The Great Controversy Cult, Part 2: How Inspired Is The Great Controversy?

by Reinder Bruinsma  |  27 September 2024  |

Read Part 1 here

My conclusion in first part of this essay—that The Great Controversy belongs to an earlier age, and is out of context in our time—has been strengthened and amplified by a stream of publications about the person and ministry of Ellen White, beginning in 1976 with Ronald L. Numbers’ Prophetess of Health: an analysis of Ellen White’s heavy indebtedness in her writings about health to other contemporary health reformers. 

In the years that followed, I read a whole range of books and Spectrum articles which accused her of frequent and extensive plagiarism, with Walter Rea’s The White Lie as the best-known example. Recently, Steve Daily has gone as far as to accuse Ellen White in his “psychobiography” of dishonesty and outright fraud. These critical works have enraged many admirers of Ellen White, who tend to regard these critics of the prophet as being led astray by the devil. They believe Satan wants to do everything possible to undermine or even destroy “the Spirit of Prophecy.” 

These critical comments on the work of Ellen White have, however, not remained without consequences. Today most of those who have studied the issue of her indebtedness to other authors agree that Mrs. White’s reliance on the writings of other people was much more extensive than had earlier been thought. 

An element that created much uneasiness is the assumption that Ellen White wrote her books herself, page by page, in the same way as most authors do their writing. This simply is not the reality. Mrs. White did indeed do an immense amount of writing, but most of it was in the form of articles and other short pieces, notably letters and “testimonies.” With a few exceptions her books were to a major extent the work of her assistants (e.g., Marion Davies, to whom Ellen White referred as her “bookmaker”), who assembled and selected material she had written earlier, and compiled that into books. Their work required Ellen’s approval, but the process differed significantly from how books are usually written. 

Extensive research regarding various aspects of the origin of The Great Controversy has brought things to light that many people find difficult to reconcile with traditional views of inspiration. Ellen White herself did not claim to possess any form of verbal inspiration, or of inerrancy in the historical material she included in her book. But there is no longer any doubt that she copied from other writers without giving credit. 

A vision expanded

On March 14, 1859, Ellen White had a two-hour vision about the great controversy theme. This was from time to time amplified by other visions, as the writing process progressed. Reading Reformation histories—in particular, those written by Merle d’Aubigné and James A. Wylie—helped her to flesh out the details and to establish the chronological order of the historical chapters. Her two-year stay in Europe, and the opportunity to see some of the actual places where Reformation events took place, was, as she herself testified, also very helpful to her. She also benefited from suggestions of others as to what to include, or possibly change, or delete.

The Great Controversy had by 1884 developed from isolated articles to a 400-page book that became the precursor of the 1888 edition, which later was significantly revised to become the standard edition of 1911. Ellen White’s staff played a major role in the selection and editing of much of what was included. 

Her staff was especially engaged in the section about the Czech reformer John Hus and his associate Jerome. When it was decided that a chapter about them was to be added, Ellen White did some intensive reading, then hurriedly wrote some 89 manuscript pages, which were then edited and greatly reduced by her staff to what became chapter 6 of the book. 

Historical errors

Donald McAdams and other historians pointed out historical errors in The Great Controversy. It was found that, for instance, the description of the Albigenses was far from accurate. In the 1911 revision some controversial statements about Roman Catholicism were replaced by others, and the sharp terminology about the Roman Catholic Church was softened. 

The book now had an introduction with information about its origin and contained some additional material in footnotes. Although the author was not involved with the actual work of revision, she gave her express approval of the result. With her consent two of her staff members wrote an additional chapter about the Reformation in Spain, which was included in Spanish editions of The Great Controversy, but not in English editions and other translations. In 1956 an appendix with mostly historical notes was added.

For me and many others the question became ever more pressing whether this is how inspiration works. Few still entertain the idea that angels guided the pen of Ellen White as she worked on The Great Controversy. But does the actual process, as we now know it, lead us to the conviction that this book, in its 1911 form, is more than a century later still an authoritative review of history and a detailed road map for last-day events?

Should it still be read and published?

The above paragraphs are a brief summary of what I have learned about The Great Controversy as I keenly followed what gradually has come to light. 

This does not mean that for me the book has lost all its value and should not remain in print. That is not my conclusion! It is an Adventist classic about a theme that remains a foundational Adventist conviction: the ongoing controversy between the forces of good and evil constitutes the background for the history of the world and of the church, with the firm belief that ultimately the good will be victorious.

But if it is kept in print—and also sold or given to “outside” publics—it ought to be unreservedly placed in the American context of the nineteenth century. 

Unfortunately, what we see happening is the complete opposite. A dominant part of the denominational top leadership refuses to acknowledge many of the things that have been discovered and promotes the book as the final word about past religious history and as the infallible roadmap for the times in which we live and for the immediate future. 

For our present world leader, Ted N. C. Wilson, the book is of such paramount importance that for some time now he has posted a daily quote from The Great Controversy on his Facebook page. And he constantly cites from it in his sermons and articles. His view about the inspired nature of the book does not seem to have been noticeably impacted by all the information that has surfaced in recent decades. 

Wilson’s uncritical regard for The Great Controversy is the basis for his audacious (and ill-conceived) plan of the free distribution of a billion (or at least hundreds of millions) copies of this book around the world. The church has become polarized around a number of issues, this being one of them. Large numbers of members, especially at the fringes of the church, and through activities that are pushed by some independent ministries, are enthusiastically participating in this extravagant project. 

But many individual Adventists, as well as numerous denominational entities, are ashamed that their church would launch such a foolish enterprise, which, they feel, will do great damage to the reputation of their church. They regret that The Great Controversy seems to have become a kind of cult book and that in the minds of many, a massive distribution of this book is equated with the spreading of the gospel.

The Great Controversy does not need to be, or to become, a cult book. We can present it to the church, and to some outside audiences, as an Adventist classic, provided it has a suitable introduction and explanatory notes, ensuring that the readers are able to place the book in its original American nineteenth-century environment. 

The theme of the book is as relevant as it was when Ellen White and others wrote about it in a way that their Victorian contemporaries could relate to. Its message must now be communicated in a language and with arguments that reflect our twenty-first century reality. If this does not happen, The Great Controversy indeed risks becoming a cult book that will hurt rather than support the Adventist mission.

Further reading:

For E.G. White’s own statements concerning her inspiration, see:

• The Great Controversy (1911 ed.), pp. v-xiii.
•  Selected Messages, vol. 1, pp. 15-18.

For a frank statement by William C. White about his mother’s inspiration, see his letter to L. E. Froom (January 8, 1928) in: George Knight, Ellen White’s Afterlife, pp. 78-83.

For details about the genesis of The Great Controversy, see

• Denis Fortin, “Great Controversy” in: Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, eds., The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (Review and Herald, 2013), pp. 847-850.
• George Knight, Ellen White’s Afterlife (Pacific Press, 2019).
• Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord (Pacific Press, 1998), pp. 445-450.