The Authority of Ellen White in Relation to the Authority of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist Movement

ADVENTISTS AND RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
In 1894, A. T. Jones had argued that the Bible should be studied through the writings of Ellen White. His approach took firm hold of large sectors of Adventism early in the Twentieth Century, even though there were influential voices arguing against it. The first major struggle on this issue in the new century was stimulated by a controversy over the identity of the “daily” of Daniel 8. In that struggle, those who advocated the older interpretation held that the new one would subvert the denomination’s theology, because a statement in Ellen White’s Early Writings supported the traditional Adventist interpretation; to make any change would undermine Mrs. White’s authority.

One spokesman for this group was quite explicit on his view of the relation of her writings to the Bible: “We ought to understand such expressions by the aid of the Spirit of Prophecy [i.e., Ellen White’s writings]. . . . For this purpose the Spirit of Prophecy comes to us. . . . All points are to be solved” in that manner.1

Ellen White disagreed with the argument. She requested that her writings “not be used” to settle the issue. “I entreat of Elders Haskell, Loughborough, Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of ‘the daily.’ . . . I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter.”2

W. C. White also provides us with an interesting insight into the issue of his mother’s relationship to the Bible. “Some of our brethren,” he wrote, “are much surprised and disappointed because Mother does not write something decisive that will settle the question as to what is the ‘daily’ and thus bring an end to the present disagreement. At times I have hoped for this, but as I have seen that God has not seen fit to settle the matter by a revelation thru His messenger, I have come more and more to believe that it was the will of God that a thorough study should be made of the Bible and history, till a clear understanding of the truth was gained.”3

Her refusal to function as an infallible Bible commentator should not have surprised anyone. She had not assumed that role in the past, but had always pointed people to their need to study the Bible for themselves. Never did she take the position that “you must let me tell you what the Bible really means.”

In spite of Ellen White’s clarity on the topic, the battle over the identity of the daily rumbled along for more than two decades. The topic of the daily itself wasn’t all that crucial. The real issue was Ellen White’s authority as a divine commentator on Scripture. Such titles as Have We an Infallible “Spirit of Prophecy”? reflect the sentiments of those who were so concerned with the topic that in 1922 they utilized the issue of Ellen White’s authority to overthrow Arthur G. Daniells, who had been president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists since 1901. 4

The authoritative role of Ellen White was not just a preoccupation with denominational dissidents. Leaders at the center of the church also espoused it. Thus F. M. Wilcox, influential editor of the denomination’s Review and Herald, could claim in 1921 that her writings “constitute a spiritual commentary on the Scriptures.” And in 1946 Wilcox asserted before the General Conference session that Ellen White’s writings were “far above all other commentaries” because they were “inspired commentaries, motivated by the promptings of the Holy Spirit. . . . The one who fails to make this distinction reveals that he has little if any faith in the doctrine of spiritual gifts in their application to the church today.”5

By mid-century the Wilcox position had become by far the dominant one in the church, so much so that the extensive Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1953-1957) had a section for unpublished and out-of-print Ellen White remarks at the end of each volume and a list of references to her published usages of various texts after the discussion of each biblical chapter. That very arrangement led people to see her writings more than ever as an inspired commentary on the Bible. The denomination by and large hadn’t learned much from its history.

Up to her death in 1915 she sounded the same message on the relation of her writings to the Bible. In 1903, for example, she wrote that “little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.”6 In 1911 she noted, “In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation.

The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. . . . The Spirit was not given — nor can it ever be bestowed — to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”7

Others may have drifted from the position of early Adventism on the authority of Ellen White in relation to the Bible, but she appears to have kept on course. And she was not the only one. The denomination’s 1919 Bible conference of church administrators and religion teachers is remarkable for its openness on the topic. C. L. Benson, for example, pointed out disapprovingly that many Adventists put more emphasis on Ellen White’s writings than on the Bible.8 And A. G. Daniells, the denomination’s president, remarked that “we are to get our interpretation from this Book [the Bible], primarily. I think that the Book explains itself, and I think we can understand the Book, fundamentally, through the Book, without resorting to the Testimonies to prove up on it.” W. E. Howell, education director of the General Conference, noted that “the spirit of prophecy says the Bible is its own expositor.” To that comment Daniells responded: “Yes, but I have heard ministers say that the spirit of prophecy is the interpreter of the Bible. I heard it preached at the General Conference some years ago [by A. T. Jones], when it was said that the only way we could understand the Bible was through the writings of the spirit of prophecy.” J. M. Anderson added that “he also said ‘infallible interpreter.’” Daniells responded by observing that that “is not our position, and it is not right that the spirit of prophecy is the only safe interpreter of the Bible. That is a false doctrine, a false view. It will not stand.”

Daniells went on to note correctly that the Adventist pioneers “got their knowledge of the Scriptures as they went along through the Scriptures themselves. It pains me to hear the way some people talk, that the spirit of prophecy led out and gave all the instruction, all the doctrines, to the pioneers. . . . That is not according to the writings themselves. . . . We are told how . . . they searched these scriptures together and studied and prayed over them until they got together on them.” He then expressed his dismay at those Adventists “who will hunt around to find a statement in the Testimonies and spend no time in deep study of the Book.”9

Daniells and his colleagues in 1919 may have had a correct position on the relation of Ellen White’s writings to the Bible, but their timing couldn’t have been more disastrous. The 1920s would see the fundamentalist crisis over biblical authority reach an explosive climax, and Adventism would be drawn into the vortex of a struggle that for them entailed not only biblical issues but also issues related to Ellen White’s authority. Those who spoke openly at the 1919 Bible conference, including the denomination’s leader, would lose their jobs. Meanwhile, the minutes of this very open meeting were purposefully locked up “in a vault,” where they were lost for six decades. The conference was forgotten, along with the position on authority held by Ellen White and the founders of the church.10

The middle decades of the Twentieth Century found Adventists more and more using Ellen White’s writings both to settle biblical issues and to do theology. Few would have openly admitted that they were putting Ellen White’s authority above that of the Bible, but their writings and discussions indicated that all too many Adventists were spending more time with Ellen White than with the Bible. For them she had become the final word on any biblical passage that she had utilized, and a doctrinal authority. A word from Ellen White tended to end discussion. The official position of the denomination may not have changed, but practice certainly had. By the 1960s the new practices had become firmly entrenched, and it appeared to most Adventists that that is how their church had always utilized Ellen White’s authority.

Toward a Healthier Perspective
Those days of historical innocence began to crumble in 1970 when Spectrum (an Adventist publication independent of the church) and a new generation of academically trained historical and biblical scholars began publishing articles on Ellen White, calling for a critical reexamination of her writings. In the next decade and a half nearly every aspect of her work was rigorously examined, including her role in doctrinal formation in early Adventism and the relationship of the authority of her writings to the Bible.11 Between the early 1980s and the late 1990s, the historic pattern of that relationship as outlined earlier in this paper was becoming more well known among significant sectors of the leadership, clergy, and reading laity of the denomination.

Significantly, in 1981 Robert Olson, director of the Ellen G. White Estate,12 faced the problems inherent in the infallible-commentary approach when he wrote that “to give an individual complete interpretive control over the Bible would, in effect, elevate that person above the Bible. It would be a mistake to allow even the apostle Paul to exercise interpretive control over all other Bible writers. In such a case, Paul, and not the whole Bible, would be one’s final authority.”13

Olson went on to note that “Ellen White’s writings are generally homiletical or evangelistic in nature and not strictly exegetical.” In fact, she often accommodated the words of a text to her own homiletical needs. Thus she could derive quite different meanings from the same passage, depending on her purpose. Olson does note correctly that she sometimes interprets texts exegetically, even though she “generally” spoke homiletically.14 But that fact does not imply that she ever claimed to be a divine commentary on Scripture.

In the early Twenty-first Century, mainline Adventism has a healthier understanding of the relationship between Ellen White’s authority and that of the Bible. Its theologians and biblical interpreters have a better grasp of the biblical position and the position of the founders of the church, including Ellen White herself. In practice that means that she is neither a determiner of doctrine nor the final word on the meaning of Scripture. But old habits and ways of thinking die hard for some, even when they know the facts. And there are many mainline Adventists who haven’t even caught up with the facts yet. But when all is said and done, mainline Adventism is light years ahead of where it was in 1980 in its understanding of Ellen White’s authority.

The same cannot be said for sectarian Adventism. The perfectionistic, fundamentalistic sub-denominations within the denomination still largely rely on Ellen White for their theology and have no problem viewing her as an infallible commentary on the Bible. This sector of Adventism has even developed an Ellen White Study Bible that has Ellen White notes and marginal references. Such a Bible would have been totally rejected in early Adventism. Even though the Study Bible is published by an independent group, it is unfortunately marketed by the main denominational publisher.

Sectarian Adventist groups are critical of mainline Adventism for its “betrayal” of the prophet and often consider themselves in one form or another to be the true historic Adventists. Unfortunately, their understanding of history focuses on the period from the 1920s through the 1950s and the approach to Ellen White’s writings set forth by A. T. Jones in the 1890s. They have failed to capture the biblical understanding of the founders of the denomination, including that of Ellen White herself.

The question of religious authority has been a lively concern of Adventism in the past and apparently will continue to be so in the future. Overall, Adventism since the 1880s has done better in theory than in practice in relating the two levels of authority. But the founders, including Ellen White, managed to be consistent in both theory and practice. Those Adventists who understand their history on the topic are in an advantaged position to harmonize the two today. But those who remain innocent of that history will most likely continue the problematic approach of the mid-Twentieth Century, all the while proclaiming that they have it right.

References
1 S. N. Haskell to W. W. Prescott, Nov. 15, 1907.

2 E. G. White, “Our Attitude Toward Doctrinal Controversy,” MS 11, July 31, 1910.

3 W. C. White to P. T. Magan, July 31, 1910.

4 Claude E. Holmes, Have We an Infallible “Spirit of Prophecy”? (n.p.: by the author, 1920); Knight, Search, p. 139. For a helpful treatment of issues surrounding the battle over the daily, see Gilbert Murray Valentine, “William Warren Prescott: Seventhday Adventist Educator.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1982), pp. 389-426.

5 F. M. Wilcox, “The Study of the Bible, Aided by the Writings of the Spirit of Prophecy,” Review and Herald, Feb. 3, 1921, p. 2; F. M. Wilcox, “The Testimony of Jesus,” Review and Herald, June 9, 1946, p. 75.

6 Ellen G. White, “An Open Letter, ” Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903, p. 15.

7 Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 1911 ed. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950), pp. vii-ix.

8 “The Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History,” 1919 Bible Conference Minutes, July 30, p. 39.

9 Ibid., pp. 9-11.

10 Donald E. Mansell, “How the 1919 Bible Conference Transcript Was Found,” unpub. MS, July 6, 1975; [Donald E. Mansell], “Sequence of Materials in the 1919 Bible Conference Transcript and Papers,” unpub. MS, cir. 1975, p. xiii; Molleurus Couperus, “The Bible Conference of 1919,” Spectrum, May 1979, pp. 23-26.

11 For a brief summary of the debates over Ellen White in the late twentieth century, see Knight, Search, pp. 184-188.

12 In her will Ellen White established the Ellen G. White Estate, Inc., to be in charge of her literary estate. Its offices are located in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists world headquarters building in Silver Spring, Maryland.

13 Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White (Washington, DC: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981), p. 41.

14 Ibid., pp. 41-42; George R. Knight, Reading Ellen White: How to Understand and Apply Her Writings (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997). The question of religious authority has been a lively concern of Adventism in the past and apparently will continue to be so in the future.

pp. 19-22 adventist today | vol. 15 issue 6

Click here to read the entire article