Historical Setting Matters
When Ellen White instructed members not to withhold tithe because “the Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord,” she was speaking to people living through a badly managed and spiritually troubled Church that she nevertheless continued to recognize as carrying a legitimate divine mission.
She was not answering the question we are now attempting to answer: What is the responsibility of the tithe returner when the objection is no longer merely to the competence or character of those administering the treasury, but to whether portions of the treasury are being used to advance that which the tithe returner sincerely believes Scripture condemns? That is a different question.
Perhaps Ellen White would ultimately give the same answer. Perhaps she would not. But intellectual honesty requires us first to acknowledge that she was not answering that question in 1890.
That distinction brings us back to the present debate. If Ellen White’s counsel was directed at mismanagement within a still-faithful mission, then the modern argument cannot simply quote her words and assume every present circumstance is identical. The question is whether today’s objections concern the administration of the mission—or the mission itself.
Biblical Punditry in Action
In wading through the myriads of writers and video personalities I am a little surprised with the complacency to the notion of tithe perpetuating apostacy; for God will correct the Church. I don’t know if the recent narrative is due to intellectual bias, self-preservation, or a desperate act to centralize authority and influence. Whatever the motive, the justifications given expose the lack of good faith in most arguments.
A true bright spot within the digital realm onslaught was watching a skillfully inspired sermon by Pastor Al Fletcher of the Countryside Sabbath Fellowship Church. I personally don’t know nor have ever met Pastor Fletcher. He presented one of the most inspired and precise biblically and prophetically sourced argument that dismantles the current “give blindly” diatribes.
I would summarize his fivefold message as:
Faithfully returning tithe does not eliminate the responsibility to exercise spiritual discernment about where it goes.
Institutional authorization alone does not make a recipient faithful.
Institutional independence alone does not make a recipient illegitimate.
EGW, in both counsel and action, affirmed that faithful SDA work could operate outside conference control and still remain part of God’s work.
EGW warned against using God’s treasury to sustain ministers who injure His work or remain unsanctified.
His arguments are built from the following methodical narrative:
1. Watchman Responsibility: Ezekiel 33:6–7 (NASB 2020) — “But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the horn…”
2. Call Sin by Its Right Name: EGW, Education, p. 57 — “men who do not fear to call sin by its right name.”
3. Religious Leaders Can Overemphasize Tithe Enforcement: Matthew 23:23–24 (NASB 2020) — “you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness…”
4. Watchman Duty: Ezekiel 3:17 (NASB 2020) — “Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman for the house of Israel…”
5. God’s People Have a Duty to Reject and Expose Sin: Isaiah 58:1 (NASB 2020) — “Declare to My people their wrongdoing, And to the house of Jacob their sins.”
6. Our Laid-Up Treasure is Defined by Whom it Serves: EGW, Manuscript 139, October 21, 1898, “An Appeal for Missions.” — “There are only two places in the universe where we can deposit our treasures—in God’s storehouse or in Satan’s.”
7. No Specified Regular Channel for Means: EGW, Letter 136, August 14, 1898 — “The Lord has not specified any regular channel through which means should pass.”
8. Opposition to Centralized Financial Control: EGW, Testimonies to Ministers, p. 321 — “The arrangement that all moneys must go through Battle Creek and under the control of the few men in that place is a wrong way of managing.”
9. Multiple Agencies May Receive Means: EGW, Letter 32, January 6, 1908 — “All the means is not to be handled by one agency or organization.”
10. Madison Was Encouraged to Remain Independent of Conference Oversight: EGW, Letter 32a, 1908 — “Be free in the Lord; be free… The Lord says to you, Go forward.”
11. God Approved Madison’s Composition as Well as Its Work: EGW, An Appeal for the Madison School (PH119, 1908), p. 1 — “The work that has been done there is approved of God.”
12. Responsibility for God’s Goods: EGW, Letter 19b, 1892 — “We are responsible for the use or the abuse of the Lord’s goods.”
13. Do Not Support Those Who Injure God’s Work: EGW, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 553 — “It would be poor policy to support men from the treasury of God who really mar and injure the work of God.”
14. Do Not Maintain Unsanctified Ministers: EGW, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 552 — “there are woes for those who receive and maintain the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.”
Also noteworthy from his presentation is that EGW accepted an invitation and served on the Madison College board. Additionally, important is the fact that the Madison College Board was the only board EGW ever served on. Let that sink in for a minute.
On the other Hand…
Conversely, one video that genuinely surprised me was Walter Veith and Martin Smith’s Clash of Minds episode, “Movement of Destiny – Path of the Remnant People” (WUP 254). I have admired Dr. Veith for decades, particularly for his deconstruction of evolutionary science. While I find his tendency to attribute much present-day evil to “Jesuit theatre” overly simplistic at times, I believe his underlying purpose is sincere and his service to the Advent movement is unquestionable. I generally enjoy the Clash of Minds presentations and believe their message carries profound value in an end-time watchman role. For that reason, I was especially astonished to hear them advance what amounts to the institutional “give blindly” argument—and, more troubling, to use biblical analogies that, in my view, distort the very facts offered to substantiate it.
At first, their argument deserves consideration because the underlying premise is not wrong: the failure of an individual leader does not invalidate God’s Church. Where the argument begins to unravel is when that premise is extended to conclude that apostasy within the institution cannot provide a legitimate basis for directing tithe elsewhere.
Peter and Paul: Veith points to Peter’s rebuke by Paul as evidence that failure in Church leadership does not invalidate God’s Church. True. But Peter was a leader within the Church; Peter was not the Church. He erred in judgment and conduct, and his influence was already leading others into the same hypocrisy. Left unchallenged, such error could certainly have corrupted the Gospel and introduced apostasy into the emerging Christian movement.
But that is not what happened. Paul called sin by its right name. He confronted Peter publicly because his conduct was “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14), and the error was corrected rather than institutionalized.
If anything, the sequence establishes a very different principle: Biblical truth is not subordinated to ecclesiastical position. Error is to be confronted regardless of whether its perpetrator is a Layman, Pastor, or Conference executive. The account certainly demonstrates that the failure of a leader does not invalidate God’s Church. What it does not demonstrate—at all—is that the proper response to apostasy is unquestioned financial support of the institution while waiting for God to eventually correct it.
Aaron and the Golden Calf: Martin then reaches farther back and asks, “What about Aaron?” Veith immediately recognizes the reference—the golden calf.
Aaron succumbed to societal pressure and accommodated apostasy within the worship of God. The response from Heaven was hardly agnostic. God was angered. Moses was indignant. He stood at the entrance of the camp and drew a line: “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me!” Israel was separated between those willing to stand for truth and those persisting in rebellion, and approximately three thousand died under the resulting judgment. Nor did Aaron’s position afford him immunity. Moses later records that God was sufficiently angry with Aaron “to destroy him,” and that only his intercession spared him (Exodus 32:26–28; Deuteronomy 9:20).
Institutionally, the lesson is rather difficult to miss. Position does not insulate a leader from apostasy; apparently, not even the High Priest. Nor does God expect His people to become agnostic toward apostasy merely because it appears within recognized religious leadership. It is to be identified, opposed, and excised—not tolerated under the presumption that God will eventually straighten things out.
The golden calf is a rather peculiar place to look for a biblical defense of unquestioned institutional loyalty.
Eli and His Sons: Veith and Smith then offer a considerably stronger argument. Eli’s sons were corrupt priests who abused their sacred office and even misappropriated that which was brought to God. Yet their corruption did not relieve Israel of its obligation to faithfully return what God required.
On this point, I agree. The corruption of the recipient does not cancel the obligation of the giver. But there is an important distinction being overlooked.
Israel’s sanctuary system was not an administrative policy developed by the priesthood for the efficient advancement of its religious movement. God prescribed the system. The sanctuary, priesthood, sacrifices, priestly portions, and support of the Levites were established by Mosaic law. The Israelites’ obligation to that system existed because God commanded it—not because Eli or some ecclesiastical committee determined it was the preferred method of administration.
The modern Conference treasury is different. It is an administrative mechanism developed by the denomination to efficiently organize and finance the work of the Advent movement. That does not make the system wrong; it simply does not make the procedure divinely prescribed.
Therefore, Eli and his sons establish an important principle: corrupt administrators do not cancel a divinely mandated obligation. But to carry that principle into the modern tithe system, one must first establish that God Himself designated the Conference treasury as the exclusive recipient of tithe.
Without establishing that premise, the analogy falls short. A biblical mandate and an ecclesiastical procedure are not synonymous simply because both involve the administration of sacred funds.
Ellen White and the Conference: Finally, Veith and Smith arrive at what is unquestionably their strongest authority: Ellen White’s counsel that even when Conference business is not managed according to the order of God, the member should not respond by withholding God’s tithe.
On this point there is little to debate. Ellen White said it, and the historical circumstances make her meaning remarkably clear. She witnessed centralized authority, dysfunctional administration, domineering personalities, unworthy ministers, and misuse of ecclesiastical power. Yet she did not sanction weaponizing tithe as a means of punishing incompetent or objectionable leadership. Agreed.
But once again, the argument reaches beyond the evidence. Ellen White’s counsel establishes that incompetence, mismanagement, and objectionable leadership do not release the giver from his obligation to God. It does not establish that every future denominational treasury, under every conceivable circumstance, possesses an unconditional claim upon the tithe regardless of what that institution teaches, promotes, or finances. That distinction is the very question before us.
Ellen White was addressing the improper administration of the mission—not the financing of institutionalized apostasy. To make her counsel answer the latter requires us to place words in her mouth that she did not speak.
Incompetence may mismanage the mission. Apostasy changes the mission. And Ellen White’s warning against weaponizing tithe over the former should not itself be weaponized to compel the financing of the latter.
Broken Trust a Factor
What is driving the tithe debate? There is clearly an organizational fear that, in some circumstances, less money is being directed to Conference coffers. If that is the case, what would cause a faithful member to redirect tithe away from the easiest and most expedient mechanism already in place? Could it be the apparent tone-deafness to broken denominational trust?
Since the recent 2025 GC session, tithe has been at the forefront of debate in assessing denominational favor or incurring organizational wrath. What appears to be the present-day focus on tithing is not for the salvation of the member but for the salvation of the hierarchy. I’m cautious to paint with too broad a stroke as that is rarely accurate nor helpful. Yet, the 2025 General Conference session that contrasted supporting ministries from independent ministries on the basis of the ministries’ tithe policy left many devout SDA troubled.
Why has our Denominational leadership placed such an emphasis on money? Obviously, money is the transactional vehicle we use for operational efficiency. Additionally, the more money one has the more capacity they control. In itself money is inanimate and incapable of morality. It is however a force multiplier. In the hands of competent financiers, it creates wealth. In the hands of the dedicated gospel worker, it hastens the eschatological mission. In the hands of the incompetent and dysfunctional leader, it is squandered on organizational perpetuity. And in the hands of an apostate leader, it not only perpetuates the apostacy but expands its influence.
Why more than ever, are historically devout SDA looking to support alternative ministries versus funneling all their tithe and offering into the conference coffers? Is it due to Apostacy, Corruption, or simply Incompetence? Or possibly all three.
To many faithful Adventists, there are simply too many examples of apostasy among pastors, churches, conferences, unions, and higher denominational structures to dismiss the concern as isolated dissent. But the reality is probably less spectacular and more corrosive—a death by a thousand cuts, as constituents are subjected to a constant barrage of theological compromise, administrative incompetence, and institutional conduct that increasingly breeds distrust.
Nowhere has that distinction been more evident than in the series of events surrounding the 2021 SDA Reaffirmation Statement, its reliance upon the 2015 immunization statement, and the impact those statements had upon Adventists seeking exemptions from COVID vaccination.
Elevating peer-reviewed science to being on par with the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy is Apostacy. For faithful Adventists, this is not even worthy of a debate.
Ten years later, during the 2025 GC Session, then-President Ted Wilson offered a remarkable explanation: the immunization statement published by the Church for a decade was not the statement originally voted in 2015. The longstanding statement that caused all the consternation and numerous SDA to be censured, banned, and disenfranchised for voicing their objections was reduced to an act of clerical error. A clerical oversight that, for some SDA unable to navigate an exemption due in part to that very statement, preceded life-altering health consequences.
If we accept that pronouncement of error as truth, then at a minimum we must conclude that a severe level of incompetence existed. However, if the 2025 admonition was simply a risk-management calculation to quench the growing dissent among churches, conferences, and unions publicly rejecting the document, then this would point to something considerably more troubling: dishonesty—attempting to pass off a lapse in moral judgment as a decade-long clerical error.
We don’t know which explanation is true. What we do know is that for ten years the Statement stood, was defended, and was used against members who objected to it. Nor has evidence been offered that the published wording was somehow inconsistent with the ideology of the leadership that allowed it to stand for a decade. If it was truly clerical error, then the incompetence is staggering. If it was not, then the problem is far worse.
Trust, whether acknowledged or not, inevitably influences missional support. It cannot simply be leveraged away by insisting upon obligation. The faithful giver is not generally seeking to abandon that obligation, nor is he ordinarily attempting to punish the institution. Rather, diminished trust produces diminished confidence that the obligatory mission is actually being carried forward. If the giver no longer trusts the mechanism, he will naturally begin asking whether God’s portion is better directed where he can see the mission being faithfully accomplished.
Conclusion
What should a faithful SDA conclude regarding the purpose and obligation of tithe? I would suggest the following. First and foremost, tithe is a relational covenant between the individual giver and his Maker. Like marriage, no man should intervene between man and his God. Nor is one man given a prescriptive formula by which to sit in judgment over another man’s faithful exercise of that covenant.
Secondly, tithe is a God ordained moral covenant. Though the purpose and construct have changed from the post-diluvian origins, the purpose holds true to this day. It is a form of worship, acknowledging our thanks to God our sustainer. Where our needs are not met by our own hands but by His mercies. And our worship is manifested in performing our eschatological duties by directing our tithe to the SDA movement purpose, to proclaim the everlasting gospel in the context of the three angels’ messages, prepare people for the soon return of Jesus Christ, and restore faithful obedience to God in doctrine, character, worship, and mission. Where that is occurring, the Fruits of the Spirit are usually self-evident. There, remnant purpose and tithe obligations should freely coalesce.
The act of directing—or re-directing—tithe can never be clouded by personal gain. It should never be used to preserve selfish organizational purpose, perpetuate employment, or secure institutional perpetuity. Nor should we consume the ministerial labor of those tending our spiritual needs while directing our support elsewhere. The shepherd feeding the flock should not be left tending sheep financed by another pasture.
The remnant purpose of tithe is missional, never salvific. It finances the proclamation of salvation; it does not finance our possession of it. No prescribed financial path can achieve, improve, or secure salvation. The moment tithe is used to suggest otherwise, sacred stewardship has been converted into spiritual leverage. We need to recognize that being in Good Standing within a conference does not make you in Good Standing within the investigative judgment. It should, but it doesn’t.
Monetizing salvation is a centuries-old method for perpetuating organizationalism. What it is not is meeting your covenantal tithing obligation. The moment financial conformity becomes a proxy for spiritual fidelity, the treasury has begun to trespass upon liberty of conscience. The institution becomes the mediator, compliance becomes the evidence, and money begins to occupy a place it was never ordained to hold.
This is not an argument for abandoning denominational support, nor a declaration that the organized work is beyond hope. The regular lines remain capable of advancing the remnant mission and deserve support where they are faithfully doing so. But neither Scripture nor Ellen White confines faithful stewardship to those lines alone. Tithe may serve the work through regular or irregular lines without altering the salvation of the giver. To suggest otherwise is not a biblical safeguard; it is an institutional claim upon the conscience.
Tithe was never intended to purchase standing. It was intended to advance mission. Each spiritual sojourner, seeking to complete the SDA movement’s work, remains free to act as led by the Holy Spirit—returning to God what is His, supporting where His work is being faithfully accomplished, and answering finally not to man, institution, or treasury, but to his Maker.
****
Daniel Bacchiocchi is an architect, builder, and nonprofit ministry leader in Michigan. He operates an architectural and construction business and is a founding board member of Advent Mission Institute (AMI), where he serves in organizational and financial leadership. He also leads Master’s Builders, Inc., a nonprofit construction ministry supporting Seventh-day Adventist mission efforts.
