GCO Mission and Goals | GCO Ministry Testimonials | Projects | Resources/Donations/Contact | SEARCH |
GCO PRESS PRICE LIST | GCO Ministry Officers

2012-02-04 05:43Z

The Loss of Transcendence, Pt. 5

Kevin D. Paulson reviews Graeme Bradford’s More Than A Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), and People Are Human (Look What They Did To Ellen White) (Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 2006).

Presenter:   Kevin D. Paulson

Location:    Internet

Delivery:    2007-05-16 13:46Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2007-05-16 13:46Z

Type:        Book Review

URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-lot5.php

A Wrong Use of History

In addition to scholarly speculation, both Adventist and American church history are summoned by Bradford as witnesses against Ellen White’s prophetic authority. Considerable space in both More Than a Prophet and People Are Human is taken in citing the alleged views of Ellen White’s contemporaries, including her husband and son, regarding her authority and reliability (497). The 1919 Bible Conference, a key historical linchpin in the revisionist case against Ellen White’s authority, is a major focus of Bradford’s (498). In addition, the larger American fundamentalist and evangelical movements are seen both as parallel to, and deeply influential upon, Adventist views of inspiration in the first half of the 20th century (499).

Describing the aftermath of the 1919 Bible Conference, Bradford writes:

Seventh-day Adventism was being pushed in the direction of Fundamentalism, particularly in the area of the inspiration of both Ellen White and the Bible (500).

Across the page, he quotes two scholars as saying:

But what many authors take to be historic Adventism is in fact the creation of the twentieth century—a synthesis that took place in the 1920s and remained dominant till the 1960s. It was, moreover, a synthesis that in itself represented an accommodation to the newly formed Fundamentalist movement (501).

We have already noted Bradford’s claim that the high view of Ellen White’s authority held by conservative Adventists was supposedly not held by her, and was allegedly developed in the years after her death (502). We have also seen the clearest evidence from her own pen that this claim is false, that the correction of doctrinal error and those straying from Bible truth was very much the role God gave her (503). Whatever reaction her contemporaries (even her family) may at times have had to this role, whatever its relation to external forces in the larger world, her own claim to a decisive role in the church’s spiritual affairs is beyond dispute.

When religion is presumed to be significantly (if not primarily) the product of its environment, rather than of the cosmic clash between good and evil we call the great controversy, any significant cultural factor contemporaneous to the faith community is believed to exert decisive influence on the community’s direction. But the extent to which such forces may or may not influence the church, is not the issue here. The only issue that matters is whether the course of churches or individuals is in harmony with the Word of God. For our present purposes, what matters is not what others in her time (or any time) thought of Ellen White’s role, or how the larger culture might or might not have influenced their thinking. What matters is whether Ellen White’s stated authority is in harmony with Scripture, in terms of her prophetic function as well as the content of her counsel. Societal trends, such as they may be, must ever be measured by the Word’s objective standard. And the church’s interaction with these trends, to whatever extent, must likewise be thus measured.

Few orthodox Adventists have ever been wholly comfortable with the fundamentalist label, as commonly used in the larger Protestant world. This is not only due to Ellen White’s stated opposition to so-called “verbal inspiration” (504), long a staple of fundamentalist thought (505), but also because of the various doctrines held by professed fundamentalists with which Adventists have biblical differences. Adventists find it both sad and ironic that those so zealous for the authority of Scripture persist in cherishing such unscriptural tenets as Sunday-sacredness, the immortality of the soul, once-saved-always-saved, the secret rapture, and much more. More recently, at least in America, fundamentalism has come to be associated in many minds with the efforts of conservative Christians to enforce their beliefs through civil law, another concept with which Adventists are uncomfortable due to our stand for the separation of church and state.

To the extent Protestant fundamentalists have sought to uphold the Bible as the church’s sole rule of faith and practice—the Christian’s final arbiter of thought and conduct in the face of human opinion, human scholarship, human experience, and the vagaries of culture—Seventh-day Adventists have been fully supportive. But because the label itself carries baggage with which Adventists are uneasy, most who cling to the classic Adventist faith have tended to avoid it.

When viewed through the lenses of Bible history, and the discomfort felt—even, at times, by those striving for godliness—at the probing of the prophetic Word, the 1919 Bible Conference appears neither pivotal nor unique. Statements doubting Ellen White’s corrective authority from various conference participants shouldn’t surprise us (506). There is nothing new here, and certainly nothing to gainsay the prophet’s own claim to such authority. Had they cited evidence of contradiction between herself and the Bible, that would have been one thing. In the absence of such, their objections sound little different from the chafing of countless others through the ages when thoughts and deeds collide with a prophet’s testimony. One is fascinated, when reading the Bible, how each of Judah’s great reformer-kings—Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah—experienced prophetic rebuke (2 Chronicles 16:7-10; 19:2; 2 Kings 20:14-18); 2 Chronicles 35:20-22). Countless other examples could be cited from Scripture of prophets clashing with their contemporaries, even with those whose record is largely one of faithfulness. Such incidents are as repetitive in sacred history as sin and righteousness themselves.

Bradford makes mention of W.W. Prescott’s letter of April 6, 1915 to W.C. White, alleging misinformation and concealment regarding the preparation of Ellen White’s books (507). Prescott, of course, is hailed by Bradford as one of the “progressives” at the 1919 Bible Conference, along with then-General Conference President A.G. Daniells (508). The problem is that neither of these men approached the issue of Ellen White’s authority with clean hands. Prescott disagreed quite strongly with Ellen White’s prophetic understanding on a number of key points, including the dates for the 1,260-year prophecy (509). (Similar claims have been aired recently by certain ones (510), and the reader is referred to a reply by the present writer documenting the historical evidence—from sources both credible and recent—for the classic Adventist understanding of these prophetic dates (511).) In the case of Daniells, his resistance to Ellen White’s counsel regarding certain health practices seems to have been known among his contemporaries (512). When a prophet’s statements contradict cherished ideas and behaviors, disputing the prophet’s credibility becomes a convenient recourse.

It would seem the concerns raised by some were neither foolish nor paranoid regarding the approach to Ellen White’s writings used by certain ones in 1919. Bradford claims one who voiced these concerns “played on the fears that many loyal Seventh-day Adventists of the time would have heard about the inroads being made into Protestantism by the more liberal churches that had tried to reconcile Darwinism with their faith” (513). The course of Adventist history since the late 20th century has more than vindicated this concern. The use of higher-critical methodology in the study of Ellen White has opened the door to a similar approach to the Bible, in particular the Genesis creation account (514). Bradford himself, as we have seen, speaks negatively only of “atheistic evolution” as incompatible with his “new” rationale for Adventism (515). One must wonder if he, too, has found a way to reconcile Moses with Darwin.

Like others before him, Bradford fosters the illusion of a denominational “cover-up” regarding Ellen White’s presumed errors, use of sources, etc. (516). This claim of Bradford’s applies both to the 1919 Bible Conference discussions (517), and to the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop, whose findings—according to Bradford—were likewise suppressed:

The (1982) audio tapes reveal frank discussion among leaders at the White Estate regarding the borrowings of Ellen White and her mistakes in the area of history, science, and theology. It was agreed that this material did not negate her inspiration, but would certain affect her function and authority. It was also agreed that this material should be shared with the church membership at large.

Tragically this was not to be. As with the 1919 situation, it was felt that Seventh-day Adventist church members would not be able to adjust to the new information because it was so different to what they were accustomed to hearing (518).

Though he is careful to say there has been “no sinister plot in this” (519), no “deliberate effort to deceive people” (520), it is clear from Bradford’s view that concealment and deception have been practiced, if only benignly. In his words:

Let’s face it, this problem wasn’t caused by the present leadership of the church. It’s a problem we’ve had passed on by previous generations. Indeed, a lot of what we’re talking about wasn’t known until recent times (521).

Well-meaning church leaders may have, over the years, felt it unwise to tell church members these things. But in failing to communicate the truth regarding Ellen White’s writings to the membership they have by default caused irreparable damage to the minds of many sincere Seventh-day Adventist people in regards to her ministry (522).

The fictional “Doug” of Bradford’s dialogue observes at this point that this tale “would make a good movie script” (523). Indeed it might, provided it were labeled fiction.

The White Estate officer quoted at the beginning, in a second and more extensive review of More Than a Prophet, refutes the popular revisionist theory that the “facts” about Ellen White were suppressed by those attending the 1919 Bible Conference. This officer writes that the decision to not publish the transcripts of the Ellen White discussions—which were in fact part of a post-session attended by less than a third of those attending the main Bible Conference (524)—was made before the discussions about Ellen White (on July 31 and August 1, 1919) actually took place (525). This decision appears less motivated by differences over Ellen White and the doctrine of inspiration than by fears of exacerbating controversy over the king of the north in Daniel, chapter 11—a sensitive subject at the end of World War I, considering what had happened to the Ottoman Empire (526).

In his recent letter to Ministry, Bradford writes, “I do not say the truth was ‘hidden’ in the 1919 meetings, but it was openly discussed by those who were close to [Ellen White]” (527). What he doesn’t deny believing, interestingly enough, is that the truth about Ellen White was hidden from the church by those attending the 1919 meetings.

The whole notion of cover-up and conspiracy carries a certain fascination, especially for those who feel betrayed—rightly or wrongly—by established authority. In the political world such thinking finds champions on both fringes, from Oliver Stone to the John Birch Society. In America especially, where allegations of governmental deceit have caused upheaval for the past half-century, such claims resonate strongly. And when the church is the target of such accusations, the loss of trust can be devastating.

But potent as such charges may be, they are not always true. No matter how confidently Bradford speaks of Ellen White’s “mistakes in the area of history, science, and theology” (528), neither he nor his scholar-supporters have proved a single one. (Peripheral discrepancies, as addressed in this review from both Scripture and Ellen White (529), do not count as mistakes here as they affect neither the credibility nor the substance of the message delivered.) What is truly remarkable is the lack of substantive response by Ellen White critics to evidence vindicating her credibility. (My own review of Prophets Are Human, on a prominent Adventist Web site visited by thousands each day, has in three years elicited but one substantive response of a negative sort.) Equally puzzling is the apparent assumption by most critics I’ve encountered that practically anyone finding fault with the writings of Ellen White is invariably another “courageous, progressive” whistle-blower trying to bring a stubborn establishment to heel. The possibility that such critics might be less desirous of learning facts than of justifying excuses for disbelief—the latter arising from the all-too-common discomfort of certain ones with the prophet’s practical counsel—seems not to be considered.

Readers are again referred to my review of Prophets Are Human, in which the charge of deception regarding Ellen White’s source usage is considered (530). During Ellen White’s own lifetime, church leaders frequently advertised the very books from which she seems to have borrowed (531)—hardly a likely course if they were trying to hide her source dependency. As early as 1933, the White Estate addressed itself to the use of uninspired sources by inspired writers, making it clear this was not incompatible with the prophetic gift (532). In the years that followed similar acknowledgements and disclosures took place (533). (If some perhaps weren’t paying attention, that isn’t the fault of church leaders or the White Estate.) Even Walter Rea could write, in 1965:

Controversy has flared from time to time concerning close similarities or outright adaptations in Mrs. White’s writings drawn from contemporary sources.… If God in His infinite wisdom chooses to sanctify the thoughts of Conybeare and Howson, Wiley, or Edersheim and bring them to our attention by the pen of Ellen G. White or anybody else, so be it.… I have established myself in the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White, regardless of the human problems involved (534).

One wonders if Bradford’s representation of Ellen White’s family and contemporaries is as problematic as his representation of Ellen White herself. Unlike inspired writings, which contain the divine promise of self-explanation (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Isaiah 28:9, 10) (535), uninspired writings offer no such promise. When, for example, Bradford quotes James White more than once as saying that the Christian “is not at liberty to turn from them (the Scriptures) to learn his duty from any of the gifts” (536), was he therefore contradicting Ellen in claiming the gifts of the Spirit offer no authoritative elaboration on what Scripture teaches? Or is he simply saying one should not “turn from” the Scriptures and use as a substitute the writings of one such as Ellen White? Nothing in Ellen White’s writings would endorse the practice of neglecting the Scriptures and instead focusing on her counsel. But this hardly means her counsel, which according to her was as much the product of the Holy Spirit as was Scripture and even the Ten Commandments (537), does not explain as authoritatively as Scripture the duty expected of God’s people.

Some years ago a history of Adventism written by a conservative SDA scholar was reviewed by a revisionist historian. The reviewer lamented that while other figures in the Adventist story were depicted at times by this author as manipulative and political, Ellen White—by contrast—was depicted as a “divine troubleshooter” above the fray (538). The reviewer then expressed the hope that one day Ellen White would be portrayed by Adventist historians “in her political role” (539). Sadly, such thinking misses the role of the prophetic voice in transcending the normal play of agendas and ideas in the community of faith, revealing the Word of the Lord as the settler of disputes and the unifier of God’s people (John 17:17-21). Prophets are indeed “divine troubleshooters.” Consistently and repeatedly, throughout sacred history, this has been their role.

If a copy of King Ahab’s memoirs—assuming he wrote any—were to be found by an archeologist in the ruins of Samaria, would revisionist scholars rejoice at last to be able to write a “nonapologetic” study of Elijah? If a similar autobiography of Herodias were to be discovered, would we at last be able to depict John the Baptist in his true “political” role? The biblical view of history is not concerned with the mere intrigue and interplay of agendas, personalities, conduct, and ideas. All it is concerned with is faithfulness to God’s revealed Word. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “In analyzing history do not be too profound, for often the causes are quite simple” (540). If this is true in the secular realm, to which Emerson was likely referring, it is even truer in the spiritual. GCO

Endnotes

  1. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 20, 100, 101, 108, 134, 151-156, 172, 205, 206; People Are Human, pp. 20-22, 30-38, 98, 133.
  2. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 151-164; People Are Human, pp. 19-22, 83-88.
  3. ________, More Than a Prophet, pp. 156-164, 175; People Are Human, pp. 16, 43-50.
  4. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 162.
  5. Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 89-91, quoted by Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 163; People Are Human, p. 93 (italics Bradford’s).
  6. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 105, 156, 165-169, 183; People Are Human, pp. 15, 16, 77-106, 127, 130.
  7. White, Early Writings, p. 78; Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 98, 99; Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665; Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 32; Gospel Workers, p. 302; Colporteur Ministry, p. 126; This Day With God, p. 126.
  8. ________, Selected Messages, vol. 1, pp. 20, 21.
  9. See B.B. Warfield, Biblical Foundations (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1958), pp. 43-78; Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976); Norman Geisler, ed. Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979); John W. Haley, An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1977); Selvidge, ed. Fundamentalism Today (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1984), p. 12.
  10. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, pp. 100, 101, 152-154, 218; People Are Human, pp. 20, 21.
  11. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 104; People Are Human, pp. 35, 36.
  12. ________, People Are Human, pp. 32, 36-38.
  13. See Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 83.
  14. Bacchiocchi, “Islam and the Papacy in Prophecy,” Endtime Issues No. 86, July 6, 2002.
  15. Paulson, “Stampeded Interpretation,”
    www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-stampeded.php.
  16. See Richard W. Schwartz, John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 2006), p. 182.
  17. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 155.
  18. See James L. Hayward, ed. Creationism Reconsidered (Roseville, CA: Association of Adventist Forums, 2000); John McLarty, “Theologians vs. Scientists,” Adventist Today, July-August 2004, pp. 12, 13; Ervin Taylor, “A Historical Dilemma,” Adventist Today, July-August 2004, p. 14, 15; Lester N. Wright, “The Truth About the Origin of Life,” Adventist Today, Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp. 8, 9; Wayne Collins, “Did You Really Create the World in Six Days?” Adventist Today, Jan.-Feb. 2007, p. 11; Gary A. Nowlan, “A Geologist’s Journey from Naïve Certainty to Informed Faith,” Adventist Today, Jan.-Feb. 2007, pp. 12, 13.
  19. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 223.
  20. Ibid., pp. 156, 199; People Are Human, pp. 12, 13, 25, 26, 86, 87, 99, 102, 103, 113, 115, 116, 124.
  21. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 199.
  22. Ibid.
  23. ________, People Are Human, pp. 99, 116.
  24. Ibid., p. 116.
  25. Ibid.
  26. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 201.
  27. ________, People Are Human, p. 116.
  28. Campbell, review of Bradford, More Than a Prophet, Reflections: BRI Newsletter, April 2007, pp. 10.
  29. Ibid.
  30. Ibid.
  31. Bradford, letter to Ministry, April 2007, p. 25.
  32. ________, More Than a Prophet, p. 199; People Are Human, p. 126.
  33. Such questions as how many of Jacob’s family came out of Egypt (Genesis 46:27; Acts 7:14), which bell signaled the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre (see Arthur White, The Later Elmshaven Years, pp. 330, 331), or how many rooms there were in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium (see Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 59).
  34. Paulson, “Prophetic Humanity: Comfort or Compromise?”
    www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php.
  35. See Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 69. Olson explains how, prior to the publication of Sketches from the Life of Paul in June 1883, Conybeare and Howson’s book The Life and Epistles of St. Paul—from whom she is alleged to have borrowed material for her book—was recommended publicly by her as “a book of great merit” (Signs of the Times, Feb. 22, 1883). In that same year, Olson notes (Ibid.), 2,000 copies of the Conybeare and Howson book were distributed free to Signs readers. Olson likewise notes that she recommended “D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, from which she borrowed extensively, as an ideal holiday gift (see Review and Herald, Dec. 26, 1882) (Ibid.). Olson also reminds us that Uriah Smith’s books, from which Ellen White also borrowed, were obviously well known to her Adventist readers (Ibid.), yet further evidence against the claim that she was trying to deceive people regarding her use of sources.
  36. Ibid., p. 109.
  37. See Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1951), pp. 403-467; Arthur L. White, Supplement to Spirit of Prophecy, vol. IV, pp. 507-549; The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1973), pp. 107-136.
  38. Rea, Claremont Dialogue, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1965), pp. 31, 34, 36, quoted by Olson, One Hundred and One Questions, p. 109.
  39. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
  40. Bradford, More Than a Prophet, p. 206; People Are Human, p. 133.
  41. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 30; Colporteur Ministry, p. 126.
  42. Benjamin McArthur, “A Believer’s History of the Adventist Denomination” (a review of C. Mervyn Maxwell, Tell it to the World: The Story of Seventh-day Adventists, Mountain View: CA: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1976), Spectrum, June 1982, pp. 55, 56.
  43. Ibid., p. 56.
  44. Ralph Waldo Emerson, quoted by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, The Cycles of American History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986), p. 292.

© 2007 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. Kevin has also since 2002 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.