8 March 2001 Guest Editorial:
"Search For Identity" Book
Reinforces Doubt

Larry L. Lyons

A review of George Knight's new book titled, A Search For Identity, the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, appeared in the Feb. 22 "Anchor Points" edition of the Adventist Review. Written by Lyndon K. McDowell, the article describes the issues and conflicts that occurred as the Adventist pioneers worked out the body of beliefs that distinguish us as a people.

Bear in mind that when a historian writes a book about Adventist history, he is not doing so simply to rehash what happened in the past. The purpose in writing it, we can fairly assume, is to lead the reader to form opinions, to think and believe in particular ways. Otherwise, why write the book?

Although the article is ostensibly a book review, certain ideas, both explicit and implicit, are put forward. It seems that both the reviewer and Knight wish the reader to think in certain ways; that is the nature of propaganda. I do not use the term "propaganda" in a negative sense, necessarily. Communication that is intended to persuade is by definition, propaganda.

The question I ask myself is this: What does the writer of this article want me to believe? How does he want me to think? The first thing one sees is a large box in the middle of the page asking the question, "How did the misuse of Ellen White's writings come about?"

There is, in the field of persuasive communication, a technique whereby a question is asked that may or may not be true, but to discuss the matter, one is asked to stipulate the truth of the statement. The speaker has then won his point without having to prove it. This is somewhat like the fallacy in the field of logic called "begging the question."

The first idea that is expressed is that there is misuse of Ellen White's writings. Intelligent propagandists know that the mind, on a deep level, processes things in a concrete, literal way. It tends to see things in black and white. The average reader does not take time to weigh and analyze what he reads. The mind accepts phrases and buzz words that may affect one's belief system with little awareness on his part that such is happening. That is what advertising is all about.

When ideas are presented in the Review, they can have a greater impact on readers than if they were presented elsewhere. Many readers ascribe to the Review an authority, as if it were speaking in some kind of official way, the current thinking of church leaders and scholars. It is something like what happens when a person goes to a doctor, or a professional counselor. The doctor or counselor automatically has a kind of magnified influence by nature of his position and role.

Knight is quoted as stating that "early Adventists rejected tradition, church authority, and even the gifts of the Spirit in their doctrinal formation. The issues of 'legalism vs. the free and full salvation through Jesus Christ; and the use of abrasive debating tactics; seeking to preserve and protect theological insights rather than progress in Biblical understanding; and giving Ellen White's writings a larger role than she wanted, were troubling trends."

The writer of the article first lists things that were rejected by the pioneers; the bad things. The writer contrasts law and grace, leading me to take my stand on the side of full and free salvation through Jesus Christ. But I have to ask if there is an implication here to de-emphasise obedience. It was pointed out by a prominent Adventist Bible scholar in 1998, that over the previous three or so years there had been no Review articles having to do with anything the Bible says about obedience to the Ten Commandments.¹

Of course we understand that the article at hand is just a book review, and the statements have to do with what is in the book and what the reviewer thinks about the book. Yet there are also below-the-surface messages that the mind of the reader will not fail to take in.

"Seeking to preserve theological insights rather than progress in Biblical understanding," The writer wants me to beware of hanging on to theological insights, and wants me to progress in Biblical understanding. But which theological insights should I let go, and what new Biblical understanding should I accept? I have heard words similar to these coming from those who wish to redefine Adventism, to promote an agenda including women's ordination, the liberalizing of divorce and remarriage, and a way of interpreting scripture that is more consistant with the methods used in other denominations. The phrase "trajectory of truth" as applied to Bible interpretation comes to mind.

The review and Knight's book appear to deal with "giving Ellen White's writings a larger role than she wished." The message is being carried to our minds that Ellen White's writings can have too much influence. In other words, the spirit of prophecy, the testimony of Jesus, shouldn't have too large a role.

"Jones later became the first leader to use Ellen White's writings as 'proof-texts.'" Of course we know that "proof-texting" is anathema to theologians and Bible scholars; we mustn't use a message here and there to prove a point. But could Knight's book be intended to lead its reader to think that perhaps one shouldn't use her writings at all?

The writer goes on to say that Ellen White "set a consistant course insisting that the Scriptures are the sole arbiters of truth." But does this imply that there is a conflict between the principal of "sola scriptura" in formulating doctrine and the use of Ellen White's writings?

There are two or three paragraphs in the article that mention some of the arguments that various factions have had over the years about the proper use of Ellen Whites writings. The point is made is that there were some Adventist leaders who used her writings incorrectly. There were arguments about whether her writings were "inerrant. This is the issue that the writer of the article--and presumably of the book--are leading up to.

"Those who study with an open mind her part in the early history of the church cannot doubt her claim as a 'messenger of the Lord'. Frequently she awakened early in the morning to write urgent counsel to meet crisis situations. Failure to heed her counsel led to losses, for God directed her.' Here the writer is placing value on her work because it met specific problems that occurred in the early days of the church.

In closing, the writer states his true position. "I have found her writings an unrivaled source of spiritual encouragement, but the book reinforces my opinion that they do not provide a detailed and inerrant revelation of history, science, or even doctrine. Those who wish to use them as such will sooner or later be disappointed." So the writer is saying that we should not accept what Ellen White wrote about history, science, and doctrine, because it is not "inerrant". That is, it may not be true. The implication is there, and the reader's mind will not fail to pick it up, that the writings contain errors in history, science and doctrine.

It seems obvious to me that this book review and the book in question will have the effect of diminishing the spirit of prophecy writings. The writer seems to be saying that her work was applicable in times past, is valuable as inspirational writing, but that what she wrote in the areas of history, science, and doctrine are suspect.

Much of what Ellen White wrote had doctrinal implications--so that gets rid of the bulk of her work. Her writings containing the health message is in the area of science, so toss out the health message. Most of her writings about prophecy and its fulfillment, past, present, and future, concerned history, so throw out the book The Great Controversy.

One cannot help but be reminded of what she wrote about events near the close of probation: "Satan's last deception will be to make of none effect the testimonies." "Satanic hatred will be kindled against the testimonies." Selected Messages. Vol. 1, p.48, Vol. 2 p.78.

Who and what we believe are essential to our salvation and to the development of righteous characters that reflect Christ's image. "...take heed that no man deceive you." Matt. 24:4. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of the light. Matt. 12:36.

The scriptures also say, "...believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper.' 2 Chron. 20:20. Gods faithful remnant at the end of time are described as "...they which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. 12:17. According to Rev. 19:10, "...the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy."

God's remnant church will have the prophetic gift. A prophet is one who speaks for God. We have a message to the world. God says, "Babylon is fallen", Rev. 14:8, and "come out of her my people." Rev. 18:4. The insights we have in interpreting the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, and other Biblical prophecies are also considered to be part of the prophetic gift. But god has given His end time people a special prophetic gift in the work, the writings and ministry or Ellen G. White.

If I were the devil, how might I feel about the book being reviewed? Perhaps I might feel that I was well on my way to torpedoing Adventists' search for identity, just as I'd hoped. In contrast to the reinforcement to doubting provided in the book and review, let us instead "Believe His prophets," for so shall we prosper. 2 Chron. 20:20.

1. George Reid, "New Directions in Adventist Self Identity", A presentation at a meeting of the Adventist Theological Society, 1998.

About the Author: Larry L. Lyons is an Elder in the Burlingame SDA church in California. He has worked as a registered nurse for many years in the field of psychiatry.