Opinions Concerning Ellen Gould Harmon-White (1827-1915)
by Ervin Taylor
by Ervin Taylor
February 12, 2014
Have you ever wondered about the range of opinions Adventists hold concerning Ellen Gould Harmon-White (EGW)? When someone says, “I believe or don’t believe in EGW,” what exactly are they “believing” or “not believing”?
Reading a variety of Adventist sources from the hyper-fundamentalist to the hyper-liberal, there are obviously a wide range of opinions and perspectives about various aspects of her career as a 19thand early 20thcentury American “charismatic cofounder of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church, a well-known temperance speaker, and a prolific author” whose writings were “roughly of three kinds: autobiographical, counsel (“Testimonies”) and devotional commentaries on Scripture.”1
In reading over those discussions, her readers tend to focus over these five categories: supernatural inspiration, originality, accuracy, authority, and current usefulness.
Below is a listing of a spectrum of opinions concerning EGW, organized around these five categories (A through E). In each category, nine different understandings or opinions concerning that category are listed. I should note that the category of “current usefulness” was suggested by an Adventist pastor.
If some readers might be interested in generalizing their own views about EGW, there is here suggested a scale that each individual can calculate for him- or herself. In each category, determine which of the 9 views listed for each category most closely reflects your own opinion. Then add these five numbers together to obtain a total value. The minimum total value would be 5 (all 1’s in the five categories) and the maximum would be 45 (all 9s in the five categories). Please remember: For each of the five categories (A through E), choose only one number out of the nine (1 or 2 or 3 or . . .) which is the number of the statement which most closely describes your view, add these five values together, and then find where you total value situates you in the suggested associated categories.
Here are the suggested associated categories:
5-8: Ultra-Fundamentalist Adventist.
9-12:Radical Fundamentalist Adventist. 13-15:Fundamentalist Adventist.
16-20: Conservative Adventist. 21-25: Moderate Adventist.
26-30: Moderately Liberal Adventist. 31-38: Liberal Adventist.
39-44. Ultra-Liberal Adventist.45:Uninterested Adventist
I invite commentary on the characterizations of various views. Improvements in how the different views are expressed are also solicited as is the scale used to define categories.
_____________________
1 Alden Thompson. “White, Ellen Harmon (1827-1915)” In: Handbook of Women Biblical Interpreters: A Historical and Biographical Guide. Marion Ann Taylor, editor. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012. p. 526.
A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | |
Supernatural Inspiration | Originality | Accuracy | Authority | Current Usefulness | |
1. |
God communicated with her directly through her dreams and visions. | All of her views on all topics were unique to her. | All statements published under her name are accurate in every detail. | Exactly the same as all of the Biblical prophets. In fact she may have been the “Greatest of the Prophets.” | It is impossible to live out God’s ideal without reading and heeding EGW. |
2. | God communicated with her in all of her visions and some of her dreams. | Her most important understandings were totally original with EGW. | All statements where she said “I was shown” are accurate. | Essentially the same as the Biblical prophets. | EGW is very helpful. Without reading and heeding her it is very difficult to live up to God’s ideal. |
3. | While God did communicate with her, her own strong religious beliefs were the source of some of the visionary material which she experienced. |
Her originality was in her theological understandings. | All statements about Biblical and theological matters are accurate. | She has authority in the same way that the minor prophets in the Bible were considered authoritative. | EGW is just another spiritual writer, helpful, but not essential in any way. |
4. | God may have communicated with her but her own strong religious upbringing and the influences of those around her were the source of most of her views. |
Her originality is limited only to “spiritual” and devotional issues. | She was accurate in her observations about how to be a spiritual Christian. | Her authority is in her ability to inspire her readers to live a Christian life. | EGW’s views were helpful for individuals in the past, but are not particularly helpful today. |
5. | She honestly believed her visions came from God, but I am agnostic on the subject of her supernatural inspiration. | Her originality is really not that important. What is important is what her followers thought about her. | Her accuracy is really not that important. What is important is what her followers thought about her. | Authority is really not the right word to use with her.Those who benefit from reading her will see her as an authority for them. | EGW is helpful for some people, but not helpful for others. |
6. | She was not aware of the psychological and sociological basis of the ideas that she thought she had received during her out-of-body experiences. |
She read widely and then forgot where her views came from. Very few of her opinions were original with her. | She misstated the truth about minor historical issues. | Her authority should be understood as suggestions that the Adventist community takes seriously, but may or may not follow. | EGW may be a helpful devotional writer for a small number of individuals. |
7. | It is not possible to determine if any of her of her views derive from a supernatural source.I rather doubt that any of them are. |
She was not aware enough to realize that the source of all of her insights came from others. | She was factually mistaken on a large number of topics. | She does not have any authority, although one might be respectful of her as a cofounder of the Adventist Church. | EGW is only relevant as a 19th Century devotional writer holding several marginal religious ideas. |
8. | Her visions were totally the product of her brain chemistry and/or an overactive imagination having no supernatural component. | All of her views were obtained from contemporary sources; she may or may not have been aware of this. | All statements under her name were only as accurate as her contemporary sources were accurate. | She does not have any authority on any topic, just as the Biblical prophets do not possess any contemporary authority. | EGW is a major drag on making the Adventist Church of any relevance in the modern world. |
9. | I do not know and do not have any interest in having an opinion on this irrelevant topic. | I do not know and do not have any interest in having an opinion on this irrelevant topic. | I do not know and do not have any interest in having an opinion on this irrelevant topic. | I do not know and do not have any interest in having an opinion on this irrelevant topic. | Usefulness?I don’t have the slightest idea and don’t really care. |
It's interesting that throughout our church's history, there has been a diversity of opinion on the matter of Ellen White's gift. In fact, a doctrinal "policy" regarding that gift has never been cinched tightly, and has always seemed to offer some wiggle room for those who have questions about the level and nature of her inspiration. This to my view has served the denomination very well and has allowed us to keep talking in a united way on unifying, central issues, without turning back to dispute to a standstill over the matter of Ellen White.
A problem arises, however, when we begin to define a perfect church as one that believes and practices identically in all areas of thought and practice. Even a crack army division would not require such a precise definition of perfection. If we were all robots, we could ask the pastor to program us (voluntarily, of course) to yield a uniiformly perfect result. But we are far from being mechanical in our individual personalities, and even identical twins have difficulties behaving in a perfectly uniform way. We are humans, we are unique, and each and every one of us will have a slightly different interpretation of what Ellen White represents to us and to the church.
That said, I think it's a tremendous exercise to personally (not communally) observe the differences that various personalities express on the question of Ellen White's role in our own lives and in the life of the church. It's a fascinating exercise, and perhaps will help us all determine in our minds that having diverse opinions on this question is the normal and in fact most healthy expectation in a church that seeks to reach all people, all races, all genders, all personalities…..
'Even a crack army division would not require such a precise definition of perfection.'
The best and the most professional armies adopt 'directive control', which is the idea that subordinates have sufficient discretion to adapt through initiative as necessary. Interestingly though, for directive control to work, subordinates down the line must have a clear understanding of the mission. In this way, it is the mission that counts, not the scheme of manouvre used to achieve it. In fact, a subordinate should change the scheme of manouvre where they feel it is necessary to achieve the mission, because as the old cliche goes, no plan survives the first shot of combat.
The German Army in WW2 is the best example of this. They ensured everyone knew the mission, done through their NCOs and down to their private soldiers. Probably the worse example is the old Soviet-style military system, which lacks a professional NCO corps, and where private soldiers really have little idea of what they are doing other than which way to point their gun and run.
So the point is, and back to the discussion, Ellen White is a means to an end – not an end in of itself. I believe this was her own view of her own gift, in being a lesser light pointing to the greater light. In fact, I would say all prophecy is like this, and Paul seems to suggest this also, in talking about how prophecy is for the edication of the Church internally.
P.S. Sorry, I am a graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon Australia, so I couldn't help but comment on this analogy.
Ervin, what a fascinating little project you've created here.
I realise your category headings are only 'suggested.' But I think there is a problem. My score of 34 puts me in the company of such esteemed 'liberal Adventists' as Stephen Ferguson. Yet he and I do not see I to I on so many other things. And I cannot call myself an 'Adventist' in any traditional (C19) sense of the word. But I do score myself at 34. I know……. its a bit of a shock to me too. Was sure it would be closer to 45.
Is there room for some renaming of your categories? For the 31-38 group might I suggest, 'informed onlooker?' Perhaps if we all compared our scores with our preferred self-descriptions, we might be able to come to descriptors which fit the scoring a little closer?
Steve…….. what was your score? Does it equate with your 'liberal-in-some-areas Adventist' status?
21. Moderate Adventist
I think a good test here is to replace a reference to 'Ellen White' with another biblical prophet, say the Apostle Paul, or the prophet Jeremiah, and see what one gets. It is important not to judge Ellen White by a harsher test than biblical prophets.
So what was the source of Paul's ideas (especially when Paul disagreed with others with the prophetic gift, including Peter and James)? How original was Paul's ideas (did some of his own ideas come from his earlier teachings with Gamiliel, or Hilliel, and what about the possible pseudo-Pauline accounts possibly written by his followers in his name)? How accurate was Paul (given he seemed to think Jesus would return in his own lifetime, and so it was too short to say get married, which turned out to be wrong)? What authority should Paul have for the Church? How relevant is Paul's writings for today (should we still keep slaves and should slaves obey their masters, should women still remain silent)?
I think an examination of Ellen White's prophetic gift should and could be a blessing for Adventists in helping us to better understand the nature and limits of all persons throughout history who have claimed the prophetic gift. The funny thing is, the more I learn about the 'mistakes', apparent 'contracitions' and 'limits' of the biblical writers, the more I affirm that Ellen White may well indeed had a prophetic gift.
Thus, as the SDA Church official affirms Ellen White's prophetic gift, and given we now know about the 'flaws' or rather 'limitations' of some of her ideas, the natural consequence of that should be that we are in turn far less dogmatic in how we read the Bible itself!
Very interesting true or false readout. i believe it is well constructed as catagories, but insufficient in selective latitude. i had imagined my score would have been conservative with a tinge of liberal. i probably would not have become a SDA if i had not read EGW's "Steps to Christ" at the most vulnerable time of my life. i cannot speak of her visions and dreams, whether inspired or not, and no man can. However i definitely believe she was used through out her life by the Holy Spirit. She often rendered her own personal thoughts, and spoke adlib on many issues, with 19th century general knowledge. i believe most of the biblical prophets also were published on some adlib personal ideas ex-inspiration. Also, what is new? How often are your own beliefs colored by previous available data, or you repeat the views you agree with, voiced previously by others. i doubt EGW had a desire to or even thought she was plagiarising others. But presenting concepts she agreed with.
i scored 19 on the quiz.
Much agreed. We need to be careful not to judge Ellen White by a harsher standard than biblical prophets were. I think many Adventists who outright reject Ellen White's prophetic gift did or do so because they were taught an unbibical standard which of course Ellen White could never have lived up to. But the thing is, no biblical prophet could have lived up to that standard either. Thus, Ellen White's 'flaws' should actually help us be less dogmatic and fundamentalist in our reading of the Bible.
Steve
I basically agree that we should judge Ellen White by the same standards that we judge biblical prophets. so maybe we could start by seeing what a biblical prophet is, their inspiration, their authority, the scope etc. We could use Erv's score card.
Yes it has long annoyed me that every so-called 'fault' or 'limitation' labelled against Ellen White could probably be labelled against any, most if not all of the biblical prophets.
So Steve, how does saying that EGW suffers the same faults and limitations as Biblical prophets differ from the fundamentalist Adventist claim that she was as inspired as they were? Seems to me, the negative aspect is implying the positive side of this question. Ergo, she ought be considered 'authoritative.'
Serge, have you not read in 1 Chorn 29:29:
'Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the records of the seer Samuel, and in the records of the prophet Nathan, and in the records of the seer Gad'
And in 2 Chron 20:34:
'Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written in the Annals of Jehu son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel.'
What authority do the works of the prophets Nathan and Jehu have, even though they never made it into the cannon? Are they still from God? Did they perhaps more limited devotional status, which is why they didn't make it into the cannon?
I personally don't know. But I know it is more complicated than simply saying we must accept EGW as being equal to the Bible or not at all. For the simple point, she never made such a claim.
Your point seems to be a false choice, as Sister White could be in good company with Nathan and Jehu.
Sorry I wanted to just add that I applaud Dr Taylor's attempt to present some of the complexities in the issue of Ellen White's prophetic gift. The thing that really annoys men, and I believe is the hallmark of 'fundamentalism' on both 'sides' of discussions here and elsewhere, is the tendency to see issues in stereotypical black and white, without appreciating all the complexities. So I think some appreciation is well deserved for Dr Taylor's approach here.
Sorry that should be 'really annoys me' not 'really annoys men'. And extra 'n' there. I am sure it annoys some women also.
Great blog…
My score.. 39. 40 if I was allowed two in column E.
13
According to Erv's chart I am fundamentalist although I think his characterisations were a little deragatory to those on the religious right. I mean what is the difference between a conservative and a fundamentalist? Why is there no other distiction on the left besides liberal?
My ‘score’ was 15 or 16, depending on the statement chosen from Column C. I’d think/suggest a grid like this about the Bible would be even more revealing.
Yes indeed, a similar survey about the Bible would be very interesting.
How much trouble can someone possibly have with arithmetic? I should have reported my score when I first reviewed the grid. Instead I reported it after having slept. My ‘score’ was actually 13. Maybe I didn’t want to accept the “Fundamentalist” classification.
Really fun, Erv! Thank you. I scored a 26.
Then I did an experiment. I added up the scores of the most "liberal" positions I would be comfortable with endorsing, and then I added up the scores of the most conservative positions that I could accept. Those added up to 33 and 19 respectively. I was fascinated to see that the average of those two scores is 26 – exactly what I scored by selecting the descriptions I was most comfortable with. Is it reasonable to see that as a good validity indicator?
It is interesting that this exercise makes one's place in the Adventist spectrum a corollary of how one views Ellen White. I was going to take issue with this assumption until I realized that it works pretty accurately with me. While I consider myself a fairly conservative Christian, I would have to concede that, on balance, I am on the moderately liberal wing of Adventism, even for Southern California.
Again, great work Erv!
Nate has made a helpful point which is implicit in this expercise but which I failed to mention. As he suggested, and as I would submit for readers considerations, for most North American Divsion (NAD) Adventists, I would posit that their composite view based on the various aspects of "belief" or "non-belief" in EGW is, in a majority of cases, an excellent proxy for where they would place themselves on both the life-style and theological fundamentalist-conservative-liberal-radical Adventist spectra. There clearly will be exceptions, but I would suggest that, for the vast majority of NA Adventists, how they view EGW and where they place themseles on the Adventist spectrum closely matches. [Outside of NAD and especially in the traditional ex-"Mission Fields" (e.g., Africa, Latin America), there are too many other variables to make this taxonomy work there.]
Stephen Foster
My point exactly! By the way what is the difference between a conservative and a fundamentalist? I fear one my be derogatory. thats why I felt Erv needed to change his characterisations.
From dictionary.com:
fun·da·men·tal·ism
[fuhn-duh–men-tl-iz-uh