In the previous three parts of this series, we examined SDARM’s position on making vegetarianism a test of fellowship from biblical, prophetic, and historical angles. We saw that the Scriptural arguments used to support this test do not provide a plain “Thus saith the Lord,” and that Ellen White consistently counselled against turning dietary issues into tests of membership – even while vigorously promoting health reform.
But what we have not yet examined is how the SDARM position impacts its mission. Does the principle of temperance, which lies at the heart of SDARM’s requirement, validate making vegetarianism a test of fellowship? And what do we do in situations where an individual’s physiological needs or their surrounding conditions make the eating of flesh a necessity? Ellen White herself recognised this distinction. In 1895 she wrote:
“I would not take the position that meat be wholly discarded by everyone, for instance, by those dying of consumption.”
10LtMs, Lt 76, 1895, par. 19
In other words, she understood that under certain extenuating circumstances some individuals would require animal food. She later added in 1909:
“We are to be brought into connection with the masses. Should health reform in its most extreme form be taught to those whose circumstances forbid its adoption, more harm than good would be done.”
9T 163.1
This is a deeply practical, missional approach to this question, and one that places the needs and circumstances of the individual above the general enforcement of an ideal standard of the church.
For this reason, when establishing tests of fellowship, we need to consider – is it better for the church to articulate broad Scriptural principles or to define in detail how those principles must be applied to items of diet? Has the church fully considered how its practice here impacts its mission?
We must also acknowledge that critique without constructive alternatives is incomplete. If vegetarianism should not serve as a barrier to baptism, what should stand in its place? How can we preserve a united witness for health reform without imposing requirements that Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy do not authorise?
The Cumulative Case: Why This Test Cannot Stand
As we approach this concluding article, it is worth pausing to consider the cumulative weight of the evidence we have gathered across this series. Each piece builds upon the others to form an interconnected case for reflection.
First, the biblical foundation is lacking. In Part 1, we examined the Scriptural arguments used to support vegetarianism as a test of fellowship. The biblical passages cited by SDARM – whether Isaiah 22:12-14, the Day of Atonement typology, or appeals to church authority to “bind and loose” – simply do not provide the clear scriptural mandate we need. As we noted – the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura requires that membership tests rest on clear biblical warrant. This one does not.
Second, Ellen White’s writings have been misapplied. In Part 2, we examined the Spirit of Prophecy statements used to support this test. What emerged was troubling: statements addressing institutional dietary policies have been extracted from their contexts and repurposed as evidence for church fellowship requirements. Ellen White herself warned against precisely this practice:
“In using the testimonies to bolster up some subject which may impress the mind of the author, the extracts may give a different impression than that which they would were they read in their original connection.”
25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 6
When she wrote that “it will eventually come to this” regarding doing away with meat-eating, she was addressing institutional workers at a health facility – “all who are connected with our institutions” – not establishing a church-wide membership requirement. The counsel was for them to “use less and less meat, until it is not used at all” in their institutional menu planning.
Third, Ellen White explicitly counselled against making diet a test. In Part 3, we traced the historical context of the Anti-Meat Pledge controversy of 1908-1911. When Dr. Kress proposed a pledge framing dietary choices as compliance “with the revealed will of the Lord,” Ellen White’s response was decisive:
“We are not to make the use of flesh meat a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have over others.”
4LtMs, Ms 37, 1909, par. 24
And again in 1911:
“I am not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question with our people… when it comes to making this a test question, I dare not place it before our people in that positive way.”
25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 7
Fourth, Ellen White’s writings themselves should not be made a test of fellowship. This point deserves particular attention, because it creates a logical paradox for the SDARM position. As we examined in our article on whether belief in Ellen White should be made a test of fellowship, she repeatedly counselled against this very practice:
“Such should not be deprived of the benefits and privileges of the church, if their Christian course is otherwise correct, and they have formed a good Christian character.”
1T 327.3
If belief in Ellen White’s prophetic gift should not be made a test of fellowship – and she said explicitly that it should not – then how can specific applications of her counsel serve as such tests? The majority of the SDARM evidence for making vegetarianism a test comes not from Scripture (which lacks the clear mandate) but from the Testimonies. Yet Ellen White herself cautioned how to use her writings with regards to health reform:
“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. Great care should be exercised by all believers to advance these questions carefully, and always stop when you have said enough. Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God.”
6LtMs, Lt 12, 1890, par. 50
If the Scriptures do not establish vegetarianism as a test of fellowship, and Ellen White’s writings are meant to confirm and apply Scripture rather than create new tests, then we have built this requirement on a foundation that cannot bear scrutiny.
Fifth, baptism is an ordinance that should be approached with urgency. The New Testament presents baptism as the appropriate immediate response to genuine conversion. The Ethiopian eunuch asked, “What hinders me from being baptised?” and Philip baptised him at once (Acts 8:36-38). The Philippian jailer and his household were baptised “the same hour of the night” (Acts 16:33). Three thousand were baptised on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41).
When we establish baptismal requirements that extend beyond clear biblical tests, we create barriers that God has not authorised. This raises an important question: how can such a test harmonise with the urgent, Spirit-driven work of the fourth angel, when -under the latter rain – souls will be gathered as rapidly and powerfully as they were under the early rain? Dietary change of the kind required by this test can take months or even years for individuals to fully embrace. Why should such a process delay the baptism of genuinely converted souls? As Ellen White counselled regarding those who struggled with her visions:
“Such must not be set aside, but long patience and brotherly love should be exercised toward them until they find their position and become established for or against.”
1T 328.1
If this patience was appropriate for those uncertain about her prophetic gift itself, how much more should it apply to matters of diet – which she explicitly said should not be made a test?
When we gather these threads together – the lack of biblical foundation, the misapplication of Spirit of Prophecy statements, the explicit counsel against making diet a test, the principle that Ellen White’s writings themselves should not be made tests, the urgency of baptism, and the call to examine our positions – the cumulative case becomes overwhelming. Making vegetarianism a test of fellowship simply cannot be sustained.
So if this is not the standard Scripture calls us to enforce, what should take its place? This is the question we turn to next.
Temperance: The Principle Behind the Practice
SDARM’s Principle of Faith on making vegetarianism a test of fellowship is based on the biblical principle of temperance. The Apostle John summarises:
“I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health…”
3 John 1:2
Altogether, the biblical case for self-control and responsible care of the body is unmistakably strong.
The question, however, is not whether temperance matters – it clearly does. The real issue is whether SDARM’s application of the temperance principle has moved beyond the boundaries of Scripture in a way that ultimately hinders, rather than advances, the church’s mission. With this in mind, let us revisit some key elements of this test and its impact on the church’s gospel mission.
It narrows health reform to an itemised checklist.
As we’ve observed earlier in this series, human nature tends to view tests as the maximum rather than the minimum requirement. When we establish a test that isolates specific articles of diet, most people inevitably focus on the defined items of food at the expense of a broader, more wholistic approach. For many, the test becomes the destination rather than a step on the journey. This is a problem when we consider that health reform is much greater than becoming vegetarian or abstaining from coffee, smoking, or alcohol. The result? New members may meet the technical requirement while neglecting the deeper transformation health reform is meant to produce – and the church’s witness to comprehensive wellbeing is diminished.
It creates an inconsistency that undermines credibility
Our Principle of Faith places coffee and tea in the same category as tobacco and flesh foods – without distinguishing between substances that are inherently harmful, such as narcotics, and items like flesh foods, which Scripture does not categorise in the same way. Yet many SDARM members regularly consume coffee or energy drinks while remaining in good standing, even though the Spirit of Prophecy classifies coffee with alcohol and narcotics in terms of its harmful effects.
Ellen White herself drew this distinction in her 1881 letter on the proper use of the testimonies on health reform:
“Tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol we must present as sinful indulgences. We cannot place on the same ground meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and such articles placed upon the table. These are not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work.”
Ms 5, 1881
If we enforce the flesh-food standard rigorously while overlooking caffeine consumption, the result appears selective rather than truly principled. A church genuinely committed to temperance would surely address the whole spectrum of harmful items – not just the issues emphasised historically. To the watching world – and to prospective members – this inconsistency raises questions about our integrity and the coherence of our message.
It fails to address the health challenges people actually face today
In our modern age, we are confronted with issues not encountered by our forefathers. For example, the modern era of mass farming and industrial food production has introduced new dangers – ultra-processed foods, pesticide residues, and other factors that earlier generations simply did not encounter. At the turn of the century, few could have predicted how inundated the Western world would become with ultra-processed foods. Today, such foods are among the leading contributors to lifestyle-related diseases. According to a recent article, Australia now consumes ultra-processed foods to alarming levels – nearly half the average diet.
Given the mounting evidence of harm from ultra-processed foods, one might ask: should the church now view UPFs with the same moral seriousness – and regulated according to the same temperance-based reasoning – as the meat question? This reveals the difficulty of elevating specific dietary items to tests while ignoring threats that, in many cases, may be more pervasive and harmful. A church fixated on a test established 100 years ago may find itself irrelevant to the actual health crises facing its members and the communities it seeks to reach.
The deeper issue
If our aim is not to diminish the principle of temperance but to elevate it – then we must lift it out from under the weight of tradition and narrow application. There is a deeper issue to be addressed here: why do we feel the need to describe a broad biblical principle into a tightly articulated checklist? Temperance is a principle, not merely a list. The biblical call to temperance encompasses far more than avoiding certain foods and substances. It includes moderation in eating (even of “healthy” foods), adequate rest, regular exercise, management of stress, and care for mental health. Many lifestyle-related diseases plaguing modern society – including those affecting church members – stem from factors like sleep deprivation, sedentary living, and habitual overeating rather than occasional meat consumption.
Rules, Policies, and Education: A Better Framework
If SDARM were to remove vegetarianism as a test of fellowship, some worry the church will follow the path of the SDA Church, where practices range from strict plant-based living among dedicated members and pastors to an almost “eat whatever you like” culture in many congregations. Will our members start bringing steak to potlucks? Will churches need two ovens – one for chicken dishes and another for vegetarian meals? Or will everything simply be warmed together in the same oven or pots? These concerns are understandable, and they deserve thoughtful answers.
The distinction between institutional standards and individual membership requirements is crucial. We can and should have high standards and rules for how we function corporately without imposing those same standards as entrance requirements for individual members. Following is a simple – 3 point framework suggested as a way forward based on our research so far:
Suggested framework and pathway forward
1. Firm, consistent standards for those in ministry and institutional employment.
Those who represent the church in official capacities should be examples in health reform. This isn’t a test of fellowship – it’s a qualification for service. Just as Paul required elders to meet certain standards – including temperance (Titus 1:8), the church may appropriately expect those in leadership to model the health reform principles we teach. Unlike the practice common in the SDA Church, this expectation would be non-negotiable – especially for those supported by tithe. Ellen White offered clear counsel on this point:
“While we do not make the use of flesh meat a test, while we do not want to force any one to give up its use, yet it is our duty to request that no minister of the Conference shall make light of or oppose the message of reform on this point.”
17LtMs, Lt 48, 1902, par. 24
And later in 1909, she wrote:
“We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have over others.”
9T 159.3
2. A global vegan food policy for all church-organised communal meals.
Sabbath lunches, camp meetings, conferences, and other church-sponsored events should consistently serve only plant-based food. This demonstrates institutional commitment to dietary reform without turning articles of diet into a membership requirement. The church makes a statement about its values through what it serves collectively – always aiming higher, not through what it legislates individually, while neglecting further aspects of health reform.
Currently, we lack consistency even on this point. Some churches serve strictly vegan food; others serve lacto-ovo vegetarian dishes without much concern. This raises an important question: how can we maintain institutional consistency on this front? Perhaps it is time to address that gap before insisting on individual compliance.
3. Local pastoral discretion in evaluating baptismal candidates.
The local church, with its ministers, elders and Bible workers who know individual souls, is best positioned to assess readiness for baptism. This is where questions of genuine conversion, understanding of truth – including on principles of health reform, and evidence of transformation can be evaluated with wisdom and compassion – not through a rigid checklist.
What might this look like practically? Consider the following that distinguishes between different stages of church involvement:
At Baptism:
- The candidate should understand and accept the principle of health reform — that the body is God’s temple, that temperance is a Christian duty, and that God has given light on healthful living.
- The candidate should have abandoned clearly harmful substances such as tobacco, alcohol, and narcotics (including caffeine).
- The candidate should understand that the church teaches veganism as God’s ideal diet and be willing to study and progress toward that goal.
- The candidate should not be in active opposition to health reform principles.
For Church Office:
- Those holding teaching or leadership positions (elders, deacons, Sabbath School teachers, etc.) should be examples in health reform, including vegetarianism.
- This follows the biblical principle that leaders must meet higher standards (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and Ellen White’s counsel about the “influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have over others” (9T 159.3).
- Office-holding is not a right but a responsibility entrusted to those who model the principles of health reform.
For Ministry:
- Those supported by tithe and representing the church in official ministry capacities must be fully committed to health reform principles, including a plant-based diet.
- Ellen White was explicit: “It is our duty to request that no minister of the Conference shall make light of or oppose the message of reform on this point” (17LtMs, Lt 48, 1902, par. 24).
- This is non-negotiable – not as a test of fellowship, but as a qualification for service.
This framework creates meaningful expectations without making vegetarianism a barrier to baptism. It acknowledges that growth takes time while ensuring that those in positions of influence model the ideals we teach.
But further questions have been asked in our discussions on this point that require consideration. These are precisely the kinds of “bearings” Ellen White said needed consideration when she wrote this question “should be considered in all its bearings” (25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911).
Some valid questions
What happens after baptism for those who aren’t yet vegetarian?
This question speaks directly to the nature of discipleship. Baptism is not a graduation into spiritual maturity but an early step in the journey – a public commitment that begins a life of ongoing learning. Instruction, growth, and refinement continue after baptism as part of becoming a disciple of Christ.
In the early church, when the power of God attended the gospel with great force, many were baptised immediately upon accepting the core truths of salvation. They did not first complete months of instruction or demonstrate long-term lifestyle reform. The Ethiopian eunuch is a clear example: he was baptised moments after understanding the gospel. If we were in Philip’s place, some might ask, “How can we be sure he is truly converted? Shouldn’t we observe him for at least six months? What if he falls away and influences others negatively?” Yet notice how Ellen White describes the scene:
“When the Ethiopian asked, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip did not wait to see how he would hold on to the faith. He said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” [Verses 36-38.]
24LtMs, Ms 13, 1909, par. 4
While the principle of temperance should be understood and embraced before baptism, its full application in daily life can unfold afterward. Ongoing pastoral care and instruction are essential for every newly baptised believer. As disciples grow in Christ, the practical outworking of health reform – as outlined in the Spirit of Prophecy – can be taught, encouraged, and progressively integrated into their habits, diet, and lifestyle.
Should there be a timeline or progression? What happens if someone never adopts vegetarianism?
As already noted, there should indeed be ongoing education and progress in the Christian life. Growth is expected, and without periodic pastoral evaluation, some may stagnate. But what should happen when diligent pastoral care and discipleship have been faithfully provided, yet a member still does not adopt a vegetarian diet?
First, we must remember what we have already acknowledged. Ellen White recognised a practical reality – that “circumstances forbid” the adoption of strict dietary reform for some individuals (9T 163.1). A new believer in a remote mission field, someone with genuine medical issues, or a person emerging from a difficult or unstable background may require more time, more support, and in some cases may be legitimately exempt from expectations that others can reasonably meet.
However, a member who – after years of instruction, opportunity, and encouragement – remains in persistent, deliberate resistance to the light God has given on healthful living raises serious questions about their spiritual condition. Ellen White was clear on this point:
“Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God’s people to walk no more with them.”
CD 382
Notably, she does not say the church would expel them; rather, they would separate themselves. Those who consistently reject advancing light often drift away from the body that upholds that light. This is a spiritual reality that operates independently of formal church discipline.
Even in cases where church discipline might seem warranted, Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy repeatedly call us to patience, gentleness, and careful labour for souls. Ellen White described how they approached members who still struggled with tobacco:
“Some have taken a position that those who use tobacco should be dealt with and turned out of the church. In all of our experience for many years not a case of this kind has thus been treated by us. We have borne with them and labored with and prayed with them for years, and if after a time they did not reform they became lax in other things, and causes of a grievous character occurred which required an action on the part of the church.”
3LtMs, Ms 1, 1880
This pattern reveals a balanced, compassionate approach: patient labour first, discipline only when broader spiritual problems emerge – not simply because dietary reform is incomplete.
Conclusion: High Standards, Right Categories
The proposal is simple. Nothing in this series diminishes the importance of health reform. A plant-based diet remains God’s ideal for His people. The counsels given through Ellen White are as relevant today as ever. But we must place our standards in the right categories.
Some standards are entrance requirements – the gospel core, faith in Christ, repentance, the Sabbath, the commandments of God, the Third Angel’s message, encompassing the judgment, the second coming and the state of the dead – and even general principles of temperance.
Other aspects of these same standards are growth goals – the progressive sanctification that continues throughout the Christian life. The ongoing incremental application of health reform principles belongs primarily in this category. We teach it, model it, advocate for it, and maintain it institutionally. But we shouldn’t make vegetarianism a barrier to those who are turning to Christ.
Still other standards are qualifications for service – the higher expectations we appropriately place on those who represent the church in ministry, leadership or official roles. Here, a plant-based diet and reform principles have a proper place.
The apostolic council of Acts 15 got this distinction right. They refused to burden new converts with requirements that lacked clear scriptural foundation, while maintaining the moral standards that Scripture plainly taught. They exercised pastoral wisdom in their application of principles to specific situations. And they prioritised the mission of reaching souls over the comfort of maintaining traditions.
May we have the same wisdom. May we maintain our distinctive health witness while building on foundations that are Biblical. And may we never forget that the goal of all our standards is to prepare a people for the coming of Christ – meeting sincere seekers where they are and leading them to where God wants them to be.