But He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?’ ” Matthew 12:3–5
David said to Ahimelech, “ ‘Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.’ ” 1 Samuel 21:3
David and his men were passing through Nob, fleeing from King Saul who was seeking to kill him. On the Sabbath, David had left his men and gone alone to Ahimelech for food. The only food available was shewbread that had been blessed as an offering to the Lord. A new set of 12 unleavened loaves had been blessed the day before and placed on the table of shewbread. The old loaves had been given to the priests to eat in a holy place (Leviticus 24:9). This wasn’t a disposal, but a sacred transfer—a part of the priests’ weekly services, and the old loaves, no longer fresh, were actually considered very holy because they had been in God’s presence for a week.
“So, the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the shewbread which had been taken from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.” Verse 6
Ahimelech gave David the old loaves as food for him and his men. Was it wrong for David and his men to eat the shewbread? No. With no other food at hand, it was not wrong. There are foods that, even if you have nothing else to eat, would still be wrong to eat, such as swine’s flesh. But given David’s situation, it was not wrong for him nor his men to eat the old loaves of shewbread.
Controversy Over the Shewbread
There has been a huge controversy in Adventism for over 100 years because of the Minneapolis General Conference in 1888 and what followed for many years after. On one side were Leroy Froom, A. W. Spalding, and L. H. Christian and those who believed that the church recovered over the next few years from that controversy and accepted the 1888 message. Books were written about it—Through Crisis to Victory and Movement of Destiny.
Another group interpreted history completely different. They believe that the 1888 message was not accepted, not then and not today.
The reason for the differences is because many Adventists do not know what the 1888 message really was. It is this confusion about the 1888 message and the different interpretations of history that caused this controversy and fed it for over 100 years.
What Is the 1888 Message?
People who say it was about righteousness by faith would be right. They talked about the law in the book of Galatians and they argued about the ten horns. But what most people today do not comprehend is that one of the most vital parts of the 1888 message dealt with church organization. And if the 1888 message had been accepted, the way the Adventist church is organized and operates would have changed. But few people accepted the message, so nothing changed; in fact, things got worse. Because Mrs. White endorsed the 1888 message and the two young men who presented the doctrine of righteousness by faith, church leadership, who did not fully agree with her endorsement, sent her to Australia, and A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner were rejected. Only at the end of time will we fully understand the damage that this exercise in kingly power, not only the cost for these two young men who were given a special message by God for His people at that time, but also for all those who rejected the message and the messengers as well due to the influence of church leadership.
Reorganization
Mrs. White returned from Australia in 1901. She said there should have been a reorganization. It was at that point that union conferences were created; their purpose was to weaken the power of the general conference so that no one part of the organization held all the power. What’s more, they agreed that the Adventist church organization would follow the guidelines outlined in the New Testament. It was a wonderful new start for the Seventh-day Adventist church. However, just two years later, everything changed.
Babylon?
In 1903, almost every change that had been implemented in 1901 was reversed. They kept the union conferences, but retained the general conference with its kingly power, and this organization is still with us today.
Now, don’t misunderstand. When I say these things, I am not calling the Seventh-day Adventist church Babylon. When Israel decided that they wanted a king like the countries around them, God told Samuel not to feel bad. Remember, Samuel, as the high priest and a prophet of God, stood as the conduit between God Himself and His chosen people. The Hebrews had lived under a visible government that was a theocracy since the days of Moses and Joshua; God spoke to His children through Samuel. When the people decided and cried for a king, they weren’t rejecting Samuel; they were rejecting God. Once God allowed them to have a king, were they still His people? Yes. They were on a road that would end in destruction, but they were still God’s people.
Madison School
God allows us freedom to do things. God allows human beings, church organizations, His people, His leaders to work the best they know how. He allows freedom of choice, but God also has freedom of choice and the freedom to do things in His own work, too.
In 1904, special light was given to Mrs. White concerning the development of a self-supporting, educational institution that was not to be controlled by the conference. It was called the Madison School. In 1906, Ellen White wrote to a conference president and to a southern union committee encouraging them to support the Madison School, near Madison, Tennessee:
“It has been presented to me that before this our people should have provided this school with means, and thus placed it on vantage ground.” The Madison School, 19
Brethren Sutherland and Magan had worked as the leaders of Battle Creek College, and were largely instrumental in Battle Creek College moving to Berrien Springs, Michigan. But once in Berrien Springs, they had so much trouble they gave up and found “a farm of 400 acres for sale, which they thought might be used for school purposes. … The size of the farm, its location, the distance that it is from Nashville, and the moderate sum for which it could be purchased, seemed to point it out as the very place needed for our school work here. The house is old, but it can be used until more suitable buildings can be erected.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 14, 43. And Madison School was born. But Madison School was rejected and ignored.
“The Lord does not set limits about His workers in some lines as men are wont to set. In their work, Brethren Magan and Sutherland have been hindered unnecessarily. Means have been withheld from them because in the organization and management of the Madison School, it was not placed under the control of the conference.
“But the reasons why this school was not owned and controlled by the conference have not been duly considered.
“The lack of interest in this work, by some who should have valued it highly, is decidedly wrong. …
“The Lord does not require that the educational work at Madison shall be changed all about before it can receive the hearty support of our people. The work that has been done there is approved of God, and He forbids that this line of work shall be broken up.” Pamphlet SpTB11 – The Madison School, 31, 32
There were reasons, Mrs. White says, that what would be done at Madison School was not placed under conference control. God forbids that this line of work shall be broken up, and yet our people have tried to break it up over and over again.
“Brethren Sutherland and Magan are as verily set to do the work of the Lord at Madison as other workers are appointed to do their part in the cause of present truth. The light given me is that we should help these brethren and their associates, who have worked beyond their strength, under great disadvantages.” Ibid., 32
So, in 1908, Ellen White sent out a general appeal to all Seventh-day Adventists who had means to help support Madison School and to establish other self-supporting places like Madison all around the country.
“Every possible means should be devised to establish schools of the Madison order in various parts of the South.” Pamphlet PH119 – An Appeal for the Madison School, 2
All of this was a result of the rebellion against the 1888 message and proper New Testament church organization.
“The Lord has instructed me that, from the first, the work in Huntsville and Madison should have received adequate help. But instead of this help being rendered promptly, there has been long delay. And in the matter of the Madison school, there has been a standing off from them because they were not under the ownership and control of some conference.”
“This is a question that should sometimes be considered, but it is not the Lord’s plan that means should be withheld from Madison, because they are not bound to the conference. The attitude which some of our brethren have assumed toward this enterprise shows that it is not wise for every working agency to be under the dictation of conference officers. There are some enterprises under certain conditions, that will produce better results if standing alone.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 8, 202
Finally, Successful
Sadly, in the 1960s, the conference was successful in gaining control of Madison School and immediately shut it down. Concerning the ownership, dictates, and control by the conference, she wrote:
“There are some enterprises under certain conditions, that will produce better results if standing alone. …
“The Lord did not design that this should be. The circumstances were such that the burden bearers in the Madison School could not bind up their work with the conference. I knew their situation, and when many of the leading men in our conferences ignored them, because they did not place their school under conference dictation, I was shown that they would not be helped by making themselves amenable to the conference. They had better remain as led by God, amenable to Him, to work out His plans.” Ibid., 202, 203
Conference Adventists who were supporting Madison School would come to Mrs. White for advice. The conference was saying that all their money should come to the conference, but they wanted to continue supporting Madison. What should they do?
“When my advice was asked in reference to the Madison School, I said, Remain as you are. There is danger in binding every working agency under the dictation of the conference.” Ibid.
That didn’t mean Mrs. White was against the conference; only that the people should follow as the Lord leads them.
A woman came to my brother Marshall and said, “You people are too small to finish the work. We need the machinery of the church organization.” It’s perfectly fine with me for the Adventist Church organization to finish the work any time. I would like for Jesus to come and take us all home to heaven. I’m not against anything that the conference does to spread the three angels’ messages in the world as long as it is following the counsels outlined in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.
But Mrs. White’s statements are plain. Sometimes circumstances are such that the work the Lord designates for a particular group or individual should not be given over to conference control (Ibid., 203).
“The Lord in His providence has brought about the establishment of the Madison School.” Ibid., Vol. 11, 182
“God forbids you to put yokes on the necks of His servants. Brethren Sutherland and Magan have a right to solicit means for the support of the Madison School. This wonderful burden to restrict their work, which some suppose God has bestowed upon them with their official position, has never been laid upon them. If they were standing free on the high platform of truth, they would never accept the responsibility of framing rules and regulations that will hinder and cramp the laborers in their work for this time. When they learn the lesson that ‘All ye are brethren,’ … they will remove the yokes that they are now binding upon them, and will give them credit for love for souls and a desire to labor unselfishly to promote the interests of the cause.” Ibid., Vol. 20, 103
But We Didn’t Learn
This is what the Lord tried to teach us in 1888 and again in 1901.
In the Adventist church as the Lord designed it to be, there were not to be lords and servants. Jesus said all of you are brethren. You only have one Lord. The pastors, the deacons, the elders are not lords over the congregation. If you start walking down that path, you will reach Catholicism. The Adventist church has committees. We don’t look to any one person to be king or have all the authority. We have a committee of people who pray for the Lord to lead and help them make wise decisions. Our church officers are selected by a nominating committee, not one person. And once they are nominated, they must be accepted for those offices by the church at large before they can actually fulfill the office.
Percy T. Magan was the dean for the first ten years at Madison School. During that time, he kept a diary. This is what he wrote on August 8, 1904, when they were first getting started:
“Worked with W. C. White during the forenoon getting article of plans ready regarding incorporating school at Madison.”
We’ve had people come to Steps to Life and say that it shouldn’t be incorporated. But Madison was incorporated.
“In afternoon met Daniells [the general conference president], Prescott, Griggs, Washburn, Baird, W. C. White to consider our plan of organization. Daniells didn’t like it. Prescott thought we weren’t fit to guide the youth [not qualified to have a school].”
“Byron referred unfavorably to our previous work in the South.”
“Griggs wouldn’t lend his influence on account of one study plan. Prescott thought we had too much land. Washburn thought public confession in the Review and Herald would be good.”
“Prescott thought we traveled too much. So did Daniells. Bland thought other teachers would envy our independence and would want to do likewise. We would boss the Southern Union Conference instead of the Southern Union Conference bossing us.”
“Why can’t we loan our money? I told them they only believed testimonies which suited them and their attitude was unfavorable. Interview lasted from 3:00 until 8:30 pm.”
August 9, 1904: “Talked with Mrs. E. G. and W. C. White regarding our plan for organization. She said we were not to go under the domination of the Southern Union Conference and seemed to have no objection to our general plan.”
Do you see the controversy? The difference of opinion?
April 14, 1906: “Washington D. C. Breakfasted with Elder [former general conference president] and Mrs. Erwin. Took car to Tacoma Park and spent afternoon with Daniells. Had a very satisfactory conversation. Told him why our school was independent and that we would have to eat shewbread.”
By “eating shewbread” he meant soliciting God’s people for financial support, for their holy money [shewbread] dedicated to God’s work to keep the school operating. Remember David and the shewbread? Under normal circumstances, David and his men would not have eaten the shewbread from the temple. But they were in dire need of food and it was permitted under those circumstances. These same circumstances existed for Madison School. And Percy Magan stood up to the general conference and stated: Madison School is an independent institution and we are going to have “to eat shewbread.”
May 7, 1907: “Paradise Valley, California. Talked to Sister White regarding attitude of the General Conference toward us. Miss Sara McEnterfer and Lillian present. Told Sister White that the administration held we had no right to petition God’s people for financial support unless the school is owned by the conference.” Mrs. White replied, “You are doing double what they are. Take all the donations you can get. The money belongs to the Lord and not to those men.”
When people send tithe or offering to Steps to Life, I have told our staff many times this is the Lord’s money and we have to use it to do the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way if we want the Lord to bless us. We will be just as accountable as the conference will be in the day of judgment.
“The money belongs to the Lord and not to those men. The position they take is not of God. The Southern Union Conference is not to own or control you. You cannot turn things over to them.”
May 14, 1907: “I [Percy Magan] talked to her [Ellen White] about the general conference position that concerns non-conference owned institutions should have no money. She answered, ‘Fiddlesticks. A pack of fools ought to know better than that. Daniells and those with him have taken a position on this matter that is not of God.’ ”
May 16, 1907: “Met the forenoon with W. C. White. Told him how Elder Evans had sent $300 as a gift from general conference that in reality had held up pledges sent in from Alberta. Told him how I could not trust Daniells. He gave me Sister White’s letters to Daniells regarding us. He told me he did not agree with the administration at Washington in insisting that monies pass through their hands. Told how Daniells and Erwin accused him of softening and holding back the testimonies. Said he would not agree to our going under the conference domination.”
Ellen White wrote, “Some have entertained the idea that because the school at Madison is not owned by a conference organization, those who are in charge of the school should not be permitted to call upon our people for the means that is greatly needed to carry on their work. This idea needs to be corrected. In the distribution of the money that comes into the Lord’s treasury, you are entitled to a portion just as verily as are those connected with other needy enterprises that are carried forward in harmony with the Lord’s instruction.” Spalding and Magan Collection, 411
Then she wrote to some of our administrators, “Do not worry lest some means shall go direct to those who are trying to do missionary work in a quiet and effective way. All the means is not to be handled by one agency or organization. There is much business to be done conscientiously for the cause of God.” Ibid., 421
As the end of this world is drawing ever nearer, we need to greatly expand God’s work—more churches, more institutions.
“To those in our conferences who have felt that they had authority to forbid the gathering of means in a certain territory I now say: This matter has been presented to me again and again. I now bear my testimony in the name of the Lord to those whom it concerns. Wherever you are, withhold your forbiddings. The work of God is not to be thus trammeled. God is being faithfully served by these men whom you have been watching and criticizing. They fear and honor the Lord; they are laborers together with Him. God forbids you to put any yokes on the necks of His servants. It is the privilege of these workers to accept gifts or loans that they may invest them to help in doing an important work that greatly needs to be done. This wonderful burden of responsibility which some suppose God has placed upon them with their official position, has never been laid upon them. If men were standing free on the high platform of truth, they would never accept the responsibility to frame rules and regulations that hinder and cramp God’s chosen laborers in their work for the training of missionaries. When they learn the lesson that ‘All ye are brethren’, and realize that their fellow-workers may know just as well as they how to use in the wisest way the talents and capabilities entrusted to them, they will remove the yokes that are now binding their brethren, and will give them credit for having love for souls and a desire to labor unselfishly to promote the interests of the cause.” Ibid., 422, 423
“When you learn.” That means we haven’t learned, but when we do learn, we will all be brethren. In the church, we do not have lords and servants. The pastors, the elders, the deacons, the deaconesses, any officers are not the lords over the rest of the congregation. Jesus said we are all brethren. The real underlying problem is a lack of understanding regarding New Testament church organization.
“In the past, Brethren Sutherland and Magan have used their tact and ability in raising means for the work in other places.” Ibid., 425
They raised the means so we could get started in Berrien Springs. That’s why we have Andrews University today. It’s possible we might not have Loma Linda University were it not for P. T. Magan.
“They have worked and planned for the good of the cause as a whole. And the time has now come when these faithful workers should receive from their brethren, the Lord’s stewards, the means that they need to carry on successfully the work of the Madison School and the little Madison Sanitarium.” Ibid., 425, 426
“Brethren Sutherland and Magan should be encouraged to solicit means for the support of their work. It is the privilege of these brethren to receive gifts from any of our people whom the Lord impresses to help.” Ibid., 422
Jesus Had a Self-Supporting Ministry
“Now when He [Jesus] came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?’ ” Matthew 21:23
Jesus was a self-supporting minister, often described today with derision as being an independent minister. He was not supported by the temple treasury, nor was He part of what they would call their church organization. In this context, the word independent is a misnomer because no true minister of God is independent. Regardless of whether he is self-supporting or part of a church organization, if he is a true minister of God, he will not be independent of God. He may be independent of man, but not God.
“By what authority are You doing this?” Jesus did not have a diploma from one of the recognized schools of the Jews. His authority did not come from the proper church authorities of the day. It came from Someone much higher—His heavenly Father.
Have we learned the lesson that Jesus tried to teach in Matthew 23 when He said, “you only have one Lord. You are all brethren?” The church that Jesus established was not structured as a hierarchy with different orders of clergy and each order subject to the next order above them. That is the way the Roman Catholic church is organized and that is the way the Jewish church was organized in the time of Christ, but Jesus’ church did not have that type of organization. We only have one Lord, Jesus Christ, and we are all brethren in Him.
Have we learned the lesson?