Introduction: A Case Study in a Crisis of Authority

In the great drama of God’s remnant people, moments arise that serve as a litmus test of our fidelity. They reveal whether our allegiance lies with the unshakeable Word of God or with the shifting structures of human administration. The recent experience of Dr. Conrad Vine, President of Adventist Frontier Missions, is not merely the story of one man; it is a profound case study in the escalating conflict between God-given liberty of conscience and an encroaching ecclesiastical power that threatens the very foundation of our faith.

His ordeal, which began with a principled stand during the pandemic mandates and culminated in an unbiblical ban from speaking, exposes a critical vulnerability within Adventism: the tendency for church policy and administrative authority to supersede the clear teachings of Scripture and the procedural rights of its members. Dr. Vine’s story is a summons for every Seventh-day Adventist to re-examine our ultimate authority and to stand, as he has, for the truth “in an era of universal deceit.”

Part 1: The Principle Tested – When Policy Contradicts Conscience

The core of this conflict was ignited when the General Conference issued a statement that effectively neutralized the principle of religious liberty concerning vaccine mandates. It declared:

“Therefore, 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.”

As Dr. Vine rightly identified, this single sentence was “weaponized” against faithful Adventist members worldwide, stripping them of their ability to request religious exemptions and forcing them to violate their conscience or lose their livelihoods. This action stood in stark contradiction to the church’s own foundational understanding of religious liberty, as articulated in the General Conference Working Policy Manual, which states that the church was established to promote and maintain religious liberty, “with particular emphasis upon the most intimate freedom, individual liberty of conscience.”

This created a spiritual crisis. The very organization chartered to defend liberty of conscience publicly disavowed its application in a moment of intense personal and global pressure. The issue was never about the merits of a particular medical choice, but about who holds ultimate authority over the believer’s body and soul: God or a committee? Dr. Vine’s decision to address this and other encroaching secular ideologies was not an act of rebellion, but an act of pastoral fidelity—equipping members to stand on biblical truth when the institution would not stand with them.

Part 2: The Consequence of Speaking Truth – Ecclesiastical Cancel Culture

The response to Dr. Vine’s principled preaching was swift and telling. As he courageously addressed the godless ideologies infiltrating our institutions, he was met not with theological engagement, but with what he accurately termed “cancel culture.” This culminated in the Michigan Conference, at the behest of union and General Conference leaders, banning him from speaking in the very pulpits he was called to serve.

This process was a masterclass in the abuse of power, marked by what the Northern New England Conference Executive Committee would later identify as “secret policies, secret votes and secret proceedings.”

• No Due Process: The committee that voted to authorize his ban did not review the sermon in question.
• No Biblical Dialogue: Despite Dr. Vine’s repeated requests for a written explanation of his alleged errors based on Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, none was ever provided.
• Violation of Church Order: The ban was imposed unilaterally by the conference, overriding the authority of the local church board and elders, who are given the “standing right to preach” and manage the pulpit according to the SDA Church Manual.

This is not the method of Christ; it is the method of coercive power. It is the very “highhanded power” Ellen White warned against, which “makes men gods” and “is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 361). When leaders resort to silencing voices rather than engaging them with an open Bible, they betray a fear that their position cannot withstand scriptural scrutiny. They cease to be shepherds and begin to act as dictators.

Part 3: The Unchanging Standard – The Bible and the Bible Only

Dr. Vine’s experience is a powerful illustration of the central theme of this ministry: the danger of substituting human authority for God’s Word. The administrative overreach he faced is a direct parallel to the danger of elevating the 28 Fundamental Beliefs to the status of a creed.

In both cases, a human construct—be it an administrative policy or a doctrinal summary—is used to bypass the ultimate authority of Scripture and the Spirit-led conscience of the believer. The SDA Church Manual outlines a clear process for church governance. The Michigan Conference set it aside. The Bible provides the all-sufficient standard for faith and doctrine. Yet, increasingly, the 28 Fundamentals are used as a man-made test to enforce uniformity, contradicting our pioneers’ wisdom and our church’s official claim to have “the Bible as their only creed.”

As Ellen White so powerfully declared:

“God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils… the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” (The Great Controversy, p. 595).

Dr. Vine’s defense is rooted in this very principle. When challenged on his positions regarding tithe, parachurch organizations, and the remnant, his response was not based on personal opinion but on a direct appeal to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy—the only ground upon which any true Seventh-day Adventist should be expected to stand.

Conclusion: A Call to Uphold the Standard

The vote by the Village Church to reinstate Dr. Conrad Vine to their pulpit was more than a local decision; it was a beacon of hope. It was a declaration that the local body of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, retains its God-given authority and will not be subjugated by unwarranted administrative control. It affirmed that the principles of due process, open dialogue, and biblical accountability matter.

Dr. Vine’s experience is a call to action for every member. We must lovingly but firmly hold our leaders accountable to the standards of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. We must reject the spirit of papal thinking that demands “passive obedience” to leadership and instead embrace our Berean heritage of searching the Scriptures for ourselves.

Let us pray for more leaders with the courage of Conrad Vine. And let us, as members of the body of Christ, resolve to be a church where the cords are not drawn tighter by the commandments of men, but where every shackle is broken by the liberating truth of God’s Word, and we may all “assert their liberty in Christ Jesus” (EGW, R&H, July 23, 1895). The integrity of our final message depends on it.