Many of the striving faithful in the Seventh-day Adventist Church today find their hearts deeply troubled by persistently negative conditions in parts of the denomination. They see pastors tolerated, even endorsed, who have publicly affirmed sinful practices and who urge the body of Christ to do the same. They observe bullying tactics by some in responsible positions directed at congregations who invite to their pulpits pastors in good and regular standing, fully faithful to the church’s Fundamental Beliefs, who have never experienced ecclesiastical discipline or engaged in unbecoming conduct.
What is perhaps most disturbing to many who abhor these conditions is the fact that in so many cases, corrective measures don’t seem to be applied to the persons or institutions responsible for these problems. Those with these concerns are perhaps most vexed by the contrast they perceive between the patience shown by some in leadership toward those openly defiant of Scripture and duly voted church policy, and the heavy-handed tactics they have witnessed from unfaithful leaders toward those calling the church back to doctrinal and moral faithfulness as set forth in the Bible and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.
God Condemns Weak Leadership
Make no mistake about it. God condemns weak leadership on the part of those responsible for guiding His covenant community. The inspired record is clear how, in the ancient world, indecisive leaders brought calamity on God’s people through their failure to rebuke and act against apostasy and sin. Aaron, the brother of Moses, was one such leader. Ellen White speaks as follows regarding the crisis Aaron faced when Israel demanded a golden calf:
Such a crisis demanded a man of firmness, decision, and unflinching courage; one who held the honor of God above popular favor, personal safety, or life itself. But the present leader of Israel was not of this character. Aaron feebly remonstrated with the people, but his wavering and timidity at the critical moment only rendered them the more determined [##1|Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 316.##].
We all know the story that followed. Eleven out of the twelve tribes of Israel were seduced into idolatry, and three thousand of the people were put to death as a result (Ex. 32:28). The same permissive spirit was demonstrated by Eli toward his wicked sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Ellen White describes the lessons Eli’s experience holds for church leaders today:
God held Eli, as a priest and judge of Israel, accountable for the moral and religious standing of his people, and in a special sense for the character of his sons. He should first have attempted to restrain evil by mild measures; but if these did not avail, he should have subdued the wrong by the severest means. He incurred the Lord’s displeasure by not reproving sin and executing justice upon the sinner. He could not be depended upon to keep Israel pure. Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong, or who through indolence or lack of interest make no earnest effort to purify the family or the church of God, are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty. We are just as responsible for evils that we might have checked in others by exercise of parental or pastoral authority as if the acts had been our own [##2|——Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 578.##].
Describing the incident at Bethel where young mockers were attacked by bears for having made fun of the prophet Elisha (II Kings 2:23-24), the modern prophet writes:
Even kindness should have its limits. Authority must be maintained by a firm severity, or it will be received by many with mockery and contempt. The so-called tenderness, the coaxing and indulgence, used toward youth by parents and guardians, is one of the worst evils which can come upon them. In every family, firmness, decision, positive requirements, are essential [##3|——Prophets and Kings, p. 236.##].
The family of God—the church—is no different. The inspired record is clear that loving firmness is the divine mandate for governance in both settings.
Regarding the retention of open sinners on the church books, Ellen White declares:
The names of those who sin and refuse to repent should not be retained on the church books, lest the saints be held accountable for their evil deeds. Those who pursue a course of transgression should be visited and labored with, and if they then refuse to repent, they should be separated from church fellowship, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Word of God.
Those who refuse to hear the admonitions and warnings given by God’s faithful messengers are not to be retained in the church. They are to be disfellowshiped; for they will be as Achan in the camp of Israel—deceived and deceiving.
Who, after reading the record of Achan’s sin and punishment, can think it according to the will of God that those who do wickedly, refusing to repent, are to be retained in the church? To retain them would be an insult to the God of heaven [##4|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1096.##].
Other examples from the Sacred Record, other inspired admonitions, could be cited here. But the above cases offer clear evidence that vacillating, accommodating measures against wrongdoing in the faith community dishonor the work of God, and that decisive measures are needed to maintain respect for godly authority.
Principles of the Great Controversy
At the same time, God’s character and the principles to which He adheres in the setting of the great controversy between good and evil, impose limits as to what God and His servants can and cannot do in addressing the problem of sin. In recounting the origin of evil, Ellen White says:
In His dealings with sin, God could only employ righteousness and truth. Satan could use what God could not—flattery and deceit. He had sought to falsify the word of God and had misrepresented His plan of government before the angels, claiming that God was not just in laying laws and rules upon the inhabitants of heaven; that in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, He was seeking merely the exaltation of Himself. Therefore it must be demonstrated before the inhabitants of heaven, as well as of all the worlds, that God’s government was just, His law perfect. Satan had made it appear that he himself was seeking to promote the good of the universe. The true character of the usurper, and his real object, must be understood by all. He must have time to manifest himself by his wicked works [##5|——The Great Controversy, p. 498.##]
Weakness and indecision in addressing spiritual rebellion are never justifiable. But too often, in the struggle against apostasy in the church, it is assumed that because ungodly leaders at times overstep their rightful authority and use bullying tactics against the godly, that godly leaders are therefore justified in using the same tactics against the ungodly. But the principles Ellen White describes in the above statement should help us recognize that this assumption is false. Fighting “fire with fire,” as some would say, is not an option if such a course involves needless severity, dictatorial methods, and a violation of due process.
Authority Misused and Misunderstood
Too often, when some in church leadership overstep their authority—for example, demanding resignations by church officers when such demands are wholly inappropriate, taking authority upon themselves rightfully belonging to the collective judgment of constituents and congregations—those on the receiving end of these abuses permit themselves to be cowed, often thinking that in conceding to such demands they are showing “Christian humility.” This is another false assumption. Humility is not at all the issue in situations like these, but rather, the maintenance of Biblical order. Sadly, when church members (or even pastors) surrender to such tactics, they wrongly convey the impression that those misusing their authority in this fashion have the right to do as they are doing, rather than making it clear that such actions on the part of those in authority are both unscriptural and contrary to established church policy.
The fact that Seventh-day Adventist church government doesn’t grant absolute power to those in executive authority also helps us understand why administrators who violate Biblical teachings and duly voted church policy cannot be summarily removed by their superiors, as some seem to believe possible. Local administrators who tolerate open sin in a pastor—as witnessed lately in a local Conference in Europe—cannot be expelled from office simply at the command of those at higher levels in the church structure. Specific procedures as outlined in the church’s working policies must be followed in order for such discipline to occur. And unless the administrative superiors in question have the requisite number of votes within the governing bodies responsible, such corrective actions become difficult if not impossible.
Like the President of the United States, the President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is not a dictator. In both cases, executive power is curtailed by constitutional limits. For the church in particular, respect for these limits in the pursuit of reform is not a sign of weakness, but rather, a recognition of both the deliberative and redemptive nature of the disciplinary process.
Conclusion
We noted earlier Ellen White’s statement that God’s patient, longsuffering course in dealing with Satan is for the purpose of permitting rebellion to demonstrate its true character, thus persuading the onlooking universe as to God’s eternal justice. Sadly, the wicked view God’s patience as a license to persist in rebellion. In the words of the wise man:
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil (Eccl. 8:11).
But this is all part of the divine plan in prosecuting the controversy between Christ and Satan. When the universe sees how God’s patience and mercy have become an excuse for the wicked to further indulge their wickedness, it becomes clear that when God at last executes retributive justice toward the wrongdoer, divine love—no less than justice—will be vindicated.
Following the re-election of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in 1916, Franklin D. Roosevelt—then serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy—urged Wilson to commit at once the military forces of the United States to the war then raging in Europe. Wilson refused, for the following reasons:
I want history to show not only that we have tried every diplomatic means to keep out of the war; to show that war has been forced upon us deliberately by Germany; but also that we have come into the court of history with clean hands [##6|Woodrow Wilson, quoted by Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Political Life (New York: Random House, 2017), p. 62.##].
God has used a similar approach in the larger controversy between good and evil. Wise church leaders, when dealing with heresy and sin in the body of Christ, will show a similar blend of decision and forbearance. Soon after making the above statement to Franklin Roosevelt, following the unleashing by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, Woodrow Wilson would be constrained to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. But when this became necessary, it was clear—as Wilson had earlier stated—that all other means had failed.
Let us pray that the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church will likewise address the accelerating crises in our midst with the rightful balance between restraint and resolution. Above all, let us never lose faith in God’s promise to His church through His end-time prophet:
There is no need to doubt, to be fearful that the work will not succeed. God is at the head of the work, and He will set everything in order. If matters need adjusting at the head of the work, God will attend to that, and work to right every wrong. Let us have faith that God is going to carry the noble ship which bears the people of God safely into port [##7|White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 390.##].
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 316.
2. Ibid, p. 578.
3. ----Prophets and Kings, p. 236.
4. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1096.
5. ----The Great Controversy, p. 498.
6. Woodrow Wilson, quoted by Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Political Life (New York: Random House, 2017), p. 62.
7. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 390.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan