Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids, part 2

Previously, we discussed a new project of the Ellen G. White Estate aimed at re-defining the life and work of Ellen White for the youngest generation of Adventists. In the January-March 2008 issue of Ellen White: Visionary for Kids, an article by Kessia Reyne Bennett was published entitled ”My Friend Ellen”. Bennett is an Assistant Evangelism Coordinator for the Oregon Conference and writes of her upbringing in Adventism, particularly regarding the impact Ellen White played in her spiritual life. Writing about the relationship to the Adventist prophetess, Bennett writes: “My friendship with her began about 11 years ago. I was a teenager at the time and had just moved 500 miles to learn more about faith and the Bible and the Adventist message. I was starting at a new school in a new place—and I felt plenty of awkwardness trying to navigate the unfamiliar hallways and social networks. I was always glad when I could spend the weekend with my new friends at Hockinson Heights Church. It was there that I first heard about Ellen, though it was several weeks before I met her personally. And when I did, I thought that she and I would be friends for a long time.”

The reverence shown here for “Ellen” is very similar to the way Christians speak of finding Jesus Christ for the first time, which makes reading the rest of this article particularly troubling. Instead of speaking about Jesus as the revealed Son of God who is able to save and keep his sheep, Bennett places the prophetess in a mediatorial role between herself and Jesus. “Most of the reason that I liked Ellen was that she was a devout Christian. It seemed she had nothing to say that wasn’t about God, and when she talked about Him it was like she really knew Him—and I could sense it. It was inspiring, really. ... The other reason I liked Ellen was that she talked straight. Flattery is annoying, and she never flattered anybody. She was always real and always concerned about what mattered. If you were too caught up in yourself, Ellen would let you know. If you were neglecting what Jesus had asked of you, Ellen would remind you of your responsibility.”

The message for the young children reading this article is clear: make friends with Ellen White so you can be reminded of what Jesus has asked you to do. But wait! Hasn’t Jesus already spoken clearly enough? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that “long ago” God spoke by the prophets, but in “these last days” he speaks to us directly through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2)? Apparently not in the mind of Ms. Bennett and all who would saddle the next generation of Adventists with another voice competing for their attention, ultimately drowning out the voice of the Son who has already spoken with forceful clarity.

Bennett gives us a peek into what results from listening to the competing voices—as she says it, reading Ellen White gave her a “guilt complex”. “It started to drive me crazy! And besides, she was so old-fashioned and a lot of good Christians had never read anything Ellen had written . . . I was friendly on the outside but angry on the inside, hoping I’d never run into her again.” For Bennett, these feelings of guilt did not last long. Now we reach the real heart of Bennett’s message. “But when I heard people talking bad about her, calling her a liar and fake and a cheat, it kind of woke me up. Because I knew that what had bothered me about Ellen White was her truth-telling.”

The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that it can be easily transposed to any number of “prophets” who carry similar messages aimed at inducing guilt, modifying behavior and speaking for God. Consider the dietary and behavioral restrictions placed on Mormons. Should a young Mormon “wake up” to the truth of Joseph Smith’s ministry simply because others are critical of his message?

But there is more to the story here. Bennett seems intent on keeping the kids who are reading her article from thinking critically about Ellen White, long before they reach the age where they may gain the necessary skills to do so. She writes, “...I read up on the criticisms of her ministry and the responses too. Eventually I became convinced that the critics were wrong: Ellen G. White was a faithful messenger of Jesus. Her love for and commitment to Him was so evident on every page, and she never said anything to me that contradicted the Word. I couldn’t hold against her my hardheartedness, I couldn’t hold against her the way other people quoted her, I couldn’t hold against her her faithfulness.”

The message couldn’t be more clear. Ellen White is infallible, never contradicts Scripture, and is absolutely essential to understanding what Jesus wants you to do. Nevermind that the poor children are potentially dead in their sins and enemies of God, needing to be reconciled to the Father through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s beside the point. Instead, the children need to discover their “friend” Ellen, who will tell them exactly how to be “good” boys and girls if they listen well, unless they harden their hearts against her.

For further reading, see Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids, part 1.

Ellen White and Sola Scriptura

One of the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura, a Latin phrase which means, “by Scripture alone”. In the face of the medieval Catholic Church which placed equal weight on Scripture and church tradition–a practice which continues to this day–the Reformers saw the need to strip away the layers of error added to the Bible through the “inspired commentary” of the Pope and the traditions of the church. They argued that the Bible should be its own interpreter, and that if any church body was able to control it by claiming to be its sole infallible interpreter, then God’s Word would effectively be overruled by the traditions and insights of fallible men. Indeed, the Pope is said to be endowed with “situational infallibility” which allows him–a fallible human–to be totally infallible when it comes to matters of biblical interpretation.

It might come as a surprise that some Adventists claim the same role for Ellen White, and the arguments used in support are quite similar. While her claim for infallibility in the Testimonies is not new (see 8MR 18.1), there has been an effort by church leaders over the years to soften the claims made for her ability to comment on Scripture without error. This was particularly evident during the 1950s when cult expert Walter Martin began an investigation into Ellen White’s role in the Adventist church. One of the particular points he questioned church leaders about concerned whether she was an “infallible interpreter of Scripture”, arguing that if she was effectively used this way, she would be functioning no differently than the Pope.

In July of 2006, Adventist theologians from around the world met in Izmir, Turkey for the second International Bible Conference to address topics they considered important for maintaining theological unity within the church (see Adventist Review summary here). One of the speakers, P. Gerard Damsteegt, associate professor of church history at Andrews University, presented a paper entitled, “The Adventist Theologian, the Three Angels’ Messages, and the Unity of the Church”. I’ve obtained a copy of this paper and it offers important clues into the discussions taking place behind closed doors among Adventist theologians. For Adventists who thought their church was moving away from Ellen White’s role as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the conclusions of this document will come as a surprise.

In his paper, Damsteegt labors to reconcile the Reformation principle of sola scriptura with Ellen White’s extra-biblical writings. Under the heading, “The Meaning of the ‘Bible Only’”, he explains in a heavily-footnoted sentence how Ellen White viewed the principle of sola scriptura: “An analysis of Ellen White’s use of the phrase ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ reveals that she contrasts it with human ‘views and ideas,’ erroneous traditions on the Sabbath and the Law of God, opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians, ‘sayings and doings of men,’ ‘human wisdom,’ false visions, views of the churches steeped in popular theology from which the early Adventists separated themselves, the ‘religions of fable and tradition,’ ‘imaginary religion,’ ‘a religion of words and forms,’ and ‘tradition and human theories and maxims’.” Damsteegt follows this by stringing together several additional Ellen White quotes, driving home his main point:

“This expression ‘the Bible only’ she [sic] never used for contrasting her own writings with the Bible. In Ellen White’s mind there was perfect harmony between the Bible and her writings because ‘the Holy Ghost is the author of the Scriptures and the author of the spirit of prophecy.’ Therefore ‘it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word.’” (emphasis mine)

The logic here is simple–if God is the author of Scripture and he also speaks through Ellen White, there cannot be any contradiction between her words and the Bible. While many Adventists have hesitated to make such a sweeping conclusion, Fundamental Belief 18 recognizes Ellen White as “a continuing and authoritative source of truth”, which is essentially the same as Damesteegt’s view, albeit more general in nature.

Where this gets tricky for Adventists is in their desire to refrain from calling Ellen White’s writings an “infallible commentary” on Scripture because they realize this would put her in the same category as the Pope. But Damsteegt apparently has no trouble doing this in the company of his fellow Adventist theologians behind closed doors, and indeed, this seems to be his whole purpose. Having already placed her (using her own definition of sola scriptura) above the opinions of scholars, scientists, theologians and human wisdom, he says, “This unique relationship between the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy has given the latter (Ellen White) a place above all extra-Biblical sources. Consequently in Bible study, the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy hold a superior position over other research tools” (emphasis mine). In a circular way, Damsteegt quotes Ellen White for support: “it is impossible that the teachings of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the word” (Great Controversy, vii), placing her squarely into the role of Scripture’s infallible interpreter. Damsteegt is not concluding aything new here, but is merely reiterating the claims Ellen White made for herself. Driving this point home to his Adventist colleagues, he writes, “Theologians have a serious obligation to see that their influence will preserve the unity of the church by upholding its end-time message and mission.” Translation: we need to be unified as theologians behind the idea that the only acceptable theological insights are those which Ellen White has already blessed.

Damsteegt’s proposal sounds very similar to the “Profession of Faith” in the Tridentine Creed used at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent:

“The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace.  I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held and does hold, whose [office] it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (emphasis mine) Source here.

What’s more, it is no surprise that Catholics use essentially the same argument Adventists do for the Pope’s infallibility in interpreting the Bible as the guardian of the church’s so-called ‘Sacred Tradition’:

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the
apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’ Indeed, ‘the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.’ This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.  For both of them, flowing out from the same divine wellspring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.  It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.” (Code of Canon Law, paragraphs 77-78, 80-81) (emphasis mine)

While both Adventists and Catholics claim the Bible as their infallible rule of faith and practice, both churches ironically look outside the Bible to obtain an infallible interpretation. Rome looks to tradition and the Pope for support while Adventists look to Ellen White. While many Adventists consider such practices out of style or no longer officially promoted, it is clear from Damsteegt’s conclusions that it is very much alive and promoted at the highest levels of the Adventist church today.

Returning again to the work of cult expert Walter Martin, it is important to examine what he said in an interview on the John Ankerberg show in January 1985, when he and then-editor of the Adventist Review, William Johnsson were interviewed. Martin recounted a question he asked then-director of the White Estate, Robert Olson, about whether Ellen White was an infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture. Olson refused to answer directly, saying she was “the authoritative voice” of the church. Upon hearing this, Johnsson said, “I’ll give you my answer. She is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture” “You’re sure of that?”, countered Martin. “I’m sure of it”, said Johnsson. Wanting further clarification, Martin asked, “That is your position or the denomination’s position?” At this point, realizing he was getting into a difficult spot, Johnsson backpedeled, “I think we ought to go to the official Statement of Beliefs”. To support his belief that Adventists were bound by Ellen White for their interpretation of Scripture, Martin cited a June 3, 1971 Review and Herald editorial which concluded, “the Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted”, an obvious reference to the role of Ellen White.

After repeated unsuccessful attempts in the ensuing months to get a straight answer on this issue, Martin concluded, “If Seventh-day Adventism depends upon Ellen White’s reputation rather than upon the gospel of grace alone, its classification as a cult will be well earned before the next twenty years has passed” (Adventist Currents, October 1985).

As Damsteegt’s paper testifies, Adventist theologians continue to effectively characterize Ellen White as an “infallible interpreter” of Scripture. One wonders what Walter Martin would say if he could examine the evidence today, now over 20 years since his 1985 prediction.

One thing is certain, the Bible identifies no need for an external source outside of the Holy Spirit to protect or interpret its message. Jesus said, “the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and the prophet Jeremiah proclaimed, “Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29 ESV). God’s Word cannot be broken from its purpose and it will go wherever it pleases by the power of the Holy Spirit, without requiring an external “infallible” tradition or interpreter. Indeed, the prophet Isaiah says, “...so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11) ESV.

Summarizing this situation in his 1988 assessment of Adventism and the role of Ellen White, Kenneth Samples, a Christian apologist and close associate of Walter Martin, wrote, “Unfortunately, many Adventists see the writings of Ellen White as an infallible shortcut to scriptural understanding. Adventists must understand that if they elevate Ellen White to the position of infallible interpreter, then the dramatic irony of the ages has come true – SDA has a Pope.” To the degree that Adventist theologians continue to promote such a view among themselves and the church body believes them, I cannot find grounds to disagree. Just as Catholics must free themselves from the rule of tradition if they are to stand upon the solid ground of sola scriptura, Adventists must contend with the weight of Ellen White’s legacy and continued promotion by church leaders who know the price of “Scripture alone” but are unwilling to pay it.

The Gift of Prophecy Revisited

In a just-published Spectrum article, Trevor Lloyd reports on a recent Australia (Sydney) Adventist Forum meeting featuring Graeme Bradford and Arthur Patrick on the mounting challenges to Ellen White’s prophetic authority.  Bradford has authored several books on Ellen White, most notably, More Than a Prophet.

At the meeting, Bradford recounted a conversation with a former Adventist pastor who said that the current situation is “a battle for the very soul of Adventism”, particularly since “there are still folk in North America who would fight to the death to defend an infallible Ellen White”.  In response, Bradford warned, “if we don’t tell our people the truth about how Ellen White performed her ministry then our opponents will do so–and in a negative and destructive way–and this is already happening.”

Further, Lloyd reports about Arthur Patrick’s attendance at the long-forgotten 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop.  Following the meeting, Patrick returned to Australia, where “one of his superiors in church administration instructed him to keep for his own records reports he had written of the workshop and not to share either the 941 pages of documents given to attendees or the sound recordings of workshop discussions.”

Given the suppressed 1919 Bible Conference transcripts and the now-confirmed suppressed findings of the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop, Lloyd rightly concludes, “[The Adventist church] can either accept, examine, and interpret the evidence that has come to light, or it can revert to its former blinkered stance.”

Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids

As part of its ongoing campaign to make Ellen White’s writings more accessible to Adventist church members, the White Estate has created a new publication – Ellen White: Visionary for Kids.  Written in a webzine style with numerous pictures of Ellen White and other Adventist heroes from the past, this publication is designed to make the prophet’s writings more accessible to young Adventists who previously would have been unable to read them.  According to the White Estate website, the publication fills the need to “enhance [children’s] spiritual walk with Jesus”.  In the first issue, a carefully-cultivated picture of Ellen White is presented, often written from a child’s perspective.  For example, in a section entitled “Did You Know?”, a story of Ellen White’s experience in Australia is recounted, framing her ministry as being at the center of Satan’s attacks: “[At] Australia’s first camp meeting in 1894 the devil was angry and determined to interfere with Mrs. White’s powerful preaching. I think Satan was especially angry about her subjects: Jesus, The Ten Commandments, Sabbathkeeping, The Second Coming of Christ, and The Signs of the Times.” Also included are “Ellen’s Top Ten Mission Tips”, an Ellen White crossword puzzle, and an Adventist pioneer word scramble, complete with kid-friendly colorized pictures.  Also featured is an editorial piece by 16-year old author Evan Knott, who disparages the lack of knowledge among his peers for Ellen White’s work, reminding them of her place in the Adventist fundamental beliefs.  “Far too often people don’t pay attention to the conclusion their church has reached about Ellen White. Others are sometimes confused and conclude that what Ellen White wrote goes against the Bible because of what they have heard their friends say.” Drawing parallels with Jeremiah and Noah, Knott exhorts his young readers to pay attention to Mrs. White: “As we come closer and closer to the end of this world we are becoming more asleep to the prophet of our time, and many of us will be caught off guard.” Certainly at the age of 16 and perhaps knowing nothing but Adventism, the author can be excused for equating preparedness for the second coming with reading Ellen White’s writings.  But the adults who edited this material should know better.  Where is the gospel in this publication?  Where is “Christ and Him crucified?” Instead of teaching children about Jesus from the Bible, the kids are given an additional source to consider, implying that knowing Ellen White is the key to knowing Jesus and in the process, his true identity is further obscured.

For further reading, see Re-inventing Ellen White for Kids, part 2.