Sabbath day. Yes. And um the fellowship and the food and and uh the preaching
and so forth. It’s just been a joy to share uh with like-minded brothers and sisters here in Northern New England and
to talk about matters of significance as we enter the most momentous uh parts of Earth’s history. So, I’d like to uh um
uh I’m going to do a continuation what I did this morning, but I’m going to bring it much more closer to home. But I just
like to ask you the question. Does anybody remember the day that you were baptized?
Yes. It was a wonderful day. Yes. Yeah. I was baptized when I was 14. I
was my father did the baptism and we’d gone through um baptismal classes with a bunch of teenagers in a local church and
it was one of the highlights of my life and give my life to Lord Lord Jesus Christ and becoming a disciple of his um
I can say that all of his promises have come true in my life and so I I speak these things um because I love the body
of Christ and I see certain things happening in the body of Christ and um
for if we want the body of Christ to be a healthy place then we need to have these kind of conversations. And so um
this morning um I spoke about the connection with the United Nations. Um this evening I’m going to speak about
essentially um whether or not a conference has a right to ban an elder in their local church. So I’d like to
ask you here if you’re an elder in your local church, please raise your hands. All right. Okay. There’s a few hands
have gone up. All right. Let me ask you the question. Do you believe that your local administration can just ban you at
a moment’s notice from any participation in life of your church? Those of you elders, any of you, hands up if you
agree to that idea, you didn’t hear me. Oh, okay. So, if you
believe that a local conference or the conference can ban you overnight from
leading in your local church as a as a local elected elder, then raise your hands.
No. The answer is no. The answer is no. All right. So that’s my answer as well. Um but um I don’t I want to talk tonight
about what is going on where I am because I see there is a spirit of authoritarianism spreading across our
division. And this spirit unless it is rebuked by the members is only going to
get worse and worse. And so I’ve called this buyer beware 2 um in uh because
this morning I spoke about buyer beware one. So this is our journey this evening. It’s not a standard triple
decker sermon. I’m going to be looking at um the business meeting as the highest authority. After our brief
introduction, we’re going to look at page 31 of the church manual. That’s a very exciting se heading, isn’t it, for
a a section of a of a sermon. We’re then going to look at the presenting issue, then the core issue before we come to
some advice at Lake Union leadership, and then we’re going to come to our conclusion. So, that’s our journey this
evening. And um uh while we are the audience primarily here this evening,
there is a wider audience going to watch this online. I’m very aware of that fact. And this this message is really
for both audiences um as as we go through this evening. So uh what do we say in introduction? So on August the
3rd, maybe some of you saw that event, um my local congregation, the village 7th Adventist Church had a business
meeting. It was a duly called business meeting. And we um after um I gave my
defense which went online um somebody made a motion that essentially said we
affirm the rights of the conference to ban any member in our local church at any time and humbly request the
conference to change their minds. And that motion was roundly voted down after
a three-hour discussion. And then a motion was very quickly made um and that
motion was as you see on the screen. The members of our church voted number one, they voted to reject the presumed
authority of the Michigan Conference under the church manual to ban a local
elder from preaching within his or her local congregation without following the due process required by the church
manual. That was the first thing we voted. And um the second thing we voted
was that the village adventist church authorized with immediate effect Dr. divine to participate in the full life
of the Village Adventist Church as an elder, including any and all preaching and public speaking participation
incumbent upon the biblical teaching and preaching role of an elder. And that was the second vote. And then the third
vote, the portion of the vote was to say that the village church affirmed that if
the Michigan conference wished to further pursue the matter, then the conference should bring the matter
before the village adventist church in a special business meeting as required by the church manual. And that was our
vote. And we said essentially to the conference, if you have a problem with one of our members, you come and make
your case to a business session of our church like anybody else. make your case and the constituency will make a
determination and and and a and a vote and outcome on this matter. So, um um
Elder Mitch in Michigan um uh he’s kind of like um oh, I don’t know, a groundhog
on Groundhog Day. He doesn’t like to stick his head out in case somebody goes for him. And he’s not going to come to village church and make his case. I
think he’s made that pretty clear to us. Um, I don’t think he wants to stand in front of the members and be screened all
over the world on the internet to say, “I am your president and I can ban any of you at a moment’s notice.” He doesn’t
want to do that because he knows it’s not going to go down too well. So rather than come and stand before us, um, he
sent us a letter and there’s a just a screenshot of it there on September the 5th and he said that the Michigan
Conference differed in their interpretation of the Church Manual and that they had referred the matter to the General Conference’s Church Manual
Committee. um quote for an official ruling and guidance on the matters in question end quote. If the GC church
manual committee were to uphold the Michigan Conference’s interpretation of the Church Manual, then Elder Mitch
requested that the village church to rescend their vote of August the 3rd where they reinstated me to my role as
an elder as a preaching elder. And then on November the 6th this year, we received another letter and um there it
is there. Maybe you saw it on Fulcrum 7. And uh in this he summarized the general
conference’s response to the Michigan Conference’s request for an official ruling and guidance of the matters in
question. And it turned out that the the general conference was not having anything to do with this matter. And
they punted the question back to the union. And so uh what they said was uh
this is in the letter from Elder Clip Mitch. He said that the general conference’s response clarifies several
key points. Number one, the Church Manual Committee functions as an editorial and advisory board for
revisions and recommendations, but does not have administrative authority to interpret or issue official explanations
of church manual language. Well, that’s what I said in my message online called
Might is Not Right. The Church Manual Committee exists to receive recommendations from divisions around
the world for changes to the Church Manual. They kind of finesse it a bit to make sure everybody’s happy with it.
Then those recommendations are brought to the general conference in full session. The Church Manual Committee has
never in its history ever being asked to issue an official ruling on the interpretation of the Church Manual.
Why? Because the Church Manual is to be interpreted by every local congregation in its constituency meetings, not by the
general conference. Uh the second thing that pastor Mitch have shared with us um he said that um that the general that
the the uh general conference clarified that developing and implementing speaker guidelines is the responsibility of the
local conference. That’s on page 126 of the manual. So these guidelines, this is
for authorized speakers. We’ll come to that in a minute. Direct conference administration, pastors and churches to
ensure all activities align with denominational policy and mission. And then the third point he made was that
the church manual page 19 where to get advice instructs church officers and leaders pastors and members to consult
their conference regarding questions of local church operations or manual interpretation. If understanding cannot
be reached on the matter if understanding cannot be reached, the matter should be referred to the union conference for clarification.
And so he then went on to further clarify and gave us a quote from page 31
of the church manual which says this. When differences arise in or between
churches and conferences or institutions, matters that are not mutually resolved may be appealed to the
next higher organization. If the matter does not get resolved at this level, the agrieved entity may appeal to a
successively higher level of organization. An organization to which an appeal is forwarded may choose not to
hear the matter in which case the decision of the highest organization involved in the dispute shall be final.
Now that’s a key expression. The decision of the highest organization involved in the dispute shall be final.
Kind of hold that in your in your frontal lobe somewhere. That’s a crucial phrase that we’re going to hear a lot
about um in the coming months, I imagine. And so based on this provision, Elder Mitch now approached the Lake
Union Conference and he said to review this matter and provide counsel regarding the appropriate application of
the church manual provisions, particularly those found on pages 35 and
126 to 127. So how do we respond to this? Well, let’s go back to basics,
shall we? The business meeting is the highest authority in the life of the local
church. And how do we prove that from our church documents?
Well, you start out with this quote here from the general conference working policy. So GCWPM means general
conference working policy manual chapter B section 05 entitled organizational and
operational principles of 7th Adventist structure. I would encourage everybody here to have the latest copy of the
manual and of the general conference constitution and bylaws. These are important because we either have um
Lex’s Rex or we have Rex is lex. Lex is Rex means the law is king or we
have Rex’s lex which means the king is law. We either have the rule of law in our church or we have the rule of
administrators and personal whim. And if we are to be uh educated as members, we
need those documents in our hands. So I’d encourage you to get your hands on copies of the church manual and of the
GC constitution and bylaws. Now that this paragraph here says this says each
level of denominational organization has a defined membership, also known as a constituency. The constituency base
units are the local church, the local conference, the union of churches with conference status, union conference, and
general conference. The highest level of authority within the powers granted to each level of denominational
organization resides in the where constituency in the constituency meeting. So the
thing you first thing you notice about this is there is no mention of the divisions. There are four levels in the Adventist
church. You have the local congregation level. That’s the first level. You then have the conference that is the Northern
New England Conference. You then have the union that might be the Atlantic Union here. And then you have the
general conference and the unions are the constituent members of the general conference. So the unions they send
their officers and their delegates to every general conference session. But the divisions have no constituency of
their own. A division is a subdivision of the general conference. That is it’s an administrative unit carved out to
represent the interests of the general conference within a certain uh territory known as a division. So divisions have
no constituents. They have no constituency and they are elected by the general conference in full session not
by any separate administrative or con um constituency um meetings. This was
important in the women’s ordination debate because when the North American division said we’re going to go ahead
with women’s ordination, the general conference wrote them a legal letter and said, “Excuse me, you don’t have a
constituency to make your own decisions. Only a constituencybased entity can make a decision like that.” At which point
the the unions in North American Division said, “Ah, we have constituencies. Therefore, we can make those decisions for ourselves.” So, it’s
kind of like playing whack-a-ole when they did that. Didn’t go very well. But this this um paragraph here says that
there are four levels in the church. The church, the conference, the union and the general conference. And the highest
level of authority, what does it say? The highest level resides within the
constituency meeting. Shouldn’t be hard to understand, should it?
No, it says um resides in the constituency meeting. So what does this
mean? Uh the next next is from the church manual which says this page 28 it says
the seventh adventist form of governance is representative. Then it explains what that means. It
says which recognizes that authority rests in the what? Membership and is expressed through duly
elected representatives at each level of organization with separate responsibility delegated to
representative bodies and officers for the governing of the church at each separate level. The church manual
applies his principle of representation to the operation of the local congregation.
And so then you have the third quote that is pertinent to this which says this in the church the church manual
page 133 the section on business meetings. It says the local church operates within defined roles in 7th
Adventist church structure within the context of these roles. The business meeting is the constituency of the local
church. So the local church when it has a business meeting that is the constituency of the church. Those are
all the members in regular standing not under any form of censure or discipline. And when they vote they are the highest
authority in the life of that local congregation. Just as when the executive committee of the Northern New England
Conference meets on a monthly basis, wherever, however often it is, that they make the determinations, the decisions
at a conference level, but they do not make determinations for the individual churches. That is left to each
individual church to make its determination. So the highest authority in the life of the local congregation is
the local congregation in a duly called business meeting. Note this. It is not the pastor. It is not the elders. It is
not the conference officers. It is not the conference executive committee. It is not the Atlantic Union officers. It
is nor is it the division officers. Nor is it the general conference officers. The local congregation is the entity
within the church manual and business. The structure of our church which is empowered to interpret and implements
the church manual at a local congregational level. Amen.
which means we should know what it says. We cannot claim responsibility to be
implementing these things and we’re responsible for the implementation of the church manual at our local church
level if nobody’s read the document in the local church. We need to be responsible in how we use this document
and the principles contained therein. There is no provision in the Bible or
the spirit of prophecy or the church manual or the general conference working man policy manual for a local conference
executive committee or the officers of a local conference to unilaterally overturn a vote of a local congregation
in a duly called business meeting including the nomination and vote of any persons for church office.
You all got that? There is no provision anywhere for a
conference to overturn the duly elected um officers of a local church. They cannot nullify it. You do not recommend
elders for your church to the conference to approve or veto. All of your elders, all of your Sabbath school teachers, all
of your deacons, all of your men’s and women’s ministry leaders are elected by the local church in a constituency
session. You know, when you have your nominating committee report in church, when they say, “Today, we’re going to
have the second reading of the nominating committee report,” you’re technically in business session, right?
Then that’s a business session of the church. Whether we realize it or not, you may
not think of it as a business session. It’s not taking place on Sunday night, but that is a business meeting of the
church when you do the first and second reading of the officers uh from the nominating committee report. But there
is the bottom line is this. There is no provision in any Adventist document anywhere for a local conference
president to nullify, overturn or reject or veto the dulyeleed decisions of a
local church in business session. It’s as simple as that.
So let’s turn to page 31 of the church manual. having established this kind of bound
this bedrock principle here and this is the page this is the paragraph that is
now being grasped at um to to claim that that the Michigan conference doesn’t
like the decisions of the village church and because we can’t force them on village church now we’re going to appeal
to the union and so this paragraph appeals appears in page 31 of the union
and we’ve already covered it a few minutes ago but I’ll just remind ourselves it says when differences arise
in or between churches and conferences or institutions. Matters that are not
mutually resolved may be appealed to the next higher organization. If the matter does not get resolved at this level, the
agrieved entity may appeal to successively higher levels of organization. An organization to which
an appeal is forwarded may choose not to hear the matter, in which case the decision of the highest organization
involved in the dispute shall be final. So, our Michigan Conference using this
paragraph here in a legitimate way, they’re appealing to Lake Union to affirm their decision to overturn um the
decisions of the village church in business session. So, the vision village church made some votes. Michigan doesn’t
like those votes and now they’re rather than saying the village church has made the decision we had to accept that now
they’re using this paragraph to say we’re in dispute with the village church and this section of the manual gives us
the right to appeal to the lake union and if they don’t hear the matter then the Michigan conference has the highest
organization in the dispute between the conference and the church then the Michigan conference’s decision is final.
That’s a roundabout way of effectively nullifying um the principle that the local constituency has is the highest
authority in the life of the local church. That is what is being um that is the the uh the game that is being played
today. Now this paragraph here, let’s think about this for a few minutes. This paragraph on page 31 provides a
mechanism for disputes between different Adventist entities to find mediation
from a level an entity higher up in the church organization. Now such disputes
can be many and varied. Let me give you some examples. There may be a dispute between in two conferences over the
proceeds of a land sale. Sometimes you can get uh disputes as they had in
Iceland over the last 15 years actually about the profit sharing of a of a mining company that was owned by the
Icelandic conference and that they appealed all the way to the transuropean division for arbitration in that
particular dispute. Sometimes there is a territorial dis disagreement over the geographical boundaries between two
neighboring conferences and some churches may want to switch from one conference to another. Sometimes there
are questions and disputes about the fair and equitable distribution of resources by a union across its
constituent conferences. Sometimes there are questions about unamotized educational support or allowance from
for an employee who transitions from one conference to another conference. So there are all kinds of reasons why two
conferences may get into a dispute with with one another or a conference in a union somewhere else. Um this is the
normal process in administrative the administrative world. And so this passage of the church manual provides a
mechanism for mediation um in in a matter where there is a dispute between two entities. And it is right and proper
that we have a provision that allows uh provides a roadmap for the resolution of
um disputes. But according to Elder Mitch, however, should a conference disagree with how a local congregation
is voting in a duly called business meeting, the conference can simply reverse the decisions of that con of
that congregation’s business meeting. He believes that this page here means that the Michigan Conference can appeal to
the union um if necessary and if the union decides declines to get involved,
then the decision of the conference to overturn the village church’s business meeting votes will be final. Why?
Because the decision of the highest organization involved in the dispute shall be final.
So rather than accepting that the constituents have made their decision and the administrators are to respect
that decision, um Elder Mitch is using this provision here to say we’re in
dispute with one of our congregations. We don’t like the votes they’ve taken. We’re going to appeal to the Lake Union
as they have and if the Lake Union declines to get involved, um then then
our decision is final. we can override village and if the lake union says um yes Michigan conference is right then
Michigan conference will claim that as the justification for overriding the decisions of the constituency. So it’s
heads I win and tails you lose. That’s how the what this looks like. Now given
the current administrative culture in the NAD are for administrators to protect the system at all cost against
the interests and concerns of local members. It is almost guaranteed that the union will never rebuke a conference
in such a situation. Which means that a conference could now effectively simply override any decision of a local
congregation in a duly called business meeting secure in the knowledge that the local union will always back the
conference up. If the union does get involved and make an adjudication in this case, then by implication both the
conference and the union now have the authority to override any decision of a local church in business session. You
think of the implications of what is being done here. So if the if the Lake Union gets involved and says yes,
Michigan Conference is right and we’re the highest authority involved in this dispute, that means that now Michigan
Conference and the Lake Union are claiming the authority to override the decisions of a local church and business
session. And so once you start using this paragraph here, you effectively nullify the provision and the protection
of members that the church and business session is the highest authority in the life of the local church. Elder Mitch’s
understanding, if you take it to its logical conclusion, means that the Atlantic Union could now override any
decision of any conference in the Atlantic Union as long as the North American Division chooses not to get involved. It also means that the GC
could override any the decisions of all unions should there be a dispute between the Union and the General Conference.
And I would suggest this, no executive committee in the North American Division would ever accept that outcome.
The Northern New England Conference Executive Committee would never accept for the Atlantic Union to have power of
veto over every decision taken by the Atlantic taken by the Northern New England Conference Executive Committee.
Which is why this interpretation and this path that Elder Mitch is taking is slightly absurd. We know that his
understanding is is not correct. Why do we know it’s not correct? Because if if
his understanding were correct, then this clause on page 31 to which Elder Mitchv is appealing would have meant
that the GC administration could have simply overridden the three pro-omen’s ordination North American Division
unions by imposing the three decisions taken by three different GC sessions to
not allow women’s ordination as quote the GC was the highest organization involved in the dispute. The fact that
the GC administration doesn’t do this or can’t do this shows the uh the lack of
validity of Elder Mitch’s interpretation. So this is a huge power grab by Michigan
which will have profoundly negative consequences worldwide. If this incident
is allowed to stand in Michigan, congregations worldwide will be disempowered because this is a global
test case. Every decision of every local congregation in a business meeting will
be subject to conference review and possible overturning. In our North American division, only
those elders and Sabbath school teachers who uphold or at the very least never question the godless cultural Marxist
ideologies that have permeated our North American division structure and institutions will be allowed to speak.
Spiritual declenion and leodyianism is the inevitable result leading to eternal destruction. As we know, Michigan
Conference is in the business of banning preachers these days. It’s interesting to see who they ban and who they don’t
ban. Michigan Conference has never banned any North American Division officer,
administrator, or preacher who calls for women’s ordination in rebellion to three
General Conference votes on the matter. Michigan Conference has never banned any preacher who calls for the normalization
of LGBTQ relations and lifestyles within the church. Michigan Conference has
never called have banned any preacher who who calls for the promotion of critical race theory or cultural
Marxism. Michigan Conference has never banned any church leaders who celebrate the
assassination of public political figures. Michigan Conference has never um banned um professors who call for the
allocation of tithe along racial lines as recently happened online. The only
conclusion you can come to is that if a Michigan conference is actively banning preachers they disagree with, but they
don’t ban preachers who preach on any of these topics, the Michigan Conference is now in favor of rejecting the General
Conference votes on women’s ordination because they don’t muzzle those preachers. Michigan Conference by implication supports the normalization
of the LGBTQ lifestyle because they don’t ban those preachers. They support critical wave theory, third-wave
feminism, transgender theory, and cultural Marxism because they don’t ban those preachers. Michigan Conference now
supports political assassinations because they won’t ban those preachers. And they encourage their African-American members to redirect
their tithe to the Lake Reunion Regional Conference and not to the Michigan Conference itself because they don’t ban
those speakers. This is the logical implication of what is happening.
Furthermore, the application of Elder Mitch’s interpretation means that from now on, all decisions will be even more
centralized from congregations to to conferences, from conferences to unions, from unions to divisions, and from
divisions to the GC leadership itself. The principle of one man, one vote will
be that one man gets the one vote. This will infeeble local congregations all
across our division. It will muzzle elders who are are faithful to truth. It
will shut down Bible faithful present truth speakers because they preach inconvenient truths. It will lead to
even more cynicism, tithe appropriation to present truth ministries and disengagement on the part of members. So
what then is the presenting issue before us? The presenting issue is the question of
elders and their role in scripture. Throughout Adventist history, local
elders were nominated by the local church in through the nominating committee process. Then they were duly
elected by their local congregation in a business session. As you see on the screen there, elders and pastors are
interchangeable in the New Testament. There is no difference between a pastor and an elder in New in the New
Testament. The language is very very clear about this. And so whether you call it elders or pastors, um elders
have certain biblical responsibilities. It is incumbent upon an elder to preach
and teach sound doctrine. I’m giving you some of the scripture references up there. So the first responsibility of a
of an elder is the faithful um um faithful sharing of the word of God and
the teaching and upholding of sound doctrine within the church. The second responsibility of elders in the New
Testament is to defend the flock from false teachers. The third responsibility of elders in
the New Testament is to maintain a Christlike character. That you can model what it means to be a Christian. That
people see you and they see a manifestation of Christ. The fourth responsibility of elders is to provide
oversight for a local congregation. The fifth responsibility of elders in the New Testament is to um care for the
flock to provide pastoral care. The sixth responsibility is to equip the members for ministry so that the members
can engage in ministry and not the elders and the officers of the church on their own. So we have an empowered
church where everybody can use their spiritual gifts. And the sixth responsibility of elders is to commit to
a ministry of prayer. And you find those responsibilities scattered throughout the New Testament.
Local congregations, as we’ve already mentioned, elect their um elders and they hold their elders accountable. It
is only a local congregation can place an elder under censure, can remove them from office completely or simply not
renew their eldership at the next nominating committee cycle. The church manual is very clear about this that
pastors are accountable to the conference because they are the conference’s employers but elders are
accountable to the congregation and it is the el the congregation that elects and appoints and hold elders holds their
feet to the fire to make sure that they are true to what God has given us. The church manual is is very clear upon this
page 79. It says the authority to elect elders is inherent in the local church
and not in the conference executive committee. I mean it’s explicitly clear about this.
Elders are appointed by the local congregation
and the church manual felt it necessary to put in there and not in the conference executive committee.
So there is no there’s no wiggle room on this. Um the manual goes on to state elders
who are elected by the church are responsible to that body and to its board.
And so there is this is called accountability. A pastor is accountable to the conference administration and the
executive committee but elders are accountable to the church represented either by its board or if you have to
defend yourself in a constituency session. And uh the church manual goes on to say
at the bottom there, elders should be able to conduct the services of the church and minister in both word and
doctrine when the assigned pastor is unavailable. Well, it’s pretty clear to me as I read
the church manual, as it is to pretty much every Adventist in the world, um other than the Michigan Conference
leadership, that elders are appointed by and accountable to their local congregation. period.
And therefore, if somebody has wants to bring a charge against an elder, you must bring it before the constituency of
the church where he or she is an elder. So
in fact that when the Northern New England Conference had its dis uh disagreement with the Atlantic Union in
the public document that the Northern New England Conference put out, they said there explicitly they said if the
if the Atlantic Union has a problem with Pastor Vine in his preaching, then the Atlantic Union should bring the matter
before a constituency meeting of his home church. The Northern New England Conference stuck by this principle in
their in their um reputation of the Atlantic Union’s attempt to ban me within these territories. But Michigan
Conference, however, is interpreting the church manual. So, the Conference gets a veto over the appointment and the
service of local elders. So, how are they doing this? Well, the first thing is they’re taking this paragraph here on
page 126. Now, this paragraph was voted in 2022 in St. Louis at the General
Conference session. It’s a relatively recent addition to the church manual and
it replaced an existing paragraph um that was um speaking about um people who
should not be allowed to speak in the pulpit. And the previous example mentioned um defrocked pastors and
people who are held in illreute within the community and so forth. And it was a pretty okay list. But the church um
voted this replacement in 2022. And it says this, only speakers worthy of
confidence will be invited by the pulpit to the pulpit by the local church pastor in harmony with guidelines given by the
conference. Now that says that a pastor may invite people to the pulpit
um uh in harmony with the guidelines voted by the conference.
Now we understand that. But the the second clause is really interesting. It says the local elders or church board
may also invite speakers in consultation with the pastor and in harmony with the
conference guidelines. Now in this sentence here, the local elders or church board are not subject to the
conference guidelines because they are the church. The guidelines are for visiting speakers who are being brought
into the church. The elders already have a standing right to preach and teach in scripture and in the manual. So there’s
no kind of extra layer of of scrutiny placed on elders. The elders already have the standing right to preach and
teach. But the elders may invite someone to come and speak to the church in harmony with the provisions or the
guidelines of the local conference. Then the final section is this. Individuals who are no longer members or who are
under discipline should not be given access to the pulpit. Now that clause who are under discipline should not be
yet given access to the pulpit was why last year in the fall Michigan conference was pressuring village to
remove me from being an elder because once you’re removed from being an elder that’s called censure that
would result in an automatic global preaching ban under this clause here. That was the intent. So even though it
was presented as a local issue, they could have then said to the world, Connard’s been removed from his position
as an elder for cause. Therefore, he is banned from all Adventist pullpits worldwide.
You have to know the rules to understand the games that are played sometimes. So,
Elder Mitch is asserting that this paragraph here um claims that uh the Michigan Conference can issue guidelines
which include the vetoing of local elders that the conference doesn’t like.
So, in banning me, Elder Mitch is asserting the right to override dulytaken decisions in a business
meeting and is extending this provision beyond visiting speakers to all local
church elders. Now this doesn’t just apply to me inter village church. If this case is allowed
to stand and to go through, it means northern New England now has the precedent established um to ban any
local elder in northern New England with or without cause and with or without any kind of due process. That’s the
implications of what is being done in Michigan. That is why this has such serious consequences for Adventists
around the world. If this happens, it will nullify the spiritual independence, liberty of
conscience, and local accountability of elders within their local congregations.
From now on, effectively, when a church has its nominating committee, rather than voting its elders, it will have to
recommend its elders to the local conference for review, approval, or veto
before those elders can fulfill their biblical responsibilities of preaching or teaching. Are you following the logic
on this? This is this has this has global implications if what is taking
place is allowed to stand. There has never been a time in Adventist history when a local conference could
unilaterally ban a local elder with no formal investigation, no due process
before the local congregation, no right of defense before a decision is made, no
need even to specify what the charges actually are. To this day, 15 months
after the ban was imposed, Elder Mitchie has refused to put in writing the
specifics of my alleged heretical teachings in miss in um at Lake Caribou last year, Caribou camp meeting. But
this is what Michigan is claiming this church manual authorizes and this is what Elder Mitch is seeking the support
of Lake Union for. So the village church in contrast has interpreted this page
here to mean that Michigan conference can set guidelines for visiting speakers. But the local congregation is
responsible for the appointment, oversight and accountability of its own elders. In so doing, Village Church has
rejected this unprecedented power grab by Michigan Conference and is standing up for the rights of every elder
worldwide to preach the word of God faithfully, fearlessly, and without fear
of being unilaterally banned by a compromised conference the next Monday morning.
So it’s this isn’t about me. It’s not about Village Church. This is about all
of our congregations. Now the matter with the internet has gone global. Everybody sees what is happening and if
if Michigan is allowed to ban an elder in his or her local church without any kind of due process before the local
congregation then that precedent will be used worldwide. But the core issue here is not the role
of elders and who appoints them. There’s a deeper issue than that and that is
this. The disputes between Village Church and the rest of the the division of GC in
the last three or four years are not about COVID. They’re not about mandates. They’re not about vaccines. They’re not
about my preaching. They’re not even about religious liberty or liberty of conscience.
We are discussing the raw and illegitimate use of power by administrators. That is the essential
core issue here. what I would say the 7th Adventist administrative state
compromised by its alliance with the United Nations and the papacy that increasingly tolerates no questioning of
his absolute power and authority over the members and the lives of local members. That is the problem we’re
facing. It’s the unadulterated hunger for power and the absolute refusal to
recognize the rights of members by church administrators. Authoritarianism. It’s authoritarianism.
This is not a question of COVID or vaccines or mandates. It’s about power in the church. And where does authority
reside? Does it reside with the members in a representative system of governance? Or have we been asleep for
so many years that we’ve just allowed power to trickle up through the system? So now don’t now nobody dares question
the system any longer. Let me give you some examples of this. I want to show a contrast here. I like putting things in
tables because it helps me kind of clarify things in my own minds. So there you have on the screen here
you have the yes the Adventist administrative state on the left and you have Bible faithful Adventists on the
right. So I’m going to go through some comparisons here. The Adventist administrative state believes the GC has
jurisdiction and authority over the liberty of conscience of members worldwide. And the Adventist
administrative state believes that the GC can suspend your ability to act in harmony with the conscient the
convictions of your conscience at any moment. We saw that in the pandemic. Bible faithful Adventists believe that
the conscience is the meeting place between God and man and is therefore sacred is not under denominational
control and the responsibility of leaders is to encourage members to listen for and be obedient to the voice
of Jesus himself. Amen. Amen. The administrative state in Adventism
believes that conscience is subject to the common good as defined by the UN or the papacy. It believes that members can
act in harmony with the convictions of the Holy Spirit only in so far as the Holy Spirit agrees with the UN or the
papacy. Bible faithful Adventists on the on the contrary believe that the conscience is
subject to the word of God. Period. The the Adventist administrative state
believes that members can never question, rebuke or call for reform among leaders. It’s a constant complaint
from Elder Mitch. Members can never question their leaders. Bible faithful
Adventists believes that God calls present truth preachers to give the straight testimony as prophesied in the
spirit of prophecy which includes quote reproofs and warnings to the entire church including leaders. Found in
second testimonies page 440. If members can never question or call
for reform in the church, then we’re shutting oursel off from the prophetic voice within our church and we are
closing our church down to the straight testimony that God will send to his church in the end of time.
Then moving on from this, the Adventist administrative state believes that unions can ban members from hosting any
individual in their private home or private property due to theoretical concerns about ascending liability to
the denomination if anything happens to the visitor. That is what happened to myself. Now you may think you may maybe
turn you may be rolling your eyes. Is that really true? Well, there was a lady not so far from here and she and her
husband um run um a Friday night um house group and um she came up to me a
few weeks ago and she said um I I’m in the Atlantic Union territory and when I heard you say that last year I decided
to contact the secretary of the Atlantic Union, Elder Ted Huskins, as was then the secretary and she said, “I heard
Conrad Vine say that you’ve banned him from speaking at any and all gatherings of Adventists and he cannot speak if he
visits somebody at Thanksgiving in New Hampshire he cannot speak for Friday vespers in their home. Is that right?
And Elder Helter Huskins told her yes. And so he then explained to her and he
said I don’t want to put this in writing. I’ll have a conversation with you. You know when people won’t put
things in writing there’s a problem. And that generally I’ve experienced that when an administrator says to you I’ve
prayed about this a lot. They more they use the word prayer, the more egregious the actions they are about to take
against you. They bathe egregious behavior in prayer and thinks it somehow sanctifies it. But this lady wrote to me
a 30-page testimony just two weeks ago and she said, “Yes, Elder Huskkins
explained to her that if you’re an Adventist and you tell your church, I have an event in my church home on
Friday nights. Anybody’s welcome to come.” Then that is assumed to be a church approved event. And if you have
an event and somebody trips over or gets hurt, the church could be sued. Which means that she said, so that means she
said I should if I hold a house church in my group, my home, I should never tell anybody in the church because then
the GC has the legal authority to shut it down. This is absurd. But um my
experience with Elder Huskins, then South the Atlantic Union Secretary was mirrored by this other lady who called
in and said, “Can you shut down mine or not?” and he claims jurisdiction over her home because she had told her local
church she was having Bible studies in her home. And so um this 30-page testimony came to me and I’m very
grateful to get this corroboration because when Elder Huskkins called me he wouldn’t put the decision of the church
in writing to me um because they don’t want the members to come push back. I imagine uh in response, Bible faithful
Adventists in obedience to the Gospel Commission, members have the absolute right to invite anyone they please to
their homes. And as faithful unapologetic Adventists, we have the right to share God’s final message of
mercy with their visitors. The authority we have to do that is known as the great commission of Matthew um 28:18-20.
And we do not need any denominational approval for who we meet or um study with in our private properties. The
general conference has no right to determine who we meet with in our private properties.
The SDA administrative state believes that unions and conferences can meet in secret executive session and impose um
listen to the case and impose bans on individual members without the members being even aware that such a process is
going underway. Bible faithful Adventists believe that secret judicial hearings such as the
Spanish Inquisition or the Star Court system in the United Kingdom lead to alienation by members, withdrawal of
financial support and politically it leads to revolution.
We also know that the Adventist administrative state believes that union and conferences when banning an individual are not required to share the
actual provisions of the ban with the member being banned or with the wider membership. that justice must be hidden.
It must be secret. Bible faithful Adventists, on the contrary, believe that secret courts and hidden decisions
deny justice and violate an individual’s biblical right to know the charges being
pressed against them. That is a biblical right. They get they are denied the right to make their defense and to know
what the final decision is. Biblical justice follows due process and is never hidden.
The Adventist administrative state believes that conferences have the right to publicly ban a local elder from
preaching or teaching within their local congregation without ever specifying the actual nature of the disagreement
despite repeated repeat written requests for the charges to be put in writing so the local church can adjudicate on the
matter. So the conference can make an accusation
but it is not obliged to substantiate the the allegation. they can just make the charge and then ban you on the basis
of the charge without ever having to put in writing what the charge actually is.
The Bible faithful Adventists believe that if no formal charges are brought by the conference against an elder before
their local congregation in a duly called business meeting then the case should be dismissed and the the elder
continues in their god-given responsibilities as an elder. The book of Acts says this. Fesus said to a
gripper, “It seems unreasonable to send a prisoner to Rome without indicating the charges against him.” If even the
Romans understood that it is unreasonable to charge a prisoner with no charges, but to send them for to
stand for their life before Nero without a charge, if even the Romans understood this, surely we can understand it
ourselves. Um now we also have the Adventist
administrative state believes that conferences as per Mitchief can universe and unilaterally override the decisions
of local congregations in duly called business meetings. And Bible faithful Adventists refute this and believe that
if a conference disagrees with a local business meeting vote, then the conference must be invited to present
its case to the next business meeting and let the constituency decide on the matter. Amen.
So there is a clear difference between the administrative state and the culture in our administrative state. And I
understand that may be viewed as um inflammatory language by some, but I’m not using the phrase deep state because
that’s even worse. But in the Adventist administrative state, there is there is
uh the abandonment of any sense of biblical justice or due process and the
pursuit of absolute power over the life of local congregations. Elder Mitchie is
the poster child for kingly power on steroids. The exercise of unrestrained
absolutism by administrators and pastors against individual members. The ignoring
of all principles of biblical justice of sound governance. The ignoring of the provisions, the protections and the
requirements found in the Bible, the spirit of prophecy, the working policy manual, the GC, and the church manual
doesn’t just happen to me. It’s actually endemic across the Adventist world and it is a curse wherever it is found.
It’s endemic. And I’ve traveled around the world enough to know that members around the
world, many are grieving because you’re encouraged when you join the church. You know, we need to build a new roof. You
put your life savings in to build the roof. Um, and next year a pastor comes along, they don’t like you, and
basically they throw you out often with no due process. It happens all the time.
And so why would members support financially the local congregation if
next month or next year the the pastor or the conference can just turf you out and say adios and there is no due
process. And literally in many cases there is no due process.
Worldwide, Adventists members are experiencing pastors and administrators who are lording it over the flock. Who
ignore due process. Who force people out of the church without even specifying their alleged wrongdoing. Who demand
faithful tithes and sacrificial offerings but deny due process. Refuse a fair hearing. You refuse the rights to
speak in one’s defense before an impartial hearing. Who preach heresy. who import teachings from the pits of
hell to our pullpits and our colleges. All cloaked in a false cloak of piety,
secure in the delusion that because we are the remnant church of Bible prophecy, all of our actions are
therefore righteous and just. And that is a delusion. This is causing pain and despair for
Adventists worldwide. Increasingly, faithful members at a local church level
are disillusioned, dismayed, disengaged, and in despair over what is coming upon
our faithful movement. What is happening in Michigan reveals that we need a reformation.
The solution to it is not to go to court. The solution to this is not to divert your tithe. The solution for this
is for us all to get down on our knees and to come closer to our Lord and Savior. And as we come closer to our
Lord and Savior and we more perfectly reflect his character in our lives, members and administrators alike, then
we will come closer one to another. Before Jesus comes again, there will be a revival, as I said earlier today, of
primitive godliness among his people. Before the final visitation of God’s judgments upon the earth, that is,
before the close of probation, there will be among the people of the Lord such a revival of primitive godliness as
has not been witnessed since apostolic times. The spirit and the power of God will be poured out upon his children.
And oh, may that begin today. And may it start with me. May it start in each of our homes. May it start in Elder Elder
Mitch’s home and the homes of the union administrators. And may we all be drawn together in Christian love one for
another. Amen. There is no need for anger in these discussions, but there are principles at
stake that are going to leave our church either as a healthy organism or as a
totalitarian organism. And right now, Village Church is ground zero as we face off against an
authoritarian spirit in our church administrators that is not of Christ.
So what is my advice to the Lake Union leadership? Well, I’d say this. If you agree with
Michigan Conference’s interpretation of the church manual that says that conferences can uh ban elders within
their local churches, you will cause dismay and push back by elders and congregations across the Lake Union and
also worldwide. An official ruling would apply to every conference worldwide.
Multitudes of members are already disillusioned with the general conference and the denomination leaders
after the COVID fiasco. And such a massive and unprecedented power grab
over the responsibilities, the spiritual responsibilities of every congregation to appoint and hold their elders
accountable will only hasten the emotional disengagement, tithe reduction, and young adult membership
losses we are witnessing since the pandemic. It will exacerbate our problems.
If on the other hand, M Lake Union um if you reject the Michigan’s uh
position, if you’re ruling that Michigan Conference has over exceeded their authority in seeking to ban me as a
local elder, then really the entire Michigan Conference executive committee should resign because Pastor Kelly was
forced out because he insisted that if the conference had a problem with one of his elders, they should come and speak
at a business meeting and they wouldn’t do that. and Pastor Kelly was removed.
So, Pastor Kelly was standing up for due process of members worldwide and he was removed for his pains. From the time
Michigan fired Pastor Kelly and banned me in late 2024, Michigan Conference has
set about destroying one of the most vibrant, mission-minded, and fearless congregations in the entire world.
And the spiritual carnage is real. And I’ll tell you today, it is it is like
losing somebody in the family. I walk into the church, there used to be you’d
walk in with a sense of joy and pride because it was a hive of ministry and mission activity and evangelism. And now
it’s like walking into a morg because we as members know that until
this matter is resolved, we’re basically treading water. And if we submit to the conference, we give way and the whole
world church will be worse off. And if we fight against the conference, we’re in permanent purgatory because the
conference ain’t going to back down unless something unless God intervenes. So we’re in a no-win situation other
than among the elders, there is an absolute determination that what happens to us will not be allowed to happen to
other elders worldwide. So please pray for the godly elders of the village church.
What I would recommend to the Lake Union leadership
is to refer the matter back to Michigan Conference. Uh tell them they should respect the
decisions of the village church in July called business meeting. And if they cannot abide by the decisions of the
village church, then they should follow the procedures laid out in pages 41 through 42 of the church manual which
requires the conference to come and present their case at a village church business meeting. And if the conference
doesn’t find satisfaction, then the conference should call a special constituency meeting of the Michigan membership. Why is that the best way to
do it? Because it makes it it places this decision with the members
themselves and not with the administrators. Member administrators are seeking a
jurisdiction over who can be an elder and who can preach and it’s the members who should make that decision, not those
who are seeking the power to make that decision. Our administrators are the servants of the church. They don’t own
the church. They’re not our they do not have a divine right to rule.
So in conclusion, well, there it is. Conclusions.
You can take a picture of that slide if you wish. It was the slide that was seen around
the world. My prayer
is that this matter can be resolved in a God-fearing way so that every elder in
my home conference in Michigan and worldwide can preach faithfully and
fearlessly without fear of cancel culture that is currently being visited
upon the truth speakers within our division by an administrative hierarchy that is increasingly authoritarian,
tolerant of heresy from politically correct preachers. increasingly divorced from biblical
principles of justice and is focused on erasing any voices raised in opposition
to the absolute centralization of power and the disme disempowerment of our members across our division.
So my prayer is our Michigan elders will stand tall and insist they are only accountable to their local congregations
that conferences cannot ban them. And to all elders worldwide, I want to encourage you in this. God has called
you for the hour that we are living in today. In the times in which we live, God is looking for faithful shepherds of
the flock. Elders who are sound in doctrine. Elders who are constant in
compassion. Elders who are forever seeking the lost. Elders who are looking
to bind up the brokenhearted. Elders who are faithful in nurturing the weak.
Elders who are resolute against heresy. and elders who are always pointing our
members not to themselves nor to the structure but to the good shepherd himself. My prayer is that if we are
elders here today or watching online that that will be your calling from the Lord. And my prayer is that in our local
congregations we will elect such individuals to be elders. We need champions of truth in earth’s
darkest hours. that does not compromise on this but insists that our elders must
be able to be true to scripture regardless of what the administrative state demands of them. It’s my prayer
that God will be glorified somehow in this whole situation. It is not nice to be in a battle like this.
No, I didn’t. But some might say I precipitated it, sister. But um I would
say this. You never know when the spotlight’s going to come upon you.
You never know. The spotlight fell upon me in 2022, at
least from the GC and the division perspective. And when you’re in the spotlight, every
aspect of your life is examined. And when the spotlight falls upon you,
you need to know in advance that they’re not going to find any spots in the spotlight.
no stains of sin, no unconfessed sins,
no besetting sins. That when the spotlight falls upon any of us here in Northern New England or wherever we are
watching this message here today, that all they see is the purity of Christ.
So, what is happening to me is just a reminder to us all that we don’t know when the spotlight will fall upon us,
but we can start preparing for that moment today. And that’s a spiritual preparation. And that’s asking God, we
don’t just want to be in Christ. We want Christ to be in us. And that is another phrase for
sanctification. But Christ in us, the hope of glory, changing us day by day, ever more perfectly into his character.
And yes, gaining victory over the sins of our lives. Amen. So when the spotlight falls upon
us there, the world has no excuse to reject what we preach because of an excuse of some impurity in our
character. And the world will use impurity to reject your message as an
excuse. So pray that when the spotlight falls upon you, as one day it may well do,
that what the world sees is Jesus Christ. May we be faithful to our calling in
earth’s last days here in New England. Amen. invite you to bow your heads and we’ll close with prayer.
Dear heavenly father, we thank you for the privilege of living in earth’s last days.
Lord, there were many interesting times in world history, but by some mystery of providence,
you’ve called us to shine for you in what will be Satan’s final attack on
truth. And I’m asking Lord that in each of our lives there be no ranker, there be no
sin, there be no cherishing of sin, there be no besetting sins. I’m asking
Lord that you give us complete victory over sin in order that when the world sees us, they may see what God can do
through a man or woman who is wholly surrendered to him. So, Father, lead us
and guide us in the days ahead. The battles we face within or without will always be there. But I’m asking that you
fight those battles for us and you gain us victory over sin and you gain us
victory over authoritarianism and that people see the body of Christ as a place
where love is the dominant expression with from one member to another. So Lord, we give these matters into your
hands. We pray that your brides will be pure and unsullied when Jesus Christ comes in the clouds of glory. I pray
that through the washing of the water of the word, you will be able to present each one of us to you on that glorious
day as disciples fit for translation. In your heavenly and holy name we pray.
Amen.