Subscribe now

Northern New England Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Inc.
91 Allen Avenue
Portland, ME 04103
Telephone: 207-797-3760
Fax: 207-797-3760
Email: nnec@nnrec.org

August 26, 2026

Letter to the members of the Northern New England Conference,

Mindful that we serve a people who love Jesus and the Three Angels’ Messages, who value religious liberty and the priesthood of all believers, who hold God’s Word as our highest authority and long for the soon return of Jesus, what follows is offered in the spirit of pastoral care, shared responsibility, and loving leadership.

There are difficult challenges faced by the people of God; there are wounds that have for years lain unaddressed and unsalved. In recent months, several matters have pressed upon our hearts. We address them briefly so that together we may remain faithful to Scripture and to the mission God has given His remnant people. Discussion has arisen after one recent widely disseminated presentation, although several points of concern neither began with nor are unique to that presenter.

Concerning Human Sexuality

We reaffirm our commitment to the biblical position of the world church on human sexuality. People are hurting and faithful ministry to them cannot be accomplished by joining in a rejection of biology or facts of being. Jesus is the answer to all our human brokenness. God is love, and true love calls each of us to repentance and faith in Christ. Yet we can only speak in humility, recognizing ourselves as falling short and daily in need of the grace of Christ—“For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14). Silence in this domain could leave our young people vulnerable to paths that harm.

We send our children to Adventist schools so that they will know Jesus better. Jesus is first! Parents sacrifice financially, rightly expecting that, in contrast to secular schools, ours will promote biblical marriage, sexuality and created identity. And yet, some Adventist-operated schools in other fields are giving place to distortions on these points. The Northern New England Conference cannot encourage Adventist families to enroll their youth in Adventist-operated schools that in any way promote lifestyles which do not harmonize with Scripture and our world church. The emergency of the hour tells us that we have passed from days of automatic trust to days of “show me.”

Concerning Biblical Justice

Any worldview that divides people into permanent victims and victimizers on the basis of identity politics stands at odds with the Gospel. Our true identity is found in Christ. Jesus tore down walls of prejudice between people groups at Calvary; God’s Church must not rebuild such walls. Justice matters deeply to Adventists. It is woven into the first angel’s message: “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come” (Revelation 14:7). God has called us to be the hands and feet of Jesus. We are to overcome evil with good. “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

God’s justice is impartial, individual not racial, lawful, based on objective evidence, and tempered with gospel mercy (Romans 2:1-29; John 7:24; Proverbs 18:17; Leviticus 19:15; Galatians 3:28). These are the characteristics of the judgment proceeding in the heavenly sanctuary since 1844. We long for the day when Jesus will make all wrongs right. Our camp meeting theme next year, “Not Home Yet: Heaven and the New Earth,” keeps this hope before us.

Concerning Religious Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

An October 26, 2021 statement titled “Reaffirming Adventist Church Response to COVID-19” both advocated the use by members of novel experimental treatments then being redefined as vaccines, and also stated that “claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.” Some had no negative experience in relation to this statement and for this we thank God. And yet, while we believe that the actions taken on behalf of the Church at that time were intended for good, we acknowledge that these and other ideas promoted led to real harm for many conscientious members.

While we cannot go back in time and unmake those statements for others, and doubtless there are lessons that would be troubling if we did, we do commit ourselves to greater vigilance at the primal issue: the defense of liberty. Conscience is the individual’s own judgment concerning his personal relation of faith and duty toward God. The right of conscience is not one that is bestowed upon us by ecclesiastical or civil powers. It is one that is inalienable, an unremovable gift from God to His image-bearers (Genesis 1:27). We affirm again the separation of church and state and the precious heritage of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and cherished by our Adventist pioneers. It is by this very freedom that people can have part in the cause of present truth by becoming part of God’s remnant Church!

Leave a comment

Concerning Tithe and Evangelism

Tithe is sacred; we cannot endorse any strategy of redirecting or withholding it (Leviticus 27; Malachi 3:8-10). Such an approach first reduces support for pastors in the field and for local ministries across Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

We affirm the effective and longstanding practice of regarding the Seventh-day Adventist conference in which one holds membership as God’s storehouse. We believe that tithes and offerings sent in support of the sisterhood of churches in our conference are to be used as divinely designed—to sustain gospel workers gathering the harvest and expanding His kingdom into unreached places. We believe that the primary role of tithes and offerings is to fulfill the unique mission to which God has called His people.

We support and emphasize the priesthood of all believers and that pastors supported by the tithe should equip members to use their gifts, care for one another, and reach their communities with the everlasting gospel. Pastors should minister alongside members in unreached territories to raise up new congregations. In our evangelistic plan we are inviting every member, (1) to engage in personal evangelism, (2) to encourage every church to hold evangelistic meetings yearly, and (3) to have part in the work in their district toward planting a new congregation in an unreached area.

Many are praying for revival to come to the East and God has told us how this will happen in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Listen:

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the Third Angel’s Message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure” (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91-92).

Closing Appeal

Brothers and sisters, let us be faithful. In this hour of service we see the bride of Christ threatened, both by a strange spiritual lethargy but also cultural pressure applied against present truth and even truth in its most basic forms. We have no part in any movement that abandons faith in God’s plan for His Church! Let us respond with renewed consecration, loving accountability, and steadfast loyalty to Scripture and to the remnant mission. The body of Christ is larger than any administrative structure, yet God has ordained order for the advancement of His work. May we strengthen what remains, support those who labor faithfully, and keep our eyes fixed on Jesus until He comes. May God grant us revival in the East and in all His Church!

In the love of Christ and the hope of His appearing,

Sincerely,

Administrative Committee of the Northern New England Conference

The ongoing discussion over tithe, offerings, and the biblical meaning of the “storehouse” has produced some serious theological debate—but it has also produced some genuinely hilarious reactions.

And perhaps, in the middle of a difficult controversy, a little humor is exactly what some people needed.

Recently, the argument has been advanced that biblical tithe was not necessarily paid in money, but often consisted of the actual produce and increase of the land. The Old Testament certainly contains examples of agricultural tithe—grain, wine, oil, herds, and other increase.

Leviticus 27:30 declares:

“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S: it is holy unto the LORD.”

Deuteronomy likewise speaks plainly about the agricultural character of Israel’s tithe:

“Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.”
—Deuteronomy 14:22

The argument being raised today is simple: If we are going to insist that the Old Testament storehouse model must govern precisely where Christians send their tithe, then why not follow the rest of the Old Testament model literally as well?

Apparently, someone decided to test the argument.

According to a report circulating online, 300 pounds of pinto beans were dropped off at the Michigan Conference as a tithe payment.

Yes—300 pounds of beans.

Some people took issue with it. Others apparently couldn’t stop laughing.

And judging by the comments, plenty of people immediately understood the point being made.

One person suggested the beans could be divided among churches and used for mission work—a chili meal, literature distribution, or a health seminar.

Another pointed straight to Malachi:

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be FOOD in mine house…”
—Malachi 3:10

And then came perhaps the funniest suggestion of all: deliver the beans to the treasury department because, after all, aren’t they the bean counters?

That one may be difficult to top.

But Behind the Humor Is a Serious Message

The point isn’t really about beans.

Nor is the point that Christians should suddenly begin arriving at conference offices with sacks of potatoes, bushels of corn, goats, sheep, tomatoes, or 300-pound deliveries of legumes.

The beans are making an argument.

If an institution insists, “We are the storehouse,” then someone has apparently responded, “Fine. Here is some food for the storehouse.”

That is what makes the situation humorous—but also thought-provoking.

Malachi 3:10 does not merely say, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse.” It immediately gives a purpose:

“that there may be meat [food] in mine house.”

The storehouse existed in connection with God’s work, His sanctuary, and the support of those appointed to minister in sacred things.

The New Testament carries forward the principle of supporting gospel laborers:

“Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”
—1 Corinthians 9:14

Paul’s emphasis is not ultimately upon maintaining an institution for the institution’s sake. God’s resources are intended to advance God’s mission.

That distinction matters.

When the People Begin Using Humor

There is another dimension to this story that should not be missed.

People often resort to satire when they feel their serious concerns are no longer being heard.

When members believe apostasy, theological compromise, questions of accountability, or failures of leadership are being neglected while appeals for money continue unabated, frustration is inevitable.

And eventually someone shows up with 300 pounds of beans.

That doesn’t resolve the theological controversy. It doesn’t answer every question concerning tithe. And humor should never become cruelty or personal ridicule.

But it certainly gets people’s attention.

There is a biblical principle worth remembering:

“A merry heart doeth good like a medicine…”
—Proverbs 17:22

Sometimes amid controversy, Christians need enough grace to smile.

The comments surrounding this episode demonstrate that many people understood exactly what was being communicated. Some even began imagining constructive ways the food could be used—feeding hungry families, supporting community outreach, hosting meals, or combining food distribution with gospel literature and health ministry.

And perhaps there is an unintended lesson there as well.

If there is food in God’s house, why not use it to bless somebody?

The Larger Question Remains

The real controversy isn’t whether beans constitute an acceptable form of tithe.

The deeper question is:

What makes something God’s “storehouse”?

Is the storehouse defined primarily by an organizational address?

Is it defined by denominational structure?

Or should the biblical discussion include the purpose for which God’s tithe was given—the support of those carrying forward His appointed work?

Those questions deserve serious Bible study rather than slogans from either side.

But the message behind this particular protest seems unmistakable:

If you insist that you are the storehouse, don’t be surprised when somebody brings you food.

The protest continues.

The people have apparently gotten the message.

And when serious concerns cannot seem to get the attention of those in positions of responsibility, sometimes a little biblical satire makes the point in a way that another argument cannot.

Three hundred pounds of pinto beans may not settle the tithe debate.

But they certainly started a conversation.

And somewhere in Michigan, somebody may be eating a whole lot of haystacks.

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be FOOD in mine house.” — Malachi 3:10

In 1555, Robert Samuel chose the Scriptures—and it cost him his life.

Robert Samuel was an English minister associated with East Bergholt in Suffolk during the Protestant Reformation. Under the reign of King Edward VI, the Reformation had advanced throughout England, and Samuel embraced the Protestant faith and became known as a preacher of the gospel.

But England was about to change dramatically.

When Queen Mary I came to the throne in 1553, she sought to reverse the Protestant Reformation and restore England to Roman Catholicism and communion with Rome. Clergy who had married under Edward VI were ordered to separate from their wives, and Protestant teaching was increasingly suppressed.

Subscribe

Samuel refused to surrender his convictions.

He had married during Edward’s reign, and when ordered to put away his wife, he refused. After being removed from his ministry, he did not simply disappear into silence. Historical accounts report that he continued privately teaching and encouraging those who remained committed to the Reformation faith.

Eventually, Samuel was discovered while visiting his wife in Ipswich. He was arrested at night and taken away to prison.

His Imprisonment Was Brutal

Samuel was brought before John Hopton, Bishop of Norwich, and his chancellor. His treatment in prison became extraordinarily severe.

According to the account preserved by John Foxe, Samuel was at one point chained to a post in such a position that the weight of his body rested largely upon the tips of his toes.

Even worse, his food was drastically restricted.

He was kept so hungry that Foxe’s account describes him as being brought to an almost unimaginable state of starvation. Yet the suffering failed to force him to abandon his convictions.

His confidence rested in Christ.

Samuel expressed his assurance that through faith in Christ he belonged to Him and that Christ was his resting place for “body and soul, life and death.”

That conviction would soon be tested to its limit.

August 31, 1555

Samuel was eventually condemned as a heretic.

On August 31, 1555, he was taken to be burned at the stake in Ipswich, Suffolk. Historical tradition identifies the place of execution as the Cornhill.

The man whom imprisonment and starvation had reduced to terrible physical weakness was now brought face-to-face with death.

But Rome could condemn his body; it could not command his conscience.

Robert Samuel went to the fire refusing to renounce the faith for which he had suffered.

He was bound to the stake and burned alive.

His death occurred during what became known as the Marian Persecutions, when Protestant men and women—including bishops, ministers, tradesmen, and ordinary believers—were executed for religious heresy during the reign of Mary I.

Samuel became remembered as one of the Ipswich Martyrs.

But the Story Didn’t End With Samuel

There is another remarkable part of the story.

Two women associated with Samuel, Agnes Potten and Joan Trunchfield, were arrested shortly after his execution. They too refused to abandon their Protestant convictions.

On February 19, 1556, less than six months after Samuel’s death, the two women were themselves burned together at Ipswich.

Samuel’s execution therefore did not extinguish the convictions for which he died.

Others were prepared to follow him.

What Robert Samuel’s Story Teaches Us

The story of Robert Samuel is bigger than an argument between Protestants and Catholics.

It raises a question that confronts every generation:

What happens when loyalty to an institution conflicts with your understanding of the Word of God?

Samuel made his decision.

His position, livelihood, freedom, comfort, marriage, and eventually his life were placed on one side of the scale.

His conscience and faithfulness to Christ were placed on the other.

He chose Christ.

Nearly five centuries later, we remember the institution that condemned him—but we also remember the prisoner who refused to surrender his conscience.

Jesus warned His disciples:

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.”
— Matthew 10:28

And Revelation describes faithful believers with words that could appropriately summarize the courage demonstrated by martyrs such as Robert Samuel:

“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”
— Revelation 12:11

Robert Samuel could have preserved his life by surrendering his convictions.

Instead, on August 31, 1555, at Ipswich, he sealed his testimony with his blood.

The flames could consume the preacher.

They could not consume his faith.

Historical Note

The principal early account of Robert Samuel’s persecution comes from John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, commonly known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Some dramatic details surrounding Protestant martyrs come to us primarily through Foxe and should therefore be identified as reports from that tradition rather than independently verified eyewitness facts. What is historically well established is that Robert Samuel was a Protestant minister connected with East Bergholt, was persecuted under Queen Mary I, refused to conform, and was burned at Ipswich in 1555.

How does this story inspire your faith?

Comment

God Gives the Courage When the Courage Is Needed

The disciples were not endowed with the courage and fortitude of the martyrs until such grace was needed. Then the Saviour’s promise was fulfilled. When Peter and John testified before the Sanhedrin council, men “marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:13. Of Stephen it is written that “all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” Men “were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.” Acts 6:15, 10. And Paul, writing of his own trial at the court of the Caesars, says, “At my first defense no one took my part, but all forsook me.... But the Lord stood by me, and strengthened me; that through me the message might be fully proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.” 2 Timothy 4:16, 17, R. V. – {DA 354.3}

Some have argued that it is wrong to use social media to publicly address or rebuke sins within the church. But is that principle truly biblical, and is it being applied consistently?

At its core, social media is simply a …

Read more

There are statements that become more relevant with the passing of time.

This is one of them.

We live in an age overflowing with information, technology, education, wealth, platforms, influence, and religious institutions. We have more ways to communicate than any previous generation.

Yet the greatest need of the world is not another platform.

• It is not another institution.

• It is not more money.

• It is not more technology.

Subscribe now

The greatest want of the world is still the want of men.

Men and women of character.

People who cannot be purchased by money, intimidated by power, manipulated by popularity, or silenced by fear. People whose allegiance to God is greater than their concern for reputation, employment, political acceptance, denominational advancement, financial security, or even personal safety.

Ellen White’s famous statement contains at least six characteristics desperately needed in God’s people today. Let us examine them one by one.

1. “The Greatest Want of the World Is the Want of Men”

God has always looked for people willing to stand in the gap.

In Ezekiel’s day, God declared:

“And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land…”
— Ezekiel 22:30

Isaiah heard the same divine call:

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then said I, “Here am I; send me.”
— Isaiah 6:8

And the Psalmist asked:

“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?”
— Psalm 94:16

The question has not changed.

Who will stand?

God is not primarily searching for the talented, wealthy, famous, educated, influential, or well-connected. He is looking for the surrendered. The world has plenty of personalities. What it desperately lacks is character. It needs men and women who can be trusted when nobody is watching; people whose private lives agree with their public profession; people who will say, like Isaiah:

“Here am I; send me.”

D. L. Moody is famously associated with the challenge that the world has yet to see what God can do through a person wholly consecrated to Him.

That raises a personal question:

Why shouldn’t that person be you?

Leave a comment

2. “Men Who Will Not Be Bought or Sold”

Perhaps few portions of this quotation speak more directly to our generation.

Scripture says:

“Buy the truth, and sell it not.”
— Proverbs 23:23

• Truth is not merchandise.

• Conviction is not for sale.

• Integrity should never have a price tag.

God warned Israel:

“And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.”
— Exodus 23:8

• That is an extraordinary warning.

• Money can influence judgment.

• Financial interests can silence voices.

• Political access can compromise conviction.

Institutional advancement can make otherwise courageous people strangely quiet. The temptation does not always come as someone handing you an envelope filled with cash. Sometimes the price is a position. A promotion. A paycheck. A retirement plan. A sponsorship. Access. Influence. Acceptance. Or simply the fear of losing what you already possess. The question therefore becomes deeply personal:

What is the price of your integrity?

• If enough money can change your message, you can be bought. If enough pressure can silence your convictions, you can be sold. If fear of losing your position prevents you from speaking what you know to be true, something other than Christ has gained control over your conscience.

Paul could say:

“I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.”
— Acts 20:33

And when Simon attempted to purchase spiritual power, Peter answered:

“Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”
— Acts 8:20

Peter’s answer was essentially:

This is not for sale.

That must become the conviction of God’s people again.

• My conscience is not for sale.

• My convictions are not for sale.

• My Bible is not for sale.

• My ministry is not for sale.

• My loyalty to Christ is not for sale.

When Watchmen Become Financially Compromised

Isaiah describes a frightening condition among religious watchmen:

“His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark…”
— Isaiah 56:10

Then comes the explanation:

“Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough… they all look to their own way, every one for his gain…”
— Isaiah 56:11

A watchdog that refuses to bark when danger approaches has ceased to fulfill its purpose. Likewise, a watchman who sees danger but refuses to warn the people because warning them might jeopardize his position has betrayed his calling. The church does not merely need ministers who can preach beautiful sermons.

• It needs watchmen who can still bark.

• Men who love souls more than salaries.

• Men who value truth more than titles.

• Men who would rather lose a position than lose their integrity.

3. “Men Who in Their Inmost Souls Are True and Honest”

• There is a difference between appearing honest and being honest.

• God is not looking merely for outward respectability.

• He wants inward integrity.

Scripture declares:

“The integrity of the upright shall guide them.”
— Proverbs 11:3

Consider Joseph.

Tempted in Egypt, falsely accused, imprisoned, forgotten, and misunderstood, Joseph refused to surrender his integrity.

Consider Samuel.

At the end of his public ministry, he essentially invited Israel to examine his record. Had he defrauded anyone? Had he taken a bribe? Had he abused his authority?

• His integrity could withstand investigation.

• Then consider Daniel.

• His enemies desperately searched for corruption in his life:

“They could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.”
— Daniel 6:4

Imagine having enemies actively searching your life for something they could use against you—and finding nothing.

Eventually they concluded:

“We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.”
— Daniel 6:5

What a testimony.

If Daniel was going to get into trouble, it would be because he was too faithful to God.

Psalm 15 describes this character:

“LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.”
— Psalm 15:1–2

Notice where truth begins:

“In his heart.”

God is looking for Christians whose religion still works when the camera is off—when there is no audience, no applause, no recognition, and no one watching but God. He wants men and women who will choose what is right when nobody knows, when faithfulness brings no earthly reward, and when obedience may actually cost them something. True character is not revealed merely by what we do publicly, but by who we are privately. It is doing the right thing because it is right, not because someone will praise us for it. That is integrity. That is the kind of character heaven can trust.

4. “Men Who Do Not Fear to Call Sin by Its Right Name”

This may be one of the greatest deficiencies of modern Christianity.

• We have learned how to rename almost everything.

• Sin becomes a mistake.

• Rebellion becomes self-expression.

• Covetousness becomes ambition.

• Pride becomes self-confidence.

• Lust becomes personal freedom.

• Compromise becomes tolerance.

• Cowardice becomes diplomacy.

But changing the terminology does not change the reality.

God told Isaiah:

“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.”
— Isaiah 58:1

Notice something important:

“My people.”

Biblical prophets did not merely expose the sins of Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Rome, or the surrounding culture.

• They confronted sin among God’s people.

• Nathan confronted David.

• David was king.

Nathan understood the potential consequences, but he still declared:

“Thou art the man.”
— 2 Samuel 12:7

• Elijah confronted Ahab.

• John the Baptist confronted Herod.

• Stephen confronted religious leadership.

• Jesus confronted hypocrisy among the scribes and Pharisees.

Biblical faithfulness has never meant silence in the presence of wrongdoing.

Paul commands:

“Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
— Ephesians 5:11

And Proverbs reminds us:

“Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend.”
— Proverbs 27:5–6

• But there is an important balance.

• Calling sin by its right name is not permission for cruelty.

• We are not called to humiliate sinners.

• We are not called to enjoy exposing people.

• We are not called to weaponize truth.

• Truth must be spoken in love.

• Correction should come from a heart longing for restoration.

• But love that refuses to warn someone about destruction is not biblical love.

If a doctor discovers cancer, compassion does not require him to call it something less serious.

Love tells the truth because love wants the patient to live.

The Spirit and Power of Elijah

The prophetic message immediately preceding Christ’s return cannot merely be one of peace and safety.

John the Baptist prepared the way for Christ’s first advent by preaching repentance.

Likewise, Revelation portrays God’s final message as a worldwide proclamation:

“Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come.”
— Revelation 14:7

That message requires courage.

• It requires ministers willing to address sin without becoming partisan political operatives.

• Biblical truth must remain above party loyalty.

• If Republicans violate biblical principles, call it wrong.

• If Democrats violate biblical principles, call it wrong.

• If independents violate biblical principles, call it wrong.

• And if the church violates biblical principles, call that wrong too.

• Our standard cannot be the platform of a political party.

Our standard must remain: “What saith the Scripture?”

5. “Men Whose Conscience Is as True to Duty as the Needle to the Pole”

A compass does not reconsider north because the weather changes.

A compass does not conduct an opinion poll before determining which direction to point. It does not ask whether north is popular, culturally acceptable, politically convenient, or approved by the majority. The needle simply remains true to its reference. In the same way, the Christian conscience must remain firmly fixed upon its great reference point—the Word and will of God. Our convictions cannot shift with public opinion, social pressure, institutional expectations, or the changing winds of culture. If God has spoken, His Word must remain our standard. Nehemiah understood this principle. While rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, his enemies repeatedly attempted to distract him, intimidate him, and draw him away from the work God had given him. But Nehemiah refused to abandon his post. His answer was simple, decisive, and powerful:

“I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down.”
— Nehemiah 6:3

In other words:

I know my assignment.

Noah demonstrated the very same principle. Year after year, he continued building the ark for one simple reason: God had spoken. Imagine the ridicule he endured. Imagine the accusations, the mockery, and the voices calling him extreme, irrational, alarmist, or even fanatical. Yet Noah kept building. Hammer after hammer. Board after board. Year after year. He did not allow public opinion to silence his convictions, nor did he permit the absence of visible evidence to weaken his faith. He had heard the Word of the Lord, and that was enough. God had spoken, and that settled it. Noah’s responsibility was not to make the message popular, but to remain faithful to the One who gave it. In the same spirit of unwavering conviction, Paul eventually reached the end of his ministry, looked back upon a life of sacrifice, opposition, and faithful service, and could write:

What an epitaph for a life of faithfulness. Paul did not say, “I became famous.” He did not say, “Everybody liked me.” He did not boast, “I avoided controversy, kept everyone happy, and protected my reputation.” Instead, at the end of a life marked by hardship, opposition, sacrifice, persecution, and rejection, he could declare with confidence: “I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7). What greater testimony could a Christian leave behind? Christianity desperately needs men and women who will remain at their posts—not merely when faithfulness is celebrated, but when faithfulness costs them something. When criticized—stay faithful. When misunderstood—stay faithful. When unpopular—stay faithful. When obedience becomes expensive—stay faithful. When friends withdraw and supporters disappear—stay faithful. And when it seems that everyone else is walking away, plant your feet upon the Word of God and stay faithful. Heaven is not asking whether we were popular, applauded, or accepted. The great question is whether, when our course is finished, we too will be able to say:

“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.”
— 2 Timothy 4:7

6. “Men Who Will Stand for the Right Though the Heavens Fall”

Here we arrive at the climax. There is faithfulness when obedience is convenient—and then there is faithfulness when obedience may cost you everything. Daniel possessed that kind of faith. Esther possessed it when she declared, “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16). Stephen possessed it as he stood before an enraged council and refused to compromise the truth, even in the face of death. And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego demonstrated it while standing before the greatest political power of their world. Nebuchadnezzar reduced the issue to a terrifyingly simple choice: Bow or burn. Worship as commanded by the state, or face the fiery furnace. Yet these three Hebrews did not negotiate their convictions, calculate the political consequences, or search for a convenient compromise. Their answer should thunder through the conscience of every Christian today: “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:17). Their confidence was not in the king’s mercy, public opinion, or their own ability to escape. Their confidence was in God. They knew He was able to deliver them—but, even more importantly, they had already determined that whether He delivered them or not, they would not bow.

But then came three of the greatest words ever spoken by men of faith:

“But if not…”

• Even if God does not deliver us.

• Even if the miracle does not happen.

• Even if obedience costs us everything.

“We will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
— Daniel 3:18

That is conviction. That is integrity. That is what it means to stand though the heavens fall. They did not obey because obedience guaranteed safety. They obeyed because God was worthy of obedience—whatever the cost.

Daniel: When Obedience Became Illegal

• Daniel faced another form of the same test.

• A law was deliberately constructed to place his religious practice in conflict with the state.

• Daniel knew the decree had been signed.

Yet Scripture records:

“When Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house… and kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed… as he did aforetime.”
— Daniel 6:10

Daniel’s faithfulness in crisis was the result of a character formed long before the crisis came. Trials reveal what daily habits and convictions have already established. If we hope to have Daniel’s courage under pressure, we must cultivate his commitment to prayer and faithfulness now.

Jesus Christ: The Ultimate Example

Every characteristic described in Education 57.3 ultimately finds its perfection in Jesus Christ.

• He could not be bought.

• He could not be intimidated.

• He could not be manipulated by popularity.

• He spoke truth to religious leaders.

• He confronted hypocrisy.

• He touched the rejected.

• He defended the oppressed.

• He obeyed His Father even when obedience led directly to Calvary.

Paul writes:

“He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
— Philippians 2:8

Christ did not merely teach sacrifice; He became the sacrifice. He did not simply speak of faithfulness; He remained faithful unto death. Christian courage, therefore, is not a combative spirit or a desire for conflict. It is the character of Christ revealed in a life that remains faithful to God with humility, love, and conviction.

WHERE ARE THESE MEN TODAY?

• This question must now come home to us.

• Where are the men who cannot be purchased?

• Where are the ministers who cannot be silenced?

• Where are the Christians who would rather lose followers than compromise truth?

• Where are the pastors willing to preach what Scripture says even when members become uncomfortable?

• Where are the church leaders willing to confront wrongdoing even when doing so threatens their position?

• Where are the young men who will remain sexually pure when pornography and immorality surround them?

• Where are the husbands who will lead their families toward Christ?

• Where are the fathers who will teach their children the Word of God?

• Where are the women who would rather possess the approval of heaven than the applause of culture?

• Where are the young people who will say with Daniel:

I will not defile myself.

Where are the Christians who will say with Joshua:

“As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
— Joshua 24:15

• Where are the modern Nathans?

• Where are the Elijahs?

• Where are the Daniels?

• Where are the Esthers?

• Where are the Stephens?

• Where are the John the Baptists?

YOU MAY HAVE COME TO THE KINGDOM FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS

Perhaps we have spent too much time waiting for someone else.

• Someone else will preach it.

• Someone else will expose it.

• Someone else will confront it.

• Someone else will go.

• Someone else will stand.

• But heaven’s question remains:

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

Maybe God is asking you.

Your platform may not be a pulpit. It may be your workplace, your home, your school, your community, your social-media page, your church board, your ministry, your family, or simply your neighborhood. Wherever God has placed you, there is an opportunity to live with integrity, speak truth with grace, and faithfully represent Christ.

Wherever Providence has placed you, there is your opportunity to demonstrate Christian character. Esther had her palace, Daniel had Babylon, Joseph had Egypt, Nehemiah had Jerusalem, Paul had the Gentile world, Stephen had the council chamber, and John had the wilderness. Each served God faithfully where Providence placed them. You are called to do the same where God has placed you.

A FINAL APPEAL: STAND UP

Men of God, stand up. Women of faith, stand up. Young people, stand up. Pastors, elders, teachers, parents, ministry leaders, content creators, and believers sitting quietly in the pews—stand up. The church does not need a Christianity shaped by the fear of offending others, nor a faith that mistakes silence for wisdom or compromise for diplomacy. This hour calls for something better: men who cannot be bought, women whose hearts are true, parents whose convictions are grounded in Scripture, and young people who know what they believe and why. Our churches and communities need Christians with both courage and compassion—people who can speak truth without arrogance, disagree without hatred, stand without becoming combative, and, when necessary, speak difficult truths with tears in their voices and the love of Christ in their hearts.

And the final proclamation of the gospel needs believers who have settled one question forever:

“My life belongs to Jesus Christ.”

• If telling the truth costs popularity—tell it anyway.

• If standing for Scripture costs followers—stand anyway.

• If righteousness costs advancement—choose righteousness anyway.

• If integrity costs money—keep your integrity anyway.

• If faithfulness costs friendships—remain faithful anyway.

• If obedience brings ridicule—obey anyway.

• If speaking truth brings opposition—speak with love, but speak.

• And if someday standing for Christ costs everything—

BUT IF NOT.

Our God is able to deliver.

But if not, we will still not bow.

May God raise up a generation who will look corruption, compromise, apostasy, deception, political pressure, cultural intimidation, and religious cowardice directly in the face and say:

• You cannot buy me.

• You cannot sell me.

• You cannot purchase my conscience.

• You cannot silence what God has commanded me to proclaim.

• Not because we are naturally courageous.

• Not because we are better than anyone else.

• But because Jesus Christ is Lord.

• The greatest want of the world is still the want of men.

• The question is no longer whether God is looking for them.

The question is:

Will you be one of them?

“The greatest want of the world is the want of men—men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”

— Education, 57.3

Pr. James Desvallons

Advent Media Connect -

https://adventmediaconnect.org/

Subscribe now

Support This Work

If this message has encouraged or challenged you, please subscribe, share, and consider supporting this work.

Your support helps us continue proclaiming biblical truth, addressing the important issues of our time, and encouraging God’s people to stand faithfully for Christ.

Subscribe. Share. Pray. Support.

Together, let us stand for truth—no matter the cost.

“His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.” — Isaiah 56:10

Many are consumed with exposing Rome, the papacy, MAGA, Donald Trump, UFOs, global conspiracies, and the sins of the world. While these subjects may deserve biblical examination, what happens when watchmen become experts at identifying error everywhere except within their own church?

God’s prophets always began at the house of God.

“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew My people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” — Isaiah 58:1

Ezekiel was shown a people who would be preserved because they refused to remain silent:

“Set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” — Ezekiel 9:4

Those who sigh and cry are not the enemies of God’s church—they are the ones who love her enough to plead for repentance.

Ellen White gave this sobering warning:

“We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world.” (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 122)

She also wrote:

“The greatest want of the world is the want of men—men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.” (Education, p. 57.3)

A faithful watchman does not selectively bark. He warns wherever danger exists—even when that warning is directed toward his own people.

Sadly, those who call for repentance within the church are often labeled divisive, independent, critical, or troublemakers. Yet throughout Scripture, God consistently sent His messengers first to His covenant people before judgment fell upon the nations.

The greatest threat to God’s remnant has never simply been persecution from without, but compromise from within.

As Ellen White wrote:

“In this age, just prior to the second coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven, God calls for men who will prepare a people to stand in the great day of the Lord. Just such a work as that which John did, is to be carried on in these last days... Our message is not to be one of peace and safety. As a people who believe in Christ’s soon appearing, we have a definite message to bear... Our message must be as direct as was that of John. He rebuked kings for their iniquity... In this time of well-nigh universal apostasy, God calls upon his messengers to proclaim his law in the spirit and power of Elias... With the earnestness that characterized Elijah the prophet and John the Baptist, we are to strive to prepare the way for Christ’s second advent. Resolution, self-denial, and consecrated effort are required of every laborer. Alertness and consecrated zeal must take the place of listless indifference.” (The Southern Work, March 21, 1905, pars. 11, 14)

As Seventh-day Adventists, our commission is not to entertain, speculate, or merely comment on current events. It is to prepare a people to stand in the day of God.

So do not be alarmed by the finger-pointing of unfaithful, blind watchmen who boldly highlight the sins of Babylon while covering for the activities of the Babylonians who have already infiltrated God’s church. They have no courage to call sin by its right name within their own ranks, yet they are always ready to condemn those who do.

Do not be misled by these unsanctified watchmen who present themselves as guardians of the flock while seeking their own interests. Scripture warned that such watchmen would exist. They speak loudly when it costs them nothing, but fall strangely silent when faithfulness requires rebuking sin among God’s own people.

The Lord is not looking for men who merely expose the darkness in the world. He is looking for watchmen who will faithfully proclaim the whole counsel of God, beginning with His own house.

In the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing number of organizations and public figures have publicly acknowledged errors, expressed regret, or apologized for actions connected to vaccine mandates and the treatment of those who objected.

The list continues to grow.

The U.S. Military

Perhaps the most striking example comes from the United States military.

Following a change in federal policy, the Department of Defense began issuing formal apology letters to service members who had been involuntarily discharged solely because of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Those letters were accompanied by invitations to return to service, with opportunities for restoration of rank, benefits, and, in some cases, back pay. (mediaite.com⁠)

The Department’s actions recognized that many service members had suffered significant personal and professional consequences.

Businesses and Health Systems

Several employers have also been forced to reconsider their actions.

Some companies and health systems have:

* reinstated employees,

* paid significant legal settlements,

* revised religious accommodation policies,

* or acknowledged mistakes in how mandates were implemented.

For example, Mercyhealth agreed to pay more than one million dollars to settle an EEOC lawsuit involving religious discrimination related to its COVID-19 vaccine policy and offered reinstatement to affected employees. While not a formal apology, it represented a significant acknowledgment that serious concerns had existed. (mediaite.com⁠)

Stephen A. Smith and Kyrie Irving

One of the more public examples came from sports media.

During the height of the pandemic, ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith harshly criticized NBA star Kyrie Irving for refusing to comply with New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Years later, Smith publicly changed his position.

He released a video titled “Kyrie, I Apologize,” acknowledging that he had been wrong in several of his assessments of Irving. He explained that he prides himself on admitting when he is wrong and publicly apologized for many of his previous criticisms. (hotnewhiphop.com⁠)

Later, Smith went even further, saying that in hindsight Kyrie Irving had been right to stand by his convictions despite the intense criticism he received. (mediaite.com⁠)

Whether one agrees with Irving’s personal decision or not, Smith demonstrated something increasingly rare in today’s culture: the willingness to publicly admit error.

Why Apologies Matter

An apology cannot erase the past.

It cannot restore every lost job, every broken relationship, every damaged reputation, or every opportunity that disappeared.

But an honest apology does something important.

It acknowledges that people were harmed.

It demonstrates humility.

It opens the door for healing.

Scripture repeatedly teaches that confession and repentance are marks of godly leadership.

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

Leaders are not expected to be perfect.

They are expected to be honest.

A Question for the Seventh-day Adventist Church

This brings me to a sincere question.

Throughout the pandemic, many faithful Seventh-day Adventists believed their liberty of conscience was not adequately defended. Some members lost employment. Others felt marginalized because they followed what they believed was their God-given conviction. Some believed church leaders publicly supported policies that conflicted with the historic Adventist commitment to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Reasonable people may disagree about whether those actions were justified at the time.

But now that other institutions, organizations, and even prominent public figures have acknowledged mistakes or offered apologies, an important question remains:

When will the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church publicly acknowledge the pain experienced by members whose liberty of conscience they believe was not defended?

Many are still waiting.

This is not a call for bitterness.

It is not a call for division.

It is not a call to relive the conflicts of the pandemic.

Rather, it is a call for humility, transparency, reconciliation, and healing.

If apologies are appropriate when mistakes have been made elsewhere, should the same principle not apply within the household of faith?

After all, Christians above all people believe in confession, repentance, forgiveness, and restoration.

Perhaps that conversation is long overdue.

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
— 2 Peter 2:1 (KJV)

One of the clearest evidences that God is at work is not merely that truth is being preached—it is that opposition begins to rise against it.

Peter warns that just as there were false prophets among ancient Israel, there would also be false teachers among the Christian church. This is not a possibility; it is a certainty. Satan has always sought to neutralize God’s message, not only through open persecution, but through religious deception.

The ministry of Jeremiah provides one of Scripture’s clearest illustrations of this principle.

God raised Jeremiah during one of Judah’s darkest spiritual hours. The nation had drifted into apostasy while maintaining an appearance of religion. God lovingly appealed to His people to repent before judgment fell. Yet almost every warning Jeremiah gave was met by another voice—a false prophet offering a far more comfortable message.

• The battle was never merely between optimism and pessimism.

• It was a battle between the Word of God and the opinions of men.

Here are seven characteristics of the false prophets in Jeremiah that remain remarkably relevant today.

1. They Preached Peace When There Was No Peace

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.”
— Jeremiah 6:14

The nation was standing on the brink of divine judgment, yet the false prophets assured everyone that everything was fine.

• Rather than exposing sin, they comforted sinners in their rebellion.

• Their message removed conviction without removing guilt.

Whenever God’s Spirit calls for repentance, false teachers often replace repentance with reassurance.

2. They Claimed God Spoke When He Had Not

“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.”
— Jeremiah 23:21

• Perhaps the greatest danger was not that they denied God.

• They claimed to represent Him.

• They spoke confidently, used spiritual language, and claimed divine authority while delivering messages God had never given.

A message becomes dangerous not merely because it is false, but because it falsely claims to be from God.

3. They Strengthened People in Sin Instead of Calling Them Out of It

“They strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness.”
— Jeremiah 23:14

• The purpose of biblical preaching is restoration.

• The purpose of false prophecy is often affirmation.

Rather than leading people to forsake sin, the false prophets encouraged them to remain comfortable in it.

• True love confronts sin because it desires salvation.

• False love leaves people where they are.

4. They Contradicted God’s Warnings

A striking example appears in Jeremiah 28.

The prophet Hananiah publicly contradicted Jeremiah’s message.

He declared that Babylon’s power would soon be broken and that the captivity would quickly end.

Jeremiah had already revealed God’s message: the captivity would continue because the nation refused to repent.

Hananiah’s prophecy sounded hopeful.

It was also false.

God later declared that Hananiah had caused the people to trust a lie, and within the year he died (Jeremiah 28).

• Popularity never determines truth.

• Neither does optimism.

5. They Borrowed Messages From One Another Instead of Receiving Them From God

“Behold, I am against the prophets… that steal my words every one from his neighbour.”
— Jeremiah 23:30

• False prophets often repeat one another.

• Rather than seeking the Lord, they echo the latest popular voices.

• Their authority comes from personalities instead of Scripture.

God calls His servants to receive His Word before repeating it.

6. They Told People What They Wanted to Hear

“They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace.”
— Jeremiah 23:17

• The false prophets understood their audience.

• Instead of preaching truth, they preached approval.

• Instead of confronting pride, they affirmed it.

• Instead of warning of coming judgment, they promised uninterrupted blessing.

The most dangerous messages are often the ones people most enjoy hearing.

Truth frequently wounds before it heals.

7. They Opposed God’s Faithful Messenger

• Jeremiah was mocked.

• He was imprisoned.

• He was beaten.

• He was accused of treason.

• He was thrown into a muddy cistern.

His greatest opposition did not come primarily from Babylon.

It came from religious leaders who rejected God’s message.

Whenever God raises a reform movement, those committed to preserving the status quo often become its fiercest opponents.

History repeatedly demonstrates this pattern.

• The prophets opposed Jeremiah.

• The priests opposed Christ.

• The religious leaders opposed the apostles.

• The conflict continues today.

The Pattern Never Changes

Peter’s warning in 2 Peter 2 was not introducing a new problem.

He was reminding believers that the same conflict has existed throughout redemptive history.

Whenever God calls His people to repentance…

• False teachers promise peace.

Whenever God exposes sin…

• False prophets minimize it.

Whenever God sends faithful messengers…

• Counterfeit voices arise to undermine them.

The existence of false teachers should never surprise God’s people.

Scripture predicted they would come.

The real question is not whether false teachers exist.

The question is whether we know God’s Word well enough to recognize them.

Like the Bereans, we must test every sermon, every movement, every personality, and every spiritual claim by the inspired Scriptures (Acts 17:11).

• Popularity is not the test.

• Influence is not the test.

• Credentials are not the test.

“God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. But Satan is a vigilant, unsleeping foe… he will suggest ideas and false theories, and make them zealous in advocating error… Jesus has warned us to beware of false teachers.”

— Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 53

“The world is no more ready to credit the message for this time than were the Jews to receive the Saviour’s warning concerning Jerusalem… religious leaders are magnifying the world’s progress… and the people are lulled in a false security.”

— The Great Controversy, pp. 37–38

“The last great delusion is soon to open before us… So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. By their testimony every statement and every miracle must be tested.”

— The Great Controversy, p. 593

The Word of God is the test.

In every generation, God’s people must decide which voice they will follow—the comfortable voice that tells them everything is well, or the faithful voice that lovingly calls them to repentance, revival, and obedience.

Jeremiah’s generation made the wrong choice.

May ours not repeat their mistake.

Pr. James Desvallons

• They teach the truth, but do not practice it
  “They say, and do not.” — Matthew 23:3

• They place heavy burdens on others
  They demand much from people while offering little compassion, encouragement, or help. — Matthew 23:4

• They perform religious acts to be noticed
  Their primary concern is appearing spiritual before others. — Matthew 23:5

• They crave recognition and important positions
  They love prominent seats, public greetings, titles, and the praise of people. — Matthew 23:6–10

• They seek greatness rather than service
  Instead of humbling themselves and serving, they desire authority and superiority. — Matthew 23:11–12

• They hinder others from entering God’s kingdom
  Their teaching, conduct, or influence makes it harder for people to come to Christ. — Matthew 23:13

• They exploit vulnerable people while appearing religious
  They take advantage of others and then cover their behavior with impressive prayers. — Matthew 23:14

• They make converts after their own image
  They are more concerned with gaining followers for their party than making disciples of Christ. — Matthew 23:15

• They use clever reasoning to avoid plain obligations
  They create technical distinctions that excuse dishonesty or unfaithfulness. — Matthew 23:16–22

• They emphasize minor rules while neglecting greater duties
  They may be exact in outward practices, human traditions, and tithes, but neglect “judgment, mercy, and faith.” — Matthew 23:23–24

• They focus on outward appearance while remaining corrupt within
  The outside looks clean, but the heart is filled with greed and self-indulgence. — Matthew 23:25–26

• They appear righteous but conceal spiritual deadness
  Like whitewashed tombs, they look beautiful externally but are inwardly filled with hypocrisy and iniquity. — Matthew 23:27–28

• They honor past messengers while rejecting present correction
  They praise faithful prophets of the past but resist, criticize, or persecute those who confront their present sins. — Matthew 23:29–34

A personal question for all of us is not simply, “Who is a Pharisee?” but “Are any of these attitudes growing in me?”

Psalm 139:23-24 (KJV) 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 24 And see if [there be any] wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

The Bible First: A Call Back to the Word

The Spirit of Prophecy is one of the identifying marks of God’s remnant church (Revelation 12:17; 19:10). It is a precious gift that should be embraced, believed, studied, and faithfully practiced.

Yet I believe we must honestly acknowledge a growing concern.

Many of us—including, at times, pastors, elders, teachers, and church members—have become far more familiar with the writings of Ellen White than with the Scriptures themselves. We were once known as “the people of the Book.” Today, however, it is not uncommon to hear believers quote the Spirit of Prophecy with ease while struggling to establish the same truths directly from the Bible.

That should concern us.

Ellen White never intended for her writings to replace Scripture. In fact, throughout her ministry she consistently pointed believers back to the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice. She repeatedly warned against using her writings as a substitute for Scripture or removing her statements from their context.

Consider just a few of her own words.

1. The Bible Is the Standard

“The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.”

— The Great Controversy, p. vii

2. The Lesser Light Leading to the Greater Light

“Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.”

— Colporteur Ministry, p. 125

Notice that Ellen White never called her writings the greater light. She identified the Bible as the greater light and her own ministry as one designed to lead people back to it.

3. Search the Scriptures for Yourselves

“Do not take the testimony of any man, but study the Word of God for yourselves. If you had made God’s Word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies.”

— Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 665

4. The Bible Must Remain First

“The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.”

— Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 29

5. God’s Word Is Sufficient

“The Word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it.”

— Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 663

6. Cling to the Bible

“Cling to your Bible, as it reads, and stop your criticism in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost.”

— Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 18

7. The Rule of Faith and Practice

“I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged.”

— Early Writings, p. 78

8. The Bible Alone

“The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony.”

— Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 416

Ellen White Warned Against Misusing Her Writings

She also warned against quoting her writings out of context or using isolated statements to support preconceived ideas.

Don’t Misapply the Testimonies

“Many study the Scriptures for the purpose of proving their own ideas to be correct. They change the meaning of God’s Word to suit their own opinions. And thus they do also with the testimonies that He sends.”

— Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 42

Time, Place, and Circumstances Matter

“Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered.”

— Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 57

Don’t Separate Statements From Their Context

“There are some who take passages from the Testimonies that the Lord has given me, and apply them out of their proper place, because they sustain their ideas. Thus passages, separated from their connection, lose their force and beauty.”

— Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 44

The Spirit of Prophecy Never Replaces Scripture

“The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”

— The Great Controversy, p. vii

Trust God More Than Men

Ellen White also warned against depending upon influential personalities instead of studying for ourselves.

“God says to every man to whom He entrusts responsibilities, ‘Put not your trust in man, neither make flesh your arm.’ Look to God. Trust in His infallible wisdom. Regard as a sin the practice so common, even among Seventh-day Adventists, of becoming the echo of any man, however lofty his position. Listen to the voice of the great Shepherd, and you will never be led astray. Search the Scriptures for yourself…”

— Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, p. 83

Know What You Believe

Perhaps one of the most solemn warnings she ever wrote is this:

“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth know not what they believe…. When the time of trial shall come… there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason…. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God and a turning to men, putting human in place of divine wisdom.”

— Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 707

She repeats this warning almost verbatim in Gospel Workers, p. 298.

That warning is just as relevant today.

A movement that once searched the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11) must not become a movement that merely repeats quotations. Every Seventh-day Adventist should be able to explain the Sabbath, the sanctuary, the state of the dead, the Second Coming, righteousness by faith, and every distinctive doctrine from the Bible itself.

The Spirit of Prophecy strengthens, clarifies, and applies biblical truth—but it never replaces the Bible as the foundation of doctrine.

As Ellen White herself repeatedly insisted, every doctrine must stand upon Scripture.

May we once again become people of the Book.

May we love the Spirit of Prophecy without misusing it.

May we read Ellen White as she intended—to lead us back to Christ through His Word.

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” — Psalm 119:105

Context, Context, Context: What This Article Really Says About Edson White, Fundraising, and Church Accountability

Some have referred to this article as a “bombshell” that supposedly settles the question of the storehouse, tithe, and the authority of the Conference.

However, after reading the entire conversation rather than relying on isolated quotations, I realized that this claim is not supported by the document.

The article in question

Context, context, context is everything.

A statement may sound powerful when removed from its setting, but proper interpretation requires us to examine the subject being discussed, the historical circumstances, the people involved, the questions being asked, and the answers given.

To understand what is actually happening in this document, we must ask several important questions:

1. What is the context of the article?

2. Is the discussion about tithe?

3. Why did Ellen White oppose Edson White and E. R. Palmer controlling an independent treasury?

4. Does this document prove that the Conference structure of today is the only biblical storehouse?

5. What lessons does the document teach about financial accountability, fundraising, leadership, and organizational order?

When the article is studied chronologically and in its entirety, the conclusions become much clearer.

1. What Is the Context of This Article?

The discussion concerns the work of James Edson White in the American South, particularly his efforts among the Black population through the Southern Missionary Society.

Edson had carried a tremendous burden for the Southern work during a period when that field had been seriously neglected. He had raised money, established institutions, operated missionary enterprises, and attempted to advance the work when many within the organized church were unwilling to take responsibility for it.

Ellen White openly acknowledged that history:

“There was a time when the Southern field was being robbed and neglected.”

She also recognized that Edson had once stood nearly alone:

“So he was at one time, when no one stood ready to take hold of this work with him.”

Therefore, the conversation was not questioning whether the Southern work was important. Neither was it denying that the organized leadership had failed in its responsibility.

The Southern field had been neglected, the leadership had made mistakes, and independent appeals for money had temporarily become necessary.

However, by the time of this conversation, circumstances had changed.

Other people were now helping with the work. The Southern Union Conference was prepared to assume responsibility, provide oversight, and support the advancement of the cause in the South.

The question was whether Edson should continue operating an independent missionary organization, controlling an independent treasury, raising money through methods the Conference could not approve, and contracting debts that others might later be expected to settle.

That is the immediate context.

2. Was This Article About Tithe?

No.

The document is not a discussion of the biblical doctrine of tithe.

It does not examine:

• Malachi 3;

• the Levitical system;

• the biblical storehouse;

• the support of the gospel ministry;

• the proper recipients of tithe;

• whether tithe may be redirected during apostasy;

• whether Conference organizations possess exclusive authority over tithe.

The repeated subjects in the conversation are:

• fundraising;

• appeals for means;

• an independent treasury;

• missionary donations;

• contracted debts;

• financial administration;

• the Southern Missionary Society;

• the Dixie Health Food Company;

• the Nashville Publishing Association;

• organizational accountability;

• Conference oversight.

W. C. White introduces the issue by saying:

“He has felt that he must go to the people for money, and that he must have a treasury independent from the treasury of the Union Conference…”

The language is clear: Edson wanted to go to the people for money and replenish an independent missionary treasury.

Later, Ellen White refers specifically to:

“appeals…made for means independently of the organized body.”

She does not say “tithe.” She says “appeals” and “means.”

This is fundraising language.

The context concerns money raised for missionary enterprises, schools, publishing work, health-food manufacturing, and Southern outreach. It is not a theological exposition on tithe.

Therefore, using this passage as though it directly settles the doctrine of tithe is an interpretive mistake.

3. Why Did Ellen White Oppose an Independent Treasury?

There were several connected reasons.

First, Edson was not considered a careful financial manager

Ellen White stated plainly:

“I cannot give countenance to Edson’s operating independently, because I know that he is not a close financier.”

This is one of the most important statements in the entire conversation.

Her objection was not merely that an independent treasury existed outside the Conference. Her concern was also connected to Edson’s ability to manage it responsibly.

To say that he was “not a close financier” meant that he was not sufficiently careful, disciplined, or exact in financial management.

He had a burden for the work, but zeal for missionary service did not automatically qualify him to:

• control an independent treasury;

• incur substantial debts;

• oversee multiple enterprises;

• appeal continually for money;

• spend funds without adequate oversight;

• expect the Conference to settle obligations afterward.

His motives may have been sincere, but sincere motives do not remove the need for financial accountability.

Second, debts were being contracted

A. G. Daniells explained the concern of the Southern Union Conference:

“They feel that they have a right to say something about the debts that are contracted, if they have to pay them.”

That is entirely reasonable.

If the Union Conference was expected to cover financial obligations, it had a right to participate in the decisions that created those obligations.

Edson could not fairly demand independence when spending money and contracting debts, while expecting others to assume responsibility when the bills came due.

Third, Edson wanted control without sufficient oversight

W. C. White described Edson’s position as believing that he should:

• control the association;

• maintain its treasury;

• raise money directly from the people;

• replenish that treasury;

• spend the money as the Southern Missionary Society thought best;

• resist others who questioned his methods.

W. C. White said that this position kept Edson:

“in a conflict on the right hand and on the left.”

The problem was not the missionary objective. The problem was the administrative method.

Fourth, the conditions that had once required independent appeals had changed

Ellen White said:

“There was a time when the Southern field was being robbed and neglected. At that time it was necessary for appeals to be made for means independently of the organized body.”

But she immediately added:

“But this time is in the past.”

That sentence must not be ignored.

The former emergency no longer existed in the same way.

The Conference was now willing to participate. Other workers had accepted the burden. The organized body had acknowledged its previous failures.

Therefore, continued independence was no longer necessary.

Fifth, the Southern work should now come under Southern Union Conference oversight

Ellen White stated:

“It is highly proper that the work of the Southern Missionary Society should be under the direction of the Southern Union Conference.”

This was a practical response to the changed circumstances.

Edson was no longer alone. The Conference was now involved. His financial management was a concern. Debts were being accumulated. Controversial fundraising methods were damaging confidence.

Under those conditions, Ellen White believed that the work should come under responsible organizational oversight.

4. What About E. R. Palmer and the Dixie Health Food Company?

The final portion of the document broadens the concern beyond Edson’s independent treasury.

Ellen White discussed the Dixie Health Food Company and a sensational article published in a Nashville newspaper. The article reportedly claimed that half a million dollars would be spent in connection with the health-food business.

Ellen White called it:

“a terrible representation.”

She then declared:

“Not another plea can I publish, asking our people to help to establish the work in the Southern field, until something is done to right this matter.”

Why?

Because irresponsible publicity had undermined confidence and damaged fundraising efforts.

She said:

“With that presentation in circulation, channels through which means should have flowed into the Southern field have been closed.”

Once again, this is not a discussion about tithe.

It is about:

• public fundraising;

• financial credibility;

• exaggerated business plans;

• conflicts of interest;

• poor administration;

• the damage caused when leaders create distrust among potential donors.

Ellen White also explained that she had originally supported limited experimentation with health foods. However, she later advised Edson and Palmer not to operate the food business while also holding positions of responsibility in the publishing house.

They could not carry both lines of work and do justice to both.

She advised that the Southern Union Conference should control the manufacture and sale of health foods for the Southern field, and that profits could be used to advance missionary work.

Again, this was organizational and financial counsel regarding business operations and fundraising—not a theological declaration that all tithe must necessarily be controlled exclusively by the modern Conference structure.

5. Does This Prove That the Conference Is the Only Storehouse?

No. This document by itself does not prove that claim.

One may argue for a particular understanding of the storehouse from Scripture or from a broader body of Ellen White’s writings, but this specific conversation does not establish the doctrine that the modern Conference structure is, in every circumstance, the only possible biblical storehouse.

That question must be demonstrated from the Bible.

This article does not:

• define the biblical storehouse;

• interpret Malachi 3;

• establish the Conference as the exclusive recipient of all tithe;

• address how tithe should be handled during doctrinal apostasy;

• distinguish systematically between tithe, offerings, donations, business income, and missionary funds;

• teach that organizational recognition automatically makes every use of money faithful;

• absolve church leaders of accountability.

The article says that the Southern Missionary Society should come under the Southern Union Conference in that particular situation.

Why?

Because:

• the Conference was now helping the Southern work;

• Edson was no longer carrying the burden alone;

• Edson was not a careful financier;

• debts were being contracted;

• fundraising methods were creating controversy;

• independent operation was producing conflict;

• organizational oversight was now available.

That is far different from establishing a universal doctrine that the Conference structure is always and exclusively the biblical storehouse under every possible circumstance.

A historical administrative decision should not automatically be turned into a universal theological doctrine.

6. The Main Points in Chronological Order

The chronological order of the conversation is essential.

1. Edson previously carried the burden for neglected Southern work

The Southern field, particularly the work among Black people, had been seriously neglected.

Edson stepped forward when few others were willing to do so.

2. Edson began raising money independently

Because the Southern work lacked adequate support, Edson went directly to the people to obtain money.

He believed that he needed an independent treasury so that he could spend funds on projects the Union Conference might not approve.

3. Ellen White rejected the idea of a permanent independent treasury

She said:

“I hope that he will never have such a treasury.”

She would not encourage the brethren to support such an arrangement.

4. Conference leaders were concerned about debts

The Southern Union Conference did not want Edson contracting debts and then sending the bills for them to settle.

They believed that if they were expected to pay, they had a right to participate in the decisions.

5. Edson’s desire for control was producing conflict

W. C. White explained that Edson wanted to control the association, treasury, fundraising, and expenditure of funds.

This kept him in continual conflict.

6. Ellen White acknowledged Edson’s earlier contribution

She recognized that Edson had once stood almost alone when others would not take hold of the Southern work.

She did not erase his sacrifice or deny the failure of the organized leadership.

7. The situation had changed

Other people were now working in the South.

The burden no longer rested upon Edson alone.

8. The Southern Missionary Society should come under Conference direction

Ellen White stated that it was proper for the Society to be directed by the Southern Union Conference.

9. Ellen White rejected Edson’s continued independent operation

When asked whether Edson should maintain an independent organization, she said:

“I cannot give countenance to Edson’s operating independently…”

She gave a specific reason:

“because I know that he is not a close financier.”

10. She rejected appeals that the Conference could not approve

When asked if Edson should continue operating independently, carrying burdens the Conference would not accept, and appealing for funds through unapproved methods, she answered:

“No.”

11. The Dixie Health Food controversy damaged fundraising

A sensational newspaper article regarding a large health-food enterprise created distrust.

Ellen White refused to make further appeals until the matter was corrected.

12. Ellen White acknowledged past institutional neglect

She said the Southern field had once been “robbed and neglected.”

Independent appeals had therefore been necessary at that time.

13. Ellen White said that former time had passed

She immediately stated:

“But this time is in the past.”

14. Conference leaders acknowledged their mistakes

The brethren were now prepared to support and advance the Southern work.

15. The work was to proceed on a proper basis

Ellen White wanted the work carried forward:

“on a right basis”

and:

“in God’s order.”

7. Why This Has Nothing to Do With Establishing Tithe Doctrine

The document has nothing to do with establishing a doctrine of tithe because:

• tithe is never the defined subject of the conversation;

• no biblical tithe passage is examined;

• no definition of the storehouse is offered;

• the repeated issue is fundraising;

• the money is described as “means” raised through appeals;

• the discussion concerns independent treasuries, debts, businesses, schools, publishing, and missionary enterprises;

• the concern centers on Edson’s financial management;

• Ellen White’s recommendations are based on changed administrative circumstances;

• the Conference had begun supporting a field it had formerly neglected.

It is irresponsible to take a conversation about fundraising and financial accountability and present it as though it were a complete theological declaration regarding the biblical doctrine of tithe.

8. The Article Holds the Conference Accountable Too

This document should not be used to protect organizational leaders from criticism.

Ellen White plainly stated:

“There was a time when the Southern field was being robbed and neglected.”

She also said:

“The brethren acknowledge the mistakes that they have made in the past…”

This means the Conference was not treated as infallible.

The organized leadership had failed.

Its neglect had contributed to the very circumstances that made independent appeals necessary.

The article therefore holds both sides accountable.

Edson was accountable for:

• poor financial management;

• contracting debts;

• seeking excessive independent control;

• fundraising methods that lacked Conference approval;

• resisting appropriate oversight;

• continuing an independent structure after the emergency had passed.

Conference leaders were accountable for:

• neglecting the Southern field;

• failing to support the work adequately;

• making serious mistakes;

• allowing the work among Black people to suffer;

• correcting their failure;

• assuming responsibility for advancing the work.

The article neither glorifies independence nor excuses institutional neglect.

Its call is for correction, accountability, cooperation, and order.

9. A Warning Against Poor Research and Misrepresentation

Those who present this article as a decisive “bombshell” proving that the modern Conference is the only storehouse have not adequately established that conclusion from the document itself.

At best, such an interpretation reflects incomplete research.

At worst, it risks:

• poor journalism;

• proof-texting;

• selective quotation;

• misrepresentation of Ellen White;

• confusing missionary offerings with tithe;

• turning historical administrative counsel into universal doctrine;

• using the Spirit of Prophecy in a way Ellen White herself warned against.

When a person quotes only the sentences that appear to support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring the surrounding conversation, that is not responsible interpretation.

Truth does not need out-of-context quotations to sustain it.

Anyone teaching publicly has a duty to examine the complete source, identify its historical setting, explain the issue being discussed, and avoid claiming more than the evidence supports.

False teaching does not always begin with a direct denial of the Bible. Sometimes it begins by misusing truthful statements, removing them from their context, and forcing them to teach something they were never intended to teach.

We should therefore correct the teaching rather than carelessly condemning every person’s motives. Nevertheless, repeated and informed misrepresentation of Scripture or inspired counsel is serious and should be publicly challenged.

10. Should the Spirit of Prophecy Be “Where the Line Is Drawn in the Sand”?

This article is not the “bombshell” some have claimed it to be.

It does not prove that the modern Conference structure is universally and exclusively the only biblical storehouse.

It does not establish the doctrine of tithe.

It does not discuss the redirection of tithe during apostasy.

It does not teach that institutional leaders are above accountability.

The article concerns:

• a neglected missionary field;

• temporary independent fundraising;

• Edson White’s financial management;

• contracted debts;

• an independent treasury;

• questionable fundraising methods;

• the Dixie Health Food Company;

• changing organizational circumstances;

• the Conference’s willingness to correct past neglect;

• the need for responsible oversight.

Ellen White opposed Edson’s continued independent operation because he was not a careful financier, because debts and fundraising methods had become a concern, and because independence was no longer necessary now that the Southern Union Conference and other workers were supporting the work.

The lesson is not that an organization is always right.

The lesson is not that independence is always right.

The lesson is that God’s work must be conducted with truth, accountability, responsible stewardship, proper order, and fidelity to Scripture.

Those who use this document to establish a doctrine it does not address should reconsider their interpretation, return to the complete context, and prove their position from the Bible.

Context matters. Scripture comes first. Inspired counsel must be interpreted honestly. And no truth is strengthened by misrepresentation.

A Necessary Correction: Misusing the Spirit of Prophecy

Those who wield this article as a "bombshell" to support their position have failed in basic research and journalistic integrity. They have lifted a specific administrative counsel out of its historical context, twisted it into a doctrinal weapon, and misrepresented both Ellen G. White and the Scriptures.

Let it be clear: the claim that "the Spirit of Prophecy is where the line is drawn in the sand" is a view Ellen White herself would have sternly rebuked. She wrote:

"The testimonies of Sr. White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word... Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point you claim as truth from the revealed Word of God." (6LtMs, Lt 12, 1890, par. 50)

The proper order is this: study the Scriptures first, then validate all things by the Spirit of Prophecy—always weighing the time, place, and circumstance of each counsel. To do otherwise is to manufacture false teaching.

Therefore, anyone who persistently disregards this method—elevating the Testimonies above the Bible, ignoring context, and leading others astray—should be regarded with the gravity that Scripture demands:

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:10–11)

Introduction

Tithing is a sacred biblical principle established by God to support the advancement of His work on earth. The Spirit of Prophecy consistently affirms that the tithe belongs to God and should be faithfully returned. At the same time, Ellen White also emphasizes that God’s people are stewards, personally accountable to Him for how they administer the sacred means He has entrusted to them.

The question naturally arises: Does faithfulness in returning tithe remove all personal responsibility if those entrusted with God’s work become unfaithful? Or does God still hold each believer individually accountable for how they manage His resources?

The following questions and answers allow Ellen White’s own words to speak for themselves.

⸻

Question 1: What is the purpose of the tithe?

Answer:

The tithe exists to provide the necessary means to carry forward God’s work.

“Should means flow into the treasury exactly according to God’s plan,—a tenth of all the increase,—there would be abundance to carry forward His work.”

— Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 150 (1882)

⸻

Question 2: Does Ellen White equate “means” with the tithe?

Answer:

Yes. In speaking of the tenth, she immediately refers to it as means that are to sustain God’s work.

“Should means flow into the treasury exactly according to God’s plan,—a tenth of all the increase…”

— Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 150

This demonstrates that the “means” being discussed include the sacred funds entrusted to God’s people.

⸻

Question 3: Should God’s treasury support those who are harming His work?

Answer:

No.

Ellen White gives a very direct warning.

“It would be poor policy to support from the treasury of God those who really mar and injure His work, and who are constantly lowering the standard of Christianity.”

— Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 553

⸻

Question 4: What warning is given to churches that knowingly maintain unsanctified ministers?

Answer:

The warning is not only for ministers but also for those who knowingly support and maintain them.

“There are fearful woes for those who preach the truth, but are not sanctified by it, and also for those who consent to receive and maintain the unsanctified to minister to them in word or doctrine.”

— Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 261–262

She repeats the same principle elsewhere.

“There are woes for those who preach the truth while they are unsanctified in heart and life, so there are woes for those who receive and maintain the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.”

— Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, p. 552

⸻

Question 5: Who is ultimately responsible for the stewardship of God’s means?

Answer:

Each individual believer.

Our accountability is first and foremost to God.

“God desires to bring men into direct relation with Himself… Every man has been made a steward of sacred trusts; each is to discharge his trust according to the direction of the Giver; and by each an account of his stewardship must be rendered to God… We are responsible to invest this means ourselves.”

— Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 176–177

⸻

Question 6: Can we transfer our responsibility to someone else?

Answer:

No.

Ellen White teaches that stewardship cannot simply be handed over without personal responsibility.

“Do we individually realize our true position that as God’s hired servants we are not to bargain away our stewardship? We have an individual accountability before the heavenly universe, to administer the trust committed us of God.”

— Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 361–362

⸻

Question 7: What overall principle emerges from these statements?

Answer:

The Spirit of Prophecy teaches several principles simultaneously:

* Tithing is God’s appointed means for advancing His work.

* God’s treasury should not be used to support those who are actively injuring His work.

* Churches that knowingly maintain unsanctified ministers are solemnly warned.

* Every believer remains personally accountable to God for the stewardship of the sacred means entrusted to them.

* No individual can surrender that accountability to another person or organization, because each steward must ultimately give an account before God.

These statements invite every believer to prayerfully study Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy together, seeking to honor God with both faithful stewardship and a clear conscience before Him.

The Conclusion of My Research on This Subject

After carefully examining scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, I have reached the following conclusions:

1. I have found no clear Biblical or Spirit of Prophecy evidence that requires all tithe, under every circumstance, to be returned exclusively through organizational channels. Such an interpretation could, in certain situations, obligate believers to knowingly support open apostasy with their tithe—an implication I do not believe is supported by Scripture or sound biblical reasoning.

2. The writings of Ellen White contain repeated warnings that a time would come when apostasy would enter the ranks of the ministry and the church. She foresaw that unfaithful ministers would occupy Seventh-day Adventist pulpits and that spiritual decline would affect both leaders and members. These warnings should not be ignored but prayerfully and carefully considered.

3. If Ellen White’s statements are taken at face value, it appears that at least some of these warnings have found fulfillment. Where ministers teach doctrines that contradict the clear testimony of Scripture—such as the claim that Christians cannot overcome sin through the power of Christ—Ellen White uses exceedingly strong language regarding the spiritual condition of those who proclaim such teachings. Every believer has a responsibility to test all teaching by the Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy.

4. Ultimately, each believer is personally accountable before God for the stewardship of the resources He has entrusted to them. While none of us can solve every problem within the church or among independent ministries, we are responsible for prayerfully seeking God’s will regarding the ministries we choose to support. This decision should be made on our knees, with an open Bible and the inspired writings before us, guided by the Holy Spirit rather than by pressure from others. At the same time, we should exercise humility and avoid presuming to dictate another person’s conscience, recognizing that each individual must answer to God for his or her own stewardship.

What have you learned from this? Comment below.

One of the burdens on my heart is the growing division within Adventism. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a worldwide movement made up of “many people, kindreds, tongues, and nations.” That is a beautiful thing. But when we look closer, we also see many camps, labels, movements, and theological tribes forming within the church.

There is mainstream Adventism. Conservative Adventism. Progressive Adventism. Last Generation Theology. Gospel-centered Adventists with an 1888 emphasis. One True God Adventists. Independent ministries. Present truth ministries. Home church movements. Faithful Adventists. Deliverance ministries. Liberal and cultural Adventists. Reform and offshoot groups. And the list could continue.

The reality is this: Adventism has many faces.

Subscribe now

Some of these groups emphasize important truths. Some emphasize religious liberty. Some emphasize righteousness by faith. Some emphasize Bible prophecy. Some emphasize health, home churches, revival, or the character of Christ. Some are deeply concerned about compromise in the church. Others are concerned about compassion, justice, and reaching the broken.

But here is the danger: when our group becomes our identity, we stop thinking biblically and start thinking tribally.

The Danger of Groupthink

One of the strongest problems we may be facing as a people is the problem of groupthink.

Groupthink happens when people stop testing things by the Word of God and begin testing everything by the opinion of their camp. If my group believes it, it must be right. If another group says it, it must be wrong.

That mindset shuts down spiritual discernment. It shuts down communication. It shuts down Christian love. It causes us to brand people as enemies before we have even listened to them.

This is not true Berean Christianity.

The Bereans were noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so. They did not blindly accept every teaching, but they also did not blindly reject everything before examining it.

We need that spirit again.

We Need to See More Than the Shadows on the Wall

The transcript also used the illustration of Plato’s cave. While we do not build our theology on Plato, the illustration is helpful.

People in the cave only see shadows on the wall. They think the shadows are reality because that is all they have known. But the moment someone steps outside and sees the bigger picture, those still inside may think that person is deceived.

This is what sometimes happens in Adventism.

Many people only know the perspective of their own camp. They only hear the voices their group approves. They only trust the ministries their circle recommends. Then, when someone tries to listen more broadly, build relationships, or engage another group, they are accused of compromise.

But sometimes the issue is not compromise.

Sometimes the issue is that we need to step outside the cave and see the bigger picture.

Advent Media Connect Is Not a Church

One point that needs to be made very clear is this: Advent Media Connect is not a church. It is a podcast and media ministry.

The goal is not to replace the church. The goal is not to create a new camp. The goal is not to endorse every view that every guest brings.

The goal is to create a platform where Adventists can talk, listen, examine, and prayerfully consider what is being shared in the light of the Word of God.

That does not mean every view is accepted. There are teachings that must be rejected because they contradict Scripture. There are subjects and invitations that must be turned down because the Bible is clear.

But there is a difference between rejecting false doctrine and refusing to build relationships with people.

We must be able to say, “I disagree with that teaching,” while still saying, “I love that person.”

Unity Does Not Mean Compromise

Some people fear that talking to different groups means compromise. But unity is not the same as compromise.

Biblical unity is not built on ignoring truth. It is not built on watering down doctrine. It is not built on pretending error does not matter.

True unity is built around Christ, His Word, His righteousness, and His mission.

Jesus prayed in John 17 that His people would be one. That prayer was not shallow. Jesus knew division would be a problem among His followers. He knew the enemy would try to divide and conquer. He knew the church would struggle with pride, misunderstanding, suspicion, and conflict.

But Jesus also gave the solution: oneness in Him.

The Father and Son are united in love. Christ wants that same spirit among His people.

Christ Our Righteousness Must Swallow Every Other Interest

Another major point from the transcript is the uniting power of righteousness by faith.

Ellen White wrote that “one interest will prevail, one subject will swallow up every other—Christ our righteousness.”

That is the message that can bring God’s people together.

Not because every disagreement will vanish overnight. Not because every interpretation of prophecy, dress reform, worship style, or church structure will suddenly become identical. But because when Christ becomes central, pride begins to die.

When Christ is our righteousness, we stop acting as if our camp makes us righteous.

When Christ is our righteousness, we stop treating people like enemies simply because they do not see every point exactly as we do.

When Christ is our righteousness, we can stand firmly for truth while still extending grace to those who are growing.

Not Everything Is Worth Dividing Over

One of the most powerful statements near the end of the transcript was this:

Nine times out of ten, the things we divide over are not worth dividing over.

That does not mean truth does not matter. Truth does matter. Doctrine matters. Obedience matters. Holiness matters.

But we must ask: Is this issue truly worth breaking fellowship over? Is this a salvation issue? Is this a clear contradiction of Scripture? Or is this a matter where someone is still growing, learning, and being sanctified?

Sometimes we divide because we are defending truth.

But sometimes we divide because we are not converted.

That is hard to hear, but it needs to be said.

If we cannot work with a brother or sister who differs from us on a secondary matter, we need to ask whether the problem is really their theology—or our lack of love.

Friendship Is Part of the Christian Life

The closing section of the transcript made a beautiful point about friendship.

Jesus said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Friendship matters in the Christian walk. We often talk about marriage, family, and church structure, but we do not talk enough about friendship. We need godly friendships. We need relationships where we learn patience, humility, long-suffering, forgiveness, and grace.

The fruit of the Spirit cannot be developed in isolation.

You cannot learn long-suffering if nobody ever gives you a reason to suffer long. You cannot learn patience if you avoid everyone who irritates you. You cannot learn forgiveness if you cut off everyone who wounds you.

Yes, there is real church hurt. There are situations where people have been deeply wounded and mistreated. Christ does not dismiss that pain. He heals it.

But there is also a danger of labeling every inconvenience, disagreement, or offense as “church hurt” and then using that label to justify isolation, bitterness, or division.

We must take our pain to Jesus and ask Him to heal us. We must also ask Him whether there is something in our own hearts that needs to be addressed.

We Must Stop Helping the Devil Hurt Each Other

The enemy is already seeking to devour God’s people. He does not need our help.

He does not discriminate when persecuting God’s people. Whatever group, camp, or theological circle we belong to, the devil wants to destroy us all.

So why are we helping him?

Why are we tearing each other apart? Why are we sending hateful emails? Why are we misrepresenting one another? Why are we assuming the worst before we have prayed, listened, and examined?

A change must come.

I believe the prayer of Jesus in John 17 will be fulfilled. I believe the message of Christ our righteousness will bring God’s people closer together. I believe persecution will cause many of these walls to fall. I believe the work of the Holy Spirit will unite those who truly love Christ and His truth.

Until then, we must take our stand where God has placed us.

For Advent Media Connect, that means continuing to build bridges where possible, promote truth wherever it is found, reject clear error where Scripture demands it, and love the brethren even when we do not agree on every point.

We are not trying to create another camp.

We are trying to point people to Christ.

And at the end of the day, that is the only group I want to belong to.

The group where Jesus is.

Thanks for reading.

James Desvallons - Advent Media Connect.

Leave a comment

In a recent monologue on TCN, host Tucker Carlson discusses the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, examining potential consequences, what he views as miscalculations by the Trump administration, and offering his broader geopolitical analysis. Around the 46-minute mark, Carlson shifts focus to the condition of the American church—specifically, what he calls American Christian Protestantism—describing it as “corrupt.” In response, I produced a full reaction video, sharing my thoughts and presenting a biblical perspective on several of the points he raised. Here are some of the key takeaways.

1. Spiritual Corruption in American Protestantism

• Carlson claims American Protestant Christianity has become spiritually corrupt.

Mt Response:

“American Protestant Christianity has become spiritually corrupt—and on that point, I would have to agree. When religious leaders cozy up to political power, particularly the president, in order to exert religious influence, it becomes deeply problematic. Now, there is nothing wrong with praying for the president—in fact, Scripture instructs us to do so. But there is something wrong with aligning with political authority for the sake of enforcing religious dogma through political means. That is not biblical.”

“Additionally, there is a serious issue when figures such as Paula White compare President Trump to Jesus Christ, or liken his assassination attempt to the resurrection of Christ during Easter week. That kind of rhetoric is not only inappropriate—it is a dangerous distortion of the gospel. One does not have to hate Trump to recognize that such comparisons are extreme and theologically unsound.”

2. Departure from the Gospel of Christ

• Carlson argues modern Protestantism no longer reflects the teachings of Christ.

My Response:

“American Protestant Christianity today bears no resemblance to the gospel—and that is true. Let me explain why, by quoting from the book “the Great Controversy.”

“When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of “heresy.” In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends. GC 443.2

Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience. An example of this is given in the long-continued persecution of dissenters by the Church of England. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands of nonconformist ministers were forced to flee from their churches, and many, both of pastors and people, were subjected to fine, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom.” GC 443.3

One of the clearest signs that a church is drifting into apostasy is when it begins forming alliances with the world—especially with politicians—in order to exert religious influence through political power. When you see this taking place, it is a strong indication that such a church has departed from the spirit and teachings of Christ.

Jesus spoke plainly on this matter:

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father, but is of the world.” — 1 John 2:15–16 (KJV)

The closer a church aligns itself with worldly systems of power, the further it risks moving away from the principles of the kingdom of God.

Let me be clear: I am a Protestant Christian, and I stand firmly in the message of the Reformers. However, what we are seeing in segments of mainstream evangelicalism—where religious leaders align themselves closely with political power, even advising figures like President Trump to advance policies that contradict biblical principles—is deeply concerning.

I oppose this direction and state plainly that it does not represent true, biblical Protestantism. Rather, it reflects a departure from it—what can only be described as apostate Protestantism.

3. Misuse of Scripture to Justify Violence

• The discussion highlights how Scripture is being used to justify modern political and military actions.

My Response:

“If you think that murdering tens of thousands of children… is consistent with Christianity, we are reading a different manuscript. I just don’t see that at all.”

Some of these Christian leaders appear willing to support even the gravest injustices—crime, destabilization, and actions that harm entire populations—so long as it aligns with their broader agenda of gaining or maintaining influence through the power of the state. Such a posture reflects a troubling shift from spiritual integrity to political expediency.

In some cases, even immense human suffering—such as what has taken place in Gaza—is treated with indifference or framed through a prophetic lens that justifies the outcome. When the loss of thousands of lives is accepted or even supported in the name of fulfilling perceived prophecy, it raises serious moral and spiritual concerns about how faith is being applied.

“What gets me is watching Christian preachers… use the Bible to justify violence against the innocent. That is not the spirit of Christ.”

4. Historical and Prophetic Pattern of Apostasy

• The speaker connects current events with biblical patterns, especially in Jeremiah 7.

My Response:

Apostate Protestantism in America reflect similar to the people of Israel during the day of Jeremiah. “In Jeremiah 7, the people were in open apostasy and judgment was coming. Babylon was coming. Yet they continued in religious activity, thinking they were still God’s people.” “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.” (Jer 7:4) They were lying to themselves. “They had false trust in the temple… believing there was something special about it that would protect them from judgment.” The prophet went on to say, “If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:” (Jer 7:6) “Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.” (Jer 7:8)

“God said, ‘Don’t even pray for them,’ because they continued in rebellion while claiming His name.”

“The glory has departed from among them… and I say that today, the glory has departed from apostate Protestantism in American.” They have the name, but have totally lost the character of Christ.”

5. End-Time Prophetic Framework

• “Tucker Carlson said the death of these institutions is necessary for something better to come. Friends, the Bible tells us how this is going to end.”

My Response:

• This is where I reject Carlson’s idea that something better will naturally emerge. “These are apostate Protestants. This is not true biblical, Christ-centered Protestantism.”

“Revelation shows that these powers will unite—the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet—to influence the kings of the earth.” “They are all motivated by the same spirit… and they will deceive the world.”

Watch this video for more on this -

6. Warning Against Church-State Union

• A central theme is the danger of religion joining with political power.

Your Response:

“There’s something wrong with religious leaders trying to unite with political powers for political expediency. This is the clearest indication that such leaders are in open apostacy” James Desvallons

“When religion is not able to take care of itself and must appeal to civil power, it is evidence that its cause is a bad one.” Benjamin Franklin

“Romanism in the old world and apostate Protestantism in the new world will pursue the same course—persecution of those who remain faithful.” Ellen White

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”(Mar 12:17)

Tucker Carlson is sincere—he’s trying to do what he can with the truth he understands—but he is not seeing the full picture. This is not merely a Protestant issue; Romanism is also involved, and prophecy indicates that these systems will ultimately unite. The world needs to grasp this reality. It is not enough to speak only of the gentle and comforting aspects of Jesus Christ—there must also be a clear warning about the deception that is coming. God has a faithful people who will not go along with this movement; they will stand firmly upon His Word. Therefore, the call is clear: we must educate, warn, and prepare, because what lies ahead is not true reform, but deception on a global scale.

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Mat 7:15-16)

Written by - Pr. James Desvallons | Advent Media Connect

Download My Presentation Note - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KfG8h4k8DwC18TzT4bT1H9crms8qEZ1MbvOon0ggqBE/edit?usp=sharing

Support me at - https://adventmediaconnect.org/donate/

The United States was founded by Protestant Christians who came from the British Isles and Europe to escape religious persecution. They came to find a new home where they could have Religious Liberty and Freedom of Conscience. As you can see in the timeline below, several colonies initially established their own state churches but that did not last long. Even before the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, dissenters were leaving state-church areas to seek the freedom they were being denied. The life of Roger Williams is a well-documented example.

Dr. Anson Phelps Stokes, in his extensive volumes of research, “Church and State in the United States,” summed up this early colonial struggle for Religious Liberty: “Because of the great diversity of sects and denominations which even from the early colonial days settled in the various colonies, compulsory adherence to the faith, dogma or worship of an established church existed for comparatively short periods in scattered areas in America. Long before our Constitution was adopted in 1788 the established churches in Virginia and in New England had given up as futile the effort to proscribe dissenting forms of worship.”

By the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Revolutionary War, the demand for Freedom and individual Liberty of Conscience led to the formation of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights was seen as necessary to guarantee individual rights so they could not be over ridden by a majority. In 1785 James Madison wrote “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” where he made a strong argument against taxing/assessing people for religion they do not believe in.

Most “modern” history books have eliminated important facts that the Founders knew well concerning the millions of Protestant Christians and others labeled as “heretics” who had been slaughtered by the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Monarchs for centuries. The colonists had families who had suffered great loss in many cases. The Protestant Reformation is denounced today by modern Catholic leaders and the Jesuit order, which was formed in 1540 to crush Protestantism. The Jesuits, Society of Jesus is widespread in America. This was a great concern of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and will be further explained in a separate paper entitled “History of the Catholic Church and Religious Liberty in America.”

Revolutionary War patriot, Paul Revere was a 1st generation American son of a French Huguenot, Protestant, immigrant. His father, Apollos Rivoire, emigrated from France to Boston at age 13 to escape religious persecution, later anglicizing his name to Paul Revere and passing the silversmith trade to his son. The 1572 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris and the 1685 revoking of the Edict of Nantes are two of the best-known slaughters of Protestants. The 1618-1648, 30 years-war took the lives of 8 million within the “Holy Roman Empire.” The study of wars and persecutions in Europe reveals the blood-soaked history of the Catholic Church and State.

The Founders knew this onslaught against Protestant Christians could happen all over again in America if the church and state are joined together. Several presidents and other leaders warned about this danger but that history has largely been put on the back shelves and eliminated from general public knowledge. To keep Religious Liberty, we must take the time and responsibility to understand what is at stake in the current political rhetoric about “church and state.”

Political figures reference the American Founding Fathers and their intentions. Many of these politicians are not giving a true reflection of what historical documents prove. Some are even saying we need to return to the Founders and do what they intended to do by letting states set up their own religious system. We must look to the Founders and their own writing to see what they actually said and did. We must not look at just a small slice of history which creates a false story.

The First Amendment has been our protection for the Religious Liberty of every American for 250 years but there are people working today to eliminate that protection in the name of integrating their religion into civil law.

Here is a timeline with a brief summary of Events in the Development of Religious Liberty in America:

17th Century- Establishment of Religion in Colonies and Early Dissent

• 1619 Virginia House of Burgesses pass laws requiring mandatory church attendance -eventually, making the Anglican Church (Church of England) the established state religion.

• 1620 Plymouth Pilgrims establish a Separatist Puritan colony -with close ties to church law

• 1630s Massachusetts Bay Puritans establish a strict Congregationalist theocracy -only church members can vote, and religious dissent is heavily punished.

• 1634 Maryland founded as a Catholic refuge -it initially grants tolerance but becomes overwhelmingly dominated by Protestants by 1692.

• 1636 Rhode Island founded by Roger Williams -as a refuge for religious freedom, separating church from state, standing in contrast to other New England colonies. Roger Williams, a pastor in Massachusetts left and travelled to Rhode Island for freedom from the state-church.

- Williams argued that the Puritan church was not pure enough because it was joined to the government.

- He didn’t want government regulating religion and financing the church.

- He wanted separate institutions in order to have a more free, pure church.

- He based his view on the Bible in Isaiah 5, which describes God’s people as a pure vineyard or garden enclosed from the wilderness of the world.

- Williams describes the church’s enclosure as a “wall of separation.” This metaphor was later used by Founder and President Thomas Jefferson to defend religious freedom.

• 1640s - 1650s New England colonies -including New Haven, Connecticut,

  adopted the Congregationalist model.

• 1663 Rhode Island formalized religious freedom -the state received a

  Royal Charter formalizing religious freedom.

• 1669 Carolina’s Constitution established Religious Tolerance -John

  Locke wrote the constitution for the colony of Carolina in 1669 which

  supported religious tolerance. In response to the religious persecution in

  England, he wrote “A Letter Concerning Toleration” in 1689, which become

  influential in America.

• 1670 William Penn Opposed State Churches and Advocated for Liberty

  of Conscience -Penn established Pennsylvania with Liberty of Conscience

  and without a State-Church. He wrote “A Great Case of Liberty of

  Conscience Debated and Defended by the Authority of Reason, Scripture,

  and Antiquity”

18th Century- Expansion, Regulation, and Disestablishment

• 1700 Maryland shifted from a Catholic founded refuge to a Protestant

  dominated society -while founded with religious toleration for Catholics, by

  1700-1750, Protestants, especially Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Quakers,

  constituted the vast majority, making Roman Catholics a small minority,

  with only around 9% of the population in 1700 being Catholic.

• 1700s Seven Colonies and part of an eighth Colony all have State

  Churches -Congregationalism is dominant in 3 New England Colonies (CT,

  MA, NH), while Anglicanism is the established faith in 4 Southern colonies

  (VA, SC, NC, GA) and parts of New York.

• 1700s Four Colonies have No State-Church -Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey operate without an official State-Church, allowing for a mix of Quakers, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and others. Rhode Island has been free of State Religion since 1636.

• 1730-1760s The First Great Awakening -The First Great Awakening was a

  massive Protestant revival movement across the American colonies

  emphasizing personal faith, emotional experience, and devotion over the

  often rigid, intellectualized doctrine of the State Churches.

  • Preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, challenged established church authority, increased church attendance, and fostered a sense of unity and shared identity.

  • This tremendous revival ignited the fires of freedom in hearts and

    minds, helping to set the stage for the American Revolution.

• 1770s Revolutionary Era Growing Opposition -Religious, social, and

  political pressure increases against established churches.

• 1772 Samuel Adams wrote a pamphlet on Liberty of Conscience - “The

  Rights of Colonists” says: “As neither reason requires, nor religion permits

  the contrary, every man living in or out of civil society, has a right to

  worship God peaceably and quietly according to conscience.”

• 1776 Declaration of Independence -Thomas Jefferson invoked Americans’

  unalienable right to liberty according to the Bible, nature, and reason.

  • The Declaration proclaims that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

  • Many states kept vestiges of established religion for a period of time following the Declaration of Independence’s call for freedom, but the push for religious freedom continued to accelerate.

• 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights -James Madison added a section to the document that broadly protected religious freedom.

  • It says: “Religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. Therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

  • Madison wrote the phrase “free exercise,” which he later used in the First Amendment, when he authored the “Bill of Rights” the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

• 1785 James Madison wrote “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” -in strong opposition to using tax money “assessments” to pay for religious purposes.

• 1786 Virginia stopped the State supported Church -The “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”, authored by Thomas Jefferson, disestablished the Anglican Church, marking a major turning point toward the separation of church and state. Jefferson said:

  • “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion. …Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, and has nothing to fear.”

• 1787 The first states ratify the Constitution -Delaware on December 7, 1787, followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. Some states voiced opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it did not provide protection for rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and press, which led to the creation of the Bill of Rights-10 Amendments.

• 1790 The Second Great Awakening -fueled the rise of an evangelical Protestant majority in America, giving rise to new denominations and social reform organizations.

• 1790 The U.S. Constitution approved by all 13 States -Following debate and concerns about individual liberty the assurances were given for what became the Bill of Rights, bringing the last states into agreement and the Constitution was approved.

• 1791 Bill of Rights -These are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They were added to guarantee individual liberty against the majority rule and to ensure ratification of the Constitution by states, which were reluctant to approve it without them.

• 1802 Thomas Jefferson's letter -to the Danbury Baptists contained the phrase "a wall of separation between Church and State," the phrase used earlier by Roger Williams in his writing.

RESOURCES

American Heritage Education Foundation -The Religious Landscape of the Thirteen Original Colonies https://americanheritage.org/religious-landscapethirteen-colonies-early-1700s/

American Heritage Education Foundation -Why Religious Freedom is an Unalienable Right in America https://americanheritage.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/Why-Religious-Freedom-is-an-Unalienable-Right-inAmerica-by-Angela-E.-Kamrath-Miracle-of-America-americanheritage.org_.pdf

“Church and State in the United States” 3 Volumes, 1950 Dr. Anson Phelps Stokes D.D. LL.D. --Quoted in Notre Dame Law Review - https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3308&context=ndlr

https://ia800803.us.archive.org/32/items/churchandstatein012700mbp/churchandstatein012700mbp.pdf

Constitution Center -The Day the Constitution was Ratified https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-day-the-constitution-wasratified#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20became%20the%20official%20framewor k%20of,until%20the%20end%20of%20the%20following%20year.

EWTN Eternal Word Television (Catholic) Network -Consistent Doctrine on Religious Liberty https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/consistent-doctrineon-religious-liberty-10377

Founders Online -National Archive James Madison “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163

First Great Awakening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening

John Locke, Letters Concerning Toleration, 1689, 1690, 1692 http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/casestudies/locke.html

Roger Williams, “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience” https://pdcrodas.webs.ull.es/culturas/WilliamsTheBloodyTenetOfPersecution.pdf

Second Great Awakening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening

The Association of Religion Data Archives -American Religion Timelines https://www.thearda.com/usreligion/history/timelines?tid=1&tab=1

William Penn, “A Great Case of Liberty of Conscience Debated and Defended by the Authority of Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity” https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Great-Case-of-Liberty-of-Conscience-OnceMore-Debated-and-Defended

Author, Linda Murphy -a certified teacher for 30 years, director of a Vision and Learning Clinic and the Central United States Representative for a Foundation for research and education. Murphy was a Republican candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction and was appointed by Oklahoma Governor Keating as Secretary of Education. Murphy was Deputy Commissioner of Labor for Workforce Education and Training and was Administrator of the Eastern Oklahoma Department of Labor. She was a member of the State Job Training Coordinating Council, and the Governor's School-to-Work Council. She also served on the Governor's Commission on the Status of Women.

Linda Murphy’s column in the “Oklahoma Constitution.” https://oklahomaconstitution.com/

The name “Baal” has reportedly appeared multiple times within documents associated with Jeffrey Epstein. In some cases, the term has been linked to financial accounts or referenced in ways that have prompted public curiosity. Some argue that its presence may be coincidental, symbolic, or unrelated to the criminal activities under investigation. Others have speculated that it may function as coded language. While caution is necessary to avoid conclusions beyond verifiable evidence, the recurrence of the term invites theological reflection.

Historically, Baal was an ancient Canaanite deity whose name means “lord” or “possessor.” In the Hebrew Scriptures, Baal worship became synonymous with Israel’s periods of apostasy. It was associated with fertility rites, agricultural prosperity, ritualized sexuality, and, in certain contexts, child sacrifice (Jeremiah 19:5; 1 Kings 16–18). The prophets consistently portrayed Baal not merely as a foreign god, but as a symbol of moral compromise and covenantal unfaithfulness.

Whether the appearance of the term in modern controversies is symbolic, incidental, or meaningful, its biblical background remains significant. Baal represents more than an ancient idol; it embodies a recurring pattern in which power, prosperity, and sexuality are pursued apart from divine moral boundaries. The theological concern, therefore, is not limited to nomenclature, but to the enduring spiritual principles associated with systems that normalize exploitation and corruption.

• To learn more, watch this video -

1. The Symbolic Significance of Baal in Modern Context
The repeated appearance of the term “Baal” in contemporary controversy is interpreted as more than coincidence. Biblically, Baal represents covenantal rebellion, moral compromise, and the pursuit of prosperity detached from divine authority. The transcript positions this as symbolic of deeper spiritual realities operating behind elite corruption.

2. Baal as a System of Exploitation and Apostasy
In Scripture, Baal worship was associated with ritualized sexuality, political power consolidation, and child sacrifice. The video argues that modern systems which normalize exploitation of the vulnerable reflect similar spiritual characteristics. The emphasis is not on literal statue worship, but on the perpetuation of the same moral architecture.

3. Mystery Religion and the Continuity of Spiritual Patterns
The discussion connects Baal to broader “mystery religion” traditions, suggesting that syncretistic systems blending religion, politics, and power reappear in different historical forms. The claim is that spiritual dynamics persist even when cultural expressions evolve.

4. Exposure as Prophetic Awakening and Christian Responsibility
Finally, the transcript calls believers to recognize that the conflict is spiritual (Ephesians 6:12). Exposure of darkness is framed as part of prophetic fulfillment, but the ultimate response must be faithfulness, repentance, discernment, and active protection of the vulnerable.

To download our Free Bible Study Guides, go to - https://adventmediaconnect.org/bible-studies/

History has a way of humbling human institutions—especially those that claim moral or scientific authority. In a recent discussion, Dr. Peter McCullough raised an uncomfortable but important question: What happens when the medical community is collectively wrong?

According to McCullough, history shows that medicine, like every human system, is not immune to error, groupthink, or institutional blind spots. He points to three major periods where medical consensus embraced practices later recognized as deeply harmful.

1. The First Great Cocaine Epidemic (1860–1920)

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cocaine was widely prescribed by physicians and promoted as a legitimate medical treatment. It appeared in tonics, medicines, and even products marketed to children. At the time, doctors largely dismissed concerns about addiction and long-term harm.

Only after widespread dependency and social damage became undeniable did governments intervene with legislation to remove cocaine derivatives from medical use. What was once praised as a breakthrough became a cautionary tale.

2. The Great Tobacco Disaster (1920–1978)

Perhaps the most sobering example is tobacco. For decades, cigarettes were endorsed—or at least normalized—by doctors themselves. Physicians appeared in advertisements, research was selectively framed, and the dangers of smoking were minimized or ignored.

It took generations of illness, cancer, and death before the medical establishment publicly acknowledged the truth. By then, the damage was irreversible for millions. McCullough argues this period demonstrates how deeply financial interests, cultural momentum, and professional conformity can delay truth.

3. The COVID-19 Vaccine Controversy

Dr. McCullough places the COVID-19 vaccine campaign within this historical framework. He argues that the medical community broadly accepted and promoted the vaccines under emergency conditions without sufficient long-term safety data, while discouraging dissent or open debate.

From his perspective, doctors and nurses largely complied with institutional directives, and even now, many remain unwilling to publicly reassess decisions or acknowledge potential harms. Whether one agrees with McCullough or not, his claim raises a serious ethical question: Can medicine course-correct in real time, or only decades later?

The Pattern Behind the Mistakes

What ties these examples together is not malicious intent, but something more subtle—and perhaps more dangerous: institutional certainty. When questioning is discouraged, when dissent is labeled irresponsible, and when authority replaces humility, errors can persist far longer than they should.

Medicine has saved countless lives. But history shows it must also remain self-critical, transparent, and open to challenge. Progress depends not on blind trust, but on honest examination.

A Call for Discernment

Dr. McCullough’s argument is not merely about the past or even about COVID-19. It is a call for discernment—for patients, professionals, and the public alike. If history teaches anything, it is that consensus does not equal truth, and silence does not equal safety.

The question we must ask is not “Can medicine fail?”

History answers that clearly.

The real question is: Will we recognize it sooner next time?

In a recent Fox News segment, a near-death experience was presented as a powerful testimony of faith. At first glance, many Christians might rejoice—Jesus’ name was spoken on national television, prayer was highlighted, and God was acknowledged. But beneath the surface lies a far more troubling issue that demands careful biblical discernment.

Scripture warns us that not everything clothed in Christian language is of Christ. The Bible commands believers to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That principle is especially critical in the final days, when deception will be subtle, emotional, and convincing.

A Near-Death Experience—or a Theological Warning?

The Fox News interview centered on Billy Gaffa, a hockey player whose heart stopped for 16 minutes during a game. He described standing in a realm of light, consciously observing events, interacting with what he identified as God and the Holy Spirit, and later receiving what he believed to be a confirmation of Jesus’ presence through a vision after his recovery.

His sincerity is not in question. Only God truly knows what he experienced. But sincerity alone is not the test of truth. Experience must always be filtered through Scripture.

The central claim presented—conscious existence outside the body during death—is not a minor theological detail. It directly touches one of the most foundational end-time deceptions warned about in the Bible.

The Two Great Errors

Ellen White, in The Great Controversy (p. 588), identifies two core deceptions Satan will use to mislead the world:

1. The immortality of the soul

2. Sunday sacredness

She writes that the first lays the foundation of spiritualism, while the second creates sympathy with Rome. These two ideas are inseparably linked—and both are now widely promoted within modern Christianity.

The Fox News segment unintentionally reinforced the first error: the idea that human beings possess an immortal, conscious soul that lives on immediately after death.

What the Bible Actually Teaches About Death

Scripture is remarkably consistent on this subject:

• “The dead know not anything” (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

• “His breath goeth forth… in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psalm 146:4)

• “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth” (John 11:11)

Death, according to the Bible, is an unconscious sleep until the resurrection. Eternal life is not something humans possess by nature—it is a gift given through Christ alone (Romans 6:23).

When the soul is declared immortal by default, the gospel itself is undermined. Resurrection becomes unnecessary, Christ’s return is diminished, and salvation subtly shifts from Christ-centered hope to human nature.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

Spiritualism is not merely about séances or occult practices. It is far broader. It includes any teaching that opens the door for supernatural manifestations apart from biblical truth.

Revelation 16:13 describes “three unclean spirits like frogs” proceeding from the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet—a counterfeit trinity united in deception. These spirits work through doctrine, speech, and persuasion.

Matthew 24:24 warns that false Christs and false prophets will arise, performing signs and wonders so convincing that, if possible, even the elect would be deceived.

Spiritualism is the mechanism that makes this possible.

Click here for a free Bible Study to find out what happens to a person after death.

What Really Happens After Death

The Masterpiece of Deception

Scripture and prophecy both reveal that Satan’s final deception will not appear openly evil. It will look righteous, compassionate, unifying, and Christlike. He will impersonate Christ himself—performing miracles, solving global crises, and calling for unity at the expense of biblical truth.

This deception depends entirely on the belief that the dead are conscious and can communicate. Without the lie “you shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4), spiritualism collapses. With it, nearly every false doctrine becomes possible—eternal torment, reincarnation, necromancy, ascended masters, and counterfeit resurrections.

When the Gospel Is Mixed With Error

Hearing Jesus’ name on Fox News is not inherently bad. The concern is when biblical truth is blended with unbiblical assumptions, conditioning millions to trust supernatural experiences over Scripture.

The segment has already garnered hundreds of thousands of views, with comments celebrating it as proof of faith. But the question must be asked: Are we praising God—or unknowingly embracing the very deception Scripture warned us about?

A Call to Study, Not Fear

This is not a call to mock personal testimonies or deny God’s power. It is a call to ground our faith in the Word of God rather than experience.

If you have never carefully studied what the Bible teaches about death, now is the time. Spiritualism is no longer hidden on the fringes of society. It has gone mainstream—and it is preparing the world for something far greater and far more dangerous.

The final deception will not announce itself as false. It will sound spiritual. It will sound loving. It will sound biblical.

Only those anchored firmly in Scripture will stand.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)

For fifteen years, while her daughter was entangled in the LGBTQ lifestyle, battling spiritual bondage, legal trouble, and physical illness, a mother rose in the midnight watches. She fasted. She prayed. She wept. She called her child’s name before heaven when nothing in the natural suggested change was possible.

No debates.
No arguments.
No coercion.

Just persistent faith laid at the feet of a faithful God.

The world often frames deliverance stories as self-discovery or personal resolve. This one tells a different truth: some breakthroughs are not initiated by the one in bondage, but by someone who loves them enough to wrestle with God on their behalf.

Sis. Wallace was not merely rescued from a lifestyle—she was called out of a valley. What medicine could not heal, what counseling could not resolve, what willpower could not break, God addressed through fasting, prayer, repentance, and the relentless intercession of a mother who believed the bones could live again.

This is not a story about condemnation.
It is a story about deliverance.
Not about human effort—but about divine intervention.

It reminds us that while culture argues, heaven listens. While society redefines identity, God restores it. And while the enemy binds, Christ still looses.

If you have ever prayed for a child who seemed far from God…
If you have ever wondered whether midnight prayers matter…
If you have ever stood in faith when hope felt unreasonable…

If you have a family member—a child or a spouse—who seems trapped in a life of sin, take heart. Sis. Wallace shares powerful, biblical principles for waging spiritual warfare on behalf of those we love. These are not passive ideas, but active strategies rooted in prayer, faith, and perseverance. Take these principles to heart, apply them intentionally, and trust God to work where human strength falls short.

1. The Power of Intercessory Prayer

Deliverance Often Begins With Someone Else’s Faith

Sis. Wallace’s deliverance did not begin with her own decision to seek God—it began with a mother who refused to stop praying. Scripture repeatedly reveals that God responds to intercession offered on behalf of others (Job 42:10; James 5:16). Intercessory prayer is spiritual warfare fought in love. It is the act of standing in the gap when the one in bondage cannot—or will not—pray for themselves. This testimony reminds us that God honors persistent, faith-filled intercession, even when years pass with no visible change. Heaven keeps record of prayers long after humans lose patience.

2. Persistence in Prayer Breaks Long-Term Bondage

Time Does Not Cancel God’s Power

Fifteen years is a long time to pray without seeing results. Yet Scripture teaches that delay is not denial (Luke 18:1–8). Sis. Wallace’s mother prayed through discouragement, unanswered cries, and circumstances that seemed to worsen rather than improve. Persistent prayer weakens spiritual resistance over time. Bondage that took years to form often requires sustained spiritual pressure to break. This principle teaches believers not to measure prayer’s effectiveness by immediacy, but by faithfulness.

3. Midnight Prayer Is a Strategic Watch Hour

Some Breakthroughs Are Tied to Obedient Timing

The testimony highlights the practice of midnight prayer, a biblically recognized watch hour (Psalm 119:62; Acts 16:25–26). Midnight represents a moment of vulnerability, transition, and divine intervention throughout Scripture. It is often when chains fall, doors open, and spiritual resistance is confronted. This is not ritualism—it is alignment with God’s appointed times. Sis. Wallace’s story reinforces the truth that some spiritual battles yield only when prayer meets God at the appointed watch.

4. Spiritual Bondage Is Real—and So Is Deliverance

Not Every Struggle Is Merely Psychological or Cultural

Modern culture often frames identity struggles as purely emotional or social, but Scripture presents a broader reality: spiritual forces actively contend for the human soul (Ephesians 6:12). Sis. Wallace’s deliverance underscores the biblical truth that certain patterns of bondage—whether sexual, emotional, or behavioral—are spiritual at their core. Jesus Himself regularly confronted spirits behind conditions others misdiagnosed (Luke 13:16). Recognizing spiritual bondage is not condemnation; it is the first step toward true freedom.

5. Fasting and Prayer Unlock Breakthroughs Prayer Alone May Not

Some Chains Require Sacrifice

Jesus clearly taught that “this kind does not go out except by fasting and prayer” (Matthew 17:21). Fasting intensifies spiritual focus, humbles the soul, and weakens the influence of the flesh. Sis. Wallace’s testimony affirms that fasting was not optional—it was essential. Her mother’s sacrifice mirrored Christ’s teaching that certain strongholds yield only when prayer is coupled with denial of self. Fasting is not manipulation of God; it is surrender before Him.

6. Deliverance Is an Act of Grace, Not Human Willpower

Freedom Comes From God, Not Self-Redefinition

This testimony stands in stark contrast to cultural narratives that elevate self-effort as the path to freedom. Sis. Wallace was not delivered because she perfected herself—but because God intervened. Scripture is clear: “If the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36). True deliverance is not behavior modification; it is spiritual resurrection. This principle protects the testimony from pride and places glory where it belongs—on Christ alone.

7. A Mother’s Faith Can Shape a Child’s Destiny

God Honors Covenant Love

Throughout Scripture, God responds powerfully to parental faith (2 Timothy 1:5; Genesis 18:19). Sis. Wallace’s story reminds us that a praying parent is not powerless, even when a child appears far from God. Covenant love, expressed through prayer, fasting, and trust in God’s promises, carries generational weight. A mother’s knees became the battleground—and heaven responded.

8. Deliverance Is the Beginning, Not the End

Freedom Must Be Maintained Through Ongoing Surrender

Sis. Wallace’s testimony does not end with deliverance—it continues with discipleship, prayer, and service. Scripture warns that freedom must be guarded (Matthew 12:43–45). Spiritual victory requires maintenance: prayer, obedience, community, and continued dependence on God. Deliverance is not merely an event; it is a new way of living under Christ’s lordship.

Closing Thought

Sis. Wallace’s testimony is not meant to provoke debate—it is meant to restore hope. It reminds parents to keep praying, believers to take spiritual warfare seriously, and the church to remember that God still delivers. What looks impossible in the natural is never impossible when placed in the hands of a faithful God.

.

In a recent interview, Pastor Randy Skeete was asked a question many would prefer to avoid—whether Seventh-day Adventists should be concerned about the church’s NGO status with the United Nations, and how such a relationship should be evaluated biblically. His answer was neither political nor reactionary. It was deeply theological, rooted in Scripture, and anchored in the historic understanding of what the church is called to be.

Pastor Randy Skeete’s concern regarding any formal union between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the United Nations is not political, conspiratorial, or reactionary. It is biblical, prophetic, and principled. His objections flow from Scripture’s definition of the church, its mission, and its relationship to the world.

Below are the central reasons he gives.

1. God Explicitly Forbids Covenant Alliances With Worldly Systems

Scripture consistently warns God’s people against forming binding alliances with surrounding nations and systems that do not share allegiance to Him (Exodus 23:32; Judges 2:2). Pastor Skeete draws a direct parallel between ancient Israel and the modern church. Just as Israel was commanded not to make covenants with pagan nations—because such alliances would corrupt worship and loyalty—so the church today must avoid formal unions that tie it to secular powers. The issue is not cooperation at a human level, but covenantal entanglement that compromises spiritual allegiance.

2. The Church Is Called Out of the World, Not Integrated Into It

Biblically, the church (ekklesia) is defined as a people called out—not merely gathered together (Acts 7:38; John 17:14–16). Pastor Skeete emphasizes that the church’s identity is inseparable from its separation. While Christ’s followers live in the world, they do not belong to its system. Any structural or organizational union that binds the church to the world’s institutions contradicts the very meaning of what the church is.

3. Formal Connections Create Obligations That Can Silence the Prophetic Voice

One of Skeete’s strongest warnings concerns legal and institutional obligations. When the church enters formal relationships with secular organizations, those relationships often come with expectations, rules, and limitations—whether explicit or implied. Over time, such obligations can restrict what the church is free to proclaim. A church that is contractually connected may find itself unable to speak with full clarity on issues where truth demands confrontation.

4. The Three Angels’ Messages Must Never Be Restricted

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been entrusted with a distinct prophetic message, especially the Third Angel’s Message (Revelation 14:6–12). Pastor Skeete argues that if the church is connected to global institutions that may fall within the prophetic description of Babylon, that connection could inhibit the church’s ability to identify Babylon honestly and without restraint. Any relationship that interferes—even potentially—with the proclamation of this message is incompatible with the church’s calling.

5. Mission Must Never Be Subordinated to Diplomacy

Pastor Skeete acknowledges that limited interaction with non-believers is unavoidable. However, he draws a firm line between interaction and union. The mission of the SDA Church is not shared by secular global institutions. Because of this, formal alignment risks shifting the church’s priorities—from proclamation to cooperation, from warning to accommodation. When mission is subordinated to diplomacy, truth inevitably suffers.

6. The Church Must Remain Free From All Unnecessary Entanglements

Quoting the principle that the church should avoid connections that “commit” it to worldly organizations, Skeete argues that freedom is essential for faithfulness. The church must remain unbound—free to speak, free to warn, free to obey God rather than men. Any union that threatens that freedom, even subtly, violates both Scripture and conscience.

7. God’s Church Exists to Stand in Opposition to False Worship, Not Beside It

Tracing the biblical pattern from Abraham to Israel to the early church, Pastor Skeete shows that God has always had a people whose purpose was to stand in contrast to the world’s systems, not to merge with them. The church exists to reflect Christ and oppose counterfeit systems of worship and authority. Union with such systems undermines that witness.

Summary Statement

For Pastor Randy Skeete, the issue is ultimately one of truth and allegiance. If a union—even under the label of “NGO status”—has the potential to mute the church’s voice, blur its identity, or restrain its prophetic mission, then it stands opposed to the Word of God and the principle of truth. Faithfulness requires separation—not isolation, but unwavering loyalty to God above all earthly systems.