Background
For the last several months, the Village Church, on the orders of the Michigan Conference (MISDA), has denied the pulpit and a leadership role to a prominent elder, international speaker and revivalist, Dr. Conrad Vine. As the former president of Adventist Frontier Missions, Vine is known around the world for his dedication and, since the COVID pandemic, has become one of the most influential leaders within Adventism.¹
Village Church, following the counsel of Scripture to not accept an evil report of an elder without due process (Deut 19:15-19, I Tim 5:19), agreed to temporarily comply with MISDA’s gag order pending a hearing when the Conference would present its case against Vine. After several months of refusal, in a duly held business meeting, Village gave the Conference until June 30 to participate in a church business meeting called for that purpose, after which time, if the Conference refuses, Village will reinstate him.
Unfortunately, MISDA leaders have doubled down. They are adamant that they have the authority under the Church Manual to unilaterally ban Vine, without going through the local congregation in a business session.
Their basis? The “Authorized Speakers” section on page 126 of the Church Manual. [Text within square brackets is mine]:
Authorized Speakers—Only speakers worthy of confidence will be invited to the pulpit by the local church pastor, in harmony with guidelines given by the conference [Notice there is no reference here to the guidelines of Scripture.]. The local elders or church board may also invite speakers, in consultation with the pastor, and in harmony with conference [Again, reference to Bible standards is absent] guidelines. Individuals who are no longer members [that is, those who have been disfellowshipped or who have withdrawn from membership], or who are under discipline, should not be given access to the pulpit. . . . Every pastor, elder, and conference president must enforce this rule [and by implication, every local congregation must submit.] CM, pp. 126, 127.
But, Village leaders, on the other hand, rely on page 79 of the Manual which reads: “Authority to elect elders is inherent in the local church and not in the conference executive committee.” But more importantly, they affirm that in the SDA Church, we discipline members on biblical grounds when necessary as per the Manual steps, we don’t ban individuals.
Undeterred, MISDA administrators recently called former Conference president, Jay Gallimore, out of retirement and unilaterally appointed him as their interim pastor. Elder Gallimore, to the surprise and dismay of many, is believed to be in agreement with the Conference position.
Admittedly, if the Manual is strictly construed, it can be interpreted to mean that Conference leaders have an absolute right to ban local members. However, that construction places the Manual above Scripture and the principles of justice. The true Protestant position is that the Manual is a guide in implementing the generous principles of Scripture, of “come, let us reason together.” To dispense with due process manifests the spirit of absolutism, of coercive barbarism and of the Inquisition.
But MISDA, like the Inquisition, has prejudged Vine’s case and therefore to them a hearing is pointless. What Dr. Conrad has said is indeed common knowledge in Adventism. But MISDA are loath to admit that what he says is scriptural, and furthermore, they are alarmed Vines’ message is widely welcomed by conservative and even some liberal Adventists as a breath of fresh air. And to biblical Adventists, it truly is a breath of life from the Spirit of God. Here is a recent presentation from Dr. Vine.
But the appointment of Elder Gallimore does not augur well for either party. From MISDA perspective, his appointment is not so much to prevent schism as it is a contingency plan to salvage as much of the remaining members and property for the Conference as possible. Sadly, this is the long-standing policy of Rome: Rule or ruin and if ruin, then scavenge whatever remains. As in the past and in Gallimore’s appointment, the Manual will likely be the main instrument to subvert the cause of Village because the Manual, in its present form, as will be seen shortly, sets the rules while offering lip service to the supremacy of Scripture.
So, please permit me, friends, to show you how we got here; to provide you briefly with the Manual’s history, the role that it was originally intended to fill, how this played out in the past and how the Manual is, once again, the focus of both the upcoming June 30 trembler and the impending 2025 GC eruption that may follow.
Brief History of the Manual
In 1883, the General Conference set up an ad hoc (a specific purpose) Committee to assess the question of adopting a church manual. One of the main reasons put forward for a manual was that it would be the repository of the church’s statement of beliefs. Those who were the strongest advocates for the manual were the same ones who advocated an official belief statement. These were law and order folks, if you will, and there’s nothing wrong with that because God is a God of order. But, after carefully and prayerfully studying the issue, the committee concluded that the Bible itself was the gold standard of law and order. They summarized their findings in these words:
“It is the unanimous opinion of the committee appointed to consider the matter of a church manual, that it would not be advisable to have a church manual. We consider it unnecessary because we already have surmounted the greatest difficulties connected with church organization without one; and perfect harmony exists among us on this subject. It would seem to many like a step towards the formation of a creed or a discipline, other than the Bible, something we have always been opposed to as a denomination. . .
The committee feels, in short, that our tendency should be in the direction of the policy and close conformity of the Bible, rather than to elaborate, defining every point in the church management and church ordinances." (Review and Herald, November 20, 1883).
A week later, the General Conference President, Elder George Butler (General Conference President, 1871-1874; 1880-1888), gave his assessment of the Committee's findings in the church paper, The Review and Herald:
“When brethren who have favored a manual have even contended that such a work was not to be anything like a creed or a discipline, or to have any authority to settle disputed points, but was only to be considered as a book containing hints for the help of those of little experience, yet it must be evident that such a work, issued under the auspices of the General Conference, would at once, carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of our young ministers. It would gradually shape and mould the entire body; and those who did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with established principles of church order.
And really, is this not the object of a manual? What would be the use of one if not to accomplish such a result? But would this result, on a whole, be a benefit? Would our ministers be broader, more original, more self-reliant men? Would they be better depended on in great emergencies? Would their spiritual experience likely be deeper and their judgment more reliable? We think the tendency all the other way .... We have preserved simplicity, and have prospered in so doing. It is best to let well enough alone. For these and other reasons, the church manual was rejected. It is probable that it will never be brought forward again." (Review and Herald, November 27,1883, emphasis supplied).
Despite Elder Butler's belief that the issue would not surface again, fifty years later, the General Conference adopted a Manual, and since then, there has been no turning back.² At each GC session since 1932, revisions to the Manual and supporting policies and our Belief Statements have been the main order of business.
Is the Manual Biblical?
In rejecting the 1883 decision of the GC ad hoc committee, did the church make a mistake? No, if the Bible had remained the standard of faith and practice. But did it? A quick survey of its 93-year history to its current version reveals the answer.
From its first adoption, the question has always been which rules and standards will prevail in Adventism – Scripture or human? Unsurprisingly, at the start of the current edition, there is ambiguity on this point. Regarding its authority, it reads:
“The standards and practices of the Church are based upon the principles of the Holy Scriptures. These principles . . . are set forth in this Church Manual. They are to be followed in all matters pertaining to the administration and operation of local churches. The Church Manual also defines the relationship that exists between the local congregation and the conference or other entities of Seventh-day Adventist denominational organization” (p. 18, 19).
How is the underlined word “they” in the italicized sentence to be understood? Does it mean the principles to be followed are those of Scripture or those of the Manual? If we are Bible-based Protestants, it is the former: The Scripture is our infallible standard, and the Manual should be a commentary – helpful in some cases but fallible. But right here at the start of the Manual, we see it can be interpreted otherwise and misused as the final authority in church matters, supplanting Scripture.
The appeal provision of the Manual (See p. 19) tends to confirm the potential for abuse. Disputes on its application are not resolved by Scripture as the final authority but by higher levels of conference leaders who have the sole right to interpret it. Like with Roman Catholic canon law, the “Manual” of 1.3 billion Catholics, in Adventism, the Manual increasingly serves the same function - to set aside the Bible as the sole rule of faith and discipline. But Ellen White, in agreement with the reformers, apostles and prophets, states:
“The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline”³ (Review and Herald, December 15,1885). emphasis supplied.
Notice in the above statement, made two years after the General Conference rejected the creation of a manual, that Ellen White also affirmed the Bible itself as “our rule of discipline”.
Another example: The supra-scriptural tone of the Manual is reflected in the power it confers on Executive Committees to appoint and remove pastors at will. But Scripture does not confer absolute power on Peter or his successors. Christ said, “You are all brethren" (Mat 23:8). The apostles taught the priesthood of all believers with the Word as our judge and standard. The Executive Committee is equally subject to the Word, but on this essential point, the Manual implies otherwise. And why is this? Because the leadership has intentionally worded it to override the input of local congregations in their selection and continued employment of a pastor, MISDA being a case in point.
In the light of the Village Church dispute, the GC leadership at the upcoming Session will further revise the Manual to consolidate their authority with the following addition:
“This committee [the Nominating Committee] does not nominate either the pastor or the assistant pastor(s), who are appointed by the conference” (GC25 Session Agenda, p. 50).
In summary, since its adoption, the Manual has occupied the bulk of every General Conference session with the result that Adventism has built a ponderous edifice of policy, supplementing and often replacing Scripture, not unlike Catholic canon law - rules for thee but not for me. When constituents have dared to challenge the position or actions of leaders, the policy men who built the edifice have routinely abused and misused it. And when its provisions do not suit them, they seldom follow it or Robert's Rules of Order, or justice and common decency.
Other Proposed Manual Revisions
The 2025 GC Agenda can now be downloaded here. Like GC sessions since 1932, the bulk of the agenda items are Manual revisions that run on for over 50 pages. But you can review the purpose of all of them in ten minutes by scrolling to each and reading the “Rationale” summary in the introduction.
Conspicuous by its absence are any items that address the revolt of the North American Division and Trans European Divisions from the votes of former GC sessions by the world church. No attempt has been made to uphold Biblical morality in our educational institutions, which are in varying advanced degrees of apostasy on this point. No effort is made to realign them with the blueprint for education found in the Scripture and the writings of Ellen White, nor is there any call for repentance and reform of our health institutions that failed us miserably during the COVID-19 pandemic and have long since departed from the Adventist health message.
In spite of the petitions of thousands of Adventists, nothing has been added to control the unauthorized issuance of public statements by administrative bodies outside of GC sessions that purport to speak for the world church, nor have any of the prior unauthorized statements been submitted to the GC for scrutiny and adoption. No attempt has been made to salvage ADRA or address the open apostasy of leaders within PARL and others who have publicly denied the writings of Ellen White, the three angels’ messages, and betrayed Adventist interests to the anti-Christian, globalist agenda of the United Nations.
Instead, we find a long list of amendments that double down on the unscriptural authority of church leaders to censor, cancel and control members and church finances. Of the 29 amendments, the bulk of the substantive items augment leadership control over membership transfers, sanction the diversion of tithes and offerings to other worthy causes and independent ministries by using tithes and offerings as a primary screening tool for holding church offices and as a test of loyalty in the newly introduced annual membership reviews.
The MISDA Position, the 2025 Session and Cancel Culture
How does all this mesh with developments at the Village Church? If what MISDA is doing is allowed to stand, and is seconded at the upcoming GC by further draconian amendments, then any Conference can unilaterally ban any local church member from public participation. The effect will be to shut down any voices that question the dominant, progressive narratives. Knowing this, MISDA, at the instigation and with the approval of the GC, as evidenced by the 2025 agenda, have both entrenched themselves on the wrong side of Scripture and history.
The 2025 agenda is a classic example of a reactionary attempt to rule or ruin. Come June 30, if the Villagers hold the line, and I pray they do, they may be banned and locked out, like the Gaithersburg, Maryland church.
But take heart, folks. God is a God of justice, and He is well able to look out for those who are loyal to Him. If we remain true and act in faith and love, He will abundantly bless us. One year before the historic 1888 General Conference Session that sifted the church, and which is a harbinger of what is in store for us shortly, Ellen White prophesied:
The days of purification of the church are hastening on apace. God will have a people pure and true. In the mighty sifting soon to take place, we shall be better able to measure the strength of Israel. The signs reveal that the time is near when the Lord will manifest that his fan is in his hand, and that he soon will thoroughly purge his floor {RH January 11, 1887, par. 3}.
****
Mark Shipowick is a dual Canadian and American citizen who lives in West Virginia. He is a lawyer by training, admitted in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, but also does health outreach ministry and builds.
Notes
I say “within Adventism” because there are better-known public evangelists such as Doug Batchelor. But within conservative Adventism, Vine’s influence is unmatched. That is not necessarily healthy in the long term. It would be better to have a well-tempered leadership team of peers, but the Lord often spearheads a reform movement in its infancy through one or two individuals.
Since 1932, the only notable call (that I’m aware of) for the abolishment of the Manual and a return to Scripture came from Drs. Colin and Russell Standish, in their book titled The 28 Fundamental Beliefs, 2005, Highwood Books, Narbethong, Australia. This wake-up call must have set the alarm bells ringing at world headquarters, but their call did not receive significant attention. The Standishes were ahead of their time. The Church, rich and increased with goods, slept on, while Satan stole another march on us.
The word “discipline” here refers to all aspects of the Christian life and conduct, including church governance and discipline.
