Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand" (Matt. 12:25).
As I contemplate upon the last twelve months of my spiritual journey, I can’t help but be saddened from the reflections of an SDA Church that appears to be dividing. I watched the Adventist Industrial Complex mobilize against God-fearing mission warriors who have literally given their life in service of the Church.
I’ve seen attempts by GC leaders at sorting independent ministries as either Wheat or Tares based largely on unquestioning fealty to the organizational leadership (irrespective of whether the ministries are serving the Church’s Biblical precepts). I’ve witnessed the selective use and interpretation of the Church Manual and “Protocols” to maximize organizational authority and confound unassuming constituents. And sadly, I’ve watched a multitude of concerned pastors and conference officials forgo raising the alarm in order to maintain the perpetuity of employment.
I cannot help but ponder God’s admonition to the Israelites when they demanded their own king. Elevating man to rule over men would result in preservation of monarchy, subjugation of servanthood, and command over wealth (1 Samuel 8: 11-17). These are the inherent traits of man, to selfishly seek and grow power and influence; it is woven in our fallen fabric. For only God has the benevolence to rule mankind fairly and justly, not man; being in a pitiful fallen state.
In my lifetime, I have never encountered an individual who is systematically good. I have worked with many exceedingly kindhearted, charitable, capable and successful people. Many great leaders who I still admire and revere in their sacrifice, service, and dedication. However, I have seen that for every strength, there is a weakness. For every conviction, there is a partiality. For every rule, there is a personal exception. The prism from which we view the world is colored by our life’s journey; our fears, aspirations, felt injustices, and spiritual maturity.
We are products of egocentric interests and humanistic perspectives. We are each an enigma and collectively we contribute to the dysfunctional world we occupy. I have not found anyone who has been able to escape their humanism.
And yet, from the onset of denominational hierarchy, a pattern has been developing in the SDA of Benevolent Exile. Where a handful of administrators, at times with the support of committee members, assumed benevolence and metered out exile to their ideological opposition.
In 1890, Ellen G. White wrote to the General Conference of SDA admonishing them for exerting too much power and stating that no individual voice should speak for the denomination,
The board have inclined, as I have been shown, to mercy and compassion and kindly consideration; but one voice has been sure to incline the other way, and that voice has carried—to the disapproval of God—in your board meetings. Lt 65, July 27, 1890 (To O. A. Olsen and D. T. Jones)
It has caused me great sadness of heart to see that those who ought to be giving the trumpet a certain sound from the walls of Zion, wholly in accordance with the work to be done for this time, to prepare a people to stand in the day of the Lord, are in darkness and have stood as sentinels to bar the way. Lt 116, Aug. 27, 1890 (To O. A. Olsen)
“The men who should have held up my hands in the work have been laboring to the best of their ability to weaken and discourage me. My strength has been spent in beating against the walls of wicked prejudice and opposition. …
When the leaders cease to obstruct the way, the work of God will progress in Battle Creek. Lt 43, Dec. 15, 1890 (To O. A. Olsen)
Within one year of making those remarks, EGW was “called” to Australia and set sail on November 12, 1891, for the remote island nation. Over the nine years EGW missioned in Australia, she helped establish Avondale College, the Sanitarium, and various health food enterprises (among many other accomplishments). Her literary output during that time included, The Desire of Ages, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, Christ’s Object Lessons, and large portions of Testimonies for the Church.
There is no question that God blessed the SDA ministry in Australia as a result of her mission. Arguably the work in Australia would not be where it is without her personal involvement. Although recognizing the work she was afforded, in advancing the SDA ministry, EGW penned some forceful and critical admonitions to GC President O.A. Olsen. On December 1, 1896 (Lt 127, 1896) she penned the following remarks:
Formality and hypocrisy and selfishness are weaving themselves in with sacred and holy interest, with the duties connected with the various branches of the work…
The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings…
The Lord permitted my being torn away from the work at Battle Creek. This was not the Lord’s plan, but it was His will that I should come to this country, for it was to be a school of experience to me…
Men in positions of responsibility brought about the very condition of things the Lord has been pleased to permit. It was their own devising that I should be separated from the work at the heart of the cause…
They thought to silence my testimony which they did not wish to hear and which they did not desire the people to have, for it rebuked their course of action…
The Lord has permitted things to be as they are, but He did not design that I should be separated from His work in Battle Creek.
Fast Forward to 2024
Recently, leaders of the Michigan Conference advanced the argument that, as the SDA church is God’s appointed Remnant church. And they—the administrators—are the Church. And furthermore, as God is leading the Church, it is for Him to correct or reprove the leadership. For as David was not inclined to strike against Saul (God’s anointed), so no one should attempt to reprove a conference official, for that is only for God to do.
Let’s accept for one moment the proposed logic that the Conference Administrators are the Church and when the Bible writers speak of the Church as Christ’s true love, they are referring to hierarchal administrators. Furthermore, lets accept the argument advanced by MISDA that because God is leading the Church, it is for Him and only Him to reprove the leadership. If we accept those arguments, we must conclude that if God does not reprove (the manner in which reproof would result has yet not been clarified) the administrators, then the actions are just and appropriate. I.E. lack of supernatural reproof = God sanctioned activity.
And yet, history tells us otherwise. Banishing EGW to the remote island nation of Australia was not God’s will, as clearly identified withing EGW’s writings. Yet God did not impede the selfish machinations of the leaders, but rather it was EGW that reproved them for their misdeeds when she exclaimed that they were bent on selfish intent.
The Company Men Chorus
On February 21, 2025, Pastor Shane Anderson published an article in the Adventist Review titled, “Should Conferences Be Allowed to Ban Speakers From the Pulpit?” I truly appreciate Pastor Anderson and have been privileged to receive him and his wife in our home. I am further grateful for the collegiate ministry he has brought to Andrews University and I desire continued success in his ministry within our AU community. However, I must object with his argument, that since the Church Manual allows it, “ Keep the Ban—and Keep It a Blessing!” For me Pastor Shane’s conclusion is an oxymoron. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that no other authoritative act has been further abused than the attempt of de-platforming Gospel workers on ideological grounds.
In my comment to his article, I took issue with the premise of SHOULD, a conference be allowed to ban a speaker, not can they. Using the Church Manual to argue what should be done, in my opinion is analogous to elevating an edict to a moral precept. Clearly the morphing of by-laws and church manuals to centralize authority within the organizational hierarchy shifts control away from the congregants to the administrator. Yet “Can” does not justify “Should.”
The more important question no one is asking. Why would we simultaneously have a condition of fully credentialed ordained SDA ministers banned due to subjective conference decisions? Organizational integrity should demand that the ministerial credentials correspond to the faith and trust of pulpit access. Currently we have too many instances of social ideology driving Conference, Union and Division positions. Pastors are bouncing from conference to conference in a Goldilocks-like manner to find the one that fits just right (or left). Is that the administrative model that builds confidence in a remnant movement? Should there be a mechanism for credentialing speakers to speak in our churches? Absolutely. But should it appear arbitrarily depending on the ideology of the conference officers?
Who to Ban or Not to Ban? That is the Question
The primary excerpts from The Church Manual that give rise to conference banning are:
Only speakers worthy of confidence will be invited to the pulpit by the church pastor, in harmony with guidelines given by the conference. . . . The local elders or church board may also invite speakers, in consultation with the pastor, and in harmony with conference guidelines. Individuals who are no longer members, or who are under discipline, should not be given access to the pulpit.
Key points to ponder in analyzing this text.
Invited vs Given Access: Individuals who are Invited are not presumed to be from within a church. You wouldn’t invite a member to a task that is already within their assumed duties, you would ask them and Give them Access. Thus, the practice of inviting someone assumes they are from outside your organization, not within.
Elders should be able to conduct the services of the church and minister in both word and doctrine when the assigned pastor is unavailable. P.78Normative Truth: Guidelines vs Hard Rules (Google AI sourced):
o A guideline is often considered:
§ Recommended but not enforced. Not following a guideline does not result in punishment
§ To provide advice or best practices for how to act or operate.
§ Flexible. Leaves room for interpretation and judgment based on circumstances.
o While a Hard Rule is often considered:
§ To define specific required or forbidden actions.
§ Mandatory. Violating a rule leads to discipline or other consequences.
§ Rigid. Generally, there is only one "right" way to follow a rule.
Without superimposing a desired outcome to the Church Manual text. An impartial reader would extract that:
o Individuals who are outside of a church congregation and invited to speak should only be invited by a Pastor, Elder Board or Church Board if they are of good character, in following with conference guidelines.
o Separately, Church members, attendees, and former members, should not be Given Access to the pulpit if they are no longer members or under discipline. Otherwise, they are free to serve in their New Testament model roles.
o If the intent of the text was to treat the Church Members/Attendees and the Outside Visitor the same, the term Invite would have been used consistently in both applications vs Given Access for Church Members/Attendees. Terminology is different because the application is different.
Deplatforming those we disagree with is not a new phenomenon but one that dates back to Cain and Able. From the dawn of man, two traits have been constant. One, that we are enamored with our own reasoning, and two, that we are intolerant of opposition to our egocentrism.
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk represents the deteriorated state of present society. Individuals no longer seek absolute truth but rather congregate in echo chambers that resonate their version of normative truth. Voices that do not support, tolerate, or cower in fear of the desired narrative must be silenced. Acts to censure, ban, fire, or eliminate opposing voices are too often hastily pursued to simply achieve silence, not truth.
The search for truth is easily recognizable. It follows a process not determined to reach a preconceived outcome, but one that affords the outcome to be trusted for the process was beyond reproach.
In 1979, SDA Theologian Dr. Desmond Ford presented a talk at Pacific Union College, before the Association of Adventist Forums. During that presentation Dr. Ford presented arguments that questioned the long-held SDA belief of Investigative Judgment. He argued that:
Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete
and
On the cross the penalty for human sin was fully paid
What resulted was not a rush from an individual state conference to ban Dr. Ford, but rather a methodical review of the issues to systematically address Ford’s views.
Ten months after the initial presentation, a conference was convened in Glacier View, Colorado, between August 10-15, 1980. Over 100 church leaders attended and reviewed Ford’s 991-page manuscript. The result of that conference was the adoption of a Consensus Statement and a Ten Point Document acknowledging some of Ford’s concerns and yet concluding that his views undermined the church’s sanctuary doctrine.
The following month, Pacific Union Conference revoked Ford’s ministerial credentials. And finally in 1983, 4 years after the initial PUC lecture, Ford’s SDA church membership was dropped. The process followed a thorough theological review of Dr. Ford’s beliefs and statements, a disciplinary review of his ministerial credentials, and finally an examination of his membership. The logical sequence of actions that would be expected when an ordained minister is accused to having departed from orthodoxy.
Conclusion
Six thousand years and God’s direct counsel should have taught us that no one is good, and no leader passes through a portal of infallibility in their denominational ascension. The effort of silencing a gospel worker should not be taken lightly or expeditiously.
There are many issues that corrupt men’s souls and we must make ever certain that the judgment falls on the corrupt, rather than be metered by them.
****
Daniel Bacchiocchi is an architect and builder. Today he operates an architectural and construction business in Michigan as well as a non-profit building mission organization, Master’s Builders, Inc., supporting SDA efforts in financially depressed communities around the world.