the Lord, in Leviticus 27:30. That means it does not belong to us but God. Therefore it’s not up to us to say where it needs to be returned or used. It’s not to be leveraged to get our way even if we think our way is correcting existing evils in the church. (12:21)

Here is the text he cites, and the instructions following it:

“Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the LORD’s; it is holy to the LORD. If a man wishes to redeem some of his tithe, he shall add a fifth to it. And every tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman’s staff, shall be holy to the LORD. One shall not differentiate between good or bad, neither shall he make a substitute for it; and if he does substitute for it, then both it and the substitute shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.”
(Leviticus 27:30–33, ESV)

The principle here is clear enough: tithe is holy to God and should be paid according to His instructions. The Israelites were not to keep it for themselves, or try to manipulate it for personal advantage. While the text does not explicitly say where to pay the tithe, it is reasonable to extend the principle of holiness to say that tithe should be paid where God intends it to be paid, not anywhere one’s private judgment determines.

In ancient Israel, tithe supported the sanctuary services, first in the wilderness tabernacle and later in the temple. The “storehouse” referred to by Malachi and others was literal temple storerooms housing the sustenance of the priests and Levites. Paul identifies an underlying principle that still applies to the modern church:

Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
(1 Corinthians 9:13–14, ESV)

Where, then, is the modern “storehouse”? This question is essential to an understanding of modern-day tithing principles. The New Testament church did not pay tithes and offerings to the temple in Jerusalem, even while it still existed. And God did not designate a single central repository to replace it. Why not?

In the final charge at GYC 2024, Pastor Shane Anderson traced the history of the pastoral office in Adventism. Speaking of the early Adventists and why they did not have settled local pastors, he noted:

They found that in the Old Testament there was a philosophy called “Come here!” In other words, Israel, God’s chosen people, were to be lights to the Gentiles. They were to live out the kingdom of God in such a way that that the Gentiles would be drawn to them.
(48:38)
[…]
Jesus comes, he dies on the cross, he rises from the grave, the Christian church has begun, and there is a distinct change in philosophy. No longer is it “Come here!” but now it is “Go there!” Matthew 28:18–20, Great Commission, “All authority was given in Heaven and Earth to me,” Jesus says, therefore what? Go! Go and make disciples. Don’t just wait around for people to come to you; now you’re gonna go. And God set up a kingdom structure to facilitate this new philosophy.
(50:09)

The nature of the mission became more distributed, and so did the structure of the church. This is why we do not find an exact analogy to the temple storehouse in the New Testament. This did not mean giving offerings was now a free-for-all; people brought their gifts for the poor to the apostles (Acts 4:34–37) or saved them for an apostle’s visit (1 Corinthians 16:1–4). The Bible does not explicitly mention tithe after the death of Jesus, but as noted above, Paul argued that the principle of supporting temple workers now applied to those proclaiming the gospel.

The Adventist pioneers, following the biblical model, set up a system for collecting tithes and using them to support gospel workers. In the Adventist church, we send tithes to the conference (typically through the local congregation), and the conference is then responsible for supporting the pastors proclaiming the gospel in its assigned area.

Note that this arrangement is not explicitly mandated in scripture. The Bible does not designate the local conference as the “storehouse”. But it is a practical system that, when administered properly, ensures financial support for God’s faithful servants.

But remember that the mission of the church is not to mark time in established territory. The “Go there!” model instituted by Jesus requires us to continually advance into new fields. I know many people working tirelessly in regions relatively untouched by the gospel. Some of them report that the only way pastors in their region get paid is through tithe money that people from other conferences send (“divert”, we might say) to mission organizations (para-church ministries?) that then give it to the local conference, which would otherwise be too poor to feed its workers. Are the people who pay their tithes this way wrong to do so? Should pastors in the 10-40 window fend for themselves while Adventists in rich countries adhere faithfully to tradition?

Adventist Frontier Missions, the organization of which Conrad Vine is president, says this on a page on its website titled “AFM and Tithe”:

Due to our commitment to support the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) movement, AFM does not knowingly accept funds designated as tithes. We acknowledge that individuals may consider their donations to AFM as tithes, and we respect this as a matter of personal conscience between them and God. However, we will decline any donations designated as tithe and return the funds to the donor. This policy is driven by our belief that, despite how a person views any particular part of the church body in their faithfulness to carrying out God’s mission, the worldwide SDA Church remains true to Scripture. We also seek to model for new disciples among the unreached what it means to be part of God’s end-time remnant movement. We consider it both a privilege and duty to contribute to the worldwide SDA Church’s mission and the advance of God’s kingdom among the unreached. We encourage you to direct your tithe to your local conference, ensuring support for local initiatives while still inviting you to make sacrificial non-tithe offerings to AFM. Your generosity will further our mission to share the gospel in regions where Jesus is not yet known.

This is a wise policy. While respecting individual convictions, it upholds the unity of the worldwide church and encourages members to do the same. It shows that AFM does not intend to compete for funds with local conferences in established areas.

But I believe that if we had the same New Testament missionary spirit that gave fire to the steps of our pioneers, the conferences responsible for collecting and distributing tithe would make it a high priority to sponsor workers on the frontiers. If tithe distribution were focused first and foremost on the proclamation of the gospel, as described in our Fundamental Beliefs, foreign missionaries would have to spend far less time fundraising than they do now. Recognizing that the tithe is holy to the Lord, we should ensure it goes to support those doing the work He commissioned.

Ultimately, we should remember that while supporting gospel workers with tithe is a biblical principle, the specific mechanism of the local conference is an Adventist tradition. I believe it is a good tradition, and one rooted in biblical principles. But we should not elevate it to the point of setting aside the word of God for our tradition and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. The tithe is holy to the Lord: we must guard lest our traditions obscure His purpose for it. The tithe is holy to the Lord: we should tremble lest our institutions divert it from His harvest field.

Robbing God

Howard next turns to one of the most well-known passages on tithing, Malachi chapter 3. This passage rebukes people who have withheld their tithe and tells them to bring it to the storehouse. As discussed above, the local conference is the “storehouse” by Adventist policy and tradition, but not by biblical command. Little more needs to be said on this point. Vine did not tell people to stop returning tithe, and he did not contradict Malachi.

Nehemiah’s Reforms

The next passage referenced is Nehemiah 13, where Nehemiah set to work cleansing desecrated rooms in the temple and restoring tithe paying. Howard says,

Upon Nehemiah’s return he evicted Tobiah from the storehouse, and then he contended with the elders for not being faithful and returning their tithes.
(15:05)

As Howard notes, Nehemiah’s contention was with the leaders. In Nehemiah’s words,

I also found out that the portions of the Levites had not been given to them, so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, had fled each to his field. So I confronted the officials and said, “Why is the house of God forsaken?” And I gathered them together and set them in their stations. Then all Judah brought the tithe of the grain, wine, and oil into the storehouses. And I appointed as treasurers over the storehouses Shelemiah the priest, Zadok the scribe, and Pedaiah of the Levites, and as their assistant Hanan the son of Zaccur, son of Mattaniah, for they were considered reliable, and their duty was to distribute to their brothers. Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and do not wipe out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God and for his service.
(Nehemiah 13:10–14, ESV)

In Ellen White’s commentary on this event, she places at least as much blame on the leaders as on the people for the lapse in tithing:

Not only had the temple been profaned, but the offerings had been misapplied. This had tended to discourage the liberalities of the people. They had lost their zeal and fervor, and were reluctant to pay their tithes. The treasuries of the Lord’s house were poorly supplied; many of the singers and others employed in the temple service, not receiving sufficient support, had left the work of God to labor elsewhere.
Nehemiah set to work to correct these abuses. He gathered together those who had left the service of the Lord’s house, “and set them in their place.” This inspired the people with confidence, and all Judah brought “the tithe of the corn and the new wine and the oil.” Men who “were counted faithful” were made “treasurers over the treasuries,” “and their office was to distribute unto their brethren.”
(Prophets and Kings, p. 670)

If abuses in the church have discouraged the liberalities of God’s people today, the best response from leaders is to correct the abuses, bring about reforms, and inspire the people with confidence. This will prove more effective than dozens of sermons on “stewardship”.

But this is all somewhat beside the point. The issue in Nehemiah’s day was not that people were trying to make sure their tithes went to the most faithful storehouse custodians, but that they had stopped tithing altogether. Again, this is not what Conrad Vine counseled in his sermon.

The Widow’s Offering

Howard’s final biblical arguments come from the New Testament:

In the days of Christ he commended the widow who gave her two mites to the church that was about to kill Him. He didn’t say, “Well, I wouldn’t put it there! Listen, bring it over here and put it in our little money box.” Which incidentally the Bible says in John 12:6 Judas was stealing from. So even the ministry of Christ had corruption in regard to the giving, but it was never to be used as an excuse not to support the ministry according to God’s plan.
(15:26)

As a matter of fact, Christ’s followers did set up a separate giving system after His ascension. The widow’s faithfulness did not excuse the sins of Israel, and we should not use her as a smokescreen today.

Ellen White’s Example

Howard next tells a personal anecdote about members wanting to redirect tithe away from unfaithful conferences.

When I started out in pastoral ministry as a lay pastor, I was in a conference—for example, the conference had invited a spiritualistic mystic to speak to our pastors at one of our meetings. It was in the name of innovation. And we had all kinds of craziness going on. And so I had people in that conference that would come to my church and bring me stacks of money and say, “Here, this is my tithe. You’re a faithful minister, you’re preaching the word, and they’re not preaching the word, and so, you know, I want you to take my tithe.” And I had to give them a little bible study on the tithe and let them know that “it’s not yours to redirect. God tells you to put it here. And incidentally, I pay my tithes to this conference that is clearly not doing the right thing.”
(16:09)

Though under different circumstances, this story bears some similarities to accounts Ellen White gave of her own ministry. In a 1905 letter to G.F. Watson, president of the Colorado Conference, she revealed that she had long felt convicted to give her own tithe to needy ministers brought to her attention. She did not publicize this, as it was a special case that she did not want to draw attention to. But there were times when others came to her with their tithe money, and she did not turn them away.

Some cases have been kept before me for years, and I have supplied their needs from the tithe, as God has instructed me to do. And if any person shall say to me, Sister White, will you appropriate my tithe where you know it is most needed, I shall say, Yes, I will; and I have done so. I commend those sisters who have placed their tithe where it is most needed to help to do a work that is being left undone; and if this matter is given publicity, it will create a knowledge which would better be left as it is. I do not care to give publicity to this work which the Lord has appointed me to do and others to do.
I send this matter to you so that you shall not make a mistake. Circumstances alter cases. I would not advise that any one should make a practice of gathering up tithe money. But for years there have now and then been persons who have lost confidence in the appropriation of the tithe who have placed their tithe in my hands and said that if I did not take it they would themselves appropriate it to the families of the most needy ministers they could find. I have taken the money, given a receipt for it, and told them how it was appropriated.
I write this to you so that you shall keep cool and not become stirred up and give publicity to this matter, lest many more shall follow their example.
(Letter 267, 1905)

Note the nuance here. She did not think redirecting tithe outside of established channels should be a general practice, but she also did not condemn other legitimate routes. As she said in another letter,

You ask if I will accept tithe from you and use it in the cause of God where most needed. In reply I will say that I shall not refuse to do this, but at the same time I will tell you that there is a better way.
It is better to put confidence in the ministers of the conference where you live and in the officers of the church where you worship. Draw nigh to your brethren. Love them with a true heart fervently, and encourage them to bear their responsibilities faithfully in the fear of God. “Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity”
(Letter 96, 1911)

The people sending White tithe money were not leaving its use up to their own private judgment. They did not have a “para-church organization” to direct it, but they did have a divinely appointed messenger whom they trusted to allocate it faithfully. When Howard faced a similar situation, I would not say that his response was wrong, but he also would not have erred had he collected the money and looked for faithful workers who needed support.

White participated in “redistribution” of tithe, but always encouraged giving through the local church and conference as “a better way” that should be the general rule. It is with this background that her other statements on tithing, including those shared in Howard’s video, should be understood.

To be consistent with Ellen White’s counsel and example, then, the worst that could be said about Conrad Vine’s proposal is that it is not ideal, it is not the “better way”—but calling it false doctrine is a line White did not cross.

In summary, then, the accusations against Vine of false doctrine regarding tithing do not meet the test of the Bible, of the Fundamental Beliefs, or of Ellen White’s writings. Vine’s critics may still have legitimate points of disagreement, but they should dial back the accusations of heresy.

Added 2025/02/06
Incidentally, a North American ministry has already been functioning in a way quite similar to what Vine described a para-church organization would do. For years, many Californian Adventists dissatisfied with their local conferences have sent tithe to Amazing Facts, an independent ministry headquartered in California. Amazing facts sends the tithe money to a conference deemed faithful—which happens to be the Michigan Conference—which then uses it to pay the salaries of Pastors Doug Batchelor and Jëan Ross. This arrangement is well-known within the conference, and conference administrators have confirmed it in conversations members have had with them. If the Michigan Conference truly has a principled stance against the reallocation of tithe through a para-church ministry, they should stop participating in it. If, on the other hand, they see no problem with it, they should stop citing the tithe issue in their attacks on Vine and acknowledge their true motivations.

The Remnant

In the next section of his video, Howard argues that there will never come a time such as Vine described, because the remnant church will carry through to the end. He cites a passage from Ellen White’s writings that many have quoted throughout this debate:

Satan will work his miracles to deceive; he will set up his power as supreme. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out—the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.
(Selected Messages, Volume 2, p. 380)

There are at least four difficulties with the use of this paragraph to refute Vine’s statements.

What Is the Church?

Howard anticipates one objection immediately after reading the quote.

Some of you watching say, “Oh, no no no. You’re not reading that right. When she says ‘church’ she’s not talking about the Seventh-day Adventist organization or denomination; she’s talking about those faithful believers—the invisible church sometimes we call it—those faithful believers everywhere. That’s the church that’s not going to fall.” Let me ask you a question: If that’s what she’s talking about, who’s needing to be sifted out? In the statement she says that the sinners in Zion, the chaff in that church, will need to be sifted out. If that church is the faithful believers, by very definition there is no chaff in that church. That’s the true believers; there’s no chaff there. This could only be referring to the organization where … there are wheat and tares growing together, where there is chaff among the wheat, and it needs to be sifted out. It must be talking about the organized church, and that is the church that may appear that it’s about to fall, but it will not fall.
(22:49)

This argument refutes a straw man. While it may be that some have claimed “the church” equates to the faithful believers only, this is not the only alternative to interpreting it as the organization. Vine himself gave a simple definition of the church, one drawn directly from scripture: the body of Christ.

When we talk about the church, we often mean the legal hierarchy like the Northern New England conference, the Atlantic Union, North American Division, the General conference—when we talk about the church as members, that’s often what we mean. But the truth of the matter is, if the government of Maine were to cancel the registration, the legal registration of Northern New England conference, does that mean the Adventist Church would cease to exist in Maine, yes or no? Absolutely not. It means simply a functional unit where we return our tithes and offerings to to support pastors and educators and so forth; that no longer exists, but the body of Christ still exists. It simply becomes an underground Church, which means it has no legal presence.
(59:44)

While Vine goes on to describe a distinction between faithful Adventists and institutional Adventists, this does not restrict the definition of the church. The point is that the church, the body of Christ, existed before its formal organization, and will carry on regardless of what happens to that structure. The organization exists to support the church; it must not be confused with the church itself.

This is the order of precedence Paul sets forth in his first letter to the Corinthians:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. …
[…]
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way.
(1 Corinthians 12:12, 21–31, ESV)

The offices of the church are not an end unto themselves, but exist to serve the body of Christ. This passage flows directly into the “love chapter” (remember the chapter divisions were not original), reinforcing the message that Christlike love is what binds the church together, not hierarchy or spiritual gifts (the larger context of this passage) for their own sake. This love is what Vine has been urging church administrators for years to show to those wounded by the church’s statements during the pandemic.

Paul uses the same metaphor in another letter:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
(Ephesians 4:11–16, ESV)

Again, the church structure is not itself the body, but exists to build up the body—indeed, to allow the body to build itself up in love.

Seven Thousand in Israel

But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the church Ellen White says will not fall refers to the organization: the Conference, Union, Division, and General Conference structures that those of us in the well-evangelized world take for granted. It still bears noting that Vine did not say this entire structure might fall. In fact, the scenario he outlined implied that it will not, since he assumed faithful conferences would still exist to receive tithe!

“The church will not fall” does not mean that no administrative units within the church will ever go astray. The General Conference tacitly acknowledged this when it tried to discipline unions that ordained women. Not only did Vine never say the church would fall, but to twist his words to claim that he did is to implicate the General Conference in the same kind of “false doctrine”.

We may see a time when the church appears to fall, when, like Elijah, we are tempted to tell God, “The people of Israel have forsaken your covenant … and I, even I only, am left” (1 Kings 19:10). Apostasy throughout much of the official structure is certainly one circumstance that may give such an impression. But as Ellen White assures us, this will only be an appearance. God will still have His “seven thousand in Israel” (1 Kings 19:18). The church will not fall.

And Conrad Vine did not say it would.

Facts of History

Vine did not suggest the church might fall. What did he say? “If the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members…” He did not equate such support with the fall of the church, and for very good reason: the GC has supported such mandates.

Much of Vine’s sermon was a history lesson on ways parts of the organized church have gone astray in the past, and a reminder of the consequences of the mandates the General Conference did support. These actions by the GC and various conferences under it are facts of history. If such actions constitute the fall of the church, then the church has already fallen.

Thus, by treating Vine’s statements as if they meant that the church might someday fall, Howard’s arguments, not Vine’s, are the ones that logically imply that the church has already fallen, since the church has already done the things Vine suggested it might do again in the future. Of course, Howard did not say the church has fallen, and no reasonable person would conclude he believes that. But that is the logical consequence of his interpretation of Vine’s words. If we believe, as Ellen White tells us, that the church will not fall, we must conclude that the scenario Vine described is not equivalent to such a fall, otherwise White has already been proven wrong.

Context

Ellen White did not write the paragraph Howard cites in a vacuum. It was part of a letter she wrote to G.I. Butler and S.N. Haskell. This letter forms most of chapter 48, “A Work of Purification Needed”, in Selected Messages, Volume 2. The whole chapter is a call for God’s people to have a firmer hold on God and purify their lives. Earlier in the letter, she writes,

God never forsakes people or individuals until they forsake Him. Outward opposition will not cause the faith of God’s people, who are keeping His commandments, to become dim. The neglect to bring purity and truth into practice will grieve the Spirit of God and weaken them because God is not in their midst to bless. Internal corruption will bring the denunciations of God upon this people as it did upon Jerusalem. Oh, let pleading voices, let earnest prayer be heard, that those who preach to others shall not themselves be castaways. My brethren, we know not what is before us, and our only safety is in following the Light of the world. God will work with us and for us if the sins which brought His wrath upon the old world, upon Sodom and Gomorrah and upon ancient Jerusalem, do not become our crime.
The least transgression of God’s law brings guilt upon the transgressor, and without earnest repentance and forsaking of sin he will surely become an apostate.… Let us as a people, as far as possible, cleanse the camp of moral defilement and aggravating sins. When sin is making its march upon the people who claim to be elevating the moral standard of righteousness, how can we expect God to turn His power in our behalf and save us as a people that did righteousness? … If as a people we do not keep ourselves in the faith and not only advocate with pen and voice the commandments of God, but keep them every one, not violating a single precept knowingly, then weakness and ruin will come upon us. It is a work that we must attend to in every one of our churches. Each man must be a Christian.
(Selected Messages, Volume 2, p. 378–379)

White does not separate the spiritual health of the church (“as a people”) from that of individual members (“each man”). But wait a minute. How can she warn that “If as a people we do not keep ourselves in the faith … then weakness and ruin will come upon us”, and then just a few paragraphs later promise that “The church … does not fall”? One of the means by which God preserves His church is through the courage of men and women who, throughout the ages, have stepped forward to call sin by its right name and stand for the right though the heavens fall. This sometimes involves solemn warnings such as the ones God gave Ellen White to bear, but these warnings do not negate the promises of God.

Conrad Vine’s message, then, did not contradict God’s promise through Ellen White. Vine stands in a long line of faithful servants of God who have risked their reputations and more to call out sin within the church. This is one of the means by which God prevents His church from falling.

A High Bar

As I said at the outset, false doctrine is a serious charge to level against a brother in Christ and minister of the gospel. And if he was not preaching false doctrine, the conference should have been much slower to ban him. Howard’s video does not present enough evidence to show that Vine is a heretic. If the conference has other biblical reasons for banning him, they should have presented them at the outset, but they can still do so. They must not merely demonstrate that Vine’s arguments are weak or that his positions threaten the traditional status quo, but that he has contradicted the foundational principles of the Bible, the Fundamental Beliefs, or the inspired teachings of Ellen White. Unless and until they meet this high bar, the continued ban on Conrad Vine is a perplexing failure on the part of those who in so many other ways have stood for truth and righteousness.

Don’t Drive Him Out!

Elder Vine has testified publicly that the conference’s treatment of him has hurt his children’s faith. One can only imagine the assault it makes on his own. To treat a faithful worker for God as a heretic for expressing heartfelt concerns about the welfare of the church’s mission—often with deep sorrow in his voice—is sure to not only wound him deeply, but create a temptation to lose trust in God and drift in the direction his church leadership is pushing him. I know Conrad personally. I believe he has a strong faith, and with God’s help can weather this storm. But the church will have much to answer for regarding the way it has treated him and others.

More than once I have thought of David’s appeal to King Saul:

Now therefore let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it is the LORD who has stirred you up against me, may he accept an offering, but if it is men, may they be cursed before the LORD, for they have driven me out this day that I should have no share in the heritage of the LORD, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods.’ Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of the LORD.
(1Samuel 26:19–20)

David knew that God was present even beyond the borders of Israel, and Conrad knows that God is faithful despite the failings of human leadership. But David appealed to God’s appointed leader to consider the natural effect toward which his actions tended: Saul behaved as one who wanted to drive David away from God, not bring him closer.

I ask the Michigan Conference leadership to consider the effect of their actions, both on the unity and mission of the church and on the faith of the individuals entrusted to their care. I urge them to act as faithful shepherds, who do not desire to see members of the flock fall to the earth away from the presence of the LORD.

****