In the first verses of Acts 6, we find the early church at a critical moment: “Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint…” Growth was happening. The Spirit was moving and, immediately, conflict entered the scene.
As believers, we are to take our instructions from the Bible alone, which offers the clearest model for both the gospel and conflict resolution, starting with how the early church addressed its very first dispute. In Acts of the Apostles, pg. 91, Ellen White writes, “The organization of the church at Jerusalem was to serve as a model for the organization of churches in every other place where messengers of truth should win converts to the gospel. Those to whom was given the responsibility of the general oversight of the church were not to lord it over God’s heritage, but, as wise shepherds, were to ‘feed the flock of God… being ensamples to the flock.’”
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has built its leadership structure on much of the model of organization found in Acts 6: 1-7. Yet, the very reason that structure of leadership was set up was to resolve conflict justly. If we are willing to follow the framework in Acts 6: 1-7 for some things, then we are obligated to follow the Scriptural model in ALL things. The purpose of Acts 6: 1-7 was to give voice to the marginalized (the minority), correct injustice, and lead with humility and fairness. To adopt the structure of Acts 6: 1-7 while ignoring the Spirit is to miss the entire point and cherry-pick Scripture when it suits the church and ignore the fundamental purpose of why this example of conflict resolution was given to us.
When God’s church grows, the enemy does not stay passive but moves to divide from within. In the case of Acts 6, it was not persecution from outside that posed the greatest threat, it was murmuring, neglect of a minority group, and cultural tension within the body of Christ that posed the greatest threat of all. The church was on the edge of grave danger, just as our church is today. Though we cling to Ellen G. White’s assurance that the church will not fall (2 Selected Messages, pg. 380), you and I have both witnessed firsthand how the COVID-19 vaccine crisis ignited deep divisions among members, causing arguments, fundamental differences, and even church splits in response to the statements, attitudes, and positions taken by Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership.
Souls, so precious to Christ, have become deeply discouraged by the un-Christlike attitudes and authoritarian responses of our leaders. We have witnessed members fall away entirely, while others on both sides of the controversy have fed on the poisonous root of bitterness. Leaders and members alike are in danger of losing their eternal souls, not merely because of the vaccine itself anymore, but because of pride and arrogance of position and rulership by force. This COVID-19 vaccine issue has strangely revealed hearts and the true motivations of many involved.
The church leadership has held up and adhered to some parts of the Bible while, in this case of Acts 6: 1-7, totally neglecting other parts of its guidance. I appeal to the church to follow the Early Church’s model of conflict resolution and representation. We as a people should recognize that here in Scripture is step-by-step guidance, God-directed counsel plainly laid out for us at this time of crisis. The Early Christian Church resolved the conflict by rightly and justly providing the “minority” group with representation. If the apostles had not resolved the conflict that has direct correlations to the conflict we now face today over the church’s decisions to completely neglect those impacted by the COVID-19 vaccine era, we would not have had Stephen or Paul.
Acts 6:1-7 is often viewed as a referendum on Early Church organization and leadership as it should be. However, Acts 6:1-7 is not solely about organization and distribution of responsibility but also about Christlike attitude during conflict. Ellen White writes, “The hearts of those who had been converted under the labors of the apostles, were softened and united by Christian love. Despite former prejudices, all were in harmony with one another. Satan knew that so long as this union continued to exist, he would be powerless to check the progress of gospel truth; and he sought to take advantage of former habits of thought, in the hope that thereby he might be able to introduce into the church elements of disunion.” Acts of the Apostles, pg. 87.
In Acts 6, the complaint was that the Hellenist (or Greek-speaking) widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. This was more than just an oversight. In Jewish culture, caring for widows was considered a sacred duty. It was sacred, much like what one allows to enter one’s own body is sacred, as viewed by those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and desire their church to support their sacred duty of decision. Neglecting the widows, in its cultural context, was a failure of justice and a sign of exclusion. This was a crisis for the Early Church as we now face a crisis which is similar. Back then the crisis was over injustice and today it remains the same.
The situation with the widows in Acts 6 bears a striking resemblance to what many members in the Seventh-day Adventist Church have experienced during the COVID-19 vaccine controversy. In both cases, a group within the community raised a concern, not about doctrine but about being neglected, unheard, and unrepresented. For the Hellenist widows, it was literal food. For today’s vaccine-concerned members, it has been a hunger for voice, for representation, the right to speak freely, and church support in honoring their scared duty within a community that professes liberty of conscience. Just as the Greeks believed the sacred duty was being neglected in caring for the widows, so today the concern centers on the sacred duty of what is allowed into the body, the very temple of the Holy Spirit. Both groups felt the weight of marginalization and, in both instances, the threat of division loomed large.
What happened next is where we find divine wisdom and gospel genius. The apostles did not circle the wagons. They did not silence the dissenters or dismiss them as “a minority” of little importance to the broader, worldwide community. They never dismissed the issue as irrelevant or devoid of importance. They did not resort to secret, closed-door meetings that patronize believers as though they were too fragile for the information shared therein. They brought the complaint before the body which implies trust in the body of believers. Secrecy not only segregates but also fosters mutual suspicion. The apostles listened and then, most importantly, they took sacrificial action.
In Acts 6, the apostles appointed seven deacons to solve the issue, seven men with Greek names and Nicolas who was from Antioch. In this time, name often reflected origin. These seven deacons appointed to leadership were Greek men or Hellenist Jews. Either way they were Greek-speaking and could fully serve as representatives for the marginalized as Greek or Hellenist Jews themselves. The apostles (all Hebrews) wisely chose representatives from the aggrieved group (the Greek speaking Hellenists), a leadership principle still used today because representation builds trust.
This is not incidental. The apostles gave the Greek deacons positions of leadership for a reason. This may seem all too simple but it is often the simplest solution that solves conflict. That solution is representation.
The early church, led by the Spirit after Pentecost, did not consolidate power among insiders. They gave leadership to the Greeks, the very group that felt neglected. They de-consolidated position and power in favor of collaborations of peace, open dialogue, and fellowship. That is the gospel in action. This requires the Faith of Jesus. Do we believe that we can still follow the Biblical model today? Could this be the very combination for union within the church and religious revival?
God used the conflict with the Hellenist Jews to appoint and raise up Stephen as a deacon and church leader. He becomes one of Christianity’s greatest orators who delivers the finest speech which is masterfully structured in Acts 7. This is not just a history lesson but a bold courtroom defense, a prophetic rebuke, and a Christ-centered theological bombshell that connects the Old Testament narrative to our Savior, Jesus. Stephen is speaking to the institution in a wonderful Biblical lesson that drives the Jewish religious institution mad because Stephen was not a stranger, he was a brother. And that is why his words were unbearable. When a brother tells you the truth in love and in power and you are not ready to repent, the only options left are rage or revival. Religious institutions often double down, not because the facts are unclear but because admitting error would shatter their sense of self-righteous legacy and the power of the almighty dollar.
This is no longer about winning the vaccine argument. It is about returning to Christlike humility where we listen to the offended minority, consider, and allow Scripture and the Holy Spirit to shape our decisions even when it is convicting and uncomfortable because Jesus is coming so soon!
If the apostles had not dealt with the first conflict in the church with such Christlike wisdom and Holy Spirit-led genius, we would not have had Stephen. Without Stephen, we do not have Paul. Without Paul, half of the New Testament does not exist. The way the apostles dealt with conflict has left us a road map that is imperative to follow! What if our very next Stephen is waiting in the wings?
Instead of gospel-based resolution, we are witnessing:
1). Consolidation of power
2). Encouragement of silence
3). Punishment of dissent
4). Absence of transparent dialogue
This is not the model of Acts 6. It is the opposite.
In Acts, the apostles risked their image to protect the integrity of the body. They chose humility over hierarchy. They empowered the very voices that felt unheard. That is what kept the church from fracturing and what caused it to flourish! “Then the word of God spread, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly…” (Acts 6:7).
We must follow this model now by electing men who represent those who were, not only harmed, but grieved by the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership during the COVID-19 vaccine era. Faithful members are watching from the margins. Many feel spiritually homeless and alienated, not because of unbelief but because their convictions have been neglected, ignored, or silenced. This is a tender moment. They NEED representation just like the aggrieved Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) widows of Acts 6:1-7.
Former General Conference President Pastor Ted Wilson’s recent remarks dismissing those harmed by the ADCOM vaccine statement as a “small minority” were both patronizing and misleading. While vaccine injuries or job losses may statistically be few, the real harm is spiritual and widespread. Millions have been grieved or disillusioned by the church’s authoritarian behavior, silencing of conscience, betrayal of church identity, and mirroring the spirit of Rome. This is not a fringe issue, it is a global wound. In Acts 6, the apostles gave voice and representation to an even smaller group of the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) widows. That Biblical model of humility which the apostles demonstrated stands in stark contrast to the spirit revealed in Ted Wilson’s words.
There is still time to turn back! The General Conference Session is not over. I stand with our Savior, Jesus Christ, in Christian love and devotion and I beg you to, “repent! for the Kingdom of God is at hand!” (Matthew 3:2). The right thing to do is simple but it is hard: We must listen! We must bring the issue into the open! This General Conference session, we must appoint Spirit-filled, Godly leaders to leadership who represent the side that has felt marginalized.
The early church understood the stakes. We do not have time for political posturing as the end draws nigh. We must follow the Biblical model now or risk not only splitting the church but grieving the Spirit.
The approach taken this last week has not mirrored the spirit and actions of the apostles in Acts 6: 1-7 but the defensive instincts of human institutions throughout history: suppress and silence the complaint, consolidate power, and frame dissenters as troublemakers. But history, both secular and sacred, shows that silencing dissent is ineffective to suppressing the message of freedom and truth as it is in Jesus! Jesus is still coming soon and the Loud Cry will still break forth loudly! Our God sits upon His throne and He is in control.
The gospel, particularly as modeled in Acts 6: 1-7, does the unthinkable: it welcomes supposed dissenters or “minorities” and makes room for their leadership. That is the radical power of Christianity, not that it never faces complaints, but that it redeems and redeems again! It means listening, reconciling, and often empowering the very person who brought complaint and conviction to the church and placing them at the table. I appeal to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists to follow the example of the apostles and give us representation like the Early Church did. Give us leaders who understand and empathize with the last five years. Follow the example of Scripture and heal this church.
****
Susanne Vyhmeister