A new appeal by so-called “progressive” Seventh-day Adventists relative to Ellen White and her influence in the church reveals yet again that too many non-conservative church members simply don’t understand the function of the Biblical gift of prophecy.
The appeal was drafted by a group of twenty professedly Adventist scholars who gathered at one of our American SDA colleges the weekend of October 22, 2023 [1]. Looking at the list of persons identified as endorsers of the appeal [2], it is difficult to find any who could be recognized as publicly supportive of Ellen White’s doctrinal and spiritual authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, whether as defined in Ellen White’s own writings [##3|Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 78; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98-99; Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655-656,655; Colporteur Ministry, p. 126; Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 31,32; Gospel Workers, p. 302.##] or in the church’s Fundamental Beliefs [##4|Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2022 edition, p. 174.##]. (At least two of the appeal’s signers, to the present writer’s knowledge, no longer claim membership in the denomination.)
Claiming that “over the past fifty years, Ellen White has lost much of her influence among us” [5]—particularly in the United States, Australia, and Europe [6]—the appeal claims the church is “deeply divided” between those who think “Ellen White can do no wrong” and those who think “she can do no right” [7]. While not offering any specific suggestions as to how the course at which they hint might be charted, it seems clear the authors of this statement want the church to find some middle posture between wholehearted acceptance of Ellen White’s prophetic authority and the wholehearted spurning of the same.
A Crisis of Their Own Making
The appeal begins with the pronouncement, relative to Ellen White’s role in the church: “Seventh-day Adventists face a crisis” [8]. In view of the makeup of the gathering issuing this statement, one could rightly assume that to a large degree this is a crisis of their own making.
Too many in this group have lent their influence across the decades to the notion that Ellen White’s prophetic gift and positive contributions to the church’s message and mission can be affirmed while simultaneously reserving the right to selectively differ with her admonitions and counsels. (Let’s be clear from the outset, of course, that acknowledging peripheral issues in the inspired text—such as how many of Jacob’s family moved to Egypt (Gen. 46:27; Acts 7:14) or which bell tolled to signal the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre [##9|Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1982), pp. 330-331.##]—is not the focus here.)
This “moderate” view of Ellen White’s prophetic standing represents to a large degree where so-called “progressive” Adventists publicly place themselves relative to her authority in the church. The overt hostility to Ellen White found on critical Internet sites is exceedingly rare even among theologically liberal Adventist academics and other denominational workers, not only because of potentially negative career consequences but because few of their fellow church members find the notion palatable that the Biblically saturated, Christ-focused author of such books as Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ can be credibly written off as a fraudulent charlatan.
But overt hostility is not necessary in order to make the prophetic gift of none effect. All that is required to assure this outcome is to legitimize selective acceptance of a prophet’s instruction. Or, alternatively, to simply ignore it.
Failing to Fact-Check the Critics
The authors of the appeal in question write as follows:
We do not pretend to have all the answers to this crisis. But we know that it is urgent for us to listen anew to Ellen White, using everything we have learned about her humanity, her historical context, her literary sources, and her spiritual development to create a better understanding of her ministry. Whatever her imperfections, we need to acknowledge our profound debt to her in how we live, work, and hope [10].
The biggest problem with the above paragraph, which is perhaps the best summation of its authors’ case for re-imagining Ellen White’s role, is an assumption too often made by those seeking to reduce Ellen White’s prophetic authority. This is the assumption that modern and not-so-modern allegations regarding purported problems in her writings like internal inconsistency, doctrinal error, “outmoded” eschatology, and the occasional uncredited use of sources represent unassailable facts which only the dishonest or the ignorant could possibly deny.
But for any number of reasons that would lead the present article far afield—a number of which have been addressed on this site in the past [##11|Kevin D. Paulson, Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends,” ADvindicate, April 22, 2016; Ellen White and the Shot Door Question,” ADvindicate, May 19, 2016; “Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends,” Part 3, ADvindicate, June 3, 2016; “Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends,” Part 4, ADvindicate, July 14, 2016.##]—each of these alleged “facts” and/or their implications fail to withstand careful scrutiny. Such “facts,” when measured against objective evidence, have proved to be either gross exaggeration (like the uncredited use of sources) or outright falsehood (like the claims of internal contradiction, disagreement with Scripture, or allegations regarding her end-time scenario being outside the realm of possibility in this “enlightened” age).
The Non-Existent Third Option
The authors of the appeal in question persist in pursuing a “third option”—a middle course between the overt discarders of Ellen White’s prophetic gift and those on the opposite side whom they believe have given her authority which they say she never claimed for her prophetic witness. This middle course, hinted at in this appeal and throughout the contemporary witness of Ellen White revisionists, is one which would permit the church to respect Ellen White’s contribution to Adventist thought and history, while reserving the right to differ with her instruction when it collides with scholarly opinion and other perceived spiritual priorities.
But for two insurmountable reasons, this third option is untenable.
First, the Biblical portrait of the prophetic gift doesn’t allow for it. The Bible is clear that God closely superintends the utterances of His prophets—as evidenced in the experience of Nathan and David relative to the building of the temple, in which God corrected Nathan’s misperception of divine counsel within a single day (II Sam. 7:3-4; I Chron. 17:2-3), and in God’s punishment of disobedient prophets shown in the experience of Balaam (Num. 24; 31:8) and that of the unnamed prophet who cursed Jeroboam’s altar, who subsequently disobeyed God’s instruction relative to his homeward journey, and as a result was killed by a lion (I Kings 13:11-32).
Moreover, those in the Bible narrative who disregarded the testimony of prophets (irrespective of their later canonical status or lack thereof) never prospered—spiritually or otherwise—after doing so. Ask King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, not to mention such rulers as Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, Herod Antipas, and Herodias. When prophets perform their instructive role as God’s servants, it is God’s Word they deliver, not their best mortal assessment of a given situation. King Zedekiah, despite his persistent disobedience to the prophetic voice, understood the divine origin of prophetic counsel when he called Jeremiah out of prison and asked, “Is there any word from the Lord?” (Jer. 37:17). (Whatever his eventual course of action, Zedekiah wasn’t interested in Jeremiah’s opinion relative to the situation at hand, but rather, in what God had to say about it.)
Secondly, Ellen White’s own testimony refuses to allow this third option. We can’t profess respect for the prophet without permitting her to define the parameters of her work and what God called her to do. Speaking of the choice of certain ones to accept her instruction selectively, she writes:
Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.
If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human—Sister’s White’s opinion. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition [##12|White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 68.##].
In these letters which I write, in these testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne [##13|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.##].
As you now hold the testimonies, should one be given crossing your track, correcting your errors, would you feel at perfect liberty to accept or reject any part, or the whole? That which you will be least inclined to receive, is the very part most needed. God and Satan never work in co-partnership. The testimonies either bear the signet of God or that of Satan. A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. By their fruit ye shall know them. God has spoken. Who has trembled at His word? [##14|——Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 98.##].
I have my work to do, to meet the misconceptions of those who suppose themselves able to say what is testimony from God and what is human production. If those who have done this work continue in this course, satanic agencies will choose for them.
Those who have helped souls to feel at liberty to specify what is of God in the Testimonies and what are the uninspired words of Sister White, will find that they were helping the devil in his work of deception [##15|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 70.##].
Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God [##16|—— Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 64.##].
Thus, in the light of both the Biblical witness and that of Ellen White’s own writings, it is not possible to view a prophet’s testimony as legitimate while reserving the right at times to differ with that testimony. There is no “third option” here. If a prophet ceases to be faithful to the divine Word, that prophet will experience immediate divine correction (e.g. Nathan) or immediate divine rejection (e.g. Balaam, the prophet who cursed Jeroboam’s altar). If, however, a prophet’s counsel is fully consistent with prior divine revelation, it is the obligation of the faith community and its members to claim the power of divine grace to adhere to that counsel.
Conclusion
This new “appeal” purporting to suggest a new, reduced role for Ellen White in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is thus both Biblically indefensible and at odds with Ellen White’s own witness concerning the prophetic authority God gave her. Rather than calling on the church to reimagine Ellen White’s role, the authors of this statement would do better to consider the extent to which their own influence in the denomination bears significant responsibility for the declining impact of Ellen White’s prophetic testimony which they claim to lament [17].
Most decisive of all, perhaps, has been the impact in the Seventh-day Adventist Church of an unscriptural gospel theology which attaches salvation exclusively to justifying righteousness and holds the earthly believer captive to fallen frailty so far as adherence to God’s written counsel is concerned. So long as this heresy is cherished in certain quarters of the church, the nerve of the moral imperative will forever be disconnected and few will tremble at the Word of the Lord (Ezra 10:3; Isa. 66:2), whatever its source.
REFERENCES
1. “Ellen White for Today: An Appeal,” Spectrum, Nov. 9, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2023/ellen-white-today-appeal
2. Ibid.
3. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 78; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, pp. 98-99; Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 655-656,665; Colporteur Ministry, p. 126; Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 31,32; Gospel Workers, p. 302.
4. Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2022 edition, p. 174.
5. “Ellen White for Today: An Appeal,” Spectrum, Nov. 9, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2023/ellen-white-today-appeal
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1982), pp. 330-331.
10. “Ellen White for Today: An Appeal,” Spectrum, Nov. 9, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2023/ellen-white-today-appeal
11. Kevin D. Paulson, “Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends,” ADvindicate, April 22, 2016 http://advindicate.com/articles/2016/4/22/alleged-ellen-white-contradictions-exploding-the-urban-legends; “Ellen White and the Shut Door Question,” ADvindicate, May 19, 2016 http://advindicate.com/articles/2016/5/19/ellen-white-and-the-shut-door-question; “Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends,” Part 3, ADvindicate, June 3, 2016 http://advindicate.com/articles/2016/6/3/alleged-ellen-white-contradictions-exploding-the-urban-legends; “Alleged Ellen White Contradictions: Exploding the Urban Legends,” Part 4, ADvindicate, July 14, 2016 http://advindicate.com/articles/2016/7/14/alleged-ellen-white-contradictions-exploding-the-urban-legends-part-4-the-daily-the-law-in-galatians-and-gods-love-for-the-disobedient.
12. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 68.
13. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 67.
14. Ibid, p. 98.
15. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 70.
16. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 64.
17. “Ellen White for Today: An Appeal,” Spectrum, Nov. 9, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2023/ellen-white-today-appeal
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan