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:
m] Show IPA
fun·da·men·tal·ism
[fuhn-duh–men-tl-iz-uh
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of
the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of
the extreme conservatives.
Origin:
1920–25, Americanism; fundamental + -ism
Perhaps we are fundamentalists Tapiwa. We believe the Bible is “a literal historical record,” and we hold “as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world [by the God of the Bible], the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.”
So then, what is wrong with that?
Stephen, if the vote were on just the factors listed in the Dict. ie: Creation of World,Virgin Birth, Physical resurrection, Atonement (not literal record), i too would be rated Fundamentalist.
I thank Mr. Foster for providing a helpful dictionary definition of Fundamentalism. The term dervived from a series of booklets published by Protestant Christians who called themselves "Fundamentalists" in the early 20th century. The most characteristic belief of someone who identifies him/herself as a Christian Fundamentlist is, as the dictionary notes, one who holds "a belief in the infallibility of the bible not only in matters of faith and morals but allso as a literal historical record . . ." i.e., there are no errors of historical or scientific fact contained anywhere in the bible.
Generally speaking, there is typically a distinction made between Christians who consider themselves conservates (for Protestants the term usually used is "evangelical conservative") and Christian Fundamentalists in that Christian conservatives will not view the bible to be infallible in its statements concerning historical or scientific topics. There is a large literature in the sociology of religion addressing the roots of Protestant Fundamentalism.
Things can get a little complicated because many distinguish between biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy. Some view the bible as being inerrant when its addresses matters of faith and morals but not infallible when it addresses matters of history and science. Some also add the proviso that they believe in an infallible bible "in the original autographs" which, of course, do not exist.
25
I am, by this definition a fundamentalist, but continue to hold that, regarding Adventism, a sola scriptura approach is, literally, the most conservative one. Granting non-biblical writings, even helpful or accurate ones, the status of "authoritative" or equivalent to the Bible is, in my view, a liberal approach. Think about it: why is a "lesser light" needed to find a greater one? It would seem the opposite would be true.
Very interesting, Erv. Nicely done! Thanks.
I think the term is misused in our church. Conservative might be less derogatory, as fundamentalism generally means in Christiandom to include a literal hell and life after death, along with certain social views.
None of the generalizations in the "test" fit my perceptions of EGW. I would have to make up my own to give an accurate picture of my beliefs. There are parts of some that fit, but not the whole paragraph in the same box.
Going back I find too many terms like "all" or "always" that make this a test of absolutes (fundamentalistic), therefore, couldn't be a good measure of my beliefs.
I find that I fit in more than one box under a given category and/or cannot adhere to the whole box. Box is the right word–trying to fit us into boxes!
How about just two terms. Those who are "right", meaning those who believe exactly as I do, and those who are "wrong", meaning those who disagree with me? I think that's how most of us probably see it, although we don't say it aloud. And that goes for both 'sides' of any discussion.
I find the concept of Biblical inerrancy to a fundamentally flawed one (pun intended).
Let’s face it; inerrancy is primarily about supernatural creationism, and really not much more. The Bible doesn’t make any scientific claims. The scriptural accounts of God’s supernatural acts are not claims of science, are they? They are assertions that science is superseded.
Exactly and totally agree. Science (as we understand it today) is about what can be observed through nature. Supernatural by contrast is by very definition:
‘Not able to be explained by the laws of nature' (Oxford Dictionary).
One of my favourite little quotes is from notable atheist scientist Steven Hawking (the wheel chair guy), where he says about the Big Bang theory:
‘Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them’: Stephen Hawking, “The Beginning of Time” , Stephen Hawking: The Official Website, 31 July, 2013. <http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html>
So when you think about it carefully, Hawking really is 'supernatural' events he believes in, which is to say events like the Big Bang that cannot be explained by science.
So I totally agree it is as pointless to say science disproves the Bible's account of supernatural events as it is to say science disproves the Big Bang. Science can in fact do neither!
If you want to say there is no such thing as anything beyond science, then go ahead. But then you are stuck, because even atheists scientists can't use science to explain the origin of everything, because even the theory of the Big Bang is a supernatural event.
Stephen Ferguson,
Are you sure you're reading that quote from Hawkins right?
You make this assertion about it: "… it is as pointless to say science disproves the Bible's account of supernatural events as it is to say science disproves the Big Bang. Science can in fact do neither!"
Is not Hawkins only cutting out of the theory events before the big bang? Where does he even imply that science does not go a good ways towards giving credibility to the BB? Does he not also give us the reason why he would cut out of the theory events that supposedly took place "before" the BB? ie They have "no observational consequences…"
I would have thought his point actually implies that science goes a long way toward "proving" the big bang's credibility as a theory precisely because there are observational consequences.
It seems to me the point you make about it being as pointless to say science disproves the Bible's account of supernatural events etc, is neglecting Hawkins point about observational outcomes.
Are there in fact ANY observational consequences which can clearly be attributed to the "supernatural events" of the Bible's account. I think not. Thus if you take the logic of Hawkins argument, we could say "since events described in the Bible have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of any theory! That would seem to me a correct extension of his argument.
Instead, it appears to me you have tried to make him say opposite of what he intended…?
Chris: 'Are you sure you're reading that quote from Hawkins right?'
Chris you are right. I should perhaps qualify. You are correct, that natural observation (i.e. science) is of course relevant. Even the Bible suggests it is a source of divine knowledge (see especially Romans 2). However, natural observation is limited, and it cannot really tell us anything about the really big, original questions that are beyond natural observation, such as what existed before space and time even existed?
That is my understanding of why the ancient Greek distinguished physics from metaphysics.
'Thus if you take the logic of Hawkins argument, we could say "since events described in the Bible have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of any theory! That would seem to me a correct extension of his argument.'
Who says supernatural events in the Bible have no observational consequences? Take the resurrection account.
Science can say nothing about whether a man really did rise from the dead. I believe both Barth said it best, to the effect that as a historical event pertaining to explain the resurrection of a divine being, it would be uninque event, and thus there may be no other frames of reference. This is much of the premier theological thinking behing neo-orthodox and Christian existentialism, and to this extent, I agree with Barth, Bultmann and others who were influenced by Kierkegaard.
So there really is not much we can say about the resurrection event itself. However, we can talk about the observational consequences of those witnesses who say they saw the risen Lord. To that extent, I strongly disagree with the existentialist movement that has now so influenced modern liberal Christianity.
We can talk about the observable effect of Jesus' purported resurrection in much the same way we can talk about the observable effect of the Big Bang. Thus, it is vital we distinguish the event itself (which may be unobservable using scientific as well as historical-critical tools) from the effect or outcome, which is indeed observable.
Sorry that should be:
'Science can say nothing about whether a divine-man really did rise from the dead.'
Science might well say that it is scientifically impossible for a man to rise from the dead. But Christians believe Jesus wasn't just a man but divine. As science has no way to observe the divine directly, it can say nothing about the resurrection of a divine man.
But that is not to say a divine man's resurrection has no observational consequences. The resurrection of Jesus, whilst itself unobservable, did have observational consequences seen in the life of the early Christian Church.
I believe NT Wright has written an entire book on this subject, and alas, I have no doubt butchered many of his finely woven arguments.
'I think not. Thus if you take the logic of Hawkins argument, we could say "since events described in the Bible have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of any theory'
And upon further thinking about this, I think Hawkin is saying we can only cut them out of any scientific theory. Hawkin is not talking about ultimate reality, but only natural and observable reality.
Philosophers and theologians of course ask what is behind the curtain. It is just that Hawkin doesn't want to or thinks it is irrelevant to ask what exists behind and before existence itself. He is welcome to that narrow-minded view of reality.
I cannot find a single statement in any column that I agree with. Several I would like to, but seeing other responses in the same column tells me there are unstated assumptions in some of the choices that I cannot accept.
Let's take the first column. "God communicated with her directly through her dreams and visions." I believe God commnicated with her directly–whatever that means–but it asks me to define how that happened, something I do not know. Especially when compared with the second choice "God communicated with her in all of her visions and some of her dreams." So that means if I choose the first option, I am saying she never had ordinary dreams?
The whole second column is out of court. As C. S. Lewis said, "Nothing true can ever be original." Truth is eternal. She may have articulated something in a new way, but that column makes no allowance for such things.
Again, in the third column there is a shift from "misstatement," to "mistaken." Those are not at all the same thing. To "misstate" is to incorrectly or inartfully state what one knows. To be mistaken is to believe something not factual, or not logically coherent. And the scale escalates from 'some minor' to 'a large number.'
The fourth column draws a false distinction between the authority of major and minor prophets. In fact, it seems obsessed with the 'magnitude' of the prophet.
The final column (no, I was not going to use the term "fifth column" no matter what), ignores the whole question of the mission and purpose both of prophecy and prophets. We are asked to choose among making her essential to all Christians, or relegating her to devotional writings or less. No option which considers the possibility her works might be more useful in one setting than another.
I like the idea, I appreciate the effort, but I can find no options that come close to describing my understanding of Ellen White.
Agreed!
Stephen Hawking, the agnostic, is a brilliant man. His suppositions about origins is as your own, unknown. Earth science (unlike astro-space science in much of its elements) is knowledge of the physical fundamentals peculiar to Earth, and its knowledge began with the first humans notice of what and who. As Ferguson noted above, the Supernatural is by definition, unobservable, which is why Earth science is at odds with it. Yet we see the results of something unexplained by Earth science, and therefore it was a super stupendous happening at some time before man became aware of what outer space is, and of its infinite existance.
It is noted that Earth physical scientists in the acceptance of its origin theories, considers the Biblical story of Creation its nemesis (only enemy??). Very notablethat since the partial unravelling of the human genome, and more understanding of what was thought to be "junk", now called the epigenome, which influences the genes activity, that many, yes, many noted physical scientists, are saying(i can supply names you'll know) that the makeup of the genome could not have occurred by random natural selection, but was the result of a essential intelligent planning, something that atheists and scientists of the past have contended that a supernatural happening was an impossibility, that it was a chance origin from nothing. Scientists are saying that if their was no supreme God or being somewhere in outer space, they would have to invent one (i can supply quotes).
bty, who would conjecture as to where in space the nucleus of the "Big Bang" occurred?? And why there are not other universes??
Who ever formed this poll sure has no imagination and appears utterly confused. It is hard for me to get a score here as my answers tended to be "None of the above." I should have known when the third type of her writings were classified as "devotional commentaries on Scripture." Usually I am very impressed with Elder Thompson but he missed the boat here. The idea that they were devotional commentaries on scripture comes from the 1920s when the church rejected the truth of the 1919 Washington D. C. Bible Conference and embrased the heresy of the 1919 Philiadelphia Bible Conference on the two different views of inspiration.
As I understand Mrs. White, I'd see that in her day it was seen as religous novels (in the true form of the term novel as opposed to the novels that people like she, Nathaniel Hawthorn, and Herman Melvil among other litteraly people were sharing the same criticizisms about) to show the working out of the great controversy theme through the Bible and over history. She did NOT see them as commentary and when asked for questions about exegesus and Bible commentary questions she said that her visions do not answer those questions and that it is our job to study those out.
I believe that Mrs. White had visions, however they followed specific theams: 1. The Millerite movement was lead by God so don't give up your expirence but grow on it. 2. The formation of the church. 3. The formation of the medical and educational work. 4. The formation of mission work. 5. The issues of the Great Controversy: The roles of the 3 members of the trinity, that we have one infinite God too big for us to comprehend but he reveals himself inside of time and space through 3 individuals teaching the 3 aspecets that we need to know about God to understand him. That he is the great all powerful one and that he is bigger than the finite world. That he is our personal friend. That he is not only objective but also works with our subjective expirence. The trinity exist in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other as revealed through the law of self sacrificing love; the 3 deceptions of Satan attacking the 3 members of the trinity; How this is played out in most of the 3's in the Bible and events in the Bible and history; how these are answered in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus; and how the 3 angel's message are tied to these three points; and exactly what [or who] is hell fire and just how are the wicked destroyed.
Wow really great Kevin. So Ellen White was not nor intended to be some sort of Adventist Talumd, used to dissect every verse of the Bible – as many conservative Adventists use her. Rather, the emphasis is on her narratives as a whole.
Perhaps that point is relevant to reading the Bible as a whole, which has been said to be philosophy and revelation about God in narrative form. Perhaps we were never meant to read the Bible, and especially the Gospels, with the sort of forensic exegesis that is common to modern biblical scholarship – in both Judaism and Christianity?
Kevin H,
I notice at the end of your second paragraph when you speak about exegesis and Bible commentary questions, EGW advised that her "visions" do not answer these, but that it is "our job" to study these out.
Then, in the last paragraph you present a very lengthy point 5 on the themes of her visions, you list 8 or 9, possibly 10 topics which could be loosely identified within our SDA doctrines. Doctrines which for all intents and purposes have been studied out by carefull exegesis, and are therefore points upon which you have just declared she claimed it was not her "job" but ours to study out.
Are you not contradicting yourself? Or is it her contradicing herself? Or, even worse, is it the Church contradicting itself when it claims on the one hand to have studied these things out, but in reality has done exactly what you seem to have done: unwittingly granted her the role of presenting/authorizing these teachings because they were the themes of her "visions"!? (btw if you think we don't, in practice, "depend" on her with these themes, just try going against one or more of them with a "different" exegetical outcome and see how far you get!!)
ps.. in defense of the writer of the blog, I found it well thought out and imaginative; not at all confused. I probably did find your comment a little so however…:) or at least, confusing. Perhaps I need to read it more times..
Mrs. White would make comments such as "My writings are not to be used to answer questions such as what is the meaning of the daily" and similar comments when asked to do exegeses on the Bible. She is interested in pointing out neglected Biblical truths; there are things that Archaeology is full of showing us the culture that the Bible was written in that is different from our culture. The questions of the great controversy and yes even the investigative aspect of judgments were a huge part of the ancient world. She has called our attention to this but does not set her self up as the last word.
While we have turned this into a challenge, she tells us that if we find anything in her writings that are different from the Bible to follow the Bible. She did not set that up as a challenge saying "I dare you to find contradictions!!!" with the idea to throw her out if there is one. She is interested in applications of Biblical principles. When she writes about Jesus turning the water into unfermented grape juice she is not telling us that was the historical event, but as far as we are conserned we should APPLY the text to our day and to OUR life as if it was the unfermented grape juice. But too often what we find in contradiction is things that we don't really look at what she says about it, build on what we assume she says about it but that she actually does not say, and have a superficial reading of the text that we use against her where a deeper reading would not be out of line with what she is saying.
But a couple of examples. She talks about the inn and innkeeper not welcoming Jesus. But the work in Luke does not mean inn. There was no inn nor innkeeper in the Christmas story. That is just a mistranslation by not knowing what the word meant and Mrs. White made a lesson for us about how welcoming we are of Jesus based on the common understanding of the text. But I read in Mrs. White where she talks about the innkeeper but now know that there was not an innkeeper. in the Bible so I follow the Bible.
This does not take away from the lesson she gives me about my attitude towards accepting or rejecting Jesus, nor does it take away from her core message of the three aspects of the trinity, the 3 deceptions of Satan and how God answers these 3 deceptions. Nor does it take away from her guidance on how to work cities.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits”
Where ever the guidance of EGW is practice the Church and individuals are prospering.
Very interesting, David. "this little “uneducated” lady wrote more that a hundred year ago principles of epigenetics that only recently we are able to understand."
Can you expand on this? maybe offer some of the 'little lady's' statements, and how you feel they describe these principles? Please keep it simple for this non-expert in the field. Thanks.
David,
I think you are taking enormous poetic license in your comparisons. Any specfic examples you want to put out so we can take them apart in a systematic manner? In the end epigentics refers to gene control of function not directly related to the gene sequence. How does Mrs White's writings serve as an instructor on epigenetics?
David, yes, please do offer us something solid of EGW understanding or of speaking to "epigenetics". In your research and knowledge of the Genome, while anticipated by biologists for many years, it has only produced the breakthrough in the past 15 years. Until recently in learned circles, the non-genetic portion was considered "junk", but now in further study, has been discovered to influence the action of genes, and the nomenclature of this is epigenome.
Kevin H
I like your explanation of terms used by EGW. It makes sense and is irrelevant to the spiritual meaning of what happened. The same can be said of many terms used in the 20th century and before. They have changed in meaning and context. I am always amazed how both extremes can misuse or misunderstand the counsel and devotional writing of EGW. One takes it literally as if written today, and the other mocks it as proof of noninspiration. They are both being literal and out-of-context.
I think of her use of the word "insane." Today they are numerous terms for mental illnesses and neurosis from depression to psychosis.
This also happens in the Bible. I don't think anyone believes that the primitive peoples who spread around the earth after the flood understood cosmology and things like physics as we do today.
Ella,
"I don't think anyone believes that the primitive peoples who spread around the earth after the flood understood cosmology and things like physics as we do today."
Are you sure? Just a few posts above this appears:
A "..little “uneducated” lady wrote more that a hundred year ago principles of epigenetics that only recently we are able to understand. "
It seems a small step from granting such grand achievements to a "little 'un-educated' lady" to doing likewise for the "primitive peoples". As indeed they were!
I also wait with bated breath for David's examples of her profundity with regard to epigenetics.
It seems to me it does not matter how one wishes to spiritualize away her mistakes and ignorance the bottom line is obvious to blind freddy: She was sincere but sincerely wrong. Nothing more than a product of her times and culture, just as the primitive peoples you speak of were in their time.
Kevin, is there anywhere in her writings in relation to the Bible where a "deeper" reading removes her errors?
Wrong? Are you saying 100% wrong? That's a very broad statement and hardly true of any one.
Interesting. While I expected to score about 50, I didn't. I came out as a 38.
Of course, I do not really fit any of the category labels, as I am not an adventist
(nor even a Christian believer).
Those who are complaining that none of these categories precisely fit their views need to lighten up a bit. It's just a fun exercise, and I happen to think it was very well thought out. I didn't really expect a lot of the statements to precisely mirror my perspective. That's why it says to pick the description that most closely fits your viewpoint.
Does anyone really think that, by adding descriptions that fit your opinion about EGW to a tee, the survey would have been better? Remember, the purpose is to get a sense of where your views about EGW put you in the fundamentalist-liberal spectrum of Adventism. I am impressed by how well it seems to work for those who have shared their scores. And I, being a contrarian by nature, was prepared to be critical at the outset.
Share it with your Adventist friends on Facebook!
Agreed. And people are also failing to applaud Dr Taylor for a key point: that indeed these issues are complex. The fact that people are not entirely happy with how Dr Taylor has drafted his various categories exactly just supports that point!
Adventism is a spectrum and most of our beliefs and practices are open to a range of opinions, even 'inside the tent'. For two long both 'sides' of discussion have sought to debate various issues in overly simplistic and generic ways, such as the riddiculous 'liberal' and 'conservative' labels.
So again, I think a lot of people are missing one of the primary benefits of this sort of exercise. The primary benefit in my view is to emphasise just how hard it is to look at this complex issues of SDA belief and practice in such a simplistic manner. So again, I think Dr Taylor should be commended for his efforts here. If only we could have such a test with every issue on discussion here.
I would never take seriously any statement that did not actually fit my belief system, and few of these do. Therefore, I would not share it. I don't see how it could possibly be a reflection of one's beliefs with so many definitive statements.
The idea seems good, but it needs more flexibility.
In simple words epigenetics is how the environment controls gene expression without changing the gene. These influence are passed to next generations.
“Wherever the habits of the parents are contrary to physical law, the injury done to themselves will be repeated in future generations” Manuscript 3, 1897
This statement probably will be ignored by “untrained eye” and maybe was ridiculed in the past. But now the leading authorities in the flied of epigenetics are confirming it.
Obesity is a national health problem; a recent study showed that in the last 25 years the average weight in the young pregnant woman increased by 25 ponds (a pound per year). This increase in weight not only affects mother’s health but also has profound long lasting health implications for her children.
More specifics to come.
“Wherever the habits of the parents are contrary to physical law, the injury done to themselves will be repeated in future generations” Manuscript 3, 1897
One of the most sad “naturals experiments” happened by the embargo placed by the Nazis on the Netherlands in the winter 1944. The caloric intake decreased from 2000 to 600 calories per day. Now we have information on the children of the women exposed to such severe conditions. The follow up showed these children (now adults) are shorter, have more cardiovascular diseases and have more risk for schizophrenia than their sibling born before or after this episode. The analysis of their DNA was a significant different in their methylation.
David, some history you may not be aware of:
C Mather (1663 – 1728) believed that his sins led to the illness and death of his offspring. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
1694 Locke presented awareness of parental role in training the child. He emphasised how much the parent was responsible for the development of the child and the damage a parent could do by rearing incorrectly. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
17th Century: Diary evidence some women were concerned about the effects of cold weather on the health of their offspring. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
America 1809 Lovell: Child refuses to say “Good Morning”. Sent to room. Smacked, later lectured by father. Defiance regarded as “if the enemy had her completely in his power, and was trying to effect her ruin” and also as an example of the depraved state of the unrenewed heart. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
Francis Dalton, Darwin's cousin, argued that children get their intelligence and personality through their parents' 'genetics'. Good and bad! Sound familiar?
Charles Darwin, early emphasised the developmental nature of infant behaviour. In 1877, in the belief that human beings could be better understood by studying their origins—both as a species and as individuals— Darwin published an abstract of his notes on his son’s sensory, cognitive, and emotional development during the first 12 months. Move over EGW – this pre-dates the 1897 manuscript!
oops.. here's a tidy version:
C Mather (1663 – 1728) believed that his sins led to the illness and death of his offspring. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
1694 Locke presented awareness of parental role in training the child. He emphasised how much the parent was responsible for the development of the child and the damage a parent could do by rearing incorrectly. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
17th Century: Diary evidence some women were concerned about the effects of cold weather on the health of their offspring. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
America 1809 Lovell: Child refuses to say “Good Morning”. Sent to room. Smacked, later lectured by father. Defiance regarded as “if the enemy had her completely in his power, and was trying to effect her ruin” and also as an example of the depraved state of the unrenewed heart. Sound familiar? Pre-dates EGW
Francis Dalton, Darwin's cousin, argued that children get their intelligence and personality through their parents' 'genetics'. Good and bad! Sound familiar?
Charles Darwin, early emphasised the developmental nature of infant behaviour. In 1877, in the belief that human beings could be better understood by studying their origins—both as a species and as individuals— Darwin published an abstract of his notes on his son’s sensory, cognitive, and emotional development during the first 12 months. Move over EGW – this pre-dates the 1897 manuscript!
David, may I add, it is very clear in the quote you gave that EGW was a creature of her culture, and it seems to me that the insight was nothing more than a part of the continuum of human thought and discovery. I'm looking forward to other examples you have.
Perhaps I should warn you, I for one will be doing the same with them as I did for the one above, checking the historical context on the theme to evaluate if there is any novelty/originality etc. Perhaps, as a good researcher, you could do that before posting examples, and then we can discuss the really valid stuff…if there's any:)
Does it not worry you that, of all people, Darwin was alluding to the same thing 20 years before EGW? Not to mention Mather a 120 yrs earlier!
“Wherever the habits of the parents are contrary to physical law, the injury done to themselves will be repeated in future generations” Manuscript 3, 1897
If ones pay attention how EGW wrote this statement would note that the effect was not limited to the mother, also included the father! This is even harder to associate.
Recently in one of the most published articles that made even in times magazine, the male pre puberty diet was associated with the longevity of their male grand children. The abundance in carbohydrate diet in the grandparents shorter the life expectancy at least for 15 years in their grandchildren.
This little “formally uneducated lady” in my opinion was educated by Higher Authority. Were ever her advice is follow the church and individual progress
The SDA church was blessed having a true prophet.
“Believe his prophets, so shall you prosper”
David,
Did you even read the points demonstrating the thinking within the culture out of which EGW came?
How can you say she was educated by a higher power when she was only saying what others, including DARWIN had been saying for decades?
How?
C25 is not news even in “folklore believes” acknowledge the influence of parents on their children. What makes the difference is the specifics of her statement; prenatally, both parents, and trans generational.
By the way you mention Darwin, this man believed that we evolved, improved, from simple to complex. On the contrary EGW wrote that human race is groaning under a weight of accumulated woe (getting worse). Whoever is familiar with population genetics knows the fact that our genome is getting worse accumulatively and irreversible.
Again this “little uneducated lady” was proven to be correct against the most famous educated naturalist.
Oh brother… ok..
Whatever you are happy with… have a wonderfull day on whatever planet you are on!:)
EWG specifically wrote about the gluttony affecting up to the 3 and 4 generation. We have two mayor epidemiological studies that confirm that. Which other commentator that you mention was so specific about that?
More specifics
EWG specifically wrote in the 19th century about tobacco affecting the offspring of users. A century latter we were able to associated the adverse effect of maternal smoking in the fetus and newborns. Just recently we are understanding the mechanisms (epigenetics).
More and more specifics
EWG wrote in the 19th century alcohol affecting the offspring of users. A century latter we were able to associate the adverse effect of maternal drinking in the fetus and newborns.
I can provide you with more specifics in experimental animal as well in humans, but what is the use? There is is no worse blind that one you refuses to see.
David,
Please… check this out and note the date. If you happen to read the entire article you will be stunned at the similarity of terminology with EGW.
This author includes a quote from Dr Rush, who was quoted in an 1856 Review article!!!!
Here's some excerpts with the link below, and I have not even gone through the whole thing!:
Tobacco is “…none the less a poison, slowly, it may be, but surely, impairing the organism and inducing disease which strike at the life forces. And the victim may be quite sure that nature will, in the end, reassert herself, and exact a bitter atonement for all such infractions of her wholesome laws.” p 32
Dr Willard Parker: “Tobacco is runous in our schools and colleges, dwarfing body and mind.”
Dr Ferguson “I believe that no one who smokes tobacco before the bodily powers are developed makes a strong, vigorous man.”
p 34 Quoting “Lessons on the Human Body: “Tobacco, like alcohol, and for nearly the same reasons, injures the brain, deranges the entire nervous system, spoils the appetite for wholesome food, lowers the life forces, injures the lungs and heart, and depresses the spirits….saps the foundation of health and dwarfs the body and mind.”
Dyspepsia, palpitation described. Wonderfull EGW words!!
Quoting the Philadelphia Times where several leading physicians say: “unanimously condemn cigarette-smoking a sone of the vilest and most destructive evils that ever befell the youth of any country; declaring that it its direct tendency is a deterioration of the race” p 46
Quotes Dr Rush thus: “One cannot witness this sight (children smoking) without anticipating such a depreciation of our posterity in health and character as can scarcely be contemplated without horror.” p 48
Need I quote more? Uneducated lady – pllleeeze (is that how Nathan writes it:) …yes, she was uneducated, but well read and skilled at copying her peers, all of whom were better educated!!!
The tobacco problem / by Meta Lander. (Boston : De Wolfe, Fiske & Co., c1885), by Meta Lander
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006855350
cb25
I am not sure what you are trying to prove. There is nothing new under the sun, no matter who says it. It does take some intelligence or inspiration to know what to pick out of all the information available, especially in the important area of health. And sometimes EGW did make some mistakes (i.e., the cause of earthquakes is taken straight from her contemporaries' beliefs).
Now we believe Jesus was the ultimate Truth, but His messages to humanity were not new. He was pointing them to principals and love that aleady existed from the beginning. A large part of his counsel and comments were from the Old Testament.
Since God works through "every flash of the intellect" it's not too much to say that great persons are also inspired to greater and lesser degrees.
What you are saying seems quite nonsensical to me.
Ella,
What am I trying to prove? Nonsensical?
David is trying to tell us that EGW was given unique insights which are now being proven true by epigenetics.
I quote: "to my surprise this little “uneducated” lady wrote more that a hundred year ago principles of epigenetics that only recently we are able to understand. "
I am simply demonstrating that her writings did nothing more than express opinions which were readily available to her, and indeed used by her.
I don't quite know how you can call this nonsensical when all I am doing is quoting historical writings to show that she copied and reflected the culture of her day. NOTHING divine, inspiried or visionary about it. Zilch.
As for picking out the good bits from information available as an evidence of inspiration... well, if that is the best inspiration can do among the tens, perhaps hundreds, of other writers of the day speaking on evils of intemperance, gluttony, tobacco, alcohol etc, God help us….
Ella,
May I just add, I suggest you think through the ramifications of this statment you made:
"Since God works through "every flash of the intellect" it's not too much to say that great persons are also inspired to greater and lesser degrees.'
Does not such an application & use of the term inspiration make "inspiration" a purely subjective thing? In all these cases who decides the "greater or lesser degree"? I, You, We do. Because there is overwhelming evidence her inspiration about earthquakes was to a very "lesser degree", no one has a problem with rejecting it, but such a statement illustrates how attribution of "inspiration" and "lesser or greater" degree are purely subjective, being culturally, educationally, contextually influenced and shaped.
Not to be harsh, but how does what you have said not undermine the whole idea that "inspiration" etc are anything outside of the human experience and culture. You seem to be "proving" the exact oposite point of what David is trying to prove.
In the eyes of millions Mohammed was a great person and inspired to a greater degree… move over EGW!
cb25
Nonsensical was how it hit me (it could also fit some of David's defense), but that's too strong–irrelevant would be more appropriate.
My idea of inspiration is not typical in Adventism. I believe it is broader than we define it. I believe God works with all good-hearted people regardless of religious beliefs. It's up to God whom He chooses. He chooses people who are willing to listen.
I am a firm believer in the subjectivity of all humans, including both of us. But perhaps it is the leaning of that subjectivity that decides whether one can be used of God or not. It is hard for the Holy Spirit to work with one who is highly critical of the good in others, for example. I think we should always give others the benefit of the doubt until and unless proved otherwise.
Therefore, Ellen White's description of "every flash of intellect is from God" is quite right in my opinion. She never claimed to be infallible and was not an expert in material things unknown in her era, but was a leader in many ways. Her kindness to others is enough proof to know that indeed she was inspired. And I believe she showed a high degree of inspiration (being open to the Spirit) at the times of her visions which were often parables or symbolic in nature, at least, at the beginning, and not to be taken as literal happenings. Her inspiration cannot be proved by trivial matters, absolutes, or even language.
Now if you believe Ellen White was an evil, unkind person who was out to destroy others, then you should dislike her. Of course, you would need to prove that for most of us.
I apologize if I offended you, but I hope an explanation of my reasoning will be helpful.
This really makes no sense, David. Seeing reality is quite a different matter from understanding the scientific principles which explain that reality. Throughout history humans have understood that emotions, behaviors and thoughts are determined and conditioned transgenerationally by factors that do not alter basic homo sapien form, function and structure. It does not follow that those who were able to perceive these realities had an inkling of genetics, much less epigenetics. In none of your examples does Ellen White hint at an understanding of the principles of epigenetics. Tell me – when she observed that masturbation causes insanity was she explicating the principles of epigenetics?
Choosing as best I can the view in each category that “most closely reflects” my “own opinion,” I come out with a score of 19 (Conservative Adventist). Currently, some (maybe more) members of my conservative local church would more likely peg me as having a liberal bent. I see myself as a mixture, as likely many of us see ourselves.
Dr. Taylor, thank you so much for providing this stimulating oportunity. I was quite surprised to score only 19 when I consider myself a liberal adventist (based primarily on the issues of women's ordination and the exclusionary treatment of LGBT members). This exercise dramatically drove home the utter futility of attempting to cram the beliefs of millions of members into tight little boxes. The imposition of uniformity not only does injury to the faith of believers, it also distracts from the beauty of Jesus, the heart of the gospel.
Still, it would be informative and interesting to measure various opinions of the "28" (or is it 29 now?) based on a Likert scale. This would not only reveal the level of agreement/disagreement with each fundamental belief, but also the intensity of the feelings of those surveyed. Again, thank you for the insights gained.
Yes, I'd love to do a test like this for a whole range of SDA FBs! I think we'd soon discover even amongst those who claim to uphold the 28 FBs there is a wide diversity of views.
Lukewarm at "24"?
How about a "24" like myself? Am I in a "danger" zone because I am neither "hot nor cold?" I pondered this a long time back, before I was baptized, seeking answers to the questions, "Is Christianity naturally a religion best practiced by radicals? (I have heard dozens of memorable sermons affirming that it is, and that I must labor to become more radical, if I hope to endure the end-time tests.) To be an Adventist in the truest sense, is it necessary for me to be able to say that I favor at least one extreme, anchoring position in my religious life (aside from a strong connection and faith in Jesus)? Is being a 'moderate' in relation to Ellen White in fact a sign of a deplorable lukewarmness?"
I sincerely thank all those who took time to take and disclose their “score” on this survey. It is a work in progress and, if it is to mature as a viable instrument, it needs the input of many individuals of a wide variety of perspectives on EGW to improve it.
I assume all realize that there are no “right” or “wrong” points of view expressed in this survey. The “right” view is your view which may not be the “right” view of someone else. We all have “right” and “wrong” views about a number of theological topics. Since I assume that we are all Protestant Christians, we take a dim view of anyone or any institution declaring that it has the “Truth” which expects that the rest of us to agree to a single point of view about a given theological topic. (May I say to our Catholic friends that, as a Protestant, my understanding of the teaching office of the Supreme Pontiff of your tradition is that it is exercised very rarely and, there are Catholic scholars and lay persons who take private or public exception to such teachings even when stated ex cathedra)
As noted in the introduction to the survey, the hypothesis that drives this exercise is that one’s attitude toward, or opinions about EGW, is the strongest proxy for an individual Adventist’s overall placement along the wide spectrum of positions held within North American and European Adventism on a variety of theological and polity topics.
Right now, I know of no comprehensive survey data that can be brought to bear to support or refute that hypothesis. However, there are some data which may be used to refute it, as the debate on Women’s Ordination (WO) has disclosed. It appears that many adhering to very conservative, if not fundamentalist, views with respect to their general theological orientation may support WO within Adventism. The reasons for that would make for very interesting reading.
For those who suggest that no category or combinations of wording in any category of the current survey represents their own views concerning EGW, I would certainly appreciate if they would let me know either by emailing me at erv.taylor@atoday.org or by posting their comment indicate a wording that would reflect their view in the context of one or more of the five categories to which it would apply.
As for putting people into “boxes,” I very much appreciate that concern. However, we all hold views about a whole host of matters, so, in a sence, we place ourselves into “boxes” Now we certainly can move between boxes at will depending on receiving new information or new perspectives on old information.
Again, thank you for your input.
I will try to find the time to do this, and truly want to. Thanks for the opportunity.
Dr. Taylor, one small clarification: my comment above about "attempting to cram the beliefs of millions of members into tight little boxes" was not aimed at your interesting exercise on the acceptance/non-acceptance of EGW as a prophet. It was in reference to the ever-increasing emphasis on the "28" that GC leadership pursues in attempting to define the exact definition of "true" adventists in THE
True Church.
Well I came out at 48. To me she was a plagarizing nut job. Today we would sedate her.
WOW, Doc. Hope you aren't on the POTUS special commission of what should be done to the over 80 crowd. i shudder to think about it. Nothing new under the sun??Don't bet on it.