Basic Rules of Interpretation--External
[Excerpt from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 1998), pp. 394-407. Notes, indicated in brackets, are numbered as
in the original text.]
"Many men take the testimonies the Lord has given, and apply them as
they suppose they should be applied, picking out a sentence here and there,
taking it from its proper connection, and applying it according to their idea.
Thus poor souls become bewildered, when could they read in order all that has
been given, they would see the true application, and would not become confused."[1]
Eight basic rules of interpretation that embrace a document's wider context
would include:
¤ Rule One: Include all that the prophet has said
on the subject under discussion before coming to a conclusion.[2]
This rule seems obvious; yet, it probably is the first reason why confusion
reigns when people disagree. The reason: most people see only what they want to
see. This simple fact influences most all research, whether in astrophysics,
medicine, politics, or theology. Unfortunately, few people will admit it. We
call this phenomenon, the paradigm fixation or the problem of presuppositions.[3]
Especially in studying the Bible, nothing seems more difficult for most people
than to look at all the facts! This difficulty is not because a person's
capability to think is deficient. The difficulty that separates thinkers looking
at the same information is that their presuppositions are different,
presuppositions not only of the head but of the heart.
Presuppositions most often steer students only to "see" what they
want to see, thus they overlook the total range of what a writer has written on
a particular subject. These paradigms control the mind in what it wants to see,
and the heart in what it wants to believe. Earlier[4]
we called this phenomenon "attitude." These deep, often unverbalized,
attitudes most often determine one's conclusions.[5]
After recognizing this hovering cloud of presuppositions (paradigms or
world-views) that every student should recognize, the next challenge is to
examine all that a person has said or written on the subject under discussion.
Only in this way can the writer (or speaker) be treated fairly.
Many Biblical scholars through the centuries have accepted Isaiah's
principle: "But the word of the Lord was to them, 'Precept upon precept,
precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a
little'" (28:13). Accepting this principle assumes that the Bible contains
a unified, harmonious unfolding of God's messages to human beings. But this
principle does not teach that all texts are equally clear, or that the meaning
of a verse can be understood apart from that verse's context. The over-arching
message of the Bible (or any other book or author) provides the final context
for the meaning of any particular "precept" or "line."
The same principle applies to the writings of Ellen White. She wrote often: "The
testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as
scripture is explained by scripture."[6]
She believed her writings to be consistent and harmonious from beginning to
end, revealing "one straight line of truth, without one heretical sentence."[7]
That is a [p. 395] remarkable statement for any author to make, especially one
who had been writing for more than sixty years.[8]
On some subjects that many consider important today, Mrs. White wrote
nothing. Movies, television and radio programs, abortion, cremation, organ
transplants, etc., were not current topics in her day.
Little Said on Some Subjects
On some subjects she said very little. We have relatively few statements on
life insurance,[9] and only one
on the wedding ring.[10] Her
comments on two "special resurrections" are brief--she mentions a
special resurrection of some on Christ's resurrection morning[11]
and another immediately prior to Christ's second coming.[12]
On some subjects she wrote abundantly--topics such as Jesus Christ, the Holy
Spirit, faith, and divine-human cooperation.
Certain subjects have frequently caused unnecessary disagreements within the
church because students did not apply this first rule of hermeneutics. For
example, statements such as "eggs should not be placed upon your table"
should be balanced, according to other statements Ellen White has written
concerning eggs and her principle of "step-by-step" understanding of
truth (see pp. 282, 310, 311).[13]
Other subjects in the writings of Ellen White that profit from a fair use of
this first hermeneutical rule include appropriate clothing, Sabbath observance,
and counseling. Theologically, one is wise to follow this first rule when
studying such topics as the atonement, the nature of Christ, the nature of sin,
how sin is punished, and the relation of the "latter rain" to the
Second Coming. Several of these subjects have polarized Adventists because some
put more weight on expressions in a private letter than on the general
instruction of a book, or on a paragraph lifted out of context that seems to fly
in the face of full chapters in a published book.[14]
¤ Rule Two: Every statement must be understood within its
historical context. Time, place, and circumstances under which that statement
was made must be studied in order to understand its meaning.
Although this rule seems obvious, it lies at the root of many deep
disagreements. In the day of selective media bites, most anyone in the public
eye has been misunderstood by having his/her statements taken out of context.
How often a misquoted person is heard saying, "But that is not what I
meant!" Or, "I said that, but they didn't include everything I said!"
If living today, Ellen White could often say, "But that is not what I
meant!" "Yes, I said that, but they didn't include everything I said!"
Let us note three times that she emphasized the importance of this second rule
of hermeneutics.
In 1875 she pointed out that that "which may be said in truth of
individuals at one time may not correctly be said of them at another time."[15]
Why did she say this? Because she was being criticized for her endorsement of
certain leaders who later fell from grace or apostatized.
In 1904 she appealed to the fact that God "wants us to reason from
common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation
of things."[16]
In 1911 she emphasized that "regarding the testimonies, nothing is
ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered."[17]
Here we have three fundamental categories: time, place, and
circumstances--all of which must be considered when one seeks to understand the
meaning of any statement. These categories are not synonymous.
Time. Some Ellen White statements need to be understood in terms of
when she made them. For instance, on January 16, 1898, she wrote: "We
are still in probationary [p. 396] time."[18]
Will these words always be true? Obviously not. The time will come when
probation will cease (Dan. 12:1; Rev. 22:11). At present we know that certain
events still lie in the future, e.g., creation of the image to the beast (Rev.
13), Sunday-law enforcement, the great final earthquake, etc. Thus, at the
moment, "we are still in probationary time."
What about the following statements? "The voice from Battle Creek,
which has been regarded as authority in counseling how the work should be done,
is no longer the voice of God."[19]
"It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as
the voice of God."[20]
But in 1875 Ellen White wrote concerning the General Conference in session: "When
the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God
has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must
not be maintained, but be surrendered."[21]
Why the difference in her position? During the late 1880s and 1890s, as the
record shows in her letters and sermons, some of the policies of the General
Conference officers were not ones that Ellen White could endorse. On April 1,
1901, the day before the General Conference session opened, she spoke these
words: "It is working upon wrong principles that has brought the cause of
God into its present embarrassment. The people have lost confidence in those who
have the management of the work. Yet we hear that the voice of the conference is
the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought that it was
almost blasphemy. The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but
it is not."[22]
Obviously, times had changed and her observations changed accordingly.
But that 1901 General Conference session made significant changes in
policies and personnel. Ellen White was pleased. Only two months after the
changes, she became aware that her son Edson was quoting some of her
pre-1901-session statements and applying them in the new, post-1901-session
period. Times had changed--the statements of the 1890s no longer applied. She
wrote to Edson: "Your course would have been the course to be pursued, if
no changes had been made in the General Conference [1901]. But a change has been
made, and many more changes will be made [in 1903, many more were made] and
great developments will [yet] be seen. No issues are to be forced. . . . It
hurts me to think that you are using words which I wrote prior to the
Conference."[23]
In 1909 Ellen White was clearly in the post-1901 mode when she wrote: "God
has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth,
when assembled in a General Conference [session], shall have authority."[24]
In summary, when we speak of the authority of the General Conference and Ellen
White's several statements, we should immediately determine when the
statements were made, and under what conditions.
Place. Some statements may be true for one person or group while at
the same time they may not be true for another person or group. James White
spoke to this difficulty when two groups, in different places, would read his
wife's admonitions: "She works to this disadvantage . . . she makes strong
appeals to the people, which a few feel deeply, and take strong positions, and
go to extremes. Then to save the cause from ruin in consequence of these
extremes, she is obliged to come out with reproofs for extremists in a public
manner. This is better than to have things go to pieces; but the influence of
both the extremes and the reproofs are terrible on the cause, and brings upon
Mrs. W. a three-fold burden. Here is the difficulty: What she may say to urge
the tardy, is taken by the prompt to urge them over the mark. And what she may
say to caution the prompt, zealous, incautious [p. 397] ones, is taken by the
tardy as an excuse to remain too far behind."[25]
The "place" consideration will help those who have been confused
about whether Ellen White's writings should be quoted in public. On one occasion
Mrs. White wrote that "the words of the Bible, and the Bible alone should
be heard from the pulpit."[26]
On two other occasions she wrote: "In public labor do not make prominent,
and quote that which Sister White has written."[27]
"The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's
word is the unerring standard."[28]
Do these statements prohibit ministers from quoting the writings of Ellen
White publicly, especially in a church service? The first quotation speaks to
the Christian world generally, comparing "an imaginary religion, a religion
of words and forms," with the "words of the Bible and the Bible alone
[which] should be heard from the pulpit." The whole page (context) is
emphasizing that "those who have heard only tradition and human theories
and maxims [should] hear the voice of Him who can renew the soul unto eternal
life."
The next two quotations speak to Seventh-day Adventist evangelists.
Adventist evangelists should prove their doctrines from the Bible, not from the
writings of Mrs. White. The second reason for this caution is obvious: those who
are not acquainted with the authority of Ellen White would not be persuaded by
her statements, and might react negatively.[29]
In summary, Mrs. White never said that her writings should not be quoted in the
Seventh-day Adventist church pulpit.
The place test is especially important when compilations are made of
Ellen White's thoughts on selected subjects. An incident in the early 1890s
demonstrates the problem of misapplying testimonies given to one person for a
particular purpose. Mrs. White, writing from Australia, addressed a letter to A.
W. Stanton in Battle Creek, a man who had taken the position that the
Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon. She included that letter in articles
printed in the church paper.[30]
In his fifty-page pamphlet, "The Loud Cry of the Third Angel's Message,"
Stanton quoted freely from Ellen White's reproofs to the church, concluding that
these testimonies constituted God's rejection of the organized church. He stated
that those who finish up God's work on earth must separate from the Adventist
Church which had become Babylon. He made his case by stringing together
misapplied Ellen White comments and by including a letter to a private party
that was used out of context.
Mrs. White replied that Stanton had "misapplied [a private letter sent
to another for a particular purpose], as many do the Scriptures, to the injury
of his own soul and the souls of others. . . . In the use of a private letter
sent to another, Brother S. has abused the kindly efforts of one who desired to
help him."
Further, she acknowledged that her misapplied statements might "appear"
to support Stanton's conclusions. However, "those who take them in parts,
simply to support some theory or idea of their own, to vindicate themselves in a
course of error, will not be blessed and benefited by what they teach."[31]
This Stanton incident and Ellen White's response (which settled the matter
for church members) provides us with a historical example of how damaging and
deceptive a compilation of worthy writings can be when time and place are not
considered.[32]
¤ Rule Three: The principle underlying each statement of
counsel or instruction must be recognized in order to understand its relevance
for those in different times or places.
Whenever prophets speak they are either conveying truth as a principle or as
a policy. Principles are universal, in the sense that they apply to men and
women [p. 398] everywhere; they are eternal, in the sense that they are always
relevant, always applicable.
Policies, however, are the timely applications of eternal, universal
principles. Principles never change but policies do, depending on circumstances.
Thus policies may apply a principle in a way that the prophet never envisioned.[33]
Ellen White was well aware of the difference between universal principles
and policies that are determined by changing circumstances: "That which can
be said of men under certain circumstances, cannot be said of them under other
circumstances."[34] Her
contemporaries recognized that Mrs. White appealed to the intelligence of her
readers more often by citing principles than by spelling out the answers to
local issues.[35]
Understanding the basic difference between principles and policies will help
one avoid misusing either the Bible or the writings of Ellen White. The
following topics illustrate the need to place Mrs. White's counsel in the
context of time, place, and circumstances.
Teaching girls to harness and drive horses. In outlining a school
curriculum, Ellen White wrote that "if girls . . . could learn to harness
and drive a horse, and to use the saw and the hammer, as well as the rake and
the hoe, they would be better fitted to meet the emergencies of life."[36]
Is this a principle or a policy? Obviously, the principle is clear: girls should
be "fitted to meet the emergencies of life."
When this counsel was given in the early years of the twentieth century,
most Americans still lived on farms. For many practical reasons, including
safety, this principle could be best applied by girls learning how to "harness
and drive a horse" and not leave such things for boys only. Today, the
principle would be best served in high school or college with courses in auto
mechanics and driver's education.
School-entrance age. In 1872 Ellen White wrote her first major
treatise on Christian education.[37]
Regarding the age when students should begin school, she said: "Parents
should be the only teachers of their children until they have reached eight or
ten years of age. . . . The only schoolroom for children from eight to ten years
of age should be in the open air amidst the opening flowers and nature's
beautiful scenery."[38]
For thirty years this counsel was the rule for Adventist elementary schools
generally. In 1904 the local school board of the St. Helena, California, church
met, with Ellen White present, to discuss the issue of school-entrance age.[39]
The principles quickly emerged: (1) children differ in their development; (2)
ideally, parents should be their children's teachers for the early years, until
they are 8-10 years old (thus recognizing differences in child development); (3)
if parents are not able to teach and control their children properly, it would
be better for the children to learn under a teacher who would teach discipline
as well as the appropriate studies; (4) if both parents are employed outside the
home, it would be better for their children to be placed in the controlled
environment of the classroom rather than left in an empty house; (5) for the
sake of the St. Helena Sanitarium's reputation, it would be beneficial to all if
children were not observed throughout the day "wandering about, with
nothing to do, getting into mischief, and all these things."
So, on the basis of principle, from the standpoint of what is best for
children and for their influence on the reputation of the sanitarium, policy was
changed and arrangements were made to accept younger students at the St. Helena
church school.
The bicycle craze. At the beginning of the twentieth century, "the
American people were swept with a consuming passion which left them with little
time or money for anything else. . . . What was this big, new distraction? For
an answer the merchants had only to look out the window [p. 399] and watch their
erstwhile customers go whizzing by. America had discovered the bicycle, and
everybody was making the most of the new freedom it brought. . . . The bicycle
began as a rich man's toy. . . . The best early bicycle cost $150, an investment
comparable to the cost of an automobile today. . . . Every member of the family
wanted a 'wheel,' and entire family savings often were used up in supplying the
demand."[40]
With that background we may be better able to understand Ellen White's
counsel at that time when she wrote that "money expended in
bicycles and dress and other needless things must be accounted for."[41]
She went further than the principle of exorbitant cost; she cautioned regarding
the spirit of "bewitching" competition and the desire to "be the
greatest."[42]
Thus, her policy on bicycles (which, if placed within today's context, may
seem odd, even ridiculous) was based on clear-cut Biblical principles. The wise
and balanced expenditure of funds and the avoidance of the competitive spirit
are principles that should impact on decisions in all ages. If Mrs. White were
alive today, she might apply the principle of accountability to the way people
spend money on luxury items, automobiles, sports equipment, electronic gadgets,
or clothing.
Sports. Unfortunately some have excerpted some of Ellen White's
statements on sports without maintaining her sense of balance. In 1895 she
warned students that in "plunging into amusements, match games, pugilistic
performances," they were declaring "to the world that Christ was not
their leader. All this called forth the warning from God." However, the
next sentence, often not quoted, reveals her common sense: "Now that which
burdens me is the danger of going into extremes on the other side."[43]
For example, to rule out sports altogether would be missing Mrs. White's
point. In the early 1870s she counseled parents and teachers that they should
come close to their children and pupils and if they would "manifest an
interest in all their efforts, and even in their sports, sometimes even being a
child among children, they would make the children very happy, and would gain
their love and win their confidence."[44]
On another occasion Ellen White wrote that she did not "condemn the
simple exercise of playing ball." What did concern her was that
ball-playing, and sports in general, "may be overdone." She followed
this statement by explaining what she meant by being overdone.[45]
The lesson to be learned here, as in other subjects that often polarize
readers of Ellen White's writings, is that the full range of her thoughts on a
particular subject should be read in order to get her perspective.
Flesh food. Earlier we studied Ellen White's health principles and
her application of these principles.[46]
Here we will emphasize again how she, a dying consumptive at 17, went on to
outlive her contemporaries after a remarkably rigorous life. One of her open
secrets was to distinguish between principle and policy.
Out of the many examples available, let us note again how she related to
flesh foods--the part of her diet in her younger years that she enjoyed most! In
chapter 27 we saw how she embraced the health message as it came to her in 1863,
some of which cut straight across her personal habits and delights. We also
noted how she occasionally departed from her habitual practice of abstaining
from flesh food. Yet, in 1870 she claimed that she had acted according to
principle ever since receiving the health vision in 1863: "I have not
changed my course a particle since I adopted the health reform. I have not taken
one step back since the light from heaven upon this subject first shone upon my
pathway. . . . I left off these things from principle. And since that time,
brethren, you have not heard me advance an extreme view of health reform that I
had to take back. I have [p. 400] advocated nothing but what I stand to today."[47]
What were the basic principles of health reform that Ellen White believed
she had faithfully followed? (1) Do the best one can under circumstances that
may be beyond one's control; (2) Avoid everything hurtful, such as alcohol,
tobacco, and drugs; (3) Use judiciously that which is healthful--use
self-control; (4) Do not mark out any precise line in diet that everyone must
follow, because not everyone has the same physical needs or opportunities to
find the best food; (5) Follow health practices to improve one's mind for
spiritual purposes, not to earn God's acceptance (legalism); and (6) Reason from
cause to effect.
Health reform policies are choices that flow from those principles. If
vegetarianism were a principle, then we would have a problem with God's command
for the Israelites to eat the Passover lamb. We also would wonder why He
distinguished between clean and unclean meats. And what would we do with our
Lord's practice of eating the Passover lamb, as well as fresh fish, with His
disciples?
Vegetarianism is a policy, a wise policy, that is being reaffirmed
constantly in the scientific laboratories of the world, as well as in the
epidemiological studies showing the awesome difference in the incidence of
disease between vegetarians and consumers of flesh foods.[48]
The Christian's duty is to "eat that food which is most nourishing,"
leaving each person to apply this principle by making choices on the basis of "known
duty."[49] Sometimes
emergency situations arise and one is forced to choose the good rather than the
best, or even a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. Although the principle
remains, the policy or application may change with circumstances.
Courting in school. Some people misunderstand Ellen White's counsel
regarding dating or courting during the school years. They fail to note the age
of the students involved. Part of the instruction was given especially for the
Avondale campus where many of the students were still in high school: "We
have labored hard to keep in check everything in the school like favoritism,
attachment, and courting. We have told the students that we would not allow the
first thread of this to be interwoven with their school work. On this point we
are as firm as a rock."[50]
Some of her concern was directed to students at Battle Creek College, where
also there was a mix of high-school and college students: "Students are not
sent here to form attachments, to indulge in flirtation or courting, but to
obtain an education. Should they be allowed to follow their own inclinations in
this respect, the college would soon become demoralized. Several have used their
precious school days in slyly flirting and courting, notwithstanding the
vigilance of professors and teachers."[51]
Would Ellen White have given the same counsel regarding older, more mature
students? Where would Christian young people find their life mates if not in the
environment of a Christian campus committed to Adventist goals? On several
occasions she set forth the principles that should guide young people and the
school program in the area of Christian courtship. For example: "In all our
dealings with students, age and character must be taken into account. We cannot
treat the young and old just alike. There are circumstances under which men and
women of sound experience and good standing may be granted some privileges not
given to younger students. The age, the conditions, and the turn of mind must be
taken into consideration. We must be wisely considerate in all our work. But we
must not lessen our firmness and vigilance in dealing with students of all ages,
nor our strictness in forbidding the unprofitable and unwise association of
young and immature students."[52]
¤ Rule Four: We must use common sense and sanctified reason
as we analyze [p. 401] the difference between principles and policies.
During Ellen White's comments at the St. Helena school board meeting in
1904, she again emphasized a principle of hermeneutics that would help them and
others when trying to apply principle to policy. She noted that church members
were taking her words legalistically, unthinkingly: "Why, Sister White has
said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going
right up to it."
Her response: "God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us
to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances
change the relation of things."[53]
Christianity is a reasonable religion. God implanted within men and women
not only the ability to respond to His grace (and the ability not to respond)
but also the capacity to reason from cause to effect. On many occasions Ellen
White said, "God has given us powers to be used, to be developed and
strengthened by education. We should reason and reflect, carefully marking the
relation between cause and effect. When this is practiced . . . they may fully
answer the purpose of God in their creation."[54]
She did not make reason the final arbiter of right and wrong. Reason, for
her, is the capacity to understand the reasonableness of God's counsel and the
ability to reflect on the results of obeying or disobeying that counsel. She
described this relationship between God's will and human reasoning powers: "We
are to be guided by true theology and common sense."[55]
For her, sanctified reason and common sense are virtually synonymous.
Reason and extremes. Every subject, whether it be in theology, law,
ethics, music, graphic art, or constitutional law, is beset with those who tend
to go to extremes. We call those groups Pharisees or Sadducees, conservatives or
liberals, literalists or symbolists, indifferent (cool) or fanatics (hot), etc.
In philosophy and religion, we call the one group objectivists, the other,
subjectivists.[56]
Truth (as principle) is not some kind of balance between two errors. Truth
transcends errors of both extremes by recognizing the truths that each extreme
wants to guard.[57] But truth
does not incorporate the spirit or the errors that each extreme holds to. When
people recognize the element of truth in their opposition, a remarkable event
happens--peace prevails, conciliation happens, and real unity develops. Real
unity is not the result of administrative appeal or a committee vote; unity
rests on commonly accepted principles of interpretation.
At the same time, matters dealing with policy (not principle) require a
different approach. For example, dealing with dress Ellen White wrote: "There
is a medium position in these things. Oh, that we all might wisely find that
position and keep it." Speaking of diet, she counseled: "Take the
middle path, avoiding all extremes."[58]
But avoiding extremes is more than an intellectual matter. Some people may
understand intellectually the correct linkage between principle and policy, but
emotionally they tend to extremes. Even when they promote correct policy, they
may be either extremely hot or cold. Ellen White put her finger on their
problem, even when their policy is correct: "We have found in our
experience that if Satan cannot keep souls bound in the ice of indifference, he
will try to push them into the fire of fanaticism."[59]
A respected Adventist theologian of an earlier generation recalls how he
unintentionally exercised "the fire of fanaticism" in applying one of
Ellen White's health principles. While selling religious books in his youth, M.
L. Andreasen lived on granola. He carried it with him, mixed it with water, and
ate it twice daily.
Then someone read from one of Ellen White's books that people "eat too
much." He looked around and found sufficient verification of that
statement. So, [p. 402] to be faithful to new light, he cut his daily ration in
half. Some time later he read the statement himself in Testimonies,
volume 2, page 374: "You eat too much." That caused him to think
again. Should he cut his daily ration in half again?
Then it dawned on him. He was honest and wanted to do right but he now
thanked God for "a little good sense."[60]
Because Ellen White said on several occasions that "two meals [daily]
are better than three,"[61]
some families made it a rule for everyone, including those in the sanitariums.
In reference to sanitariums she showed how to link principle with policy and
circumstances: "If, after dispensing with the third meal in the sanitarium,
you see by the results that this is keeping people away from the institution,
your duty is plain. We must remember that while there are some who are better
for eating only two meals, there are others who eat lightly at each meal, and
who feel that they need something in the evening. . . . [Eliminating the third
meal may] do more harm than good."[62]
In 1867 Mrs. White answered some prevalent questions regarding health
reform. One of the questions was: "Is there not danger of brethren and
sisters taking extreme views of the health reform?" She answered: "This
may be expected in all stirring reforms. . . . It is God's plan that persons who
are suited to the work should prudently and earnestly set forth the health
reform, then leave the people to settle the matter with God and their own souls.
It is the duty of those every way qualified to teach it to make people believe
and obey, and all others should be silent and be taught."[63]
In summary, this fourth principle of hermeneutics appeals to common sense in
linking principle with policy. This requires both soundness in thought and
emotional evenness. Ellen White well said: "There is a class of people who
are always ready to go off on some tangent, who want to catch up something
strange and wonderful and new; but God would have all move calmly,
considerately, choosing our words in harmony with the solid truth for this time,
which requires to be presented to the mind as free from that which is emotional
as possible, while still bearing the intensity and solemnity that it is proper
it should bear. We must guard against creating extremes, guard against
encouraging those who would either be in the fire or in the water."[64]
¤ Rule Five: We must be certain that supposed quotations
are indeed written by the author to whom they are attributed.
Every public figure has had the problem of facing people who were adamant
about what they "know" the speaker or author had said. The "belief"
may be as wild as one's imagination, but still the speaker or author must try to
defend himself against the error or distortion. Obviously, the contending person
does not have the reference for what he is "quoting." Most of the time
he/she got his information from a third or fourth party. We often call these
distorted memories and flat errors "apocryphal statements."
This problem plagued Ellen White from the beginning of her early ministry,
and even today. Included in statements that have been incorrectly attributed to
her are topics such as: (1) Inhabitants of other planets are now gathering fruit
for a Sabbath stopover of the redeemed on the way to heaven; (2) She saw an
angel standing by Uriah Smith inspiring him as he wrote Thoughts on Daniel
and the Revelation; (3) The Holy Spirit is, or was, Melchizedek; (4) She
designated certain mountain spots as safe hideouts in the time of trouble; (5)
She named specific cities, etc., that would be destroyed by coming earthquakes,
fires, floods, etc.; (6) Christ will return at midnight; (7) Eggs should never
be eaten (forgetting the immediate context and many other statements regarding
varying circumstances); (8) She would be a member of the 144,000; (9) Literal
darkness will cover the earth as a signal that probation [p. 403] has closed;
(10) Christ's last mediatorial work before probation closes will be for children
who have wandered away from the church; (11) We should live as though we had
1,000 years to live, and as we would if we were to die tomorrow; (12) Entire
churches and conferences will apostatize, etc.[65]
¤ Rule Six: Though not contradicting themselves, we must
allow for the maturing experience of authors, even prophets, in that truth is
unfolded to them only as fast as they are able to understand it.
This rule helps students who are concerned about certain portions of a
prophet's life or writings that fall into a category other than "time,
place, and circumstances," addressed in Rule Three above.
Ellen White clearly taught that God leads His people along as fast as they
are able to receive further truth. The history of Israel is a splendid example
of how He works with people where they are, not where they will be in
the future.[66] The prophets
were also part of this divine plan to unfold truth as fast as people are ready
for it. They themselves experienced the process. Paul not only knew more about
the plan of salvation than did Joel or David, he experienced the "unfolding"
in his own life.[67]
Some call this process "progressive truth." The term is helpful if
it is describing a person's progressive awareness of spiritual truths. But it
misses the mark if it is used in the context of an evolutionary development that
proceeds out of the evolving of human understanding through trial and error,
through thesis and antithesis into synthesis. God's method of teaching the human
race involves both the recovery of lost truth and the unfolding of further
truth, as fast as people are ready to receive it. Evolutionary progression is
understood as humanity's growth from ignorance to knowledge, without any
absolutes that would put universal value on knowledge.[68]
This process happens to individuals as well as to groups of people. Most
people know how this process has been working in their own lives. If we have
been growing in grace, what we knew about God's will for us individually ten
years ago was much less than what each of us knows today. No doubt all of us
wish we could adjust what we said to others ten years ago, even though we
thought it wise at the time![69]
But some may say, "A prophet should be different. What prophets said
when they were twenty years old should not need 'clarification' or 'expansion'
when they are fifty-five!" This view arises out of a verbal-inspiration
framework. We must not forget that God speaks to men and women who "differ
widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments."[70]
This "wide" spread of individual differences includes the "wide"
spread of a person's grasp of truth between his/her youth and the mature years.
Though the core of truth remains the same, one's insights are enlarged. Maturing
skills of insight and communicating skills may express the core message
differently in later years. In 1906 Ellen White reflected on her learning
experience: "For sixty years I have been in communication with heavenly
messengers, and I have been constantly learning in reference to divine things,
and in reference to the way in which God is constantly working to bring souls
from the error of their ways to the light in God's light."[71]
Prophets are humble people who have seen, to some degree, the glory of the Lord.
Humble prophets easily recognize indebtedness to God for their fresh
perspective, "like the shining sun, that shines ever brighter unto the
perfect day" (Prov. 4:18).[72]
The growth principle pervades all creation. It explains Paul's appeal to the
Corinthians: "We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the
glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to
glory, just as by the [p. 404] Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18). This text
lies behind the rule: "It is a law of the human mind that by beholding we
become changed."[73]
Thus, the more young Ellen Harmon studied her Bible and prayed for divine
guidance as she faced life's choices, she became "transformed," and "changed"--she
grew in knowledge of God's character and His ways.[74]
Consequently, letting the growth principle inform our study of Ellen White
(or the Bible) we should expect deepening insights as she conveys God's messages
to others. We can see the growth of her ability to convey deeper insights,
especially when we compare her earliest descriptions of the origin of the great
controversy in heaven with that in Patriarchs and Prophets.[75]
Thus, when readers sense a broader perspective in Patriarchs and
Prophets (1890) than is found in Spiritual Gifts (1858), they are
recognizing the hermeneutical rule that a prophet will grow, as anyone else, in
spiritual perception. This increase in spiritual perception will help the
prophet to state more clearly the message that God wants conveyed. This is the
principle that best describes the experience of Jesus on earth. Luke described
His growth and maturing ability to share spiritual things with others: "And
Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (Luke
2:52).[76]
¤ Rule Seven: In some instances, a person must understand
the experience of an event, either directly or vicariously, before understanding
the truth of the event.
This rule may sound contrary to sound reasoning. But such was the situation
when the apostles faced the unbelieving world after Christ's resurrection. Who
would believe them unless the apostles had seen the empty tomb or had seen Jesus
during the next forty days before His ascension? In a similar sense, early
Adventists in the late 1840s and early 1850s "experienced" the growing
connection between the supernatural visions of Ellen Harmon-White and the voice
of authority for their growing community.[77]
In late 1896 while in Australia, Mrs. White had to respond to John Bell who
was promoting a divisive message regarding the time when the three angels'
messages of Revelation 14 would be fulfilled. In essence, he was placing it in
the future. She wrote insightfully, in terms of this seventh rule of
interpretation: "The peculiar views he holds are a mixture of truth and
error. If he had passed through the experience of God's people as He has led
them for the last forty years, he would be better prepared to make the correct
application of Scripture. The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings
in prophetic history, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and
replaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuine light."
She ended her five-page response by noting this seventh rule: "Many
theories were advanced, bearing a semblance of truth, but so mingled with
Scriptures misinterpreted and misapplied that they led to dangerous errors. Very
well do we know how every point of truth was established, and the seal set upon
it by the Holy Spirit of God. . . . The leadings of the Lord were marked, and
most wonderful were His revelations of what is truth. Point after point was
established by the Lord God of heaven. That which was truth then, is
truth today."[78]
Later Ellen White wrote out a more extended response on this "futurism"
that was being taught in Australia. Again she emphasized the role of experience
that should be respected by Adventists: "The Lord will not lead minds now
to set aside the truth that the Holy Spirit has moved upon His servants in the
past to proclaim. . . . The Lord does not lay upon those who have not had an
experience in His work the burden of making a new exposition of those prophecies
which He has, by His Holy Spirit, moved upon His chosen servants to explain."[79]
[p. 405]
Living through the experience when truth is revealed becomes a rock-solid
foundation not only for those who first experience it but also for those who
later want to "re-experience" it in their own truth system. Truth,
whenever found, "fits" previous truth as a tree limb "fits"
its trunk. Truth is coherent.
¤ Rule Eight: Not everything in the Bible or in the
writings of Ellen White can be understood at first glance, or even after years
of study.
This thought may sound strange to the inquiring mind. But think of
astronomers and neurosurgeons (or genetic-code researchers, microchip
specialists, etc.) who spend their entire lives expanding their knowledge--but
feeling increasingly awed at what opens before them.
True Christians practice the principle of suspended judgment[80]
when they and their colleagues reach the limit of understanding. Especially when
they ponder the Biblical story (and Ellen White's writings) on such subjects as
the nature of God (not His character, of which much has been revealed), why sin
developed, how Christ could become a human being, how regeneration works--they
acknowledge that these "are mysteries too deep for the human mind."
They remember that we are not "to doubt His Word because we cannot
understand all the mysteries of His providence."[81]
To force an interpretation because one feels everything must
be understood is surely to lead to a misinterpretation. Or to dismiss or
disregard any portion of the Bible or the writings of Ellen White simply because
some passages are not easily understood also damages one's understanding of
truth.
Notes
[1] Selected Messages,
book 1, p. 44.
[2] See T. Housel Jemison,
A Prophet Among You (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 1955), pp. 438-450.
[3] Note the kind of
scientific thinking that prevailed before Copernicus changed the worldview of
astronomers (and everyone else) with his paradigm shift, placing the sun instead
of the earth at the center of the solar system. Consider the physicians who bled
George Washington, America's first president, to death because their medical
paradigm did not understand the germ theory nor even the strong possibility that
hydrotherapy treatments might have reversed his chest infection. One of the
chief responsibilities of those searching for truth is to examine the lens
through which the researcher searches for truth. The lens (the paradigm or
worldview) by which we look at information determines how we evaluate so-called
"facts." Alfred North Whitehead said it well: "When you are
criticizing [or, one may add, interpreting] the philosophy of an epoch, do not
chiefly direct your attention to those intellectual positions which its
exponents feel it necessary explicitly to defend. There will be some fundamental
assumptions which adherents of all the variant systems within the epoch
unconsciously presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not
know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever
occurred to them. With these assumptions a certain limited number of types of
philosophic systems are possible."--Science and the Modern World
(New York: Mentor Editions, 1952), pp. 49, 50.
[4] See p. 373.
[5] Attitude determined how
first-century Jews looked at Jesus as recorded in Matthew 16: If this young
Galilean teacher did not fit their paradigm of what they thought the Messiah
should be, they would look elsewhere--and they did. If one does not believe in
miracles because of some kind of scientific paradigm, the Biblical story becomes
folklore. If one does not believe that God speaks through men and women through
visions, he/she then searches for reasons to explain away the vision phenomenon.
And on it goes.
[6] Selected Messages,
book 1, p. 42.
[7] Selected Messages,
book 3, p. 52.
[8] "The light that I
have received, I have written out, and much of it is now shining forth from the
printed page. There is, throughout my printed works, a harmony with my present
teaching."--Review and Herald, June 14, 1906.
[9] Testimonies,
vol. 1, pp. 549-551 (1867). To understand this statement we must also employ "hermeneutic
rule number two."
[10] Testimonies to
Ministers, pp. 180, 181 (1892).
[11] The Desire of
Ages, pp. 785-787, 833, 834; Early Writings, pp. 184, 185, 208; The
Great Controversy, pp. 18, 667; Selected Messages, book 1, pp.
304-308.
[12] Early Writings,
p. 285; The Great Controversy, p. 637.
[13] Testimonies,
vol. 2, pp. 362, 400. Note some helpful statements in Testimonies, vol.
7, p. 135; vol. 9, p. 162; The Ministry of Healing, p. 320.
[14] "If you desire
to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works."--Testimonies,
vol. 5, p. 696. See George Knight, Reading Ellen White, pp. 121-123.
[15] Testimonies,
vol. 3, p. 471.
[16] Selected
Messages, book 3, p. 217. See p. 345.
[17] Ibid., book
1, p. 57.
[18] The Upward Look,
p. 30.
[19] Letter 4, 1896, cited
in Manuscript Releases (MR), vol. 17, pp. 185, 186 (1896).
[20] Letter 77, 1898,
cited in Ibid., p. 216 (1898).
[21] Testimonies,
vol. 3, p. 492.
[22] Ms 37, 1901, cited in
Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, pp. 159, 160. See also George E. Rice, "The
Church: Voice of God?" Ministry, Dec., 1987, pp. 4-6.
[23] Letter 54, 1901,
cited in MR, vol. 19, pp. 146-148.
[24] Testimonies,
vol. 9, p. 261.
[25] Review and
Herald, Mar. 17, 1868.
[26] Prophets and
Kings, p. 626.
[27] Selected
Messages, book 3, p. 29.
[28] Evangelism,
p. 256.
[29] In Ellen White's
first testimony to the church, she wrote: "Some have taken an injudicious
course; when they have talked their faith to unbelievers, and the proof has been
asked for, they have read a vision, instead of going to the Bible for proof. I
saw that this course was inconsistent, and prejudiced unbelievers against the
truth. The visions can have no weight with those who have never seen them and
know nothing of their spirit. They should not be referred to in such cases."--Testimonies,
vol. 1, pp. 119, 120. See also Ibid., vol. 5, p. 669.
[30] Review and
Herald, Aug. 22 to Sept. 12, 1893. See p. 231.
[31] Testimonies to
Ministers, pp. 32-62.
[32] "I know that
many men take the testimonies the Lord has given, and apply them as they suppose
they should be applied, picking out a sentence here and there, taking it from
its proper connection, and applying it according to their idea. Thus poor souls
become bewildered, when could they read in order all that has been given, they
would see the true application, and would not become confused. . . . Reports fly
from one to another regarding what Sister White has said. Each time the report
is repeated, it grows larger. If Sister White has anything to say, leave her to
say it. No one is called upon to be a mouthpiece for Sister White. . . . Please
let Sister White bear her own message."--Selected Messages, book 1,
pp. 44, 45. "Those who are not walking in the light of the message, may
gather up statements from my writings that happen to please them, and that agree
with their human judgment, and, by separating these statements from their
connection, and placing them beside human reasonings, make it appear that my
writings uphold that which they condemn."--Letter 208, 1906, cited in
Arthur White, Ellen G. White: Messenger to the Remnant, p. 86.
[33] See p. 34.
[34] Testimonies,
vol. 3, p. 470.
[35] In a private letter
W. C. White reported to A. O. Tait on a union committee meeting to which his
mother was invited. White noted how they hurried the discussion along in order
to listen to Ellen White: "As you are well aware, Mother seldom answers
such questions directly; but she endeavors to lay down principles and bring
forward facts which have been presented to her that will aid us in giving
intelligent study to the subject, and in arriving at a correct conclusion."--Cited
in Arthur White, The Ellen G. White Writings, pp. 165, 166.
[36] Education,
pp. 216, 217.
[37] Testimonies,
vol. 3, pp. 131-160; Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 15-46.
[38] Ibid., p.
137.
[39] A verbatim report of
Ellen White's participation in the school board discussion is found in Selected
Messages, book 3, pp. 214-226.
[40] Reader's Digest,
Dec. 1951. See George Knight, Reading Ellen White, pp. 100-102.
[41] Testimonies to
Ministers, p. 398.
[42] Testimonies,
vol. 8, pp. 51, 52.
[43] Fundamentals of
Christian Education, p. 378.
[44] Ibid., p. 18.
See also Testimonies, vol. 3, pp. 134, 135.
[45] The Adventist
Home, pp. 498, 499.
[46] See pp. 310, 311.
[47] Testimonies,
vol. 2, pp. 371, 372. "I present these matters before the people, dwelling
upon general principles."--Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 493
(1897). In 1904, at the age of 76, she said that she was healthier than "in
my younger days," attributing her improvement to the "principles of
health reform."--Ibid., p. 482. In 1908 she reacted to those who
were stating that she had not been following the principles of health reform as
she had "advocated them with my pen." Forthrightly she wrote: "As
far as my knowledge goes, I have not departed from those principles."--Ibid.,
pp. 491, 492, 494. See Review and Herald, Mar. 17, 1868, for an
editorial by James White where he addressed those who were more rigid than they
should have been with health principles. One of the problems that called forth
the editorial was the virtual verbal-inspiration paradigm that drove some
readers to their super-critical positions.
[48] See pp. 322-324.
[49] Testimonies,
vol. 9, p. 163; Selected Messages, book 1, p. 396.
[50] MR, vol. 8,
p. 256.
[51] Testimonies,
vol. 4, p. 432; see also Ibid., vol. 5, p. 109.
[52] Counsels to
Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 101. See Jerry Allen Moon, W. C.
White and Ellen G. White, p. 359.
[53] Selected
Messages, book 3, p. 217. See p. 395.
[54] Mind, Character,
and Personality, vol. 2, p. 436.
[55] Ibid., vol.
1, p. 148.
[56] Testimonies,
vol. 1, p. 425.
[57] See pp. 260, 261.
[58] Counsels on Diet
and Foods, p. 211. The ancient Greeks often spoke of moderation ("nothing
in excess") as the search for the "golden mean."
[59] Testimonies,
vol. 5, p. 644.
[60] Virginia Steinweg,
Without Fear or Favor (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1979), pp. 53, 54.
[61] Counsels on Diet
and Foods, pp. 141, 173; Testimonies, vol. 4, pp. 416, 417.
[62] Ibid., p.
283. "The practice of eating but two meals a day is generally found a
benefit to health; yet under some circumstances persons may require a third
meal. This should, however, if taken at all, be very light, and of food most
easily digested."--The Ministry of Healing, p. 321.
[63] Review and
Herald, Oct. 8, 1867.
[64] Testimonies to
Ministers, pp. 227, 228.
[65] For further study of
these and other illustrations of the Ellen White "apocrypha," see
Comprehensive
Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White, vol. 3, pp. 3189-3192.
[66] For further study of
the principle of accommodation, see pp. 34, 282, 304, 311, 422.
[67] "The fact needs
to be emphasized, and often repeated, that the mysteries of the Bible are not
such because God has sought to conceal truth, but because our own weakness or
ignorance makes us incapable of comprehending or appropriating truth. The
limitation is not in its purpose, but in our capacity."--Signs of the
Times, Apr. 25, 1906.
[68] "In all ages,
through the medium of communion with heaven, God has worked out His purpose for
His children, by unfolding gradually to their minds the doctrines of grace. . .
. He who places himself where God can enlighten him, advances, as it were, from
the partial obscurity of dawn to the full radiance of noonday."--The
Acts of the Apostles, p. 564.
[69] "God intends
that to the earnest seeker the truths of His Word shall be ever unfolding."--Signs
of the Times, Apr. 25, 1906; "He [Christ] promised that the Holy Spirit
should enlighten the disciples, that the word of God should be ever unfolding to
them. They would be able to present its truths in new beauty."--Christ's
Object Lessons, p. 127.
[70] The Great
Controversy, p. vi.
[71] This Day With
God, p. 76.
[72] "Whoever
examines her written words--going from the childlike composition of her girlhood
writings through the strenuous period of her young maturity to the gracious,
eloquent, and deeply moving works of her later years--will perceive the steady
progress in vision and expression, and may remember that she gained these
abilities, under God's hand, not by supinely waiting for the outpouring of the
Spirit, but by moving under the impulse of that Spirit in the exercise of every
power of her being."--A. W. Spalding, Origin and History of Seventh-day
Adventists, vol. 1, p. 76.
[73] Patriarchs and
Prophets, p. 91.
[74] "Looking unto
Jesus we obtain brighter and more distinct views of God, and by beholding we
become changed. Goodness, love for our fellow men, becomes our natural instinct."--Christ's
Object Lessons, p. 355.
[75] See Alden Thompson, "The
Theology of Ellen White: The Great Controversy Story," Adventist
Review, Dec. 31, 1981.
[76] Ellen White spoke
reverently about the development of Christ's spiritual and mental endowments: "The
powers of mind and body developed gradually, in keeping with the laws of
childhood. . . . Since He gained knowledge as we may do, His intimate
acquaintance with the Scriptures shows how diligently His early years were given
to the study of God's word. . . . Thus to Jesus the significance of the word and
the works of God was unfolded, as He was trying to understand the reason of
things. . . . From the first dawning of intelligence He was constantly growing
in spiritual grace and knowledge of truth. . . . Communion with God through
prayer develops the mental and moral faculties, and the spiritual powers
strengthen as we cultivate thoughts upon spiritual things."--The Desire
of Ages, pp. 69-71.
[77] "Thus the
process by which the mystical proclivities of a teenage girl were recognized as
the revelations of an authoritative prophet was aided at every step by the
underlying philosophical assumptions of the Adventist community. Unlike the
Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, Ellen White did not proclaim her revelation and
gather a following; rather, she had a particular kind of religious experience
that came to be accepted as authoritative within an existing group. The
prophetic ministry of Ellen White was an aspect of Adventist social experience,
not just the psychological experience of a single individual."--Bull and
Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, p. 25.
[78] Selected
Messages, book 2, pp. 101-104.
[79] Ibid., pp.
110, 112; see Ibid., book 1, p. 161.
[80] See George Reid, "Is
the Bible Our Final Authority?" Ministry, Nov. 1991.
[81] Testimonies,
vol. 5, p. 699. "The Bible is but dimly understood. A lifelong, prayerful
study of its sacred revealings will leave much unexplained."--Counsels
to Writers and Editors, p. 82; "Both in divine revelation and in
nature, God has given to men mysteries to command their faith. This must be so.
We may be ever searching, ever inquiring, ever learning, and yet there is an
infinity beyond."--Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 261; "We can
understand as much of His purposes as it is for our good to know; and beyond
this we must still trust the might of the Omnipotent, the love and wisdom of the
Father and Sovereign of all."--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 699.
Ellen G. White Estate Homepage
Selected Issues Regarding Inspiration and the
Life and Work of Ellen G. White