A recent suggestion that a mechanism be put in place whereby tithes and offerings from concerned church members might be directed away from certain entities and toward others within the Seventh-day Adventist global structure, has evoked considerable discussion online and elsewhere.
Though a cluster of denominational issues appear to be driving this suggestion, the principal catalyst seems to be the recent controversy over vaccine mandates during the recent COVID pandemic, and the apparent fear of certain ones that similar crises in the future could result in the trampling of individual consciences by the actions of church administrators.
Let it be clarified from the outset that the principal source of this suggestion is not, at least at the present time, proposing that concerned believers withdraw financial support from the organized church as a whole, nor is he suggesting that a new church organization (i.e. an offshoot movement) be set in motion. Rather, he is suggesting the possible viability of a parachurch organization by which tithes and offerings from concerned church members could be diverted from Conferences (local and otherwise) where vaccine mandates, LGBTQ acceptance, and similar practices are enforced as policy by church administrators, and subsequently be directed to segments of the church structure where opposition to such practices is the policy of those who govern.
But regardless of what this individual is presently advocating, it is clear from his pronouncements that his proposal for a parachurch organization is being offered with a view to major structural fractures which he anticipates in the denomination’s future. The paradigm through which he views the church’s future, including the ultimate crisis foretold in Revelation 13, is that of a two-tiered church structure—one above-ground, the other underground—similar to what has taken place in various totalitarian countries during the past century.
Whatever its present status, whatever the motive of its designers, we are constrained to ask, Is this a wise suggestion? The present article will consider it from several angles.
A Problematic Suggestion
But when thought and reflection are applied to the details of this suggestion, a number of likely problems come quickly to the fore.
First, if a parachurch organization of the sort being described here were to be assembled, how would its constituents be chosen? Who would screen them? What standards would measure their fitness for participation in such a structure? The principal architect of this suggestion says that “fidelity to Scripture” would be the test for the organization’s choices in the disbursement of tithes and offerings to various entities within the denomination. But exactly what would this mean, and who would determine its contours and limits?
Second, how far would the group’s definition of “fidelity to Scripture” be taken? Would the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy also be included? What about SDA Fundamental Beliefs, and church policies endorsed by the General Conference in session? Would decisions made by the GC executive committee at Annual Council and/or Spring Meeting have any role here?
Third, the one making this suggestion uses the “woke” label quite freely in defining those elements within the church with whom he differs. With this new parachurch organization he proposes, which he believes would divert tithes and offerings from certain segments of the church structure and direct them to others, he says, “Those Conferences that go ‘woke’ would go broke.”
If the term “woke” is being used to disallow such unscriptural practices as the ordination of women to the gospel ministry or those behaviors associated with the LGBTQ movement, then I hope we could all agree. Fidelity to Scripture certainly requires that the above practices be forbidden. But whatever one’s views may be of the COVID vaccine or of various secular political perspectives, one can hardly make the case that “fidelity to Scripture” requires faithful Adventists to take one position or the other regarding such issues.
Neither the Bible nor the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy condemn vaccinations or vaccine mandates. Neither does either inspired source offer a sweeping condemnation of any particular political ideology, whatever position that ideology is assigned on the left-middle-right spectrum. It is truly sad that Ellen White’s warnings against secular political divisiveness within the church [##1|Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 475-486; Gospel Workers, pp. 391-396; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 331-333.##] are being largely ignored by those who employ such terms as “woke,” “Marxist,” “socialist,” and “communist” to political philosophies, policies, and persons with which they don’t happen to agree.
Moreover, the one suggesting this parachurch option urges that the church and its institutions refuse without qualification any government aid whatsoever, particularly with reference to schools and medical facilities. At one point he claims that while in the past the government of the United States was, in his words, “ideologically benign,” in his opinion this is no longer the case.
Are these the kind of standards that the parachurch entity such as this brother describes would use to evaluate the Biblical faithfulness of Conferences, Unions, institutions, and employees, thus determining which of the above are worthy of support by faithful church members? Would a local Conference or other entity be deemed “woke” by this parachurch group if pastors, administrators, or employees at any level were known or suspected to harbor political philosophies that the parachurch group considers “Marxist” or “socialist”—which nowadays encompasses, at least in certain minds, just about any policy or ideology believed to be left of the political center?
Do we really want this sort of secular political divisiveness exacerbated within the denomination, especially in light of the counsel God’s prophet has given to the church relative to such matters?
The issue is not whether people within the church are allowed to hold particular political opinions and vote accordingly in the electoral process. Rather, the issue before us is whether we allow such issues to divide God’s people. The following inspired statements should give pause to anyone who would publicly designate as “woke,” and thus unworthy of financial support, anyone or any entity within the denomination that differs with the political philosophy to which they adhere:
Whatever the opinions you may entertain in regard to casting your vote in political questions, you are not to proclaim it by pen or voice. Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel’s message [##2|——Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337.##].
By parading their political belief before the world, just as worldings do, they have created division, strife, and jealousy among themselves. The influence of this course of action is a great offense to God, and He cannot and will not prosper those who follow it [##3|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, p. 130.##].
It lies quite beyond the scope of this article to examine in depth the limits and content of political involvement as outlined in the inspired text. When Ellen White states, “Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel’s message” [##4|——Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337.##], she obviously implies that certain questions (including political ones) are indeed related to the proclamation of the three angels’ messages. Slavery and racial issues [##5|——Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 202,533-534.##], alcohol prohibition [##6|——The Ministry of Healing, pp. 337-346.##], and religious liberty [##7|——Gospel Workers, pp. 389-390.##] would be among them. But the sweeping, unqualified application of such labels as “woke” would in no way harmonize with the inspired cautions noted above. Even less would such designations harmonize with the church’s mission were an independent organization to arise which would determine workers and institutions to be unworthy of support because they are thought to subscribe to political beliefs which the parachurch group has demonized.
Fourth, the actions of a parachurch group such as this could well invite unintended consequences. If, for example, a Conference is believed to be dominated by administrators and pastors who give evidence of serious unfaithfulness to the inspired writings, the withdrawal of financial support by the faithful from such a Conference could easily invite the termination of faithful employees within that Conference should funds begin to diminish and retrenchment be seen as necessary.
Having myself lived in, and been close enough to observe, territories where theological liberalism is ubiquitous, I have nearly always found the principle of First Kings 19:18 to be operative—that God has His proverbial seven thousand in such places who haven’t bowed the knee to Baal. It is dangerous to write off any entity within the church as irredeemable and worthy of abandonment—financial or otherwise—by the striving faithful within the church. Only God knows the heart (I Kings 8:39); thus He alone can declare as He did to Ephraim of old—that he is “joined to idols; let him alone” (Hosea 4:17).
For all of the above reasons, and more which we will consider, the creation of some parachurch organization to withhold tithes and offerings from certain entities within the church and direct them elsewhere, would be the source of unwarranted chaos, division, and widespread misunderstanding. If, to be sure, a local congregation, Conference, or institution is subjected to corporate church discipline because of apostasy or open sin, the rightful course of church members so far as financial means are concerned would be to direct them to the next highest level of church administration. But unlike the actions of an independent structure, the afore-stated disciplinary process would be guided by properly constituted church authority. For any self-supporting group to take upon itself this kind of responsibility would, in all likelihood, produce more harm than good.
Should Tithes and Offerings Serve as Weapons of Protest?
The withholding of the Lord’s money from the organized church as a means of protesting the presence of sin and apostasy in its ranks is nothing new. The final years of the last century saw a great deal of this among the striving faithful in certain parts of the Adventist world. And none of these experiments in financial autonomy ended well so far as the pursuit of revival and reformation in the church was concerned. Issues of faithfulness to the inspired pen relative to doctrine and standards were eclipsed by the allegation that those raising the aforesaid issues were trying to operate a “church within the church.”
To be fair, the suggestion under discussion in the present article is not that tithes or offerings be directed outside of official Adventism, only that a lay-led entity be established that would direct these funds exclusively to segments of the organized church deemed faithful by the new parachurch structure. But the inspired pen offers very specific counsel on the appropriation of tithe which bears scrutiny in our present context.
Many are familiar with Ellen White’s letter to one Elder Watson in 1905, who was then serving as president of the Colorado Conference. In this letter Ellen White spoke of her occasional use of her tithe, and that of others that had been sent to her for appropriation, to aid workers in the American South who lacked needful remuneration in their labors:
It has been presented to me for years that my tithe was to be appropriated by myself to aid the white and colored ministers who were neglected and did not receive sufficient properly to support their families. When my attention was called to aged ministers, white or black, it was my special duty to investigate into their necessities and supply their needs. This was to be my special work, and I have done this in a number of cases [##8|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 99.##].
But in the very next sentence she states:
No man should give notoriety to the fact that in special cases the tithe is used in that way [##9|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 99.##].
She goes on to say:
If there have been cases where our sisters have appropriated their tithe to the support of the ministers working for the colored people in the South, let every man, if he is wise, hold his peace [##10|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 99.##].
She continues by repeating her caution that such appropriation of tithe outside of regular channels “is not a matter that should be commented upon, for it will necessitate my making known these matters, which I do not desire to do, because it is not best” [##11|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 100.##]. She goes on to state:
I would not advise that anyone should make a practice of gathering up tithe money [##12|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 100.##].
First and foremost, it is clear from these statements that God Himself had instructed her to use her tithe, together with tithe sent to her by others, in the manner she here describes. In her words: “It has been presented to me for years that my tithe was to be appropriated by myself to aid the white and colored ministers who were neglected and did not receive sufficient properly to support their families” [##13|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 99.##]. When an inspired prophet is given direct divine guidance in such cases, such a one is clearly obligated to employ the funds in question as divinely directed. But at the same time she both discouraged the publication of such a practice to the larger denominational membership, and counseled others—who unlike her lacked the gift of prophetic inspiration—not to do what she was doing. Hence her admonition: “I would not advise that anyone should make a practice of gathering up tithe money” [##14|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 100.##]
But in no context does the counsel of Ellen White ever advise, or permit, the diverting of tithe from the Conference storehouse as a means of protesting or correcting apostasy and sin within the church. The following statements offer a very clear warning against the use of God’s money in this way:
Some have been dissatisfied, and have said, “I will no longer pay my tithe; for I have no confidence in the way things are managed at the heart of the work.” But will you rob God because you think the management of the work is not right? Make your complaint, plainly and openly, in the right spirit, to the proper ones. Send in your petitions for things to be adjusted and set in order; but do not withdraw from the work of God, and prove unfaithful, because others are not doing right [##15|——Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 249.##].
The tithes and offerings are not the property of any man, but are to be used in doing a certain work for God. Unworthy ministers may receive some of the means thus used, but dare any one, because of this, withhold from the treasury, and brave the curse of God? I dare not. I pay my tithes gladly and freely, saying as did David, “Of Thine own have we given Thee.” . . . If the Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord, that is the sin of the erring ones. The Lord will not hold you responsible for it, if you do what you can to correct the evil. But do not commit sin yourselves by withholding from God His own property [##16|——Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, pp. 74-75.##].
Some will likely respond by saying that to divert tithe from one segment of the organized church to another is not the same as “withholding from God His own property” [##17|——Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 75.##]. But the above statement in particular is clear that merely because “unworthy ministers may receive some of the means thus used” [##18|——Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 74.##], or because “Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord” [##19|——Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 75.##], gives no one the right to desist from returning tithes and offerings to the Conference storehouse, and that such a course on the part of church members constitutes sin against God. How does it lie within the purview of individuals outside the regular lines of denominational authority to decide which segments of the official church should be granted or denied material support?
The above statements should give notable pause to anyone suggesting that an independent lay organization be set up to decide which segments of the denominational structure merit support from the tithes and offerings of believers and which do not, especially if the standards used to evaluate worthiness include man-made issues and ideologies, such as vaccine mandates and secular political affiliations.
Not the Mark of the Beast—But Nevertheless a Hill to Die On
The principal voice suggesting the establishment of a parachurch organization has said repeatedly that the vaccine issue of the past few years—or presumably any similar issue in the future—does not (and supposedly would not) constitute the eschatological mark of the beast. At the same time, it is very clear from his statements that he believes vaccine mandates represent a proverbial “hill to die on” so far as resistance to church policy and the diverting of material support are concerned. From his perspective such issues may not be the mark of the beast, but it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that when one listens to his rhetoric, such issues easily qualify as “Mark of the Beast Junior.”
The biggest problem here is man-made tests. Whatever opinion one holds of the COVID vaccine, or any other vaccine, neither vaccinations nor vaccine mandates are forbidden by the inspired writings—not in Scripture, not in the writings of Ellen White. We aren’t talking here about swine’s flesh from Nebuchadnezzar’s table, bowing to the golden image at Dura, bearing arms in a non-theocratic military conflict, or going to a secular school on Sabbath. No credible evidence can be shown that the current controversy over the COVID vaccine has arisen because of a deeper study of the Bible or the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Were it not for the widespread, knee-jerk suspicion of civil government, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media—suspicion largely driven by secular political biases and untenable conspiracy theories—it is highly unlikely that this controversy would have come close to causing the division we presently see on this subject in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The following warning from Ellen White regarding false tests is most appropriate in the present context:
From the light given me of the Lord, men will arise speaking perverse things. Yea, already they have been working and speaking things which God has never revealed, bringing sacred truth upon a level with common things. Issues have been and will continue to be made of men’s conceited fallacies, not of truth. The devisings of men’s minds will invent tests that are no tests at all, that when the true test shall be made prominent, it shall be considered on a par with the man-made tests that have been of no value [##20|——Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 14-15.##]
In short, the vaccine mandate controversy is culture-driven, not Inspiration-driven. Thus, in today’s vernacular, it is not an issue over which the church should risk internal division or individual members should risk reputation or livelihood.
The Wrong Lodestar
Years ago a pastor-friend of mine, in the midst of the Desmond Ford controversy over the nature of the heavenly sanctuary and the contrast some tried to draw between two literal heavenly apartments and two phases of heavenly ministry, stated, “There isn’t anything particularly wrong with Step One, except that it prepares the way for Step Two.” It didn’t take long for time to prove him correct. Many who started out claiming that the heavenly sanctuary was figurative only, and that the phases of ministry thereby represented were what really mattered, soon thereafter relinquished faith in the two phases of Jesus’ heavenly ministry as well.
In a similar vein, those now suggesting a parachurch organization for the purpose of diverting tithes and offerings to denominational ministries they deem worthy, may say most sincerely that they aren’t desirous of sending these funds outside regular denominational lines, much less using the proposed structure as the framework for a new denomination. But in a polarized climate such as this, ideas like these have a way of taking on a life of their own, above and beyond what even their originators might desire.
The principal voice suggesting this parachurch idea is often heard describing the two-tiered church structure experienced by Adventists in totalitarian countries at different times during the previous century—even, or so he claims, in certain countries today. In the recent sermon in which he suggested the parachurch model, he even described the recent schism in the United Methodist Church caused by the secession of many theologically conservative congregations. The clear implication of his comments was that this prospect looms as a very real possibility for the future of Seventh-day Adventism.
Sadly, this is what happens when circumstances and humanly perceived dangers are permitted to drive our spiritual worldview, rather than the written counsel of God. Ezekiel chapter 9, which Ellen White identifies as the model for the purification and sealing of God’s end-time remnant [##21|——Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 207-216.##], describes the directive given to the angel who accomplishes the sealing of the saints at this time:
And the Lord said unto him (the sealing angel), Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof (Eze. 9:4).
Notice that the abominations are taking place “in the midst of Jerusalem.” And since the sealing angel goes “through the midst of Jerusalem” to do his sealing work, it is clear the sighing, crying saints are found in the midst of Jerusalem as well. The angel is not told to go around the edge of the city, or somewhere beyond, and seal those who have separated from Jerusalem because they’ve either been thrown out or they can’t stand its apostasy any longer.
In light of the above, Ellen White speaks very clearly that the end-time shaking will not result in the apostate majority taking over the church and casting out the faithful, as some at times have alleged, but will instead bring about the departure of the apostate majority from the religious body where their presence was previously dominant:
The shaking of God blows away multitudes like dry leaves. Prosperity multiplies a mass of professors. Adversity purges them out of the church. As a class their spirits are not steadfast with God. They go out from us because they are not of us, for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, many are offended [##22|——Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 89.##].
At the eleventh hour the Lord will gather a company out of the world to serve Him. There will be a converted ministry. Those who have had privileges and opportunities to become intelligent in regard to the truth, and yet who continue to counterwork the work God would have accomplished, will be purged out [##23|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, p. 320.##].
Some have entered the work with a human commission rather than the divine. . . . In short, they have a theory but not true conversion and sanctification through the truth. The great issue so near at hand will weed out those whom God has not appointed and He will have a pure, true, sanctified ministry, prepared for the latter rain [##24|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, p. 327.##].
As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel's message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position, and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light, and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side [##25|——The Great Controversy, p. 608.##].
And of course, most are familiar with the following assurance from the inspired pen:
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 [##26|——Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.##].
Some have proposed at times that “the church” described in the above statements represents, not the visible denominational organization, but rather, the true and faithful only. But the language of these statements does not allow such an understanding. If the church being depicted in these statements is the true and faithful only, why does it have sinners who need to be sifted out of it [##27|——Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.##]? How can Ellen White speak of the church containing a “mass of professors” (false believers) who are purged out by adversity [##28|——Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 89.##], if the church she is talking about consists only of true believers?
She speaks here of unsanctified ministers who enter the work with a human rather than a divine commission, who will be “weeded out” in the final crisis [##29|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, p. 327.##], of ministers who for years have sought to counter God’s work, being “purged out” [##30|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, p. 320.##]. She describes “a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but who have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, [abandoning] their position, and [joining] the ranks of the opposition” [##31|——The Great Controversy, p. 608.##].
It makes no sense to understand these false ministers as being weeded or purged out of the faith, because the way Ellen White describes them, they never were in fact part of the faith. It only makes sense to read these statements as saying these false shepherds are purged, weeded, out of their position as ministers within the visible church, and out of the church as a whole.
When Ellen White speaks of unsanctified professors of the faith abandoning their position [##32|——The Great Controversy, p. 608.##], what position are they abandoning? These are not true believers giving up the faith, but rather, false believers giving up their profession, which exists by virtue of their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Let’s be clear about one thing, of course. The issue here is not whether all the church’s organizational machinery will be functional up till the time Jesus appears in the clouds of heaven. Considering the fact that the church’s activities will be illegal throughout the world in the final moments of history, it is doubtful much in the way of visible machinery will be possible. But Ellen White is clear that, at least to some degree (she doesn’t explain exactly how), the lines of church organization will still hold God’s people together during the last days:
Some have advanced the thought that as we near the close of time, every child of God will act independently of any religious organization. But I have been instructed by the Lord that in this work there is no such thing as every man’s being independent. The stars of heaven are all under law, each influencing the other to do the will of God, yielding their common obedience to the law that controls their action [##33|——Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 258.##].
When Seventh-day Adventists permit the lodestar of circumstance, culture (whatever label it wears), or secular politics to eclipse the lodestar of Inspiration, they will invariably veer from the narrow path that leads to eternal life (Matt. 7:14). When sermons consist primarily of historical or contemporary anecdotes (accurate or otherwise), ideological rants, or conspiracy-driven assumptions, as distinct from Bible and Spirit of Prophecy evidence, misguidance is the sure result.
Conclusion
Rather than financial boycotts, diverting of funds to some parachurch alternative, and the fracturing of the church structure this would likely produce, faithful church members should focus their efforts on more intensive organizational stewardship, taking a more active role in the governance of the church at every level—local church business meetings, Conference constituency sessions, institutional boards, and all the rest. Speaking from lifelong experience as both a layman and a pastor, I have seen numerous opportunities for positive change and accountability within the church forfeited because too many otherwise conscientious believers allow themselves to become too occupied with daily life, too fearful of reputational consequences if they speak out, too fearful—often needlessly so—of existing authority structures and those who govern them.
Most of all, the striving faithful must turn their focus from cultural grievance and conspiracy speculation—paradigms often running counter to the inspired eschatological scenario—and immerse themselves each day in Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, preparing their lives through heaven’s power for the total victory over sin God seeks from His end-time remnant church (Zeph. 3:13; Rev. 3:21; 12:17; 14:5,12).
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 475-486; Gospel Workers, pp. 391-396; Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 331-333.
2. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337.
3. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 9, p. 130.
4. ——Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337.
5. ——Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 202,533-534.
6. ——The Ministry of Healing, pp. 337-346.
7. ——Gospel Workers, pp. 389-390.
8. ——Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 99.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid, p. 100.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid, p. 99.
14. Ibid, p. 100.
15. ----Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 249.
16. ----Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, pp. 74-75.
17. Ibid, p. 75.
18. Ibid, p. 74.
19. Ibid, p. 75.
20. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 14-15.
21. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 207-216.
22. Ibid, vol. 4, p. 89.
23. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, p. 320.
24. Ibid, vol. 12, p. 327.
25. ----The Great Controversy, p. 608.
26. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 380.
27. Ibid.
28. ----Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 89.
29. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, p. 327.
30. Ibid, vol. 20, p. 320.
31. ----The Great Controversy, p. 608.
32. Ibid.
33. ----Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 258.
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