Basic Rules of Interpretation--External
Isa Almasih
[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.