When Pastors and Physicians Stand Together, Compliance Becomes Possible and God’s Plan Advances.
“When the gospel ministers and the medical missionary workers are not united, there is placed on our churches the worst evil that can be placed there.”
— Manuscript 46, 1904 / Medical Ministry, p. 241
Introduction: A Call to Courageous Unity
There are few things more powerful than pastors and physicians working shoulder to shoulder for the salvation and healing of souls. And yet, in practice, this collaboration is often absent—either due to fear, institutional resistance, or simple indifference.
This article is more than a testimony. It is a practical blueprint—shaped through hardship and perseverance—for those called to unite the medical and gospel work, especially in the face of complex compliance barriers.
This journey began with a conviction shared by both myself and a pastoral partner: the Spirit of Prophecy clearly calls for unity between gospel ministers and medical missionaries. Ellen White wrote that their separation brings “the worst evil” into the church. We could not ignore that warning. For us, failure to unite was not just unfortunate—it was disobedience.
From this conviction, we made the decision to act. We believed true collaboration required more than a shared mission—it required shared space, shared effort, and a willingness to face opposition together. What began as a plan to convert a Sabbath School room into a clinic quickly evolved into a proving ground for our faith, organizational resilience, and commitment to inspired counsel.
To the leaders, pastors, physicians, and administrators reading: The way is not easy, but it is possible. Let me show you how we overcame.
The Warning We Couldn’t Ignore
My pastor partner and I had been praying and laboring over how to truly unite our work. We read the Spirit of Prophecy and were stunned by its force:
“Our medical missionaries ought to be interested in the work of our conferences, and our conference workers ought to be as much interested in the work of our medical missionaries… when the gospel ministers and the medical missionary workers are not united, there is placed on our churches the worst evil.” (MM 241.1)
We took that seriously. Indifference wasn’t neutrality—it was complicity. To ignore this call was, in our eyes, to let a curse fall on our church. So we acted.
The Vision: Sharing Space, Sharing Mission
My pastor partner and I had worked in separate spheres for years. While our efforts were sincere and Spirit-led, we lacked shared space and operational unity. We realized that the absence of overlap meant our interests were not naturally bound together, limiting our ability to labor as one. As we studied the counsel from the Spirit of Prophecy, it became clear: unless we worked together in tangible, daily ways, we were allowing disunity to persist—and with it, the danger of spiritual harm to the church.
Then came a practical idea. The pastor was planting a new church and suggested converting one of the Sabbath School rooms into a small clinic—if I would agree to staff it. This space-sharing concept offered more than convenience. It meant our ministries would intersect daily, in purpose and in proximity. We agreed: this would be our way of stepping into obedience.
This shared space also carried tremendous missional potential. According to the Engel Scale—a conceptual framework that tracks a person’s spiritual journey from total antagonism toward God (-12) to spiritual maturity (+5)—we realized a church-based clinic could walk a person through the first 8 of 17 major steps toward conversion, simply by existing within the church building. People would discover the church, park, walk through its doors, and encounter dedicated Seventh-day Adventists offering competent, compassionate care. Through this process, they would begin to engage both the laws of physiology written into our bodies at creation, and the moral law written in stone by the same Creator.
In fact, we estimated that working just 4 days a week in the church clinic would result in approximately 3,000 visits annually from non-SDA community members. That’s 3,000 positive, repeated exposures to a Seventh-day Adventist church environment, every year, without any additional outreach from the congregation. The clinic was not just a good idea—it was an evangelistic powerhouse.
The Obstacle: A $10 Million Wall
Three months after launching our faith-based, low-acuity clinic within the church, we were informed that a $10 million malpractice insurance policy was required to continue operating. This obligation had been in place all along, but we had not uncovered it during our initial compliance research, nor was it brought to our attention during setup. Now, we were faced with navigating its implications well into the process.
At that time, we held the standard malpractice policy—$1 million per incident and $3 million in total annual coverage. That level of insurance is common for outpatient practices, especially those providing scheduled, low-risk care like ours. Yet we were being told it was not sufficient.
I contacted the General Conference legal department, which confirmed that the $10 million malpractice coverage was necessary for clinics operating on church property if they were not directly owned by the church. They referred me to the North American Division (NAD) legal counsel for further guidance.
It was during this process that I discovered both the GC and NAD were represented by the same legal team. I had been redirected, essentially, to the same people.
The NAD attorneys were clear: any organization not owned by the church, yet operating on church property for any purpose, would be required to carry $10 million in malpractice or liability insurance. This requirement was not limited to medical clinics—it extended to any outside group using church facilities.
This created a significant challenge. We had launched the clinic in good faith and in alignment with the Spirit of Prophecy, only to find ourselves facing a legal and financial barrier that seemed insurmountable.
The Search for the Impossible
Determined to obey the directive that pastors and physicians must work together, I sought to fulfill the requirement. I contacted Adventist Risk Management in Loma Linda, California. A kind and thoughtful woman answered. I explained the situation clearly: I was running a small clinic in a church in northern Washington, seeing about 15 low-acuity patients per day, all scheduled in 30-minute visits, with very few procedures or labs. The practice was low-risk, low-tech, high-touch, and familiar in terms of patient relationships and clinical operations.
She acknowledged that I would indeed need a $10 million malpractice policy to continue practicing within the church. But she had no such policy available. The policies she could offer were structured for large-scale, short-term mega clinics—events that spanned three to four days and handled hundreds or thousands of patients, often with unfamiliar staff performing high-risk procedures. For these large events, she said coverage could be purchased for about $30,000 for three days or $40,000 for four days.
When I asked if that meant $30,000–$40,000 per year, she clarified that those figures were per event—not annually—and reiterated that she had no comparable policy for a small, permanent, low-risk clinic like mine. I pressed further: “So where do I go to get this $10 million policy?” Her reply stunned me. “You’ll have to do what I’d do—ask Dr. Google.”
So I did. I searched online and contacted multiple malpractice providers across the country. One told me the maximum coverage they could offer was $3 million. Another entertained the possibility of $5 million. A third said they could perhaps provide $7 million in unique circumstances—but the agent began to question why such a high amount was needed and eventually ended the call abruptly.
The message was clear: no one in the medical liability industry was offering $10 million in malpractice coverage for small outpatient practices. The requirement had been affirmed by NAD attorneys and Adventist Risk Management, but the coverage simply did not exist in any form accessible to me.
I returned to the pastor and informed him of what I had learned. I would have to close the clinic to remain in compliance. That’s when he asked me to wait—he had an idea.
The Pastor’s “Crazy” Solution
I told my pastor partner we’d need to shut down the clinic.
He paused thoughtfully, then offered a surprising proposal: “What if I deed the portion of the church building you’re using for the clinic to you for one dollar? When you’re no longer using it, you deed it back for the same amount.” In this way, I would legally own the space and could practice medicine independently—thus removing the policy requirement related to church property use.
I was stunned. “You’re crazy,” I said. “The local church might agree, but no conference is going to allow that.” Undeterred, the pastor said, “Let’s ask.” He immediately placed a call to a conference attorney he knew—someone who served on the conference corporation committee.
When the attorney answered, the pastor explained the situation and mentioned his idea of possibly deeding a portion of the church building to us as a solution. The attorney responded professionally and with reserve. Rather than endorsing that idea, he shifted the conversation to explore the legal and mission framework of what we were already doing. He asked thoughtful and specific questions about our clinic’s structure, business model, nonprofit status, and also about the spiritual and health outcomes we were witnessing in the community.
As I shared, the attorney listened intently. The more we talked, the more he expressed genuine enthusiasm—not for the idea of deeding church property as a solution for the insurance requirement, but for the spiritual impact and gospel-centered mission already unfolding through the clinic. He affirmed the significance of the ministry and encouraged us to continue the work.
From a legal standpoint, however, he was measured and thoughtful. He acknowledged that deeding church property was highly unusual and generally not considered an appropriate or viable solution. While he noted that such an arrangement might be technically possible—particularly because our clinic operated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore could preserve the church’s tax-exempt status—he emphasized that it would require careful discussion at the corporate level.
He offered to help present the concept for further consideration, but made it clear that there had to be a better way. At that point, there was no deed, no agreement, and no formal support—just a few creative ideas and an open door to explore what might come next.
“I think there must be a better path forward,” he said thoughtfully, “but it won’t likely be through a deed or property ownership. There has to be a better way.” He asked us not to move forward with any decisions until he had time to research further and speak with a few others.
So, we paused. We waited—and allowed the Spirit to continue working in ways we couldn’t plan or predict.
A Real Breakthrough: A Conference That Cared
A few weeks later, I was contacted by the conference compliance officer, who had been informed of our situation.
He took time to get to know the mission and ministry of the clinic, and asked thoughtful, practical questions about how the clinic operated. We discussed our business structure, clinical systems, tax status, and how the clinic was designed to reduce liability and enhance quality. I explained that we saw only 15 scheduled, low-acuity patients per day—most of whom I already knew—and that we operated with minimal procedures in a calm, high-touch environment.
We also discussed the mission outcomes. I shared that we were seeing non-SDA community members come through the church each month due to the clinic. They received care, experienced the spirit of Christ, and were set up for return visits. The compliance officer acknowledged that the work was indeed bearing spiritual and community fruit.
After reviewing the situation, he stated that our clinic actually posed less legal risk than some other church-affiliated medical ministries the conference had already approved, like the short-term mega-clinics mentioned before. He further clarified that the $10 million malpractice requirement was still a verbal policy, not yet voted or written, which he verified with Adventist Risk Management. This gave him some discretion to be able to work with us.
Together, we finalized two separate documents. The first was a formal lease agreement, printed on conference letterhead, which confirmed that, at this time, I could continue practicing in the church facility using a standard malpractice policy of $1 million per incident and $3 million aggregate—so long as the conference was listed as an additional insured.
The second was a separate letter detailing the compliance concerns raised during the lease review process. This document outlined nine specific issues—including property use, ownership structure, tax issues, risk exposure, and mission alignment. The letter explained how each compliance issue had been identified and how we resolved it as part of our due diligence.
A key point in our conversation was that the $10 million malpractice requirement—though affirmed by both Adventist Risk Management and the NAD legal counsel—was, at that time, still a verbal policy. It had not yet been written, voted, or formally adopted into the policy manuals.
Because it was not yet codified, the conference compliance officer had the flexibility to approve our arrangement under the existing standard malpractice coverage. However, he made it clear that this window of flexibility might close. If the verbal requirement were to become a written and voted policy in the future, he would no longer have the authority to make such exceptions. At that point, our ability to continue operating in the church could be jeopardized unless we could meet the higher insurance requirement, which we had already confirmed was not available in the marketplace.
This added a layer of urgency and clarity: while we were temporarily compliant under current conditions, future changes in denominational policy could dramatically alter our ability to carry out this model. We understood that we were operating on borrowed time—and what we were building needed to serve as a prototype for those who might follow.
The compliance letter that was written concluded with a statement that, to this day, I consider both courageous and deeply spiritual:
“We have done our due diligence… We are here to see the work of God go forward… We come down to this: Do we want to see this happen or not?”
Seven Years Later: Ministry Fruit and Lessons Learned
That clinic operated for seven years inside a Seventh-day Adventist church. During that time, thousands of individuals—mostly non-SDAs—walked through the doors. They entered the building for medical care, but often left with a sense that they had encountered something deeper. Seeds were planted. Faith and health were united. There is fruit in the souls who are now dedicated Seventh-day Adventists who were first connected to the church through the clinic and its outreach. The clinic became a place where the gospel was demonstrated through compassionate service, and where trust in the church was quietly but powerfully built.
And now, in accordance with the agreement made from the beginning, under new pastoral leadership, the space is being transitioned back into a Sabbath School room. The church has grown, and new ministry needs have arisen, requiring that the space be used for its original purpose.
Would I do it again? Without question. But I would do it wiser—planning better, building with stronger structural support, and anticipating compliance hurdles from the beginning. I have learned a thousand ways that ministries like this do not work, and a few really cool ways that they do. The lessons have been costly, but invaluable.
I write this post not out of nostalgia, but as a gift to those pastors, physicians, administrators, and lay people who will come after me. No one should have to learn these lessons the hard way. My hope is that others can take what we’ve learned and build more efficiently, with less resistance, and even greater results—for the glory of God and the fulfillment of our combined mission.
Conclusion: Obedience Still Matters
God is still calling pastors and physicians to work together—not merely as colleagues, but as covenant partners in a divine plan.
The path may be narrow. It will be costly. But obedience is the only safe path forward.
If we do not unite, we risk placing “the worst evil” upon our churches. But if we do unite—through sacrifice, through creativity, through compliance—we unleash the full power of the gospel and the medical ministry working as one.
In conclusion, the big question to answer is, “Do we want to see this happen or not?” Let’s answer boldly: Yes, Lord—we will obey.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.