Reflections on the Life and Work of Ellen White: Summer 2008.
Post your papers below. All further comments and discussions should be posted under the thread entitled: "Post your comments on your colleagues' papers."
50 comments:
Anonymous
said...
In this reflection paper I will discuss two aspects: what touched me from the textbook readings and my reflection on last week’s classes.
In section 2 of Messenger of the Lord, I was fascinated to read about the type of person Ellen White was in her time. Dr. Douglass examines who she was and her personality. The description of her time includes an environment where America was in full bloom economically and politically. It was to become a united kingdom, and socially there was a rise of spiritualism, socialism, phrenology, hydrotherapy, and women’s rights, to name just a few. Religiously, this country was fresh and open to new ideas (in the North for the most part), and Christians appeared to be contented. However, this environment could impact Christianity positively or negatively. Understanding this environment opened my eyes to understand better what Ellen White and the Millerite movement faced.
The element that touched me the most was how Ellen White was as a person. She was not only a messenger for God, but in terms of wife and mother, she really demonstrated true Christian womanhood. She loved her husband, and she was not afraid to state that she was wrong or ask forgiveness. She, as many other young women, had to learn how to be a mother. Very often in our minds we picture prophets to be on a pedestal and we are below them somewhere. However, I have found in this reading the opposite; we as people are at times more proud than the prophet was. She was very humble and lived what she believed and professed.
I was also touched by her character. This young woman was surprisingly spiritual and had a deep conviction about who she was as a sinner, and thus also a deep sense of love for her Savior. Of course, she did not understand all things when she began her walk with Christ, but she hung on, even with her limited view of who God was at first. The greatest encouragement I received is that Ellen White became discouraged too, and how she handled her discouragement has given me hope and a greater respect for who she was.
Dr. Douglass did a marvelous work with this book in including many quotations from a diversity of scholars, which contributed to painting a true picture of who Ellen White was as a human. These quotations give a perspective of how she was viewed by other people rather than simply stating what was revealed in her writings.
Now I turn my thoughts toward the classes. The class on Thursday was fantastic; it really challenged my thinking, and it was more than just what we have been learning (we “had class” that day!). The principles taught were related to the writings of Ellen White and yet included how to read her writings mingled with systematic theology. The questions posed that day about the view that we have on Christ and His nature helped me to see how often we are tainted by our own experiences, background, cultures and education. True, I also understand that what Dr. Hanna shared is also influenced by all these things; however, it helped me to ask more questions.
I also enjoyed the thought that as Seventh-day Adventists, we need to go back to the Bible and present the true principles of why we believe in the spirit of prophecy and why Ellen White fit this ministry. It is true that too often we assume what we say or teach without realizing that we do not know fully the true answer or we have forgotten or drifted away from its true teaching. Much of what Dr. Hanna has presented—the biblical perspective on the spirit of prophecy and the gift of prophecy—could have been taught in its true light in the 1880s, but, as often happens, we have drifted away from it or forgotten it.
I appreciate the reality that we as students are challenged to return to Bible study so that the old light can be new light and new light can lighten more fully the old light.
Amount of Light There is only One God (Deuteronomy 6:4). Naturally then, we as Adventists must believe that there is only One Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:4-6). Given that the Testimony of God is Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:1,2 - more precisely, the life, ministry, teachings, and sacrifice of Jesus testifies to who God is), the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy (Revelation 19:10; 22:8,9) and that Spirit of Prophecy is the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21 - meaning, He is the one who gives us an accurate picture of who Jesus is through His work in giving words, thoughts, etc to the prophets), then the testimonies must be seen, metaphorically as “Light”. As light illumines dark places, so these pictures of who God is can be referred to as “Light”. John 1:1-14, makes it clear that this is a Just analogy for Jesus. His Testimony of God was a Light, in that it made who God was much clearer in our dark minds. The Holy Spirit was sent to do just that same thing in regard to Jesus (John 15:26). He inspired John (and the other prophets) to write what he did in the first fourteen verses and thus Testify of Jesus through the Spirit of Prophecy. In fact, there were many prophets who were inspired by the Spirit of Prophecy that did not write (Nathan, Gad, etc). Many wrote and their writings were not included in the canon (Jasher, Balaam, etc). It is clear that this same Holy Spirit still works today and inspires people. Some of those, it would not be wrong to think, could also write what they were inspired. We would judge their writings by comparing them with Scripture to see if they are of the same Spirit (Isaiah 8:20). If they are, then we can be sure that these are also being inspired to Testify of Jesus since that is why the Spirit of Prophecy has been given to mankind. So when Ellen G. White states that she is the Lesser Light and the Scriptures are the Greater Light (Review and Herald January 20, 1903) she means primarily that her writings are meant to illumine Scripture. She cannot become part of Scripture because she was not sent to write anything new. By her own admission she wrote to help us understand Scripture; to be a Light to Scripture. The amount of inspiration by the Holy Spirit should be seen as the same. The amount of Light is the same as Biblical writers. There is only One Holy Spirit. We wouldn’t say that the “Minor Prophets” have a minor importance (just that their books are shorter) or that they were only minor-ly inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that same way when she says that she is the Lesser Light it does not mean that her writings are less important than those of the Greater Light. I believe that when she refers to her own writings as the Lesser Light, she is simply stating the fact that she was not adding anything new to Scripture. In that way her writings could not be seen as Scripture. They were Lesser, in that they were meant to cast light on a path for us to find our way back to Scripture. When one examines the writings of Ellen White, it becomes quickly clear that no human alone could write what she did. Indeed, her writings are inspired. Also immediately clear is that her writings have one major theme; casting light upon Scripture so that we can have a better relationship with God (because we can see Him for who He truly is.) This is why her writings are part of the Spirit of Prophecy. They are a testimony of who Jesus is. There is only One Holy Spirit. There is only One Spirit of Prophecy, which is to function as a Testimony of Jesus in order to help us to see Him for who He truly is. The New Testament writers were inspired to do that and so was Ellen G. White. Both inspired; yet for slightly different reasons. Mrs. White wrote to help us to understand what they wrote for the same purpose, to get to know God. Both Light, yet one is primary and the other (equally inspired by the same Spirit) secondary.
Comments on Class Discussions and Messenger of the Lord - Section 2, chapter 7 - "Personal Characteristics"
I would like to comment the topic of discouragement, temptation, and overcoming against all odds. The section dealing with Ellen G. White’s feelings of discouragement and lonely path as a prophet/messenger of God had a profound impact on me. The type of courage that she showed in the midst of her personal trials and public struggles is quite inspiring. She had the type of conviction that led her to pen such words as “notwithstanding I have trials and afflictions, I look away to Jesus” (p. 77). Her life is a model for us on how we can persevere in the midst of adversity by remaining faithful to God. It is amazing to read about how she dealt with discouragement, loneliness, frequent bouts with various illnesses, and the challenges that she faced “leading a group of strong-willed men and women into new paths of church organization” (p. 76). She truly exemplified courage under fire! In the same way that she faced serious challenges from her peers we too have to be prepared to respond to the challenges presented by our contemporaries. The uncompromising stance that she took when it came to presenting and studying of the Word of God must also become our own objective and practice. I also appreciate the fact that she was able to counsel and minister to others while she had to also deal with her own personal hardships. Overall, seeing how she overcame these obstacles helps us realize how we can gain victory in the area of our calling. Moreover, the class discussion we had comparing Jesus’ temptations to what we as we human beings experience was quite interesting to me. I believe that the Bible gives us plenty of insights on how Jesus was in fact tempted. I believe that Jesus was indeed tempted in like fashion as we are. The only distinction (which the Bible clearly points outs) is that He did not sin by succumbing to those temptations. The fact that humans are subject to falling into sin and have the capacity to sin indicates that Jesus was in a similar state when He took on human form. For example, Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness after forty days of fasting shows how He was tempted in a number of ways common to humankind. Satan waged a fierce attack against Jesus and desperately tried to get Him to fall to his temptations. Jesus relied on Scripture to help Him overcome the temptations. Though Jesus was at a highly vulnerable point in His life, He still resisted the tempter’s words. Thus, it was entirely possible for Jesus to give in to sin and stumble on His mission to save humanity. On the other hand, it was also entirely possible for Adam and Eve not to give in to their appetite and keep from falling into sin. Jesus, by gaining victory over Satan, paved the way for us in making it possible for us to also conquer sin. In the book, Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White says “by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome” (p.58). After reading this statement, I became even more convinced that Jesus had to overcome sin just as we need to overcome temptations on an ongoing basis. It is comforting to know that I will never face a temptation that Jesus Himself in some way did not face. Jesus was in a very vulnerable state when He was tempted but He resisted sin and demonstrated strength of character. Jesus resolved in His heart to obey the commandments of God instead of living according to the flesh. Likewise, by remaining close to God we can overcome trials, feelings of discouragement, and the enemy’s temptations. When we truly unite with Christ by faith, sin no longer has a hold on us and we can enjoy the freedom that comes with overcoming sin. Hence, Christ’s victory becomes our victory!!
Ellen White and Spirit of Prophecy, terms that are synonymous, yet are not. In class, it was made very clear that while the traditional Adventist interpretation of Ellen White = the Spirit of Prophecy is correct, it is also narrow and does not include the whole picture. Class discussion this past week clearly erased any thought that a narrow understanding of Ellen White being the definition of the Spirit of Prophecy is Biblical and accurate. By that I mean, traditionally, myself included, when explaining how the SDA church is the true church, we turn to Revelation 19:10 and explain that the Spirit of Prophecy is Ellen White and because we have her, we are indeed the remnant church. While I have no trouble agreeing that Ellen White did have the Spirit of Prophecy, I appreciated that Dr. Hanna made it abundantly clear through the use of scripture, that one cannot simply make this short cut and that the Spirit of Prophecy is indeed the Holy Spirit and able to work through anyone who is willing. So therefore, while Ellen White does have the Spirit of Prophecy, she is not the Spirit of Prophecy, but the Holy Spirit is. However, what Ellen White did have was the office of the prophet and her advice and writings still influence and guide the church so that there has not been a major shift away from our initial identity. One quote that Dr. Hanna brought out that I found especially striking was the quote from “Testimonies to Ministers” and Ellen White’s advice on how to interpret Daniel and Revelation. She says that “in the future ministers may have less to say about Roman Power.” How true is that in today’s world. While some people may complain that we don’t preach the good old religion the way we used too and wish that the Adventist church would go about and tell the world how bad the Catholic Church is. But in reality, I have always felt uncomfortable with this approach, because there are nice people that are Catholics and more importantly, how can we reach out to them, if we are not even nice to them? Also this comment made me appreciate how “Holistic” Ellen White’s view of the fulfillment of prophecy is. Seeing the world events as they are happening, one can’t help but think that, while the Catholic Church may indeed be this beast, it is clear that it is not limited to the Catholic Church. Reading the text book has been an enriching experience. I have found a woman unlike the one portrayed to me as I was growing up. I have found a real woman who was dedicated to her God, the church the helped found and her family. One line I found especially meaningful was “For the next 75 years, her most compelling mission was to tell the truth about eh character of God.” (Douglass 49) Here she had just received a vision in which she met Jesus, who had a smile on his face and seemed to touch her hand and say “Fear not,” from here she was set free from the burdens and misconception that God was a tyrant and instead he was a loving Savior that cared about her. The rest of her life reflected this encounter she had with Jesus and through the trials that she had to endure ahead, the physical issues she had, the emotional traumas of losing 2 children and a husband as well as those that come when leading a church, not to mention the stresses of a continued writing ministry. Ellen White was a real person, but one that had a real encounter with Jesus, and that encounter she had early on and continued to seek as she lived her life, shaped all areas of her life, and while she did have doubts and discouragement, her response and actions always reflected her daily encounter with Jesus. I have found this enlightening as well as challenging for my personal life. Here was a woman who had God speak to her and though she is probably the person in the past 175years to have had the closest relationship with God, she remained in pursuit of him constantly. What a challenge for me today, who has not had God talk to me, like she had, to pursue a relationship with God as she did. By: Clifford Lim
I found the discussions in class interesting and insightful. There were several issues which particularly caught my attention. First, I don’t recall ever hearing of Ellen White as “The Spirit of Prophesy” which I don’t like. Second, the entire idea of the conditional nature of prophesy was astounding and made me rethink SDA splinter groups. Third, I learned the type of humility that is particularly displayed by God’s prophets and God which I had not noticed before. Apparently, most everyone except for me has heard of Ellen White being called the Spirit of Prophesy. I had never heard it put that way and despite our discussion I think it sounds wrong. We seem to be stretching words. Words despite our discussion have limited meanings, even the angel says he has the spirit of prophesy and not he is the Spirit. People should do their best to say what they mean and stop abusing the English language. This is what the ecumenical movement attempts to do, they stretch the definitions of words so that it appears that the religions are in agreement when really they are not which simply creates a morass of confusion for the every day believer. I just wanted to get that out. Second, I was really intrigued about this idea that most prophesies are conditional. Save the ultimate prophesy of Jesus’ triumph in the end, the saving of the righteous, and the destruction of the wicked. I have so many times heard that the SDA is the last church in prophesy. I have always wondered about this as I looked at the message to Laodicea. If we are the last church and there can be no other than why does Christ warn us that he may spit us out? It certainly makes our election as a church unsure. And, for all those splinter (former) SDA groups I used to be sure that they had apostatized—maybe not irrevocably—but they had chosen to separate themselves from the ‘True Church’ and had thus fallen away into confusion with the Harlot’s daughters (the rest of Protestantism). That sounds extreme. Now, I think that maybe they haven’t fallen away—really. Anyways, I’m not about to change my affiliation as I believe that the SDA church preserves the Truth of Christ—keeps (or at least tries to) the 10 commandments and has the testimony of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, it humbles my estimation of my SDA Church. Just as individuals who must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it seems it is no different for us-corporate, the Church must work out its salvation with fear and trembling too. And maybe we should be more humble in our estimation of ourselves and the splinter groups. This takes me to the humility of Ellen White and all the other prophets. They are all true servants. None is a better example of this type of humility than God. Even as Christ testifies of the Father, the Father gives all authority to the son. And why, to save us—to minister to us so that we can live and not die. This is true leadership, when one gives of themselves totally and then points to another so that the other may be glorified! This is the Spirit that we need individually and corporately in our Church. I wonder if this humility is in some way a test too. Is not one of the fruits of the spirit humility? None of the canonized prophets glories in himself. All, including E.G. White recognized the glory of God as seen in those ‘greater lights’ who came before them. When Christ says of the Comforter (Holy Spirit) that he will speak not of himself, in this same way, all the messengers who possess the Holy Spirit will not testify of themselves. I’m so astounded that even God acts this way and God is well…God. --Tammie L
My Reflections on WK1 The Life and Ministry of Ellen White has proven to be a very insightful class thus far! Right from the start we have dove into scripture and sought to understand the meaning of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” This approach has been crucial because within our church that phrase is most often attributed to Ellen White and is often, and easily misunderstood. It was important for me to hear the comment Ellen White wrote in Early Writings, 1851, “I recommend to you, dear reader, the word of God as your rule of faith and practice.” This statement, to me, clearly showed Ellen White to hold scripture above everything else. It is important for Adventists to know and be able to show others that this principle guided the life and ministry of Ellen White. If we ever lose sight of this fact we lose sight of the point of Ellen Whites life and ministry, which was the word of God in the Bible. She was the lesser light which pointed believers to a greater light! After one week of lecture I already feel that I have gained a stronger understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy. The key texts that point to truth in regards to this matter appear to be Revelation 19:10, which shows the testimony of Jesus to be the Spirit of Prophecy, 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, which shows the testimony of God to equal Jesus. Through these texts it was made clear that the testimony of God equals Jesus and the testimony of Jesus equals the Spirit of Prophecy which is the Holy Spirit. I have appreciated the way Dr. Hanna has based his thoughts with scripture and has taken the time to carefully explain what he means to say rather than just saying it. He also takes time to explain the meaning of important phrases and terminology we so often use as Adventists in order that we may know exactly what we mean and not mislead or misrepresent ourselves when we say them. This approach has been beneficial to me because it has allowed me to develop a strong base knowledge and understanding on which to move forward from and I’ve appreciated it greatly. I’m very much looking forward to the growth that will come from this class.
Keenan Tyler Week 1 Post The Spirit of Prophecy What is the Spirit of prophesy? If you asked the average Adventist what is the Spirit of prophecy you will get a variety of answers. Some will tell you that the Spirit of Prophecy are the books that Ellen G. White wrote, while some will say that the Spirit of Prophesy is Ellen G. White herself. Still others will say that the Spirit of Prophesy is a Spirit that comes from God that explains prophecy, or perhaps the testimony of Jesus. So what is the Spirit of Prophecy, and are these terms right or wrong or just cultic language? These are all questions that I had upon joining the Seventh-day Adventist Church in September of 2004 following a Revelation seminar the year prior. After hearing different things about Seventh-day Adventist and Ellen White from different people, this caused me to do some research. The first place that I went in order to do my research was the internet. I surfed the web and looked up everything that I could about the Adventist church, the Spirit of Prophecy and Ellen White. I read things from former Adventist and almost every critic of the S.D.A church and Ellen G. White that I could find online. Upon completing my online research I wasn’t sure if my family and I made the right decision by joining the Adventist movement. I wasn’t sure if I did the right thing by taking my family out of the small non-denominational charismatic Christian church that we were attending. I started to question the views that I heard about Ellen White and whether or not the Adventist church was a cult. This belief was in primary because of the way in which they viewed the ministry of Ellen White. Up until this point I agreed with every doctrine of the Adventist Church, but questioned who the Adventist church said Ellen White was. Then I met someone from my local church who finally explained to me the ministry of Ellen White and how she was truly looked at by the S.D.A. church. He told me that she didn’t call herself a prophet but instead called herself a messenger of God. He told me that God used her as well as others to help get the church started. Thanks to the Holy Spirit using this Elder all my doubts about the ministry of Ellen White and the Spirit of prophecy were put to rest. However what about the many others who are out there and are about to leave the church because of the way some view Ellen White? People need to be educated on the ministry of Ellen White and to make sure that they keep her ministry in proper context. I appreciate Dr Hanna’s simple explanation of Ellen White in regards to the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe this topic needs to be explained more in like fashion in our churches. Referencing 1 Cor 2:1-2 (Testimony of God = Jesus). Referencing John 15:26 and Rev 19:10 (Testimony of Jesus = Holy Spirit). Then referencing 2 Peter 1:19-21 (Holy Spirit = Spirit of prophecy). Then I would reference 1Cor 12:1-11 to show that the gift of prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Then I would simply explain that Ellen White had the gift of prophecy which is a result of her being endowed by the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Prophecy. I would explain that the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Prophecy, is not limited to just the writings of Ellen White but works through whomever has the Holy Spirit. Some may have the gift of prophesy while someone else may have the gift of healing. I believe if Ellen White’s ministry is explained along these terms then it will be much easier for member or non-members to understand how the Spirit of prophesy was working through Ellen White.
Matthew 7:20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
The room was dimly lit and quiet. The family gathered around the hospital bed but the only sound was the erratic beeping of the heart monitor. “Thank you for coming,” Deborah said as I walked out of the hospital room. A few days later, Deborah called and sadly reported that her twin sister lost the battle to cancer and had died. “Pastor,” she asked, “Would you speak for her funeral?” I was terrified! I knew nothing about this lady! I had just accepted a call to be an associate pastor the week before and this was my first member visit! What could I possible say about a woman I didn’t know?
At first glance, it would appear hard to learn about a woman who this week, died ninety-three years ago (July 16, 1915). However, we are fortunate that Ellen White left behind about 100,000 pages of published and unpublished materials (Douglass p.62). We can not only get a glimpse into her life, but also her thoughts. We are able to read the actual words that she wrote with the intent to communicate God’s message.
As presented in class, one of the marks of a true prophet is to confess Jesus as Lord and convey a Christ-centered message. Jesus declared, “…among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist!” (Matthew 11:11) Yet, when John’s disciples seemed disturbed that Jesus was becoming more popular than John, the greatest of prophets humbly declared, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Ellen White displayed similar humility when referring to her ministry, “Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be His messenger.” (1SM, 32.2) She acknowledged that she was only the messenger, not the message.
Another way to learn of someone’s life is to ask those who knew him/her. In Section II of Messenger of the Lord, Douglass attempts to present the “real” Ellen White by incorporating what others said of her. Elder Stockman said, “Jesus must be preparing you [Ellen] for some special work.” (p. 49) On her fiftieth birthday, her husband honored her by writing of her great labor in the Signs of the Times. (p. 55) On her eighty-fifth birthday, Norwegian Adventists began a letter by addressing her as “Dear Mother in Israel and Servant of the Lord” (p. 61) John O. Corliss, who lived in the White’s home for several years, wrote that Ellen White practiced what she preached. (p. 82)
Reflecting on the lessons that I learned from week one of this course, an important question surfaced. What fruits do I bear? If I died, would the things I’ve written (whether emails, letters, or even blog postings) point others to Christ? My prayer throughout this course will be that the Spirit will reveal to us how to decrease and faithfully exalt Christ. May we, the bride, participate in the fulfillment of the prophecy of John, “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come” (Revelation 22:17). Let us extend the invitation to the entire world to come to Jesus.
For the rest of the story (presented in the introduction) email…leblancs@andrews.edu
Life and Ministry of Ellen G. White: Reaction paper – Week 1 Allen Decena
Greater light versus greater light
During the first week of class one of the concepts that were introduced was ‘the lesser light leading to the greater light’. This is to say that Ellen White is the lesser light that is drawing attention to a greater light. Traditionally I was under the impression that while Ellen White is the lesser light that the Bible is the greater light. However, in the class it mentioned that Jesus is the greater light. So it seems that there is a discrepancy, at least in my understanding against what was said in class, but as also discussed in class, it can be both. Since the greater light is not specified it can either be referred to the Bible, which is a light greater than Ellen White but a lesser light to Christ Himself, or Jesus which is a greater light to Ellen White, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Prophecy which inspired holy men to write the Bible and who testifies to Jesus Christ. But in addition, it can also refer to God the Father who might be considered the greatest light. The scripture that comes to mind to support this is Revelation 1:1-2 which says, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” The other passage is where Jesus rebukes Simon when he asks when will they see the Father and Jesus replies “if you have seen me you have seen the Father”. Furthermore, just as the gift of prophecy and thus the Spirit of prophecy are not relegated to just Ellen White neither is being a light that leads to a greater light exclusive to her. Jesus asks us not to hide our light under a bush or a bed but to place it in the center of the room or on top of a hill that all might see the light. Yet, it is not our light that leads people to salvation, for our light draws attention for the purpose of pointing out the greater light until the greatest light, God the Father (and Jesus) is seen by those that were attracted by our light. So while it seems that there are lights to varying degrees of ‘greatness’ (although it should be noted that the greatness attributed to the light is equalled in humility of the ones attributed as light/lightgivers), I am left to ponder what makes one light greater than another among human beings. And while in class, I began to compare the differences between a Biblical giant like Moses or Paul and that of a church member who had been inspired by the Holy Spirit to give a message. As noted in class the same Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Prophecy which inspired each holy person equally, although Elisha did ask for a double portion of the Spirit which he did receive yet I doubt many people would say that Elisha is a greater light than Abraham or Moses. So it may not be that one is a greater light because of the inspiration by the Holy Spirit, which comes in equal amounts, but rather it is more likely that the message that is given by the Holy Spirit reaches a varying degree of people. For example, the message given to Moses concerning Israel’s history, which is in effect Christianity’s history and truly humanity’s history reaches and affects a larger target audience than Ellen White’s target audience (i.e. Seventh-day Adventists although it is not relegated exclusively to Adventism) which is also larger than that of Tammy’s friend whose target audience was a single person. But this also begs the question, if a ‘lay person’ who is inspired by the spirit of prophecy to give a message which brings someone to salvation, is that light which greater in importance than Ellen White’s message to a broader audience but is less impact on a personal level?
Joseph V. Thelusca The Life & Ministry of E.G. White July 14, 2008 Reflection I
Ellen G. White’s views on being a Messenger I am elated to have been given an opportunity to reflect on the issues which have been discussed in Herbert Douglass’s book as well as the lecture presented in class. Having such a multitude of categories to select from, I would like to ponder on Srs. White’s views concerning her role as a prophetess to the SDA church. I was astonished when I came across one of her statement in which she said that she was not a leader nor a prophet, but simply a messenger of the Lord. Even though she stated clearly that her message came from the Lord in that people ought not to regard her counsels as her own human initiatives. I found her remarks to be exemplary because it takes much discipline, self-control and guidance from the Holy Spirit to humble oneself to such degree. In her case, she knew well that her inspiration and her message had divine origins in that she could have easily chose to promote herself as the prophetess with the critical revelation for the remnant church. However, she warned her readers that her role was to only help them to better understand biblical truth since they had not made God’s word, the bible, their Christian standard that would guide them to perfection. I further commend her for blatantly admonishing her readers and the members of the SDA Church that her visions and writings must not be use as substitute for bible study. It would be a tragedy for the prophet to claim that her counsels could be used in lieu of the Holy Scripture as a vehicle of gaining divine wisdom. I am also delighted to know that as a messenger, she realized that her works are not infallible which means the bible is the ultimate guide and rule of faith for Christians. I suppose she would have put her credibility on line had she claimed that her works was to be equated to the Bible. However, let is be known and without reservation, I trust she met all the criteria of a true prophetess. First, the fact that she prophesied according to the testimony of Jesus qualified her as a prophetess. Second, as a result of her inspiration, which she received from the spirit of prophecy, which is the Holy Spirit, the fruits of her works can be sited through the development of the Seventh Day Adventists church and her health message which revolutionized the nutrition and medical fields. Thirdly, many of her prophecy were fulfilled during her 70 years of prophetic ministry and others are yet to be fulfilled as they are related to the ends of time. Lastly and equal important is the fact that her messages are focused on Jesus Christ. She often stated that her revelation came directly from Jesus and aiming at preparing people to meet their savior and Lord Jesus in his Second Coming. That’s being the case, I would like to address certain issues which I think are relevant to our discussion. Is it possible for the spirit of prophecy to lead God’s people at a specific point in history and afterwards cease from doing so? Why did Sister White state that if people were to make the bible their standard of living to reach perfection, her works would have not been necessary? After the death of sister White and the other pioneers the church failed in many areas to exhibit true Christian principles and authentic devotions to the gospel. As a result of the failure of many of our leaders, a lot of true brethren left the flock. I am afraid that people have either overlooked the spirit of prophecy or just ignore its guidance which opens the door for the enemy to find enough space to cause chaos and much casualty. Such is the case, the importance to pay close attention to the messenger’s counsels and admonitions cannot be emphasized enough because I think we’re living at the end of time and we need to listen to the messenger’s words for our time. Lastly, God knew that we would be distracted from his words, thus he sent E.G. White to reaffirm his message through her writings.
Response for week 1 Response to class lectures: I like how Ellen White always pointed God’s people back to the Bible. She recommended the Word of God as a rule of faith and practice for the believers. She never considered herself higher or even equal to the Bible but always a lesser light pointing to the greater light, the Word of God. I agree with this 100%, but how much sacredness should we give to her writing; are we to honor them as we do the Bible? Most Adventist today don’t read her books, or respect the messages they bring. However there also the few who equate EGW office with the office of the prophets of the Bible and they fear and tremble at her message. I believe the majority of our church body today, is afraid to say we have a prophet. The clarification what the Spirit of Prophecy and it relation to the ministry of EGW was interesting. The biblical equations helped me visualize what the Spirit of Prophecy is all about. 1st beginning with 1 Corn. 2:1,2 The Testimony of God is Jesus Christ, 2nd Rev. 19:10 Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy, 3rd John 15:26, and 2 Peter 1:19-21 Spirit of prophecy is revealed to man through the Holy Spirit who also testifies of Jesus and is also the Spirit of Prophecy. The Spirit of Prophecy is the ministry of the Holy Spirit along with all the Spiritual gifts. Since the Spirit of Prophecy is really the testimony of Jesus, which is the testimony of God, and it is not limited to prophets only but also available to angels and all those who proclaim it’s message; how then can we say that the Spirit of Prophecy is the identifying mark of the Remnant Church when most churches have it? I always thought having a prophet whose message was the Spirit of Prophecy made us the Remnant but that doesn’t seemed to be the case anymore. I always thought that having the Spirit of Prophecy is what made SDA different than all other churches. However now it seems that having the Spirit of Prophecy doesn’t make a church the remnant since all who proclaim Christ have the Spirit of Prophecy. I like how the teacher brought out that our unique prophetic mission and message is what makes SDA God’s true church. I also liked how he related SDA to Israel; that having a prophet doesn’t guarantee that God will always be with our church till the in of time, this is what Israel thought. This just show that we need to adhere to the prophet’s message to church or we could be in danger of being dropped from our prophetic mission. Response to The Messenger I find it interesting that God provides sufficient evidence for the inspiration of the Bible and the prophetic ministry of Ellen White but He “never will remove all chance for doubt, never will force faith.” (Douglass 45). What if God gave us so much evidence that there would be no room for doubt, does that take away our freedom of choice or leave no room for faith? If this is true, God in creating Eve and Adam must have left room for them to doubt His Love for them. I wish every church member was required to read this book, it sheds so much light the on the time in which EGW lived, and who Ellen was as a person. I find that in our churches we have so many construed pictures of EGW, and we have some who lift her up as high as the Bible and others who don’t want to do anything with because of their false legalistic connotations. Douglass paints a nice picture of the time in which EGW lived. I think placing EGW writings in the context they were written is very important and the sad thing most people including myself fail to do this. I find the human side of EGW is very important to know, some have made her into a super hero, but she really lived a trying life, (e.g. always being sick, husband’s bad health, two sons dieing, and the grief put upon her as being a prophet.) When I read her life story, I’m inspired and also amazed that someone who was blessed by God with a message also lived in poverty and went through so many trials. I guess prophets don’t get special treatment; it looks like they get hit with the brunt of Satan’s attacks. EGW says that she was thankful her experience of suffering, that it helped her get better acquainted with her Lord. (Douglass 64). Something I found comforting is that EGW says that “Sometimes the enemy presses me the hardest with his temptations and darkness when I am about to speak to the people” (Douglass 68). I can relate to this so much, every time I prepare to speak and even after I speak a dark cloud seems to cover, so much that I don’t ever want to speak again. The most amazing thing I learn about EGW is her speaking skills, which is something I long for. She had a voice that could be heard in a crowd of 20 thousand, and she had penetrating eyes that convicted the soul and a message that could capture her audience attention for hours.
Title: "Traumatic Experiences and Thorns in the Flesh" 1st Reflection on Life & Ministry of Ellen White
As I read “Messenger of the Lord” this past week, a new thought hit me concerning Ellen White! During her childhood days she was hit in the face by a rock thrown by one of her schoolmates. This incident knocked her unconscious, threw her into a coma, made her unrecognizable even to her father, affected her respiratory system for life, made her hand tremble whenever she wrote, and virtually made schooling impossible for her (Douglas p. 48). Douglas further tells us that “the letters of the alphabet in her books would run together, her eyes could not focus properly, perspiration flowed, and she would become dizzy and faint…this bright student left her academic preparation in great disappointment, never to return to formal schooling.”
After reading this, the thought hit me, “why did God allow this to happen to Ellen White?” If God had allowed something like that to happen to me, how would I have responded? Would I have continued to put my faith in him and trust him with my future? The more I thought about this the more I came to the conclusion that God really does work in strange and mysterious ways. I’m inclined to believe that God in his foreknowledge knew that such a life changing event would work to bring about Ellen’s total dependence upon him. Ellen herself admitted that “the cruel blow which blighted the joys of earth, was the means of turning my eyes to heaven. I might never have known Jesus, had not the sorrow that clouded my early years led me to seek comfort in him.” (Douglas p.48)
It almost seems as if God was saying, “Ellen, my child, don’t worry. By man’s standard you will only have a third grade education, but when I’m finished with you, others who possess multiple doctorate degrees by man’s standard, will learn from what you will share with them – life’s most important truths, truths that will point them to eternal life.” Wow! What an anointing! God, it seemed, saw it best to prevent her from becoming corrupted with the formal school teachings she might have received. This also points me to another great person who never attended the great schools of his day. Jesus, never attended the schools of the scribes and the Pharisees. I would hasten to conclude that perhaps God did not want him to become corrupted with the formal school teachings of his day. Despite his having no such formal education, the Bible tells us that Jesus was wiser and more learned than all the scribes and Pharisees.
The first lesson I learned here is that sometimes, when God is getting ready to use a person in a powerful way, the avenues and methods he chooses often run contrary to our human logic, but if we continue trusting, God will work it out better than we ever expected.
Some of the complications Ellen White suffered as a result of her childhood accident had negative physical effects that stayed with her for life. I suppose we can say that they were her thorns in the flesh. They were a consistent reminder of the sinful world in which we live. Similarly, the Apostle Paul also had his thorn in the flesh. Yet, Paul, Ellen White and countless others throughout the ages, have endured, grew stronger in their faith and accomplished the grand purposes God had for them to accomplish.
I thought of what my thorns in the flesh might be. I easily counted off the first five on one hand then started on the next. But I soon realized that it does not matter, for none of them even came close to the effects of Ellen White’s traumatic experience. While many of us dig deep within the inspired writings of Ellen White for the truths and gems and encouragements hidden therein, we often overlook one of the brightest gems of encouragement right there on the surface – that of her traumatic experience and how God was able to use her in spite of her deficiencies. Such encouragement helps us to look upward to Jesus and not to focus on ourselves and our own deficiencies. It encourages us to focus our attention on the one who is able to make us overcomers, not only to overcome our thorns in the flesh, but to overcome our spiritual battles as well.
So, even before exploring what the prophet of the Lord had to say, her life itself begins testifying to the power of God. “What has God done for you?” is the question many seeking to know God would ask, and once they see what he has done in your life, they will be much more inclined to listen to what you have to say about him. I believe such was the experience and testimony God gave to Ellen White.
In class last week it was mentioned that “There is a visible church and an invisible church. In history God’s visible church has been Israel. But God has also always had gentiles (the nations). Israel was a nation among the nations that was specifically commissioned to share His message with the other nations.” I have been thinking about this and it would seem that if this is true, we as Seventh-day Adventists ought to be going around to the various different churches trying to share the message with them.
If I remember correctly, when William Miller started preaching the message of the second coming of Christ and the 2300 day prophecy, he preached at any church that would give him a hearing. It didn’t matter what denomination it was, if they were willing to open up the pulpit, he took the invite and preached the message.
It seems to me that our evangelism could be extremely effective and impactful if Seventh-day Adventist preachers started searching for ways to share with other denominations and other non-Adventist types of groups. I don’t mean sending out flyers and trying to get them to come out to our meetings at some rented hall. I mean finding out ways to actually get into their pulpits on Sunday morning during their main worship hour and preaching the Word. When I think about the statement that was made in class that “Israel was a nation among the nations that was specifically commissioned to share His [God’s] message with the other nations” I realized that this is what Solomon had done. The other nations learned from the Israelites the deeper ways of God. The nation of Israel at that time had such an influence on the nations around that they would even travel long distances, bringing gift offerings to Israel, just so they could hear of the wisdom of this nation and its king.
Hasn’t God set Adventists in this world in a similar way? I would have to agree with the sentiment expressed in class that--Yes He has. God has ordained that this church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church should be a light in the midst of darkness. Not as some sort of elite and exclusive club that says our walls are too high and holy to come down from, we cannot associate with such great sinners, but rather as a sort of leaven in the world of churches and religions. Salt that gives some flavor to the whole lump. This idea challenges me. It presents a new way of thinking to me. A new concept of what ministry is all about. Perhaps we should rekindle the spirit of the Waldensees and purposely go to other schools and centers of learning to spread the great truths that God has given to us. Perhaps instead of worrying about the Jesuits infiltrating our churches, schools, and institutions we should instead be infiltrating theirs! Let the Jesuits be worried about those SDA infiltrators!!! That would be really cool!
I believe Ellen White makes a statement that goes something along the lines of “Strength to resist evil is best gained through aggressive service.” (I think it is in Acts of the Apostles) This concept coupled with that shared in class is something that I choose to embrace. It already seems to provide a whole world of more ministry opportunities than I ever conceived of before.
I mean the sky is the limit. If a Seventh-day Adventist was so sold out to Jesus Christ and the message He has given to this church then no matter what position he found himself in, he could work it to share the message of truth. Take for example an Adventist pastor who is either looking for a church or who is already working for a conference and who learns about a non-denominational church looking for a pastor. What would stop the Adventist from seeing if they would be willing to let him be their pastor? Then every Sunday morning, he could over time and in a gentle winsome way share the great message that we have and gently lead them to see God’s magnificent truths. And perhaps over a period of time the whole church would embrace the Advent message and even start keeping the real Sabbath! Some may think this extreme or radical, but is it? I am starting to wonder. The commission says to Go ye therefore to ALL NATIONS baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, TEACHING them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. That commission mandates a going and teaching people the true ways of God. Wouldn't that truly be considered "going?"
The image that we have of a prophet/prophetess is often one of a person who is superior in all that he/she does. We tend to notice primarily the times when that individual is functioning in their official capacity and regularly overlook their day to day life experience. I suppose it is that our understanding of inspiration is coming from the standpoint of what God has specifically said or is saying to us through that person and their “uninspired” times do not really matter much or may not be as relevant. Our class discussion on Monday was interesting as we talked about the life of a prophet and that everything that he/she does is somehow inspired. It was communicated that, the entire life of the prophet serves as a source of inspiration. Lessons should be extracted from their activities whether we believe it to be inspired or it is that individual’s personal opinion. Our readings from, “Messenger of the Lord” by Herbert E. Douglas helped us to envelop ourselves in the life of a modern day prophetess, although she died in 1915. The book showed very careful detailed and frank accounts of the life and ministry of Ellen G. White. It tells of her capacity as mother, wife, writer, public speaker, leader and messenger of the Lord. Having written approximately 100,000 pages of information, raising a family and traveling as extensive as she did was a tremendous task for anyone to accomplish. These chapters showed the real life of Mrs. White a messenger of the Lord to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and people of the last days. I enjoyed reading where she wrote letters to her husband in encouragement and in some case what seem to be a scolding. Like all human families, it seemed that they had disagreements from time to time and seemed to have departed with issues unresolved. While they expressed their love for one another, it seemed that there were some struggles in terms of dominance. I wonder how James White handled the fact that his wife was more a public figure than he was. Did it affect him in later years as her popularity grew? He seemed to have become quite discouraged in his later years The family experienced many hardship, trials and loss. They lost two of their four sons and I could not imagine going through such an awful ordeal. One could sometimes wonder why God doesn’t intervene in certain situations. We are talking about one of God’s called servants to guide His last day people to better understand His will for the last day church with a special message for these special times. God allowed Ellen White and her husband to suffer such great loss that it would be very easy to say, if you are the messenger of the Lord, why is your life in such chaos; people criticize you, your health is very bad, the terrible accident you had as a child has damaged you, your husband is sickly, you lost not just one child but two out of your four, what kind of life are you living? While all these questions may arise, we see a loving relationship between a wife and husband. We see a mother who had a great longing to be with her children even though she had to travel and spend many days and weeks away from them for the sake of the Lord’s work. This was to the point that she was spoiling the children when they were together trying to overcompensate to make up for lost times away from them. The above questions cannot be answered unless one is familiar with the scriptures. As we examine the life of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joseph, Job, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and yes our Lord Jesus Christ, we will see that they did not have easy lives. Their lives were filled with difficulties and antagonists who refuted their teachings and doubted their messages. A life of ease is not a sign of favor with God, neither is a life of suffering an indication disfavor. We are all under the Grace of God as we work for Him. None are exempt from the trials that come our way but God is faithful and will see us through each situation we have faced and will face.
In reading the text book I have been so moved by the call and life of Ellen White. It is a privilege for me to be in this class and gain a deeper perspective on her life and work. It was through the writings of Ellen White that Jesus found me. I am deeply impressed by the way that our pioneers were called and lived. What was especially interesting to me was the amount of suffering that both James and Ellen White experienced in their life. I appreciate the way she frames her experience of suffering. It seems that the times that she suffered the most were during the times that she was writing some of the most profound books such as Desire of Ages. When darkness was gathering around her she said, “it was not long before I saw that the affliction was a part of God’s plan. I carefully reviewed the history of the past few years, and the work the Lord had given me to do. Not once had he failed me. Often He had manifested Himself in a marked manner, and I saw nothing in the past of which to complain. I realized that, like threads of gold, precious things had run through all this severe experience.” What I love about this quote is the beauty that she sees in the midst of our suffering. We all recoil from the thoughts of suffering and yet our master and “suffering servant” explains to us that in this life we will have suffering. He does not promise to take us out of the suffering but promises to be with us in our suffering. I appreciate the example that she is to us in drawing near to God in our suffering. I am aware in my own life that in my most intense suffering I have learned the sweetest lessons of the love that the Saviour has for me. I also appreciate that Ellen White did not let her suffering consume her to the point that she stopped being productive. It was mentioned several times in the text book that she made herself and her husband be active to overcome either illness or depression. I think that it is encouraging to realize that the book Ministry of Healing was fruit that was produced while the prophetess was dealing with suffering. I liked the way that Douglas summed it up when he said, “Her life of literary production and personal ministry, plus her extensive public travels, strongly argues for an awareness of how the human will can triumph over physical hardships in the pursuit of God’s plan to one’s life.” (p.65) It has been an interesting and delightful process to read over the notes while reading the textbook. The lectures emphasize the principles by which God works when communicating to humans. I am noticing more clearly the congruence between these operating principles in the life and work of Ellen White and the way God interacted with the Bible prophets. The readings in the textbook and the class discussions have helped me to remember my roots. In looking back and reviewing the life of the pioneers a fire is being rekindled in my heart. It is amazing the power that it is the written word, especially and most importantly when it has been inspired by God. This movement on hearts alone offers a special kind of evidence that can not easily be ignored.
It’s All about Balance. This posting deals with our discussion of Appendix P, The Ellipse of Salvation Truth, from class on Thursday, July 17, 2008, and other discussions during our second week of class. As we began our discussion on Appendix P James asked a clarification question on the difference between the imputed and imparted biblical view on righteousness that really got the ball rolling in my mind. Dr. Hanna began to answer the question by writing three words on the white board; righteousness, justification, and sanctification. As he began to answer James’ question I immediately began to see a correlation with the ellipse model. Dr. Hanna shared his feelings on how people often reduce righteousness to justification and leaves the issue of sanctification untouched. I saw and understood that righteousness by faith includes justification AND sanctification and must be viewed together, which is the concept the ellipse model taught. I appreciated seeing and hearing this example because it gave me additional insight from what the book taught and helped me see this method being put into practice. I discovered that with the ellipse model one needs to look at all aspects of the truth being discussed because when one part is overemphasized it can easily become distorted truth. Earlier in the week part of our discussion in class dealt with misunderstandings in regards to Ellen Whites writings. I believe it was Emma who shared that her feelings towards Ellen White have been negative for years because of the way her writings were used, or misused, while she was growing up. I can relate to Emma’s feelings because I too, often felt a heavy pressure to live up to the standards of Ellen White growing up. Through my reading I am finding out more and more that my prior understandings were more misconstrued than anything else. I think the main cause of this problem for me was the way her writings were picked apart and used, often times, out of context and in order to rebuke and correct certain actions or behaviors. As I have learned more about who Ellen White was as a real and genuine person rather than a highly elevated prophet that must be obeyed…or else! (This is truly how I felt sometimes) I came to realize she was a regular person with an extremely beautiful connection with Christ whose writings needed to be understood within the proper context. My problem was that for a very long time I carried an unbalanced view of Ellen White because of my lack of knowledge and teenage misunderstandings. By harnessing the power of a more holistic approach and mindset along with the truth found in Appendix P, I am beginning to have a much more balanced view. This new understanding has also helped me relate to our church within a much broader context. As we discussed the role of the SDA church in regards to the ellipse model I appreciated Dr. Hanna’s explanation of our church being part of God’s universal church. My understanding is that if we claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we will be extremely skewed in our thinking and become very unbalanced. God’s universal (invisible) church expands far beyond the realm of the SDA church and calls for the truth to be spread all throughout it. Indeed God has given His remnant church special and additional light that is to be shone to all His people but it must not be shined from a higher position or with a haughty spirit. The majority of the Seventh-day Adventist beliefs came from the beliefs that were constructed early on in the Christian church and because of that fact we must not allow our thinking to become so highly elevated with the new truths God has given us that it causes us to distort them. This thought is touched on by Douglass in Appendix P when he says, “All the divisions between various churches within Christianity…occur when the ellipse is ignored. When one of the foci becomes the “circle of truth,” we surely have a heresy.” It is my hope that this problem does not occur within our church. I continue to be blessed by our class discussions and appreciate learning alongside such brilliant minds! May God continue to bless His truth as it is spread throughout the world.
In this particular paper, I will begin by sharing how I view the holistic concept of truth and how this view has impacted my ministry and my theology. Second, I will share some highlights from the book Messenger of the Lord—sections III and IV—where I have been touched by some of the concepts presented.
The “holistic” concept, as described by Dr. Hanna, is a concept that was introduced to me in 1996 by Dr. Leroy A. Moore. Dr. Moore termed this idea “poles of truth” or “paradoxical truth.” Nevertheless, while the terminology is different, the concept remains the same. Dr. Moore also taught what Dr. Douglass calls “the ellipse,” which again is the same concept as holistic or paradoxical truth. Dr. Moore’s teaching transformed and revitalized my thinking in how to read the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, and even books and articles written by other authors.
Dr. Moore has seen, as have many others, the essence of the major conflicts happening within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As Jonathan pointed out in Thursday’s class, an understanding of this concept of paradoxical or holistic truth or ellipse can make us more aware of how to approach and share the truths of the Bible without being unbalanced. This does not mean that there is no room for error, but the possibility of unity will be more likely.
This particular understanding of the totality of truth has helped me in my ministry when talking with my members, preaching, or writing papers. The Bible is full of truths that appear at the surface to contradict each other, but in reality they build on each other and strengthen a particular truth. The challenge is not with what the Bible presents to humanity, as is being suggested by some scholars, but rather how humanity uses the Bible. I do not believe that I have arrived at a perfect balance of Biblical truth and, yes, I do have some challenges to reconcile some aspects of truth found in the Bible that appear to not make sense; however, I strive to seek a better understanding and a more complete view that will help me spiritually and in my ministry.
It is hard to imagine that the Bible can be so complex on one hand and yet, on the other hand, so simple. How can this be? This must also be true about its Author. God is so complex and yet He is so simple. I would like to suggest that this is also true with the Spirit of Prophecy (E.W.’s writings). It can be so complex and yet it can be so simple. After all, who is the author of the spirit of prophecy (I am referring here to E.W.’s ministry)? Complexity and simplicity might just be part of this paradoxical or holistic truth or ellipse.
Moving on to the second part of my paper, I am intrigued by the method God used to deliver His message to this world. God could have used hundreds of other ways to share the same information; instead, He commissioned one frail woman to do His biddings. Ellen White’s messages were timely instruction and predictions needed for this newly born church to grow and move forward. The section “visions, at times, modified Ellen White’s theological opinions” (p. 155) impressed my mind in seeing how inspiration works. Prophets did not always understand the full picture and throughout the years they may have added more detail to a previously revealed truth as it became clearer to them or as they gave it further study. Thus, it would follow that the prophets did not contradict themselves, but rather matured in their development of truth and, thus, expanded on it from time to time by writing on it at a later date.
Another element also seen in the same chapter is that Ellen White’s visions were also conditional based on what people would decide to act upon. Ellen White’s ministry was not only limited to rebukes but also included ways to live better, encouragement, and affirmation of newly discovered truths that were brought forward by other leaders of her time. It is fascinating how the Holy Spirit worked in communicating the truth in a variety of ways through her ministry.
I had not previously thought about the importance of the role of Ellen White in the organization and unity of this church. Dr. Douglass points out in chapter 17 (p. 183) five reasons for the rapid development of organization within the Adventist Church, none of which would have led to a worldwide movement without her worldview and her messages. Now that I am reflecting on this prophetic ministry, I see in the Bible how many prophets were also involved in organizing and uniting the church. For example, the book of Acts points out this organization and unity through the role of prophetic ministry. Samuel is another example.
My final reflection here is that I do not envy the role of a prophet. The challenges that she faced and conflicts that she had to address in theology, organization, and other areas, make me shiver. I do know that if you do what God asks you to do, He will sustain you; however, this does not make the prophetic role any easier or enjoyable.
Life and Ministry of E.G. White – Week 2 Allen Decena
The Loneliness of Mrs. White Without becoming too personal suffice it to say that I have experienced loneliness within my church. Much had to do with culture but when reading of her loneliness I felt a personal pang. Attending a secular public school, then a secular high school, followed by a heathen university, it was often hard to feel like there was a sense of belonging to the peers around you and the sense of loneliness more pronounced. By nature of her position (office of Prophet) Ellen White would have been lonely; she was the only one! By no means am I placing myself on equal footing with Adventism’s prophet yet I, as well as a number of my seminary classmates (I would imagine) have probably gone through a period where we could sympathize what she went through because we have experienced loneliness ourselves. Perhaps some of us still do, and will in the future. By nature of our office as pastors and church leaders, although there are a good number of us, within our churches, we are often the only ones who, by the nature of our tasks, whether by choice or by circumstance, carry burdens of others or even those belonging to ourselves, alone. As just alluded to, the ironic aspect about this is that even if we are in situations where we are surrounded by people with similar positions and tasks, we can fall into the trap of being reclusive and thereby bringing about a state of alone-ness. I realize that it does not have to be this way, that as pastors we can garner the support of other pastors or others with similar tasks and burdens. Even Mrs. White, who was given the office of prophet, as we have learned in the class, would not have been the only one engaging in ‘prophesying’ and thus would have others who similarly prophesied (albeit in more focused ways – see previous post) to have fellowship with and support. But it was not so. In the book (pp 76-77) it notes how Ellen White, although not discouraged nor driven to despair or reclusiveness, did acknowledge this circumstance. Various aspects contributed to this. As mentioned her office as a bonafide prophet when no others were officially recognized is one aspect. Another aspect was that she was, as the book notes, in charge of leading a fledgling denomination (albeit with her husband and Bates) and when her husband died, I can imagine that it got that much harder. The final aspect is that she was a woman leader in a male-dominated society (some may argue that it is still this way). Although her authority both as a prophet and leader were upheld by her husband and other strong leaders in the Adventist movement, I cannot imagine that this last aspect did not have an impact on the loneliness she experienced. Yet as with many struggles, God used this circumstance to help us cling to a hope for a better future in the Kingdom of God and rely more heavily in the comfort of the Spirit thus more constantly keeping a focus on God and everything He is associated with. I am very sure that Ellen White used this ‘paradigm’ to not only keep her on task with regards to her responsibilities that God entrusted with her but to also constantly work towards and maintain an inward joy and happiness that can be found in Jesus alone. As the book says (pp. 77) ‘people can be happy though lonely’. If Ellen white could do this we should be able to do this too.
Comments on Class Discussions and Messenger of the Lord - Section 3, chapter 16 - "Ellen White’s Self-awareness as a Messenger" (Week – 2)
I believe that we should continually strive to better understand Scripture. God continually leads His people into more truth. Using Ellen White’s Christ Object Lesson as his reference, Herbert Douglass is correct in pointing out that “progressive truth…does not contradict previously revealed truths but expand it” (p. 170).
After Daniel had his visions, he still did not understand all the meanings of some of the scenes and imagery that were shown to him. He was told to close the book since what he saw concerned the time of the end. God will be faithful to show us many more things as we approach closer and closer to the time of the end. We just need to be in tune with what He has to show us!
For instance, the group that decided to conduct further Bible studies after the Great Disappointment of 1844 leaves us with a good example of the necessity to continually search Scripture. This remnant group would not have blossomed into the church that we are today if they had not endeavored to increase their understanding of the Bible. God progressively increases our own understanding of His Word when we allow His Holy Spirit to continue to lead us into all truth. This goes along with the text that we have discussed in class which says that “the path of the just is as the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Proverbs 4:18). As we walk toward God, His lamp will indeed continue to shine at our feet while His light increasingly brightens our path (Psalm 119:105). The important thing is that we remain teachable!
It is also interesting to note how confident Ellen White was about the Source of her revelations in writing to her contemporaries. She knew that her visions were from God. She demonstrated a great deal of tact in cautioning those who rejected the light that she had been given to bear. She did not demonstrate a prideful or haughty spirit but gently rebuked those who rejected messages that are indeed aligned with the Bible. This is in line with the text that reminds us as we “speak the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). Ellen White helped several people grow in their understanding of the Word by clarifying certain biblical truths that many had not previously understood. Personally, during my time here at the seminary, I have come to better understand certain biblical truths and teachings. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I was in darkness before; rather, it simply means that my level of understanding of biblical truth has expanded.
I think that it is safe to say that we don’t presently know all there is to know. As we move closer to the end of time, we will uncover more and more truth out of the Word of God. Today we face some impasses in dealing with varying viewpoints on certain topics. We still wrestle to define our positions on certain issues. I believe that the early Sabbatarians’ example of intense Bible study should continually be emulated. The pioneers spent a good amount of time in Bible study dealing with difficult issues. Some of the issues that we wrestle with may only involve people in our local congregations while others are broad scale issues that need to be grappled with by the world church organization. Whatever the scale of the issue, the key principle is that we need to surrender to God so that He can continually illumine our path. With God’s help, the issues and prophecies that we struggle with will be made clearer and clearer to us with the progression of time.
Strength of Frailty She crossed the continental United States 24 times before 1885 (all of these within the eighteen year period after 1867 when the two railroads joined up making the trip possible), spoke to large groups wherever she went (all the time writing so that when she died she left more than 100,000 handwritten pages), she is the 3rd most translated author since the dawn of time (and the most translated American author - male or female), yet this 5’ 2” lady was given only months to live at the age of nine and suffered all her 87 years (making her one of the few to reach that age in that or any era) with headaches, eye inflammation, respiratory weakness, tuberculosis, a heart condition (called “dropsy”), and even a stroke in her midlife which left her without some use of her left arm. Her ill health began early so that in 1844 she could hardly speak above a whisper, yet she cultivated her speaking voice so that only a few years later she could project her voice with such support as to be heard outdoors to tens of thousands for more than an hour. How did she do it? How was it possible for this small lady to have done all she did (which included some well documented miraculous feats) in a time when women were not even allowed to vote or hold public office? The answer is, “strength in frailty”. Paul wrote of this phenomenon in his own life in his second letter to the Corinthians in chapter 12, verses 5-10. “Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me. And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. The apostle Paul experienced physical hardships in his ministry. What got him through and made him the most traveled and prolific New Testament author? He says that it was the power of God. God, Himself, in speaking to Paul says that the strength of God is made perfect in our weakness. Could it be, then, that these two Messengers of God (physically small yet theologically giant) are trying to tell us through their example and words that God can use us best when we are not at our best? But isn’t that when most people go to God for help anyway? Do we need to be at our worst constantly, then, to have perfect support and strength from God? I suggest the answer is, “No”. The reason for this, I believe, lies behind the truth of that statement of weakness and God-strength. Since God is always strong, and we are always weak (in comparison) we can always benefit from His strengthening of us. So what really is happening is that when we realize how weak we really are (through the trials and tribulations) we ask for His strength. Is it not at that moment that He provides the strength? The giving takes place at the moment of asking which was brought on by realization. Perhaps what we need to focus on is our need for God at our strong moments of life. We need a constant realization of our true frailty, then we will be weak (in our own estimation) and seek God’s strength. He will provide it and then we will be truly strong (in God’s eyes).
Title: "Boldness for Christ and Acts of Faith" 2nd Reflection on Life & Ministry of Ellen White
In my reading of Ellen White this past week, I found many treasures of which I had to take note. One of them in particular was the account of Ellen White’s preaching at a camp meeting in Tasmania, where it is reported that “she finished her sermon with an altar call. A large share of the audience came forward. But she wasn’t satisfied. She was hunting souls. She left the platform, and went to the back seats where five young people sat. In her quiet way, she invited them to give their hearts to the Lord. All five did, and several other young people joined them, as they went forward in their decision to make Jesus their Master.” (Douglas p.72)
This stood out in my mind because when I was a teenager, I attended various evangelistic meetings and tent revivals where I had seen this done by the evangelist on many occasions. The evangelist would preach and during the altar call he would walk down the aisle, get close to the people, have eye contact with them and personally invite them to accept Jesus. Rarely did those invited refuse to take their stand for Jesus. Sometimes it was a struggle and the evangelist had to linger and plead for a while, but he was often successful.
These memories parallel the account of Ellen White’s altar call. However, it seems this was a much more acceptable practice in the past than it is today. In 2008, it seems such practice is frowned upon because it is viewed as manipulation and coercion, pressuring people into responding. While I don’t believe every evangelist should make this approach a standard practice, I believe there is much more room for it in today’s evangelistic meetings. When we take into account the issues of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, we are reminded that Satan is fighting with all his power for the souls of men and women, and he is fighting for keeps. We try as much as possible not to offend people, to give them their space, and to be politically correct; and while these are good practices, sometimes I think as ambassadors for God, we need to be more bold and daring for the gospel’s sake. This is exactly what I see Ellen White doing – being bold for the kingdom of God. God rewarded her boldness with the youth which came forward and I believe he will do the same for us today.
Another treasure of which I took note from this week’s reading was the way in which God strengthened Ellen’s voice from a whisper to a clear and strong speaking voice. Douglas tells us of her first invitation to relate her vision in Poland, Maine. He says, “driven by a sense of duty, able to speak only in a whisper, she began to make known to others what God had revealed to her. After five minutes her voice became clear and strong, and she spoke for nearly two hours with perfect ease. When she finished, her vocal problems returned – until the next time she stood in public to share her message.” (Douglas p.124)
This is an account of a miraculous happening! Such miraculous happenings stand out for me because they give me strength and hope that God could do the same in my life. I often find myself sniffling or clearing my throat sometimes when speaking to others and I’m concerned that this could be a hindrance for my future as a pastor or teacher. Furthermore, the situation bothered me so much that I had it diagnosed only to be told I have a post-nasal drip condition and that I will have it for the rest of my life. Such news was quite disheartening. However, I claimed that if God was able to give Ellen supernatural speaking ability at the time she needed it, even with her infirmities, he can do the same for me.
It seemed that Ellen’s whole life was stringed with miraculous occurrences. I am reminded also of her feeble hand which trembled as a result of her infirmities. She said that as soon as she took the pen in her hand to write, in response to the Lord’s command to “write out the things which I shall give you”, her hand became steady and she was able to write. This was no doubt God’s doing in response to her act of faith. Her story reminds me that God will also honor my act of faith.
Perseverance. I like etymology, but I don’t think I like this word. Perseverance – from Latin per- (through) + severus (severity).
Reflecting on this past weeks class experiences and reading, I discovered that all things were pointing me to that 4 syllable word (unless you have a Southern accent like me) “perseverance.” One night this week, Romans 5:3-5 seemed to blink like a red light when approaching an intersection. “…We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”
Speaking of the Holy Spirit, I found that each lesson presented in class seemed to also reveal the perseverance theme. Ellen White had innumerable physical challenges but she didn’t quit. Although caught in the middle of tensions between her husband and J.H. Kellogg, this faithful messenger persisted and performed her duty in the fear of God despite the potential cost to her reputation and ministry.
When her husband was suffering from a deep depression she didn’t say, “Look, I’ve got problems too. Pull yourself together dude!” She refused to let him waste away. She walked a quarter of a mile in deep snow, asked the neighbors to excuse themselves so that James could work more, and blistered her hands to encourage him to exercise.
Ellen would not stop trying to revive her infant son who had drowned in a pail of mop water. She endured despite the Great Disappointment, critics, the death of two children, and financial strains. How odd that such a courageous woman could have written, “I coveted death as a release from the responsibilities that were crowding upon me.” (p. 87) Had she not experienced God’s faithfulness? Did she forget how He had led her in the past? Had the visions of heaven faded?
The perseverance theme spilled over into Sabbath. The Scripture reading was 1 Kings 19:1-8. I quickly wrote down part of verse 4 “It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers.” Pastor Clifford Jones then delivered God’s message that Elijah had been running for his life from Jezebel and collapsed under a tree and declared, “I’ve Had It!” Although Scripture presents prophets performing great feats for God, it also doesn’t hold back their deficiencies and weaknesses. James presents Elijah as a man with a nature like us. Douglass presents Ellen White as a woman with a nature like us. What, then, may we learn from their lives?
Elijah asked to die. When Elijah was ready to resign, God decided to re-assign. Elijah later went up by a whirlwind into heaven and never received the death he requested (2 Kings 2:11). Ellen White knew discouragement and sought to be released from her responsibilities, but God granted her strength and she served him for seventy-seven years.
The life of a Christian, especially one who has been called to do great things for God is not immune to despair. To my fellow classmates, you are here for a purpose. God has called you to do great things for Him. Things may be tough for you now. I write with hesitation that things may get tougher. Please “consider Him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” (Hebrews 12:3)
Joseph V. Thelusca The Life & Ministry of E.G. White July 17, 2008 Reflection II
The Inspired Messenger It’s a well known fact that the Seventh Day Adventist Church strong believes that Mrs. Ellen G. White was an inspired prophet who was raised by God to be entrusted with a specific message for the remnant church. Such is the case, it is a necessity to dwell on the issue of inspiration as related to the role of God, the Holy Spirit and the inspired prophet. Throughout this week, the subject of inspiration dominated a great portion of both lectures and parts of the reading in the book. For sake of brevity, let’s it known for the purpose of this reflection, I want to discover what sister White had to say concerning inspiration since the SDA church convinced she was an inspired prophetess. Generally speaking, inspiration has to do with the method by which God prepares a person to be his messenger. For the most parts, there are two types of inspiration that is verbal or thought inspiration. It is clear based on class lectures and the words of sister White, we don’t support the idea of verbal inspiration because such idea denotes that the inspired prophet or prophetess must record the exact words or messages that God or the Holy Spirit are revealing to his messenger. On the other hand, those who endorse thought inspiration hold that God inspires the prophet, but not his or her words. In other words, God through the Spirit of Prophecy, which is the Holy Spirit gives the thoughts to the prophet, however the prophet has the luxury to use what literary devices available to him or her to deliver what God wants to be transmitted to his people. I think the position of the SDA church and that of sister White are more rewarding because the prophet would be a mechanical subject and/or a robot who’s just being dictated words by words what to write without taking into consideration the social-cultural milieu in which the prophet lives. Sister White in making reference to the 1883 General Conference decision to adopt certain changes that were made to her prior testimonies clarified that God inspired his servant with the thoughts and ideas and He expected his messenger to exercise his or her best judgment in wording the message to his people. I would agree that in putting the message together prior of delivery, the prophet or prophetess needs to be mindful of his or her targeted audience because the way one puts a message is as important as its content. Whereas to the verbal inspirationist there is no room for flexibility because the prophet has been directed to write the very exact words he or she heard from God. It was said in class that sister White had a library collection of more than 800 literary resources, therefore that would confirm that she did not believe in verbal inspiration because she equipped herself with many research tools in order to better put in word what God had inspired her to tell his people. It was reported that her friends and colleagues were extremely afraid that her critics would have used the changes made in her prior testimonies to discredit her as a real prophetess to the remnant church. On the contrary, she vehemently rebuked such conceptions and ideology by saying that it was perfectly correct to make change to previously revealed truths because sometimes due to certain circumstances the messenger might not have been able to pen the message to the best of his or her ability. Furthermore, she concluded by stating that as she received greater light, it was necessary to make changes to reflect what had been added to her inspiration and such did not make her former writings less inspired. To that end, as noted in our class discussions and the reading of the book, God inspires his messenger through the works of the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Prophecy, but not the wording of the messenger. I am excited to know that God can choose to inspire anyone of us to perform certain tasks for his church at any capacity and therefore the spirit of prophecy must not be diminished to just the pastor, E.G.W, the church leaders, the conference officials because it is the same Spirit who is distributing all the spiritual gifts.
Response for week 2 Response to class lectures regarding illumination: This week Dr. Hanna talked about Inspiration and Illumination and how they interplay with each other in the believers perception of an inspired text. Both Inspiration and Illumination are both inspired by the Spirit of God, however Illumination is when the Spirit makes something relevant to the believer. I agree with this, but it does raise some questions in my mind. How can the Spirit of God illuminate a passage of scripture differently to each individual in God’s church and not contradict Himself? I think illumination of the Word of God does happen when the Spirit knows a person’s specific need, and illuminates the Word to speak to that need. However, I have a problem when illumination of the Word of God is drastically conflicting with the indispensable truths found in God’s Word. In Christianity we have so many denominations and everyone claims that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them what they hold as doctrine truth. Why are there contradictions when the same Spirit illuminates the word of God to all people? I don’t have a very good answer, but I can propose one reason? We aren’t properly reading the Word of God. Scripture is God breathed, it “… is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). Wow, that’s pretty powerful, I bet it even has the power in itself to reveal what it is trying to say. I think we humans sometimes play the role of the Holy Spirit, by following our emotions and we end up being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting” (Eph. 4:14). I don’t know if you ever given a Bible study and you present the truth so clearly in the Word of God and the person just seems to not grasp it. Sometimes they say, “when the Spirit of God reveals it to me or convicts me, I’ll believe it.” The question that runs through my mind when I hear this is “do you think that the Spirit of God would be illuminating something different than what He has already inspired in scripture?” I don’t think so. So, when this happens to me in a Bible study I stick to my ground, the Word of God, and pray that God’s Spirit will soften their heart. The teacher also talked about illumination should be different when we contextualize it for our time and culture. However I agree and disagree with this, because I believe principles of truth don’t change but their application could change given in certain contexts, and cultures.
Response to The Messenger: In this quote I think we can get a picture why God sent His church a prophet, “If you had made the God’s Word you study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies” (Testimonies, Vol. 5, pp. 664, 665). As I read this quote it brought many thoughts to my mind about EGW purpose and how it applicable for God’s church today. As I look at our church in light of this quote makes me tremble and fear what is near to come to our church because we as a church, at least in North America and Europe no longer study the Word of God as we should. Our churches have become that lukewarm church spoken of in Revelation 3:16, "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” EGW’s Testimonies to the church were to lead us back into our Bible, however today we neglect reading the Testimonies and the Word of God. What is God going to do with His Church? I can tell you I haven’t read any of Testimonies, maybe a quote or two and reading the Bible has always been a on going battle. After reading section three and four of Douglass’ book which gives us glimpse EGW’s role of a prophet at the birthing stages of God’s Church, I now know I need to get better acquainted with the Lord’s Prophetess EGW and of course the Word of God. EGW has a message from the Lord to prepare His church for His second coming, however most of us don’t have our lamps trimmed and a good amount of oil to get us through the coming crisis. EGW’s inspired advice to the Church was highly valued by the church leaders and they looked to her during the church’s organization, and establishments of its institution (eg. Schools, publishing houses, and hospitals). Some of the best advice EGW I think she gave to our church is Her clear directions of expanding the Church beyond America. The Three Angel’s message was to go “clear around the world in 1848 when there were fewer than one hundred Sabbatarian Adventists…” (Douglass 212). What really caught my interest in section 4 is Ellen White’s intervention in the Kellogg crisis with the publishing of His book “The Living Temple.” The Lord in vision told her, to meet it head on, and this is what she did right on time when the church needed her the most. What really caught my interest was her comment that this was the Alpha apostasy and the Omega was still to come. I went online and did some searches regarding this topic of the Omega apostasy and found some really interesting things which makes me want to get into those little red books of hers to see what else She has to say regarding end time events.
Comments to Section 3 from Messenger of the Lord: By Herbert E. Douglass As I read section 3 of the book there were a few comments from the book that I found particularly striking and gave me a broader view and peek into how Ellen White viewed herself and her writings. On page 157 she makes the following comment regarding her visions: I have felt for years that if I could have my choice and please God as well, I would rather die than have a vision, for every vision places me under great responsibility to bear testimonies of reproof and of warning, which has ever been against my feelings, causing me affliction of soul that is inexpressible. Never have I coveted my position, and yet I dare not resist the Spirit of God and seek an easier position. Reading that quote made me realize how humble Ellen White was. While on one hand she respected the calling God gave her, she did not seek high position and desire the prestige such a position would afford her in her authority over people. In that quote one cannot help but also see a woman filled with compassion for people. Though she had a position that demanded that she give some advice that at times would be rather painful (Douglass gives specific visions of people being caught in adultery and other shameful acts) she did not revel in those opportunities. Instead she was pained by the responsibility she was given to reprimand someone for their wrongdoing. This attitude seems so contrary to those that misuse Ellen White’s writings to beat people into submission to follow a certain way of life. While it is necessary to correct people of their mistakes, following Ellen White’s attitude, before jumping so quickly to reprimand, we should seek to do so in a caring and compassionate way as demonstrated by the life of Ellen White. A quote that speaks directly to the misuse of her writings was found on pg. 172, 173. Here Douglass takes the following quote of Mrs. White regarding this topic. Do not feel that you can dissect them (Testimonies) to suite your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the Word of God, reject them. That was a strong statement and one that shows how real she was. As she would state, again and again, God’s words must reign supreme in faith and practice and we should always look to God’s word as our rule for faith and practice. Another comment by Douglass in regards to how her writings should be used was as found on pg. 172,173. Here she recognized that her message had a dual rule, one to be an “evangel of appeal to the general public and to be a counselor-teacher to the Adventists.”(pg. 172) But as Douglass says, “she emphatically declared that her writings were not to be used as doctrinal authority for the general public.” Reading is an appeal to both camps (those that hate Ellen White and those that overuse her). On the one hand, here is a most balanced statement regarding the use of her writings. Reading her work, how can one not sense how Christ-centered her writings are? Having anyone read her work; even if they are non-Adventist will inevitably draw them to a more amazing view of God, probably even better than all the writers that have written since her time. For the camp that misuses her work, reading this comment should caution them as to how to use her work properly. In fact if people had followed her caution, we wouldn’t have the controversies over her writings that this church has had. Reading this section gave me insight to a woman who had a humility about her that was unlike the way many people portray her or use her. She was one who did as God asked, yet did it in a way that He would have. While she recognized her calling and her position as one who had insight and a special connection to God, she always cared for the individual. While prophets are called to call people to repentance, it should always be done in love and in this reading; I found that to be true of Mrs. White. I found this view refreshing, it has helped me grow in my appreciation of this oft misunderstood woman of God.
I’ve read many E.G. White books and have developed a warm appreciation for her writings. Her welcoming personality and gentle spirit seem to flow through her writings. H. Douglass seems to have found this too. I wondered how people handled the God-given rebukes that she writes in the Testimonies and why there are always blanks and initials? Who put those blanks in there? Was it to avoid legal liability or defamation lawsuits? EG White put in the blanks and filled in the initials of people. She did not needlessly or continuously cause injury, so she removed their names but left the counsel. How kind to both those who needed the lesson and those who had already received the lesson!
EG White was direct, but only as required by God, blunt. I have often not been gentle with my rebukes and seen others who used rough words to reprimand and rebuke and noticed how the rebuked person didn’t repent and turn from their wicked ways. The prophet or messenger, if you will, of God found that “their greatest difficulty was the testimony was given before others and that if I had sent it to them alone, it would have been received all right. Pride was hurt.” (138-39). If one can avoid directly assaulting someone’s pride, one can help the wrong-doer see and correct his actions. Pride can then be chipped away bit by bit until it crumbles.
I’ve been particularly preoccupied in our discussions about the meaning of baptism and the remnant church. Over the years I’ve had numerous and sometimes heated discussions with old-timers and newbie Adventists about the remnant and baptism in Christ verses baptism into Adventism. Our discussion brought so many questions again. Is baptism required to into heaven? We seem to say “No” in class, but what type of baptism? One must be born of water and the spirit. Is this a literal requirement—literal water and the Holy Spirit? The thief on the cross had not been baptized by water as far as we know. Is he a random exception? If one is required unless it’s impossible because of time/circumstances than why don’t we enforce circumcision, anymore—unless it’s impossible? What if someone accepts Christ but doesn’t really get the not eating unclean meats, does that person really accept the SDA message? The verse seems crystal-clear on its face, but is it? We discussed how Catholic Theology recognizes baptism as a sacrament that does something unexplainable in the believer, but for Protestants it’s just a symbol? If baptism is just a symbol than why does it matter if the person is sprinkled on or dunked under? I have now come to the realization that I need to research the SDA theology of baptism—I’m sure we’ve got a class on it! How can a bible student know when to take a text literally or symbolically? What are the keys to unlocking the interpretation of the scripture?
Now with regards to the remnant. What exactly is the remnant? The question that evokes the most discussion we slightly sidestepped or I missed it, is will all those currently living in the last days who are caught up after the dead rise be Seventh-day Adventist? Are the 144,000 (literal or symbolic) SDAs? I believe some will be and some will not be SDA’s but all of them will have the Testimony of Jesus Christ and keep the commandments (all of them) of God. When Christ says he has sheep in many pastures and that he will bring those sheep into one fold, is he talking about an organization or is he talking about a system of belief? I think he is talking about a belief system—one that worships in spirit and truth in other words one that has the testimony of Jesus and keeps the commandments of God.
While I write this, I believe that God needs an orderly vehicle to send out this message and that vehicle is the SDA Church. Everyone may not get on the vehicle but everyone who is living at the end of time and is caught up to heaven will have accepted the message carried by the vehicle and at least be going the same direction.
Evangelism, Local and Global, and Race Relations: Chapter 19
I chose to write about this chapter because I believe that evangelism is the whole point of our church existence. The Seventh day Adventist church organized so that they can spread the three Angel’s messages to the world. However after the great disappointment of 1844, Sabbatarian Adventist adopted what was called the “shut door” policy. This was the belief that since the Sanctuary was cleansed on October 22, 1844, probation was now closed for everyone that didn’t accept William Miller's message. So therefore there was no need to witness or proselytize. Then there was a paradigm shift from the “shut door” policy to the belief that if they preached the “Three Angel’s messages” throughout the United States then they were preaching to the entire world. They believed that if they preached the three Angel’s messages to individuals in America from all over the world then they were in a sense preaching to the entire world. Then by the Holy Spirit working through Ellen White, Adventist again had another paradigm shift to the mentality that the “three Angels messages needed to go the entire world. Since that shift the three Angel’s messages have been spreading worldwide. J.N. Andrews was the first Seventh-day Adventist missionary of which our school is named after. He and his family were sent to Europe to do missionary work. Then G. Matteson and his family were sent to do missionary work in Scandinavia. By 1890 Adventist missionaries were in about 18 countries. Through the Spirit of prophecy the counsel that Ellen White gave for evangelizing I thought was paramount as pointed out in this chapter. From a Dec 10 1871 vision that she had Ellen White said that “Young men should be qualifying themselves by becoming familiar with other languages, that God may use them as mediums to communicate His saving truth to those of other nations. Missionaries are needed to go to other nations to preach the truth in a guarded careful manner.” (Life Sketches p.204) This was as much sound doctrine yesterday as it is today. The focus was spreading the three Angels messages on a global scale. I believe we need to be reminded of this principle on a constant basis. Sometimes it may seem that our resources are limited, however if we push forward by faith God will supply our every need. The Holy Spirit also used Ellen White to give counsel for public Evangelism. She emphasized that workers need to be properly trained and prepared before they conduct evangelistic efforts. This is sound doctrine because no matter how much zeal one has to spread the “three Angels messages” there still needs to be some form of education to be most effective for the glory of God. As the world is constantly changing in this information age, we must continue to learn and to teach how to effectively evangelize. Ellen White also gave counsel on the manner in which evangelistic efforts should be conducted. Evangelistic campaigns should be conducted in the Spirit of Jesus. Jesus should be exalted and reflected in all soul winning ventures. Even in Ellen White’s writing, Jesus is depicted as our Savior and example in all things no matter what the subject is that she is writing about. Ellen White gives counsel that we need to meet people where they are as Jesus met people where they were. Christ avoided controversies, speaking with simplicity by not bringing many things before them at once. This again is sound advice for today as well as it was for yesterday. I feel that we always need to take heed to this counsel when conducting any evangelistic effort. I wish I would have known this before. I thank God for maturing and learning this the hard way. The reason why I picked this chapter to write about is because evangelism is near to my heart. Then to read the counsel that was given by the Holy Spirit through Ellen White I find to be of great advice.
Ellen White Wars and Other Reflections I have always been fascinated by the fact that Adventists are adept at starting significant intra-denominational warfare using quotations from our esteemed prophet as their primary source of ammunition. I have heard it suggested that these wars are waged to defend “the truth” from the attacks of the evil one. However, I generally feel as if these battles do little to advance truth, instead betraying the feeble spirituality of the combatants. From the time that I was very young, I always had the sense that a large part of ministry was helping the church come to a point where these arguments ceased to be a major issue. However, I am beginning to understand that the issue may not be as easily remedied as I once thought. Our textbook reveals that from early on in the formation or our church, this squabbling over the statements of Ellen White. A prominent example comes up in relationship to the argument between James White and Dr. J.H. Kellogg. Although the details are sparse, it seems as if White and the Kellogg disagreed on an issue and used EGW quotations to make their point, belittling the other’s use of EGW quotes. Unfortunately, things haven’t changed that much. It seemed that Ellen had a lot of wisdom in this situation, sitting down in a closed room with both men and interpreting her statements for them to clarify her position. Here’s the question: since we don’t have the prophet in our midst, what is the best way for us to deal with these squabbles. Part of the problem, it seems, is that in the context of these battles, we can’t even agree on a hermeneutic to use in approaching her writings. Obviously, it’s a difficult situation. Yet there must be a way to resolve these issues without doing harm to the people involved in the conflict. If Ellen White could do it, we must be able to do through the work of the Spirit. One thing I appreciate about this book is that it puts Ellen White and the birth of the Adventist Church in its specific socio-economic context. I’ve often thought of the beginnings of the church in almost ethereal terms at times. I very much appreciate the earthiness that is brought to the story here. We think we’re in revolutionary times because we have seen the economy shift from industry to information. We think we’re so overwhelmed by our tax burden. We feel like our culture is melting down around us. These were all feelings that seem to be shared by our early church pioneers, as brought out by Douglass. In some ways, it was even more severe. The United States was still in the process of becoming a nation. The economic base was moving from agriculture to industry. The people moved from country to city to keep up. Their politicians weren’t any more popular than ours. This was a real world with real problems. Yet in the midst of some of the biggest changes in the history of the United States, God used the Spirit of Prophecy to guide the church onto a solid foundation. It is a testament to the glory of God and the ministry of Ellen White. I read with intrigue the chapter on her writing ministry. This section troubled me in a sense, because it brought my idea of inspiration down to earth. I’ve never really been in the camp that accepts verbal inspiration, yet I must say that my model of inspiration didn’t leave a lot of room for copyists and editors to work. The fact that Ellen White had so many copyists and trusted people that could edit her work demonstrates that inspiration isn’t restricted to the prophet. There was an interesting statement that suggested that certain editors were allowed to make changes to manuscripts as long as it didn’t alter the clear meaning of the passage. The statement interested me because five people can read the same essay and have five different evaluations of what the “clear meaning” is. Thus I would ask, the clear meaning according to who? These stories force us to crack the door of inspiration a bit wider to include those who worked under Mrs. White as she did her writing. Apparently, she always reviewed the work after it was done, yet it would be only through the Holy Spirit’s leading that an editor could always maintain the “clear meaning” of a passage as they did their work.
There were several things that stood out last week in class and in the readings that I will comment on. The first is that of the ellipse of truth. It has been very helpful in understanding the writings of Ellen White and Scripture to realize that there is a broader scope that one must come from in order to understand it correctly. One thing in particular is regarding the application of the writings. There is a pull in the natural heart towards extremism, some call it fanaticism, in many different directions. As the book says common sense is needed but that it is not to “negate Bible counsel.” (p. 96). I can agree with all of this. Common sense is very important, and in the book it is refreshing to read about how Ellen White herself at times struggled with how to apply the word practically and with common sense. We see that each case was approached in a unique fashion, but that God’s word and principles were kept in the forefront. At times mistakes were made, but corrections were wrought and then things moved forward. I like the statement “Sanctified common sense applies immutable truths to the human situation, taking all circumstances into account.” (p. 96). However, I have to mention a few observations about it. Perhaps the word “sanctified” is a very important key to this sentence, because it is certainly not possible for a human being to “take all circumstances” into account. For it seems that there are certain circumstances that a human can not possibly foresee or even be aware of. Take for example being confronted with a decision to abandon your “nets” and follow Jesus. Common sense would tell a person that you need to make sure you can provide for your family, make sure things are in order, and then when you have that all taken care of you can consider leaving your nets and following Jesus. But, the common sense that is of this sort is really not common sense at all, it is worldly wisdom. Sanctified common sense, on the other hand, would be to abandon ship, nets, and your earthly father and to follow the LORD of life such as the early disciples did—and some here at the Seminary. Thus the importance of hanging on to Jesus Christ and being self-distrustful. God alone can see all circumstances and it is His wisdom and vision that is needed. So the point is that common sense good, but it must be sanctified because without God, it really is no common sense at all. The other thing I wanted to comment upon was the idea that came out of the class discussion. I believe Stephane noticed that between each period of the remnant transition, there was a prophet. For example Abraham was a prophet and of course he was the father of the Jews. John the Baptist and Jesus Himself came on the scene during the transition from Israel to the Christian Church. Then after the Christian church you have the protestant reformation, then you have the Adventist Church. Although I do not see a particular “prophet” that was raised up to transition between the Christian church and the protestant church, unless of course you count the reformers as prophets. Which they were in a certain sense, but in another they were not like Daniel or Moses or Paul or even Ellen White. With all of that said, Staphane is on to something. When I was at AFCOE Pastor Stephen Bohr did a biblical presentation on five totally different ways to test Ellen White Biblically. One such way looked at all of the time prophecies of the Bible and the idea was consistent that before each time prophecy in Scripture a prophet was raised and at the time of the time prophecy’s fulfillment another prophet was raised to point to the fulfillment—a prophet before the prophecy and one after it just like two book ends. Examples were Enoch and Noah (Flood), Jeremiah and Daniel (70 years captivity), Daniel and John the Baptist (70 weeks), and if I remember Abraham and Moses were in there as well somehow. Anyways, because this holds consistently true with all of the time prophecies in Scripture, it would be logical that we should expect to have seen a prophet appear at the end of the 2300 day prophecy (Daniel to start it and some prophet who would mark its fulfillment). What is amazing is that the 2300 day prophecy ended in October of 1844. Ellen White had her first vision in December, 1844. And incidentally many other “prophets” sprang up around that time, but none of them spoke to the issue of the 2300 day prophecy like Ellen White did nor did they arrive at precisely the right time. Some were years before and some after, none were in that precise year. Anyhow, I thought that was interesting.
This comment is for Clifford Lims post about Section III
The quote that you cited regarding how painful it was for Ellen White to fulfill her calling also impressed me.
I have observed that most of the men and women who have been prominent disciples of Christ such as Ellen White, Martin Luther, Paul, and others whether they were prophets or reformers they all had a heavy sense of responsibility for the souls of others.
They were willing to risk being misunderstood and even risk their entire reputation in order to deliver the message.
Ellen White gives a terrific example of what it means to labor for the souls of others. But what I really want to point out about all of this is that we look at the prophet as being on a pedestal. And lest I be misunderstood, we would do well to respect her.
However, I find that placing her on such a pedestal tends to lessen the conviction of modern day followers of Christ of their need and calling to suffer for Christs sake and bear a decided testimony against sin.
There is much talk these days about how faithful women and men of old were to the Lord Jesus Christ and a justification for a lack of obedience today.
Yet I find that in my own personal walk with Christ that He calls me personally to a life of obedience to Him and that obedience to Him requires some very painful things at certain times. LIke preaching sermons that are not popular, or visiting a backslider and sharing straight words with them.
In this day, when someone does that they are labeled as judgmental or unchristlike or unloving. It is no different today than it was in the days of the "great" men and women of faith.
My point is this: That pain that Ellen White felt is the pain that each one of us should be currently experiencing in our walk with Christ if it is that we have truly received a call from God to be His ministers. That pain is not reserved just for prophets. It is reserved for ministers of the gospel, men and women who will bear a decided testimony against sin all the while lifting high Jesus Christ and His blood stained banner.
I wanted to write a few comments on our class discussion yesterday, Wednesday July 16, 2008. We began with devotion on the subject of unity. Christ and the Father are one. John 17:19-21 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. NIV. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit forms a perfect community. God wants his church to build community. Without community we are fragmented into different subsets and sects around the world. Often denominations are splintered, Conferences are splintered, and local churches are splintered. Although we know that it is God’s will for us to be unified, we still allow our desires to lead us away from community. The gifts of the Spirit were given to lead us into community and unity of purpose. Eph.4:11-13 tells us that; 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (niv). It saddens me that it takes us so long to understand the magnitude of this text. It is after years of experience in the Field of ministry that we pastors discover that the primary focus of our ministry is to equip our people for the “works of service” and that we cannot do all the work but that we need help. I searched the Adventist model of equipping and found none. Yes we have the Sabbath School lessons, which is supposed to lead a person into daily study of the Word and should help equip individuals for service but there is no accountability gauge in place. At our typical Sabbath School Classes, most of us sit still while the teacher instills into us what he/she has studied. The teacher should realize that she is a facilitator who stimulates the student to share their ideas and experience. Sabbath School is our only formal small group time to build community but that falls short of what it should really be. Ellen White says, “The Sabbath School should be one of the greatest instrumentalities and the most effectual in bringing souls to Christ.” —Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p. 10. Where is this taking place in the current model of Sabbath School? I have had the joy of studying holistic small groups ministry for 10 years and one of the biggest part of small groups ministry is building community. As a matter of fact we are very intentional about it. The five pillars that build holistic small groups can be assigned to each finger on one hand. The thumb represents community, the pointer finger represents evangelism—Jesus said “GO”, the middle finger or the longest finger represents leadership, the ring finger represents accountability and the weakest finger represents equipping. Most of our churches do not have a process to equip their members, the Adventist church and other denominations. I strongly believe that Small Groups Ministry is the answer to building the community that Jesus spoke about. That is what the early church was built on, that was also how the Advent Movement got started and it is something that Ellen White encouraged and taught. She said, “The formation of small companies as a basis of Christian effort is a plan that has been presented before me by One who can not err. If there is a large number in the church, let the members be formed into small companies, to work not only for the church members but for unbelievers also” Evangelism, p. 115.
In this last reflection paper, I am going to touch on two aspects that I have found in our section 5 reading. First, I will take issue with something that Dr. Douglass mentioned on page 259 under the subtitle, “One thread unravels the fabric.” Second, I will comment on some aspects mentioned in chapter 29, “Principles and Philosophy.”
First, Dr. Douglass refers to the dire consequences of “unraveling” even one doctrine, as demonstrated in the history of the Christian church. Then he states how Ellen White has traced doctrines in a skillful matter, and the beneficial effect her unifying influence has had on the Adventist Church. I would agree with Dr. Douglass that Ellen White did in her writings solidify and contribute to the doctrines that we hold very dear, and that the Christian church in its history has largely failed to hold the fabric of truth together.
Thus far I have no problem with his concept of one thread unravels the fabric. However, I do take issue with Dr. Douglass in the second paragraph where he states: “Ellen White’s theological concepts were not ‘divinely’ transmitted through her as water passes through a pipe. Nor was she a systematic theologian. She was primarily a communicator, guided by heavenly counsel. Her mission was to comfort where people needed encouragement and to correct those errors that either misrepresent God or incorrectly define how men and women are finally saved.”
I think I know what he is trying to say; however, he may not have made himself clear or perhaps he has a different view of Ellen White’s role than I do. I believe that Ellen White was a communicator; her mission was to comfort where people needed encouragement and to correct the misrepresentation of God, etc. However, I do not believe this was her “primary” role, but those elements were part of the entire picture of what she did as a prophet. Furthermore, my biggest concern in this paragraph is the comment that Ellen White was not a systematic theologian. I would have liked for Dr. Douglass to define what he meant by this term.
I believe, as I have mentioned in the previous paragraph, that Ellen White fulfilled these elements stated by Dr. Douglass, and yet she was also more than that; she was also a theologian or a “systematic theologian.” Dr. Douglass may not have meant it that way, but the paragraph gives the impression that Ellen White was everything but a theologian. If this was the case, how do we account for her contribution of deep Biblical truth about the Trinity, for example? What about concepts in her writings where some theologians who have Greek and Hebrew language are able to understand passages because of the special meaning brought forward by these languages, yet Ellen White, who did not have a knowledge of those languages, brought out their meaning as clearly as do those well-educated professors? I believe that Ellen White was just as much a theologian as was Paul, who also was a prophet. If Ellen White is not the type of theologian that we are imagining, why do we look at Jonah for theology? What about Moses, Isaiah and John; were they not also theologians? If these people are not theologians, but primarily communicators to God’s people of what was going to happen or to help them to grow spiritually, why do we study those books in the Bible or do theology on those books?
I do resonate with Dr. Douglass that Ellen White’s “understanding of theology was grounded in vision experiences and grew through the years as she listened to her Adventist colleagues cross-pollinate each other with their Biblical studies” (p. 259), especially at the beginning of her ministry. But this was not always the case throughout her ministry. She also theologized the Word of God when writing about it, as did the prophets found in the Bible. Perhaps there is a lack of balance or clarity in this area on the part of Dr. Douglass.
Second, Dr. Douglass outlined the “principles and philosophy” of education, which, in this terse chapter, reminded me about good education. One principle that I really enjoyed reading and reflecting on again is that students need to be thinkers, not mere reflectors of others’ thoughts. We as students too often tend to be more reflectors of what we hear, read and learn because of the stress of education. I also do acknowledge the fact that we often see this “self-seeking, self-ambition and selfish rivalry” in the educational system that we are in. One may think that it does not have to be that way, but perhaps it is augmented by the fact of our having slipped away from some of the principles and philosophy given to us. Of course there may never be a full conformity to these principles, yet perhaps our educational system should strive for a better balance and endeavor to be more in harmony with what God has counseled.
I was glad to read that a good “thinker is a learned event. Learning to think is a joint effort by thinking teachers and eager students” (p. 350). It may not always be the case with either party, but I hope that there is an eagerness by both sides to reach this level of quality of learning. I also hope that I as a pastor will be able to transmit this type of learning to my churches. May God help us.
Ellen G. White is said to have had around 200 visions in about 23 years (by 1868, however she lived until 1915, and had visions up until she died), some for as long as three hours. Her first came over 150 years ago. During these visions she would sometimes display physical phenomenon such as super-strength, no breathing at all, the ability to point to a verse in the Bible that she could not see (for the Bible might be above her head) and read it word for word as her finger followed along, among other things. And she was not the only one to have had visions in her lifetime. At least two other people (both men) had them before she did. If they happened today would we believe? In a recent article in Philippine Frontier Missions two stories were told of dead men (boys) who were medically dead but even after their stiff bodies were pronounced dead, the faith of two different individuals asking for God’s intervention, brought them both back to life. This was mentioned in class and a classmate made a joke about it (and he was from the Philippines). Do we really believe that miracles happen today? When they happen do we dismiss them out of hand? What then does that say of our faith in the miracles mentioned in the Bible? Take time to read the stories surrounding the visions of Ellen G. White and you will find that many had miraculous events attached to them. The people who lived at the same time with her were also skeptical of them, but these miracles served to prove to these skeptics that the visions were of supernatural origins. But what if they were too skeptical of the miraculous happenings? What if they didn’t believe the miracles even though these miracles were sent to help them get past their skepticism? Even more important, what happens if we don’t believe? In 1863, Ellen G. White had her most important vision on health. The point of the vision was that to work for God we must have good health. Dr. Don McMahon writes that before 1863, on October 21, 1858, Ellen wrote that she was against eating only vegetables, that if God wanted His people to stop eating swine flesh He would convict them of it, that she was dependent on a meat diet to survive, that she hated eating bread, and that she ate more than three meals a day. The Whites lived on a high-salt, high-animal fat, low-bread, almost no-vegetable diet in which they had more than three meals a day that was mostly meat. They were under a high-stress, high-strain workload. Two years after the 1863-vision, James had a stroke and no wonder! A modern doctor would have recommended a radical change in lifestyle. None of the drugs available in their day would be recommended. James would have been told to reduce stressful activity, increase rest, increase relaxation, exercise more with non-stressful activity, undergo a dietary change that would reduce kilojoule intake, and to lose weight. He would have been told today to reduce meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption. And salt would have been highly restricted. All of this is what was in her vision, but none of it was being recommended by doctors in their day. Ellen followed this council and lived to a rare age (in her day) of 87 years. In 1888, she uplifted Jesus along with Waggoner and Jones. After 1888, she wrote, Steps to Christ (1892), Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings (1896), The Desire of Ages (1898), Christ’s Object Lessons (1900), and The Ministry of Healing (1905). What if she hadn’t accepted the health message? What if she hadn’t changed? These are the greatest books that she wrote! What if we don’t accept the message? It is too easy to just dismiss the workings of God. If someone had a vision today, would we be open-minded enough to test? When we hear of miracles in the mission field or hear at home are we too quick to search for a scientific explanation? When we hear the name Ellen White do we remember the kooky things we have hear or read that people say about her? Isn’t the existence of God miraculous to the scientific mind? Maybe we need to hold back the skepticism of things that sound too good to be true and weigh the facts. If we don’t we might forget that God is also a miraculous reality.
My mom joined the Seventh-day Adventist church when I was eight years old. Each session she attended of the Daniel and Revelation seminar brought change - no more Saturday morning cartoons, no more snacking on fruit roll ups, no more sharing a jar of pig’s feet with grandpa. I am grateful that my mom was convicted and implemented these changes while I was young. It seems the older one gets, the harder it is to change. While reading through Section V, I appreciated the segment entitled “Led Step by Step.” (p. 282). Two thousand years ago, Jesus declared to his disciples, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” In Ellen White’s day, He was calling Adventists to take the next step in personal reform. Even though Ellen White received visions regarding health reform, she did not receive all of the principles at once nor implement changes all at once in her personal life. This is evident from the reading that Ellen White ate oysters, cheese, meat, and drank a pint of fermented grape juice.*
I reflected on the previous readings regarding the revelation of spiritual truths. God works in His time and it is always the right time! The call of Ellen White came just in time to encourage the disappointed Millerites. The telegram containing a Bible verse was received by Pastor Campbell “in the nick of time.” Ellen White received visions in time to correct many doctrinal issues as demonstrated in the question of when to begin the weekly Sabbath. Another timely truth was revealed in the interaction of the body, mind, and spirit.
Most of the dietary aspects of health reform seem common sense today. Internet search engines feature a health nugget on their daily homepage. Commercials promote their product as the answer to the latest health crisis. Cereal boxes flaunt “heart healthy” labels and entice consumers to submit their stories to be featured on the back of the cereal box! Restaurants add “vegetarian” items to their menu to keep up with the growing demand. Being healthy is in vogue.
But the middle of the nineteenth century had different notions regarding health. “People generally saw no connection between their life style and disease.” (p. 320) There was no surgeon general’s warning printed on a cigarette pack. Ellen White presented seemingly fanatical views regarding: yeast germ in bread, butter, dietary fiber, eating meat, mixing fruits and vegetables at the same meal, drinking milk, consuming caffeine, city living, soaking up the sun, exercising, sleeping, and trusting in God.
Although I am a vegetarian, (thanks to watching cows and chickens being slaughtered in the dead of a Chilean summer) I appreciate Ellen White’s comments that eating meat should not be a test of salvation. However, I could see how her counsel such as found on page 322 (“Ministers who eat meat “set an evil example,” and make it difficult for others to have “confidence” in them) could be misconstrued. Did not the diet of Jesus, Minister of Ministers, consist of fish and lamb?
*To apply common sense and avoid the spreading of rumors, I feel compelled to clarify this statement. According to Douglass, “Early Adventists did not understand the distinction between clean and unclean meats.” (p. 314) Also, drinking the "pint" was over the course of a year for medicinal purposes and not intentional. A considerable amount of knowledge can be acquired by reading the endnotes as exhibited in #5 on page 317 “In the nineteenth century; no method had been devised to keep grape juice from fermenting…When the Whites used the term “domestic wine,” they referred to grape juice as free from fermentation as possible.”
Joseph V. Thelusca The Life & Ministry of E.G. White July 25, 2008 Reflection III
The Role of the Inspired Messenger
Our journey began a few weeks ago as we have been examining the life and ministry of Ellen G. White in relations to her prophetic roles as the messenger of the Lord for the remnant church. Having said that, I want to spend a great portion of my time in this brief reflection to discuss her role as a prophetess, the authority of her writings and how she viewed her writings vis-Ã -vis the only rule of faith and practice, i.e., the Bible. Also, the fact that we spent much time discussing the issue of inspiration and biblical interpretation throughout the week, I think there should be something said on this if time and space permit. However, my main priority is to explore the role sister White and her writings as the inspired Messenger of the Lord. First and foremost, the prophetess herself stated that her writings and visions are not a substitute for Bible study. She categorically urged her readers and fellow brethren make the word of God, the Bible the only source of light and guidance of their lives. That’s being the case, would that imply that her visions and writings were less inspired than that of the Holy Scripture? My answer to that pertinent question would be a big “no” because as we have seen in class throughout our weekly discussion, the biblical writers were not more inspired than Sister White because they were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Prophecy. Based on my reading of the book and having come across some significant insights from the prophetess, it is clear that her writings had a dual role that are unique to her ministry and the development of remnant Church. The primary function of her writing is to serve as warning to the general public, but not as doctrinal authority because only the Holy Scripture must be used as proof when debating with unbelievers. The second purpose of her testimonies is geared toward the believers and church members in that she advised those who are already in the church to embrace her writings as truth from God because they are in full harmony with the word of God and because they are divine inspired truths from heaven. Another striking observation that I make is that Mrs. White made it clear that her writings are not infallible in that only God is infallible because He is God, the creator of all things. Such is the case, her writings should not be elevated to that of scripture even though the inspiration of both was a manifestation from the same Holy Spirit. In addition, Mrs. White appeared to believe that it was quite normal for her to revise her later works as she was given greater lights or truth. Whereas the Bible is the unchangeable inspired word of God which will last until eternity, therefore I fully concur with her that the only rule of faith and practice ought to be the Bible. In addition, I further agree with her reasoning that her writings must not be presented to folks who don’t know the Lord yet because her writings are not and should not be treated as an alternative for the holy word of God. Now, on the area of inspiration, she made it by accentuating that God did not dictate her word even though her writings reflect the inspired thoughts of God to his people. I would like to believe that sister White did her best to convey God’s thoughts and message with the best possible words that she could use taken into consideration her human frailties and lacking. I am amazed to across one of her statement where she bluntly penned that her writings would have not been necessary if the Christians had made God’s words the focus of their study in order to reach the Bible standard and reach Christian perfection. With that in mind, I would argue that the Christians should always start with the word of God, i.e., the Bible and if further clarity is needed, her works ought to be consulted. However, I think regardless of one’s views about her works, they ought to be viewed as God’s revealed truths and should be read as frequently as possible in addition to the word of God.
Response for week 3 Response to class lectures regarding: The Spirit of Prophecy is still alive and well today in the Church, however it seems that no one is embracing it, or maybe they don’t know they are embracing it. When I’m talking about the Spirit of Prophecy, I’m not just talking about EGW but the Bible as well. This class has been refreshing to see that the Spirit of Prophecy is much broader than EGW or the Bible, but it includes all those who proclaim to follow Christ by embracing and sharing the message. As we look at the church in it’s sleeping state, it seems that we need another prophet to get us back on track; to get us back in our Bibles and the Spirit of Prophecy, but does God need another prophet to do this? I like what the teacher said in class that the Spirit of Prophecy in EGW is still relevant for today, and it message is applicable. We as pastors are called to bring the church back to the Bible and to the Spirit of Prophecy. We are all lesser lights as EGW was, to bring people back to the Bible, to help them gain a deeper knowledge of God and His plan of salvation. What a great responsibility and challenge that lies ahead of us because of the secular world we live in. I heard from some friends who just came back from Germany and they said that our church is dieing over there because people of the Church don’t want to hear the Bible preached from the pulpit any more, they want something new and exciting. Dr. Hanna mentioned in class that when we go out to preach, we need to bring new insights out of the scriptures, and we should do it in a way that people can see that it is possible to find these new insights by themselves, that it doesn’t take a masters degree in theology. He said you could do this partly by not preaching as if you know everything about the text, thus leaving the church members a challenge of exploring the Word for themselves. I think it would be cool as a pastor to prepare some study questions that go along with your sermon and challenge people to find the answers and share what they found the next week. What really got me into the Word was when my pastor left our church and the elders of my church gave my brother and I the responsibility of teaching the pastors class. Getting members active in ministry will definitely get them in the Word; people need the challenge of sharing their faith, which comes by the Word of God. Response to The Messenger: I really enjoyed Section five, partly because I’m a health nut myself. I’ve been SDA all my life but had no clue that we had a health message beside my mom saying I couldn’t eat pork, and certain sea foods. It wasn’t until I was 20 years old I heard the health message and it was from my youth teacher who was a fairly new SDA who was just learning it himself and it didn’t take him to long before he became a fanatic and I became one too, a full fledge Vegan. I had come from a fourth generation SDA Family and I couldn’t understand why they didn’t fully embrace the health message. The health message became hell message for me and I felt it was my duty to try to convert my whole family, to get them ready for translation. How did this all happen, that is, my fanatic view of the health message? Well it started by not knowing how to read EGW’s book on Counsels on Diet and Foods. Douglass in Section five made it clear to me where I went wrong by this quote from EGW in the Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1870: “The Lord also knew how to introduce to His waiting people the great subject of health reform, step by step, so they could bear it, and make good use of it, without souring the public mind.” (Douglass 282). God doesn’t reveal truth in one big step, but by step by step so you’re able to bear it and especially so people can bear to be around you. Our churches health reform didn’t come all at once. I found it interesting to see that Ellen White had her own struggles with the health reform; she said it “came directly across my own ideas.” I found it interesting that it took Ellen White some time to embrace the health message (such as not eating meat and dairy) and that in some situations, when circumstances made it impossible to be a vegetarian she would eat meat. I don’t know if I could do this. I also like how Douglass brought out the real reason why God gave us the health reform: 1st Humanitarian principle (it was the Lord’s means for lessening suffering in our world, 2nd Evangelical principle (used as a bridge to share the gospel), 3rd Soteriological principle (getting people bodies ready for the coming of the Lord). Out of these three principles I only embraced the last one, and I think this what made me unbalance. Douglass said “…Ellen White wrote that some who were health reform advocates ‘were extremists, and would run the health reform into the ground…Their influence would disgust believers and unbelievers’” (Douglass 306). I know I lost my influence with my family because of the way I first presented the health message, however I did learn on my own, that I should live the message myself, and let my life be example what the health message can do in a life of a believer. I did have a friend who lost His wife and two boys over the health message. I’m glad my family gave me a break and forgave me for my arrogance. I wished I had known that the health message were only principles to live by, and not a policy demanded from the Lord’s prophet. Douglass does a very good job showing that the principles of the health message do work and can be seen in the life of the believers. Douglass shows lots of data that shows SDA are much healthier and live much longer than the vast population.
I was impressed during my reading this week by how open Ellen White was to change. We have gained a clear understanding from our textbook and also from Dr. Hanna that Ellen White clearly did not mean for her writings to ever supersede the Bible. Her writings were in fact written so that believers would have a stronger desire to search scripture and strive to reach the biblical standard of Christian perfection. I appreciated the quote on page 170 in Messenger of the Lord that said, “She never claimed infallibility, always emphasizing that “God alone is infallible.” She was always open to the unfolding of new truth. Progressive truth, for her, would not contradict previously revealed truths but expand it.” This idea of progressive truth seemed so prevalent in her ministry that I think it allowed her to have a more open or, dare I say, holistic approach to scripture and God’s workings. I have appreciated the way Dr. Hanna has challenged us to view ideas more openly and to not be close-minded in our thoughts. To me having an open mind is crucial in a world of uncertainty. I like knowing there is more than one way to look at a situation or problem and have enjoyed hearing thoughts along those lines during our lectures and throughout our reading. I saw how this process of thinking openly took place during our class discussion on Tuesday, 7/22. We were discussing certain ideas behind baptism, whether water baptism was necessary or if the baptism by the Spirit was what really mattered. Our discussion brought up questions such as “What is more important, water baptism or Spirit baptism?” and “If water baptism is a symbol pointing to the greater baptism (Spirit) then was no one baptized before Jesus came?” These types of questions required me to open myself to a different style of thinking. As we strived to answer these questions we realized that the full truth about the Holy Spirit was not completely understood during the Old Testament, however the Bible clearly teaches that the Spirit was present in the Old Testament and also that the power of God was more than available prior to the coming of Christ that it even took some home to heaven early! By not limiting my understanding I was able to a deeper level of understanding than before. This thought can be elaborated on while thinking about Hebrews 1:1, a verse that was shared in class by Dr. Hanna. The idea that God spoke at different times and in different ways to the prophets of old should speak loud and clear to us that we serve a multi-faceted God who does not limit Himself to one direct route. By expanding on this thought it would be easy to think that God is speaking through many of us today and in many different ways, which might be scary to some, but fortunately God has given us though His grace, the Spirit of Prophecy that enables us and helps us discern a wide variety of thoughts and ideas. I have really enjoyed reading and learning the different ways in which Ellen White’s ministry was open to greater light. I’m finding that her openness is enabling me to have a stronger and more well-rounded perception of her and it is helpful to me. An example of this can be found in chapter 19 where Mrs. White deals with Race relations. Her counsel was to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” She recognized that the dark times they were living in were only temporary and that eventually a brighter day would come. Her thinking was not limited; it was open to brighter ideas and larger thinking. This open-minded style of thinking is something that we as Pastor’s would do well to incorporate into our lives if we have not yet done so. Thankfully we are able to learn beneath and alongside wonderful teachers here at the seminary that help us expand our mental boundaries and become more open to new light!
In this blog, I want to comment on a few things in Section 4 that I found interesting to me, particularly because they have relevance to things we face in today’s society. In the 1888 General Conference, the delegates saw a principle held through Ellen White’s ministry. First, Bible study, then confirmation through divine revelation. Reading this was a challenge to me as to how to use her works. Too often I have found myself taking a shortcut to Bible study by going to her comments on the particular passage and preaching a sermon based on that. Looking at this principle, I see this as a challenge to how we as pastors write sermons. Its so easy to get caught up in the busyness of ministry that before we know it it’s late in the week and we have no sermon, so we find ourselves looking online, looking to commentaries, looking to Ellen White for a shortcut to a sermon. While this method may work sometimes, it cannot substitute for good Bible study and time in God’s word. Looking at the issues we have against Ellen White in recent years, I have found in my own personal experience, that the reason that people dislike Ellen White so much is that they have not used this principle. The go to divine inspiration first and take bits and pieces of her writings to prove a personal point they have. As a result of not using this principle, needless people have been hurt by people who do not go about using this principle of searching the scriptures first then looking to her comments on the subject and taking a “holistic” understanding to the issue, which would have prevented many of the misunderstandings that have happened. The bottom line in this issue is the issue of taking time to do good Bible study. In today’s society, we like things fast and easy. In fact there is a commercial on TV that has people pressing the “Easy” button so things happen quickly and without much effort. As pastors its easy to fall into that mindset and that lifestyle. This principle is a challenge to not go down that route, or if we’re on that route, avoid it and learn to do good Bible study, so that our sermons will come out of a heart that is grounded in the word, rather than a sermon put together the night before by stringing a bunch of Ellen White quotes together and calling it a sermon. A challenge for ministers who are constantly pressed for time on every side, but one that I believe God wants us to take up for the sake of His children. A second challenge that she issued to ministers was in dealings with ministers of other faiths. Too often we are scared of mingling with others as we either don’t want to get polluted and converted by them or we don’t think it important, yet Ellen White “urged that Seventh-day Adventist ministers should come near to the ministers of other denominations. Pray, for and with these men for whom Christ is interceding…As Christ’s messengers, we should manifest a deep earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock.” (Douglass 223) The underlying emphasis is on unity as it fulfills Christ’s prayer in John 17 is this simple concept: Truth must not be sacrificed to achieve unity.” (Douglass 223) How often have I neglected to do this in my ministry, yet how important it is to reach out to my friends of other denominations and build bridges for Christ and gain credibility for the work of the church. This may be a bit of a challenge, but as a pastor, it challenges me to dig deep into what I know and be firmly grounded in the truth, yet at the same time, be willing to focus on the relationship with other men and see them as other human beings not as sheep from another flock that are misguided and going to hell. This is something that I will have to be intentional about when I head back into the field. As I have said in earlier blogs, as I have read more about this oft misunderstood woman, I have found a woman who was deeply committed to her God and let His love influence her interactions will all men. What a challenge for us as ministers to follow this woman’s example. If we do, I believe we will be better students of the word and more loving to our fellow man.
The section on receiving government aid was very interesting to me. From time to time I have run across individuals who have held that the church should not receive any sort of government aid. Along with this is the idea that a church should not ever become a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization. There was one individual who even was trying to say that the 501(c)3 status was an indication that the church had apostatized and was caught up with anti-Christ.
It is encouraging to read about Ellen White’s encouragement to read the book of Nehemiah prayerfully and to consider how God worked things out between His people and the secular government of that day. I have wondered how some have concluded that we are to never receive government aid in light of that passage of Scripture, for it was the government aid that enabled Nehemiah to be able to do what God was calling him to do.
The section did challenge me to consider religious liberty and study it out more. Because I have read some of A.T. Jones material, especially when he stood before congress fighting against the Sunday law that was being promoted in his day. Based upon how he argues in there, if I remember correctly, I could see how he could come to the conclusion that we should not ever receive government aid. But, then in our reading it says that White warned against buying into “false principles” regarding religious liberty. Exactly what does that mean? What portion of the religious liberty principles being advocated were false? Which were true?
Once again a recurring thought popped its head up again in this section, namely that Seventh-day Adventists are to be reaching out to the other denominations. On page 223 of the book it said “Further, she [Ellen White] urged that Seventh-day Adventist ministers should ‘come near to the ministers of other denominations. Pray for and with these men, for whom Christ is interceding…As Christ’s messengers, we should manifest a deep, earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock.’”
I also appreciated Hanna’s comments in class regarding having John the Baptist’s attitude: We need to have John the Baptist’s attitude “He [Christ] must increase but I must decrease.” Because in the end it is not going to be limited to an institution. God is not bound by an institution to finish the work. Does that mean that God does not have a remnant? No, it just means that God’s remnant is not confined by physical institutional boundaries, it transcends denominational boundaries. In the end there is only going to be two groups, the righteous and the wicked. How many organizational structures and denominations will make up the wicked? Will it only be one denomination? (i.e. the Catholic’s or the Protestants? What about Wiccan’s or Buddhists? In the end is there only going to be one organizational structure or one denomination that is saved? No, God does not save institutions, He saves people.
It seems that in the end there will be several organizational structures used and many different dynamics going at the same time involving those who will be saved. Already we are seeing entire churches adopt the Advent message entire Sunday keeping churches are becoming Sabbath keepers, but I am not sure how these churches are working out the logistics of their change in terms of tithe and offering structure. It is going to be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I think Hanna has a point that we are silly to think that when things get down to the wire, the pressure is on, and people are joining and leaving the ranks that all the “organizational” matter is going to be clear cut. God’s church is going to have to be extremely fluid and able to roll with the punches. What if an entire Non-Adventist denomination of some sort who had teachings and doctrines similar in some respects to us saw the way things were heading in the final moments of earths history had its leadership suddenly have a change of heart and decided to join the ranks of the Adventists and proclaim the Three Angels Messages?
Ellen White (Health Reform) In section V of the “Messenger of the Lord” the book discussed the health message that was given from inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy to Ellen White. This health message was clearly ahead of all the medical expertise of its time. The medical world to this day is still behind in some regards to the Health message but is slowly catching up. Ellen White connected a healthy mind and body in the role of the Great Controversy. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Ellen White knew that a healthy and sober mind was needed in order to understand Bible truths and here clear direction from the Spirit of Prophecy. Ellen White connected the relation of health and spirituality in a serious manner. In 1875 Ellen White called this interaction between mind and body “a mysterious and wonderful relation. They react upon each other.” She also said that ‘it cannot be to the glory of God for His children to have sickly bodies or dwarfed minds.” The Bible says in 1Corintians 10:31 “ Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” So that view is also supported by the Bible as well. However Ellen White wasn’t the first Adventist that actually had the health message. Through his gained wisdom from being a sea captain at the age of 32 Joseph Bates gave up and abstained from all intoxicating drinks. Then 19 years later he decided to give up all flesh food. Then later on Ellen White was given vision concerning these matters and advocated to abstain from them as well. Just recently I read an article online explaining that if you eat less then you are likely to live longer. It’s funny that this counsel was given over a hundred years ago by Ellen White. This just goes to show you how far ahead of time were her counsels. Ellen White had also consistently linked the health message with the “third angel’s message”-as close as the “hand is with the body.” Today I believed that a lot of us Adventist who are aware of these words of inspiration from Ellen White have become lazy in really applying these health guidelines to our life and also connecting it with evangelism. I catch myself some time bypassing the meat selection in a buffet to go the dessert aisle only to indulge in cake and cookies. I don’t believe that this is the health message that Ellen White had in mind. I believe now than ever before we need to fine tune our views on health reform. We need to have a more holistic approach to the way in which we go about teaching the health message. This past 4th of July weekend my family and I had the opportunity to spend some with my wife supervisor’s family. My wife supervisor is also attending Andrews University where she is trying to get her Doctorate’s in Education. She had already expressed to my wife that she noticed that Adventist were very strange. She taught that they were strange because the ones that were in her class abstain from meat but they ate candy, ice cream, cake and just about everything else. My wife supervisor therefore couldn’t understand the over emphasis on not eating any meat but at the same time eating junk food with no regards. I think too many of us, and I say us are guilty of given this false unbalanced view of the health message. Too many of us approach eating chicken and fish as if that is a sin but at the same time drown a boat load of cookies, cake and ice cream. If we are educated better from what is written from the Spirit of Prophecy, then we will clearly see that large amounts of sugar as well as fat is very damaging to our bodies. Therefore all us who are in ministry must educate better and have a more holistic approach to the health message.
I think that the in-class discussions that we have been having regarding prophets and infallibility is quite interesting. God in His merciful ways uses human beings as His instruments. He is the One who designates some to serve as His agents/prophets. However, God could communicate His messages to us without any human intermediaries. He chooses humans to reach fellow human beings. However, no human being can claim infallibility. Only the One giving the message is infallible. The message that He transmits to us is also infallible. However, His messengers at various times and for various reasons falter in communicating God’s intended message. At times, it may be that a prophet is too hasty in communicating that which God had not prompted him/her to say. Nathan’s response to David’s desire to build the Temple is a classic example of the fallible nature of prophets. The fact that Nathan spoke out too quickly and out of terms did not cause him to lose his status as a prophet. God, in His merciful ways, decided to still use him just a few moments after he had erred in delivering the intended message. We still consider Nathan a legitimate prophet despite this shortcoming. I think that Ellen White should also be regarded in the same light even though she missed the mark on certain points and had to recant and reinterpret her messages. For instance, those who discredit Ellen White’s status as a prophet on the account of her struggles with the “shut door” theory must also consider Nathan’s status as a prophet given that the Bible clearly refers to him as such.
In addition to Nathan, there are also other individuals referred to as prophets who did not live infallible lives. Moses is one such example. Though Moses received direct commands from God throughout his life, he made some very egregious and costly mistakes. Even though Moses was called by God in an extra ordinary fashion and received clear instructions from Him, he still faltered in his response to God’s leading. As a prophet who, at times, received audible messages from God, Moses was in a prime position to live an infallible life. This leads us to understand that infallibility, even in the ranks of prophets, is unattainable. Therefore, infallibility cannot be one of the tests used to determine whether an individual is a prophet. If that were the case, no one would actually be able to attain the status of prophet. Thus, it becomes critical that we look at the sum total of a prophet’s life. In every instance, we should apply the test supported by Isaiah 8:20 saying “to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” We should also apply the other tests prescribed in the Word of God in analyzing the legitimacy of a prophet. However, we should not be too quick to dismiss a person as being a counterfeit prophet. However, this is not to say that there aren’t false prophets. There are indeed countless individuals who claim to speak for God without that ever being the case. Thus, it becomes important for us to follow the balanced approach that Dr. Hanna has been advising us to take. So, in terms of this topic, we need to keep in mind that prophets aren’t on the same level as God. Prophets are not divine! They are divinely inspired. At the same time, we must not denigrate or discount the status of a prophet. We should also not lower the bar in terms of the importance of their roles. Prophets are indeed special in that they have a particular connection with God. They are unique in that they have been divinely commissioned for an extraordinary task. Nonetheless, the bible says that all (including true prophets) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All the true prophets who have ever walked on the face of the earth will be saved solely by the blood of the Lamb. Thus, there is only One who is just, infallible, and without any blame – that is God!
This comment is in regards to Stephane B’s post #3:
Hi Stephane,
I appreciated your comments and thought that you made several good points. But I get a little different perspective when I read the quotes you referred to and so I’d like to share.
Regarding the statement you made “However, I do take issue with Dr. Douglass in the second paragraph where he states: “Ellen White’s theological concepts were not ‘divinely’ transmitted through her as water passes through a pipe. Nor was she a systematic theologian….”
The way I understood the phrase of her theological concepts were not “transmitted…as water through a pipe” can best be described by asking a few questions. How is water transmitted through a pipe? Is it a direct shot? Does the pipe itself make any contribution to the water?
In light of the answers to these questions how about God’s conveying a theological message through Ellen White. Did God “dictate” to her His theological message and all she was like was a pipe that channels the “direct” message right to the people, like water in a pipe? Or did God inspire her and Ellen White then conveyed God’s message using the literary talents and language that she knew?
In other words, what I got from the author using the phrase “water in a pipe” I thought that it fit in harmony with everything else he has been saying in the book thus far. Namely that God did not dictate to Ellen White, or any of the prophets, exactly word for word the theological message they were to write down.
The second aspect of your comment regarding taking issue with Douglas in saying that Ellen White was not a systematic theologian. Once again, I think the author may have had a different idea of what a systematic theologian is. When I read his comment and read that he didn’t think Ellen White was a “Systematic Theologian” I didn’t get the sense that he didn’t think she had anything theological to contribute, for he has written a whole book affirming that she did indeed, but what I got was that she was not some “official systematic theologian” in the technical sense of the term. Wikipedia indicates that there are three overlapping uses of the term 'systematic theology' in contemporary Christian theology and while I won’t quote those here, I don’t think Ellen White fits into any one of those categories.
I guess technically one could argue that Ellen White examined themes topically and in some cases chronologically. But as I look at the definition of what a systematic theologian does, I do not immediately think of Ellen White as one. And to be honest I am not so sure that I would think of Peter or James or John the Baptist, and maybe even Paul as one either. They were prophets and their main mission was not “systematic theology” but they were sent as God’s messengers to get His message across to the people in the best way possible. But they did not sit down and try to categorize and systematize and create theological systems as to how things worked.
Anyhow that’s my two cents worth. Regarding education, I agree whole heartedly with you. There needs to be more teaching that shows students how to master texts. The Bible for instance. As future pastors, it seems to me that the primary text book of each class that we take in the seminary should be the Bible. We study a lot about the Bible, and we read a lot of books about what the Bible teaches and about what other people have discovered for themselves out of the Bible, but it is rare that we actually are taken to the text itself. Except in Dr Hanna’s class. Hanna’s class so far for me has encouraged the most Bible reading! So that is a good thing, I appreciate Hanna’s use of Scripture in class and his encouragement to wrestle with the concepts.
I found the section on Theological Crisis really interesting. This comment will address legalism vs. liberalism, difficulties in clarifying the present truth, and departing from ‘landmark truths.
The protestant world is suffering the same weaknesses in polarity as in Ellen White’s (EGW) day. They either “do not see the wondrous things in the law of God for all who are doers of His Word or the others cavil over trivialities and neglect the weightier matters, mercy and the love of God.” We go to one extreme or another, Adventists in particular like to stress the law and argument. Unfortunately, we fail to show Christ’s love, we keep the commandments of God but lack the faith of Jesus Christ. I think there is a movement within the Church to rediscover what it means to have Christ’s accepting love. At the same time, we are having difficulty finding the balance of love and obedience individually and corporately. I believe it is our failure to “go to the Bible,” meaning real personal bible study on our personal questions at home, which has led to our frequently off-balanced approach. We do not study the positions that we do not like and seek a fresh and open understanding.
I found particularly interesting the authors’ points on page 198 in particular, the last “clarifying and restating the principles of the “precious message” that was the beginning of the “loud cry” will become “the one subject that will swallow up” all others.” What does the author believe EGW meant by this? It seems that each of the controversies, 1888, Holy Flesh movement, the Kellogg Pantheist issue started out as clarifying positions but then went off track. It seems a fine line to discern between restating and clarifying to a radical departure.
One way presented by the author was to see how the belief completely works out in the lives of the believers. This seems to be how EGW acted in the Kellogg Pantheist issue. She warned gently and then waited—prayerfully so all could fully understand the issues. This seems the hardest to deal with because it seems like it allows for the possibility of more strife.
Another way to discern was if it departs from landmarks. However, one has to understand what the landmarks of our faith are! Before, I came to the Seminary, I read about the 1888 Minneapolis issue and some of the writings of Jones and Haskell. As I read I realized I wasn’t sure what the landmarks of the SDA church were. I asked several pastors. I found that they seemed to have little idea beyond the Sabbath. They weren’t helpful. This may be are problem today, that our leaders and members do not understand the foundations of our belief, the relevance of the sanctuary message, Jesus as High Priest in the first phase of the Holy place and the second in the Holy of Holies (205). As I read this I thought, “umm how does that relate to the Ballenger/Sanctuary Crisis?” Apparently, I too am not understanding how this landmark belief practically impacts our unique understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in these last days! I agree with the author that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to change our character and then send the latter reign (I’m not sure how he comes to this determination), but how does this relate to the Sanctuary message?
The last idea I thought that seemed a way to discern departure truth was EGW quote, “I’m instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, Your theories which have multitudes of fine threads, and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God”. If something is really complicated and convoluted it probably isn’t right. I like that.
From my reading, I was fascinated to learn about how our health vision as Seventh-day Adventists came into being. There many different principles of health which we pay close attention to as a people, but how did it all start? How did we get on this health conscious roller coaster ride? It’s easy to say Ellen White had a vision about it, but Douglas tells us that Joseph Bates was the “first Adventist who came to terms with health principles and the cause of disease.” (Douglas, p280) “On the basis of observation and personal experience, he had decided in 1824 to abstain from all intoxicating drinks. Earlier, he had given up tobacco in all forms. After another seven years, he determined not to drink tea or coffee. By 1843 Bates had given up flesh food.” However, we have no record that he ever felt convicted enough to persuade others to do the same. Douglas tells us that “during the 1850s Adventists freely ate pork!” (Douglas, p281) It was not until Ellen White had a vision on June 6, 1863 that Adventists had a clear word from the Lord on the issue of eating pork. It was as a result of this Otsego Health Vision that Ellen White wrote “God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances.” (Douglas, p281) Furthermore, this prohibition is also laid out in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. It is a clear “thus saith the Lord” in the Bible. Yet, we read in Douglas that “it seems God waited until the church had completed its organizational struggles before giving them the next step in their assignment.” When the time was ripe, this next step was to make them aware of His commands concerning pork and other unhealthy consumptions. Douglas reports that early Adventists were undergoing much change in those days, and to declare further that Adventist Christians should not smoke tobacco, drink alcoholic beverages, use tea and coffee, or eat swine’s flesh, would have been too much to contemplate; because change takes time.”
After taking a good look at this development, a few thoughts came to my mind. I compared the process which God takes with us to the process we often take with others. God, it seemed, was willing to “introduce to his waiting people the great subject of health reform, step by step, so they could bear it, and make a good use of it, without souring the public mind.” (Douglas, p282) If God has patience and waits for the opportune time to reveal things to us, should that be a lesson as to how we ought to deal with others, especially those new to the Adventist faith? Would it be better for us to help them understand and accept biblical doctrines and proper practices step by step, over time? Or continue, as we sometimes do, in expecting them over the course of a 4-6 week evangelistic revival meeting to understand, accept, become baptized and implement Christian lifestyle and health principles? It seems like this quick turnaround is what our evangelists and pastors expect at times. Yet, this is not the way God chose to work with our early Adventist pioneers. Is there a lesson to be learned from his timing and method?
“Answer to all my questionings” & “one of the last strongholds” The hymn “Live out thy life within me” has a section that sings of Jesus being the answer to all questions brought on by life. Ellen White also shares this sentiment but in a more focused way, that is Jesus in the context of the Great Controversy. In her eyes, the answers to all life’s major philosophical questions (i.e. why do bad/good things happen to good/bad people?) can be answered within the context of the Great Controversy. I have, since reading her book on the subject, believed that these great philosophical questions that people surmise can be answered in the Great Controversy. Yet not only could Mrs. White answer these philosophical questions with the ‘conceptual key’ but it also engulfs her entire theology as well. The subsequent explanation in chapter 22 of how our theology fits within the Great Controversy was extremely helpful and at the same time enlightening particularly the sections on the relationships between concepts. It is often said that every place in the Bible points to the Cross, and while I agree with this idea I also understand that what happened at the cross also has its’ place in salvation history and the Great Controversy. While the cross has eternal significance to the fallen human race (which we should be forever grateful), the cross is but a part (albeit the pinnacle) of God’s plan of redemption which has ramifications to the entire universe of God’s creation. Of course this leaves the danger of lessening the significance of the cross, although that would be grave miscalculation. If considered properly, the cross signifies the genius of God’s plan and is the climax in the story of redemption. Without it, Satan wins and the most I dare to think about the results of that situation is that the entire universe falls into chaos. On a different topic, I have always been a believer of the Adventist health message, unfortunately I have not supported it by example very well. I grew up in an Adventist home that followed the Levitical health laws but also took advantage of the meat provisions that were included. I was fully versed in the benefits of vegetarianism, loved the bible stories of Daniel and his three friends being healthier and smarter than the other governmental candidates because of their diet, and I fully endorse that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and must be taken care of. I understand that focusing on a healthier lifestyle would be extremely beneficial especially with regards to my physical performance (i.e. peaceful sleeping, increased energy and concentration in class and individual studies, etc.) here in seminary, and even in some ways I strongly desire to have a healthier lifestyle complete with vegetarian diet and regular physical activity. But as the old saying goes (and I suppose a well worn out excuse) “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. Excuse? Sure. Cop out? Probably. But the fact remains that I am not a model of our SDA health laws for the simple reason of ‘I don’t want to give up my lifestyle’ despite chronic tiredness, poor concentration and more than a couple of pounds overweight. But what I didn’t consider very well was the linkage of the health message with the gospel commission. I suppose that the implication was there but the humanitarian aspect to teaching a healthy lifestyle as a means of lessening suffering in our world wasn’t a perspective I thoroughly pondered. I didn’t exactly rank ‘proclaiming the health message’ on par with finding the cure for cancer or AIDS (although I suppose promoting the health message encompasses the prevention of both), I just thought it was an added bonus, not a main tenent to be made. Nor did I view it as soteriologically significant. Sure it gives you a better chance at making the right decisions (i.e. keeping the mind and body strong and not at a disadvantage to be exploited by Satan), but the way Douglass writes it implies that such a people are singled out to be significant because of their healthy choice which I have trouble readily accepting.
The question of how Christians can relate to a secular world has been on my mind a lot lately. The bottom line is that we have to present the truth of the gospel in a way that is relevant to the world. Yet, because the secular world clearly holds values that are not compatible with Christianity, it oftentimes appears to us that relevance to the world means sacrificing the truth as we understand it. Is there a way to be both truthful and relevant? If we look at the ministry of Christ, the answer is yes. Christ embodied the truth of God, yet he shared the truth in a way that first century Palestinians could understand. It’s in my pursuit of relevant truth that this quote from Douglass’s book made me distinctly uncomfortable. “In modern times, both conservatives and liberals cross lines when they no longer ask, ‘Is it true?’ but rather, ‘Does it work?’ Pragmatic experientialism puts the question, ‘What is there in it for me?’ rather than the more Biblical ‘What am I going to do about it?’” The implication of this quote in its context is that when we ask the question, “does it work?” we have crossed the line into error. The first time I read this, I didn’t like it because it seems to fly directly in the face of the culture that we live in. The values of post-modern culture suggest that one of the most important questions people ask is, “does it work?” Thus, at first glance, it seems as if Douglass is suggesting that relevance to this culture would be error. However, as I have continued to reflect on this statement, my thinking is evolving. It would be silly to suggest that Ellen White or Douglass or anybody else believes that it is wrong to ask the question, “does it work?” The point he is trying to make here is that this practical question is not the epitome of knowledge. There are a lot of things that may “work” for their purpose but are completely immoral. Likewise, many people in our culture that find that spiritualism “works” because it appears to fulfill a need that they are feeling in their own soul. However, the fact that it seems to work for them doesn’t make it right. As Christians, our primary focus must remain on the truth as it is laid out in scripture. However, we must share that truth in a way that answers this fundamental post-modern question. Too often, we present evangelistic sermons that present truth that is basically disembodied. We spend a lot of time painstakingly proving our positions from scripture, closing with an appeal of, “do you believe it?” Few evangelists really wrestle with how the truth affects them in their own lives. And if they haven’t come to terms with the practical effect of truth in their own life, how can they share the practical difference truth will make in the life of another? Lately, many people in our denomination have been proclaiming that public evangelism is dead, and admittedly, I have been one of those. However, I must refine my position. Evangelism, however we do it, must be re-worked to spend more time dealing with the real-life issues of how this stuff makes a difference in the lives of people. There’s no shortcut to this application. It takes time. It takes energy. It takes the ability to allow for the fact that the journey toward more of the truth of God may affect different people in different ways. Whether we are doing door to door work, or public campaigns, or any form of new, “improved” evangelism, the common denominator is that we must be able to present every aspect of truth in terms of its relevance to the individual. We must always remember that the truth is paramount yet if it is really truth, we must be able to relate it in a way that makes a difference to the people we’re speaking to. Having said all of this, how is it possible to make truth relevant? I wonder if the answer lies in the fact that we don’t speak to culture, we speak to people. While understanding our cultural milieu in broad strokes is important to our evangelistic efforts, it is incomplete. It is far easier to understand how the truth of the gospel affects the life of the individual when one is sitting across the table from that individual, listening to their personal concerns, struggles, and confusion. The truth we share is a personal truth, applicable to the life of each individual person we come in contact with. As I consider this idea, I realize that I must not get so carried away with understanding culture that I forget that each individual has unique needs and perspectives. Maybe there’s a lesson in there for all of us.
Thoughts on Restoration and Forgiveness, Character Development and Education.
I was caught by Jonathan’s comment on Restoration that the goal of forgiveness is restoration. This is such an obvious truth, but yet I didn’t see it until he said it. Forgiveness is the act that allows the restoration of a relationship after some schism in the friendship. It may be an instant healing or it may be a gradual including healing in the present and continuing into the future until the friendship is fully restored to where it was or closer than before. It’s like a wound. One puts antibiotics on it to cover and cleanse the wound and the healing begins. Yet, a complete healing may take many days or a day depending upon the deepness of the wound. Sometimes grit gets in it and it scars so one must then clean it again and apply salve to prevent scarring. So like a relationship, one person is injured by a friend. The friend seeks forgiveness, and the other forgives her. The two continue their relationship, But, sometimes the friend makes additional errors and the old fault is recalled. Then additional forgiveness must be given by the one to the friend, so they can continue. If the two stay friends and overcome their friendship will be stronger than before, like the skin over a wound is tougher than before it was injured.
One of the worries of the SDA Church is fear of fanaticism going wild in the church, so we tend towards legalism. Unfortunately we fail to recognize that even in the ‘honest’ manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Spirit filled people cannot be controlled by outside forces. EGW reinforces this thought in her comments on education. We are to raise up children who are “thinkers and not mere reflections of other men’s thoughts”. These are people whose characters cannot be moved but by principle. No matter the church position, they will not change their ideas until they have studied and believe it’s God’s will. Such persons are actually more difficult to control than a fanatic.
This takes me to character development. We in the SDA Church seemed to be focused on the latter reign, but few seem to preach on character reformation. Character reformation or as EGW puts it character perfection is the work of the Holy Spirit which prepares them to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, accept and manifest those exceptional spiritual gifts which enable the preaching and conviction of the world of the Gospel of Jesus. As I’ve read EGW works she has an intense focus on personal bible study and prayer, until a sufficient number of SDA’s practice personal study, they cannot be changed by the Holy Spirit, and thereby their characters are not reformed by the Holy Spirit. Then we will begin to see more love in individual and between members.
Further, as the members’ own individual Bible studies continue in the home, they will begin to see differences in biblical interpretation than from what they hear in church. These members will become hard to deal with, they are thinkers now, so they have questions—some polite, others put roughly. This will challenge the established church and may hurt our feelings. (We all have errors which can be pointed out.) The members will be weighing and testing the spirit, then they can guard themselves from fanaticism. They can control themselves and they can push us towards a deeper understanding of our distinctive truths (as iron sharpenth iron). As each of us continues our private bible study and conversation with God our characters will become more loving, the questions just as tough but put more kindly and we can all grow in unity into the body of Christ. --Tammie L
The Conference Office and the Pastor I was intrigued by this morning’s discussion about baptism quotas and the role of the conference office in the pastor’s ministry. I am about as anti-quota as anybody could be so I appreciated what was said in the class. However, there was an element of the discussion that deserves further consideration. A number of times throughout the conversation, references were made to the fact that the pastor need not be accountable to the conference because we are all accountable to God. While I understood the spirit of the comments in relationship to the issue of quotas, I feel compelled to explore the concepts further so as to maintain a healthy view of our church. This idea is especially troubling to me because to be reflective of the general attitude toward our conferences both among pastors and among church members. Too many times, I’ve heard conversations where the conference office is seen in an antagonistic light. Pastors get frustrated with the conference office because the conference officials want to tell them how to do their ministry. Additionally, many pastors only see their conference presidents or ministerial secretaries when there are problems in the church. Many church members that I’ve interacted with see the conference office as unnecessary, or worse antagonistic to the church, because there are mandates that the church must participate in, whether they want to or not. The bottom line is that there seems to be very little appreciation for our conference offices and their officials. I grant that conference officers make mistakes, and at times do really dumb things. I personally hate the idea of baptism quotas and some of programs that get passed down from the conference office. However, in spite of my personal frustration, I’ve become convinced that the perception of our conference offices must change both in the eyes of our pastors and our people. If we are to work most effectively as a world church, we must work together at all levels. Our conferences exist to help combine and distribute resources so that we have opportunities to do things within our districts that we’d never be able to do otherwise. Conferences also ought to provide healthy accountability to the pastor to help him/her fulfill his/her potential in ministry. Yet, in my experience, these functions can’t truly happen because the relationship between the local church and conference office is already strained. As ministers of the gospel, and agents of the conference office, it is our job and our duty to help the conference office be all that it is intended to be. “I can’t do that, I’m just the pastor.” Yet by changing our attitudes about how our conferences operate, we can help promote and encourage the change that we desire. Unfortunately, criticizing and marginalizing are not the behaviors that will help our conferences fulfill their God-given calling. We must swallow our independence and pride, recognizing that the accountability our conferences offer are important to our development as ministers. In no way am I suggesting that our conferences are operating effectively, or are even deserving of our support in some cases. Yet, if we believe in our church, it is our duty to do our utmost to help the conference succeed in its God given role. This doesn’t mean being mindless drones, going about the bidding of the conference officials. But it does mean supporting the conference in every way that we can, accepting that they do serve an important function in keeping us accountable, and helping to bridge the gap between the conference and the local church.
As I was reflecting on last weeks class discussions along with some of the questions that were on the test it occurred to me that a core issue with following the Bible is the interpretation of it. And well, you might be saying, “Yeah, duh!!! Of course a core issue is how you interpret the Bible.” That is the big problem, everybody interprets it a different way. But, I want to say—wait a second. How we interpret the Bible is such a core issue and pretty much everybody knows that it is important and yet we have a big gap somewhere. What is this gap that I am referring to? The gap that I am referring to is that I have never heard a sermon and have never attended an evangelistic series that breaks down how to interpret the Bible. You say, “What to you mean? I’ve been to plenty of Evangelistic series that talk about how to study the Bible and this and that and the other.” But I counter with this, “Yes, but have you ever had anybody explain to you how the Bible could be the word of God and yet have many different dynamics as to how the Word was given?” In other words, has anybody ever explained to the common church member how it is that within the Word of God you can have one portion of Scripture that was directly, word for word, dictated to man from God and yet in other portions of Scripture it was God inspiring the thoughts of the prophets and it was the prophet who put the message into his/her own words?” Take for example the Ten Commandments. Those words were direct from God Himself. You could technically say that those words would fall under the category of verbal inspiration. The thing was that God was both the penman and pen! He wrote with His very own finger!!! In contrast, take Paul’s words to bring his books and cloak. Some have argued that this was “not inspired.” But what we have been learning is that the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet, not just the words. The person of the prophet was inspired. So, yes even the words that Paul wrote regarding getting his cloak and books are inspired. All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc…. And have you ever thought about this for a moment? Could not God instruct some person even with those words? Of course he could and He has done so. Now back to my main point for writing all of this…have you ever heard any of these things explained to the common church member? Based upon my own personal observation of churches and church members, I would venture to say that most of the people that I have spoken to have no clue whatsoever about these important truths. Yet this is one of the most important issues confronting the Christian. How does one interpret the word of God? In the book it was talking about A.T. Jones and Kellogg and Waggoner and some of the other defectors. One of the main issues was how they interpreted the writings of Ellen White and ultimately how they interpreted the Bible. It boiled down to their view of how inspiration works and because of the positions that they took they eventually gave it all up. This is a serious issue. If some of the top “pillars” of our church could be swept away because of a misunderstanding of this issue, wouldn’t it be well for us to consider that church members should understand how it works for themselves? The bottom line is if more of our people understood these things, I think it would help us to be better people of “The Book.” If you catch my drift. We used to be people of the Word, yet many Adventists simply do not know their Bibles, they do not read the writings of Ellen White and they have no idea how Scripture was actually given. And it makes me wonder, if the majority of people do not understand how Scripture was given, what makes us think any of them would recognize a genuine prophet today? This seems to be a foundational issue.
On the last day of class, one of the discussions that came up was that of the out-pouring of the Latter Rain. We do not hear much about that teaching as much as we used to in early Adventism. It seem that our people have become very comfortable with things as they are; people including us as pastors are doing fairly well financially, housing market is bad but not impossible, food prices are rising along with fuel but there is still enough to get what we need when we need it. There are no immediate terrorist threats to our nation and community that we are aware of, we face set backs but more often than not we are doing well. In speaking of the Latter Rain or the time of Trouble motif, it seems to wreak havoc in our minds and lives. Why upset my apple cart? Why bring up negative things when every thing is going so well. Why bother me with that pessimistic view of religion? I just want to go to church and hear a good sermon, go home and rest peacefully. I don’t want anyone to hurt my brain by having me to think about that time of scarcity, gloom and doom. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. In our natural thinking the above might be OK. In the life of the spiritual man it is not. The question of the latter rain not being preached was asked about in class and the answer given by the professor was profound. “God has not closed up heaven, the Holy Spirit is being poured out BUT we have an umbrella that is blocking the Holy Spirit.” Therefore we need to close the umbrella. Many of us as church members and as pastors have not closed our umbrellas; we go to the scriptures with presuppositions that block the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We hold on to yesterdays interpretation and forget that “the path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Truth is progressive and never standing still. God wants us to know more, experience more; increase in faith more than yesterday’s experience. We are told that all Scripture is given by inspiration, and that it is profitable for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete (or mature). This is not a one time endowment but a life-time process on to maturity. What we learned yesterday is a stepping stone of preparation for the work of tomorrow. It is the Holy Spirit who equips and prepares us for the work that we must do. We need to close and put away our umbrellas so that the Holy Spirit can do His work in our lives. Imagine if those who were in the upper room had opened their umbrellas when the Holy Spirit came down upon them, they would not have received what they were intended to have from God. In Chapter 23 we see that the pioneers had to have an open mind to what they believed. God used His servant Ellen White to help in the clarification of major doctrinal issues. As the Spirit worked with them, He is available to work with us today.
50 comments:
In this reflection paper I will discuss two aspects: what touched me from the textbook readings and my reflection on last week’s classes.
In section 2 of Messenger of the Lord, I was fascinated to read about the type of person Ellen White was in her time. Dr. Douglass examines who she was and her personality. The description of her time includes an environment where America was in full bloom economically and politically. It was to become a united kingdom, and socially there was a rise of spiritualism, socialism, phrenology, hydrotherapy, and women’s rights, to name just a few. Religiously, this country was fresh and open to new ideas (in the North for the most part), and Christians appeared to be contented. However, this environment could impact Christianity positively or negatively. Understanding this environment opened my eyes to understand better what Ellen White and the Millerite movement faced.
The element that touched me the most was how Ellen White was as a person. She was not only a messenger for God, but in terms of wife and mother, she really demonstrated true Christian womanhood. She loved her husband, and she was not afraid to state that she was wrong or ask forgiveness. She, as many other young women, had to learn how to be a mother. Very often in our minds we picture prophets to be on a pedestal and we are below them somewhere. However, I have found in this reading the opposite; we as people are at times more proud than the prophet was. She was very humble and lived what she believed and professed.
I was also touched by her character. This young woman was surprisingly spiritual and had a deep conviction about who she was as a sinner, and thus also a deep sense of love for her Savior. Of course, she did not understand all things when she began her walk with Christ, but she hung on, even with her limited view of who God was at first. The greatest encouragement I received is that Ellen White became discouraged too, and how she handled her discouragement has given me hope and a greater respect for who she was.
Dr. Douglass did a marvelous work with this book in including many quotations from a diversity of scholars, which contributed to painting a true picture of who Ellen White was as a human. These quotations give a perspective of how she was viewed by other people rather than simply stating what was revealed in her writings.
Now I turn my thoughts toward the classes. The class on Thursday was fantastic; it really challenged my thinking, and it was more than just what we have been learning (we “had class” that day!). The principles taught were related to the writings of Ellen White and yet included how to read her writings mingled with systematic theology. The questions posed that day about the view that we have on Christ and His nature helped me to see how often we are tainted by our own experiences, background, cultures and education. True, I also understand that what Dr. Hanna shared is also influenced by all these things; however, it helped me to ask more questions.
I also enjoyed the thought that as Seventh-day Adventists, we need to go back to the Bible and present the true principles of why we believe in the spirit of prophecy and why Ellen White fit this ministry. It is true that too often we assume what we say or teach without realizing that we do not know fully the true answer or we have forgotten or drifted away from its true teaching. Much of what Dr. Hanna has presented—the biblical perspective on the spirit of prophecy and the gift of prophecy—could have been taught in its true light in the 1880s, but, as often happens, we have drifted away from it or forgotten it.
I appreciate the reality that we as students are challenged to return to Bible study so that the old light can be new light and new light can lighten more fully the old light.
Amount of Light
There is only One God (Deuteronomy 6:4). Naturally then, we as Adventists must believe that there is only One Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:4-6). Given that the Testimony of God is Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:1,2 - more precisely, the life, ministry, teachings, and sacrifice of Jesus testifies to who God is), the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy (Revelation 19:10; 22:8,9) and that Spirit of Prophecy is the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21 - meaning, He is the one who gives us an accurate picture of who Jesus is through His work in giving words, thoughts, etc to the prophets), then the testimonies must be seen, metaphorically as “Light”. As light illumines dark places, so these pictures of who God is can be referred to as “Light”.
John 1:1-14, makes it clear that this is a Just analogy for Jesus. His Testimony of God was a Light, in that it made who God was much clearer in our dark minds. The Holy Spirit was sent to do just that same thing in regard to Jesus (John 15:26). He inspired John (and the other prophets) to write what he did in the first fourteen verses and thus Testify of Jesus through the Spirit of Prophecy.
In fact, there were many prophets who were inspired by the Spirit of Prophecy that did not write (Nathan, Gad, etc). Many wrote and their writings were not included in the canon (Jasher, Balaam, etc). It is clear that this same Holy Spirit still works today and inspires people. Some of those, it would not be wrong to think, could also write what they were inspired. We would judge their writings by comparing them with Scripture to see if they are of the same Spirit (Isaiah 8:20). If they are, then we can be sure that these are also being inspired to Testify of Jesus since that is why the Spirit of Prophecy has been given to mankind.
So when Ellen G. White states that she is the Lesser Light and the Scriptures are the Greater Light (Review and Herald January 20, 1903) she means primarily that her writings are meant to illumine Scripture. She cannot become part of Scripture because she was not sent to write anything new. By her own admission she wrote to help us understand Scripture; to be a Light to Scripture.
The amount of inspiration by the Holy Spirit should be seen as the same. The amount of Light is the same as Biblical writers. There is only One Holy Spirit. We wouldn’t say that the “Minor Prophets” have a minor importance (just that their books are shorter) or that they were only minor-ly inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that same way when she says that she is the Lesser Light it does not mean that her writings are less important than those of the Greater Light.
I believe that when she refers to her own writings as the Lesser Light, she is simply stating the fact that she was not adding anything new to Scripture. In that way her writings could not be seen as Scripture. They were Lesser, in that they were meant to cast light on a path for us to find our way back to Scripture.
When one examines the writings of Ellen White, it becomes quickly clear that no human alone could write what she did. Indeed, her writings are inspired. Also immediately clear is that her writings have one major theme; casting light upon Scripture so that we can have a better relationship with God (because we can see Him for who He truly is.) This is why her writings are part of the Spirit of Prophecy. They are a testimony of who Jesus is.
There is only One Holy Spirit. There is only One Spirit of Prophecy, which is to function as a Testimony of Jesus in order to help us to see Him for who He truly is. The New Testament writers were inspired to do that and so was Ellen G. White. Both inspired; yet for slightly different reasons. Mrs. White wrote to help us to understand what they wrote for the same purpose, to get to know God. Both Light, yet one is primary and the other (equally inspired by the same Spirit) secondary.
Title: Courage to Overcome
Comments on Class Discussions and Messenger of the Lord - Section 2, chapter 7 - "Personal
Characteristics"
I would like to comment the topic of discouragement, temptation, and overcoming against all odds. The section dealing with Ellen G. White’s feelings of discouragement and lonely path as a prophet/messenger of God had a profound impact on me. The type of courage that she showed in the midst of her personal trials and public struggles is quite inspiring. She had the type of conviction that led her to pen such words as “notwithstanding I have trials and afflictions, I look away to Jesus” (p. 77). Her life is a model for us on how we can persevere in the midst of adversity by remaining faithful to God.
It is amazing to read about how she dealt with discouragement, loneliness, frequent bouts with various illnesses, and the challenges that she faced “leading a group of strong-willed men and women into new paths of church organization” (p. 76). She truly exemplified courage under fire! In the same way that she faced serious challenges from her peers we too have to be prepared to respond to the challenges presented by our contemporaries. The uncompromising stance that she took when it came to presenting and studying of the Word of God must also become our own objective and practice. I also appreciate the fact that she was able to counsel and minister to others while she had to also deal with her own personal hardships. Overall, seeing how she overcame these obstacles helps us realize how we can gain victory in the area of our calling.
Moreover, the class discussion we had comparing Jesus’ temptations to what we as we human beings experience was quite interesting to me. I believe that the Bible gives us plenty of insights on how Jesus was in fact tempted. I believe that Jesus was indeed tempted in like fashion as we are. The only distinction (which the Bible clearly points outs) is that He did not sin by succumbing to those temptations. The fact that humans are subject to falling into sin and have the capacity to sin indicates that Jesus was in a similar state when He took on human form. For example, Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness after forty days of fasting shows how He was tempted in a number of ways common to humankind. Satan waged a fierce attack against Jesus and desperately tried to get Him to fall to his temptations. Jesus relied on Scripture to help Him overcome the temptations. Though Jesus was at a highly vulnerable point in His life, He still resisted the tempter’s words. Thus, it was entirely possible for Jesus to give in to sin and stumble on His mission to save humanity. On the other hand, it was also entirely possible for Adam and Eve not to give in to their appetite and keep from falling into sin. Jesus, by gaining victory over Satan, paved the way for us in making it possible for us to also conquer sin. In the book, Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White says “by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome” (p.58). After reading this statement, I became even more convinced that Jesus had to overcome sin just as we need to overcome temptations on an ongoing basis. It is comforting to know that I will never face a temptation that Jesus Himself in some way did not face. Jesus was in a very vulnerable state when He was tempted but He resisted sin and demonstrated strength of character. Jesus resolved in His heart to obey the commandments of God instead of living according to the flesh. Likewise, by remaining close to God we can overcome trials, feelings of discouragement, and the enemy’s temptations. When we truly unite with Christ by faith, sin no longer has a hold on us and we can enjoy the freedom that comes with overcoming sin. Hence, Christ’s victory becomes our victory!!
Posted by James W. Dieujuste - 7/13
Ellen White and Spirit of Prophecy, terms that are synonymous, yet are not. In class, it was made very clear that while the traditional Adventist interpretation of Ellen White = the Spirit of Prophecy is correct, it is also narrow and does not include the whole picture. Class discussion this past week clearly erased any thought that a narrow understanding of Ellen White being the definition of the Spirit of Prophecy is Biblical and accurate. By that I mean, traditionally, myself included, when explaining how the SDA church is the true church, we turn to Revelation 19:10 and explain that the Spirit of Prophecy is Ellen White and because we have her, we are indeed the remnant church. While I have no trouble agreeing that Ellen White did have the Spirit of Prophecy, I appreciated that Dr. Hanna made it abundantly clear through the use of scripture, that one cannot simply make this short cut and that the Spirit of Prophecy is indeed the Holy Spirit and able to work through anyone who is willing. So therefore, while Ellen White does have the Spirit of Prophecy, she is not the Spirit of Prophecy, but the Holy Spirit is. However, what Ellen White did have was the office of the prophet and her advice and writings still influence and guide the church so that there has not been a major shift away from our initial identity.
One quote that Dr. Hanna brought out that I found especially striking was the quote from “Testimonies to Ministers” and Ellen White’s advice on how to interpret Daniel and Revelation. She says that “in the future ministers may have less to say about Roman Power.” How true is that in today’s world. While some people may complain that we don’t preach the good old religion the way we used too and wish that the Adventist church would go about and tell the world how bad the Catholic Church is. But in reality, I have always felt uncomfortable with this approach, because there are nice people that are Catholics and more importantly, how can we reach out to them, if we are not even nice to them? Also this comment made me appreciate how “Holistic” Ellen White’s view of the fulfillment of prophecy is. Seeing the world events as they are happening, one can’t help but think that, while the Catholic Church may indeed be this beast, it is clear that it is not limited to the Catholic Church.
Reading the text book has been an enriching experience. I have found a woman unlike the one portrayed to me as I was growing up. I have found a real woman who was dedicated to her God, the church the helped found and her family. One line I found especially meaningful was “For the next 75 years, her most compelling mission was to tell the truth about eh character of God.” (Douglass 49) Here she had just received a vision in which she met Jesus, who had a smile on his face and seemed to touch her hand and say “Fear not,” from here she was set free from the burdens and misconception that God was a tyrant and instead he was a loving Savior that cared about her. The rest of her life reflected this encounter she had with Jesus and through the trials that she had to endure ahead, the physical issues she had, the emotional traumas of losing 2 children and a husband as well as those that come when leading a church, not to mention the stresses of a continued writing ministry. Ellen White was a real person, but one that had a real encounter with Jesus, and that encounter she had early on and continued to seek as she lived her life, shaped all areas of her life, and while she did have doubts and discouragement, her response and actions always reflected her daily encounter with Jesus. I have found this enlightening as well as challenging for my personal life. Here was a woman who had God speak to her and though she is probably the person in the past 175years to have had the closest relationship with God, she remained in pursuit of him constantly. What a challenge for me today, who has not had God talk to me, like she had, to pursue a relationship with God as she did.
By: Clifford Lim
I found the discussions in class interesting and insightful. There were several issues which particularly caught my attention. First, I don’t recall ever hearing of Ellen White as “The Spirit of Prophesy” which I don’t like. Second, the entire idea of the conditional nature of prophesy was astounding and made me rethink SDA splinter groups. Third, I learned the type of humility that is particularly displayed by God’s prophets and God which I had not noticed before.
Apparently, most everyone except for me has heard of Ellen White being called the Spirit of Prophesy. I had never heard it put that way and despite our discussion I think it sounds wrong. We seem to be stretching words. Words despite our discussion have limited meanings, even the angel says he has the spirit of prophesy and not he is the Spirit. People should do their best to say what they mean and stop abusing the English language. This is what the ecumenical movement attempts to do, they stretch the definitions of words so that it appears that the religions are in agreement when really they are not which simply creates a morass of confusion for the every day believer. I just wanted to get that out.
Second, I was really intrigued about this idea that most prophesies are conditional. Save the ultimate prophesy of Jesus’ triumph in the end, the saving of the righteous, and the destruction of the wicked. I have so many times heard that the SDA is the last church in prophesy. I have always wondered about this as I looked at the message to Laodicea. If we are the last church and there can be no other than why does Christ warn us that he may spit us out? It certainly makes our election as a church unsure. And, for all those splinter (former) SDA groups I used to be sure that they had apostatized—maybe not irrevocably—but they had chosen to separate themselves from the ‘True Church’ and had thus fallen away into confusion with the Harlot’s daughters (the rest of Protestantism). That sounds extreme. Now, I think that maybe they haven’t fallen away—really.
Anyways, I’m not about to change my affiliation as I believe that the SDA church preserves the Truth of Christ—keeps (or at least tries to) the 10 commandments and has the testimony of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, it humbles my estimation of my SDA Church. Just as individuals who must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it seems it is no different for us-corporate, the Church must work out its salvation with fear and trembling too. And maybe we should be more humble in our estimation of ourselves and the splinter groups.
This takes me to the humility of Ellen White and all the other prophets. They are all true servants. None is a better example of this type of humility than God. Even as Christ testifies of the Father, the Father gives all authority to the son. And why, to save us—to minister to us so that we can live and not die. This is true leadership, when one gives of themselves totally and then points to another so that the other may be glorified! This is the Spirit that we need individually and corporately in our Church.
I wonder if this humility is in some way a test too. Is not one of the fruits of the spirit humility? None of the canonized prophets glories in himself. All, including E.G. White recognized the glory of God as seen in those ‘greater lights’ who came before them. When Christ says of the Comforter (Holy Spirit) that he will speak not of himself, in this same way, all the messengers who possess the Holy Spirit will not testify of themselves. I’m so astounded that even God acts this way and God is well…God.
--Tammie L
My Reflections on WK1
The Life and Ministry of Ellen White has proven to be a very insightful class thus far! Right from the start we have dove into scripture and sought to understand the meaning of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” This approach has been crucial because within our church that phrase is most often attributed to Ellen White and is often, and easily misunderstood.
It was important for me to hear the comment Ellen White wrote in Early Writings, 1851, “I recommend to you, dear reader, the word of God as your rule of faith and practice.” This statement, to me, clearly showed Ellen White to hold scripture above everything else. It is important for Adventists to know and be able to show others that this principle guided the life and ministry of Ellen White. If we ever lose sight of this fact we lose sight of the point of Ellen Whites life and ministry, which was the word of God in the Bible. She was the lesser light which pointed believers to a greater light!
After one week of lecture I already feel that I have gained a stronger understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy. The key texts that point to truth in regards to this matter appear to be Revelation 19:10, which shows the testimony of Jesus to be the Spirit of Prophecy, 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, which shows the testimony of God to equal Jesus. Through these texts it was made clear that the testimony of God equals Jesus and the testimony of Jesus equals the Spirit of Prophecy which is the Holy Spirit.
I have appreciated the way Dr. Hanna has based his thoughts with scripture and has taken the time to carefully explain what he means to say rather than just saying it. He also takes time to explain the meaning of important phrases and terminology we so often use as Adventists in order that we may know exactly what we mean and not mislead or misrepresent ourselves when we say them. This approach has been beneficial to me because it has allowed me to develop a strong base knowledge and understanding on which to move forward from and I’ve appreciated it greatly. I’m very much looking forward to the growth that will come from this class.
-MR
Keenan Tyler Week 1 Post
The Spirit of Prophecy
What is the Spirit of prophesy? If you asked the average Adventist what is the Spirit of prophecy you will get a variety of answers. Some will tell you that the Spirit of Prophecy are the books that Ellen G. White wrote, while some will say that the Spirit of Prophesy is Ellen G. White herself. Still others will say that the Spirit of Prophesy is a Spirit that comes from God that explains prophecy, or perhaps the testimony of Jesus. So what is the Spirit of Prophecy, and are these terms right or wrong or just cultic language?
These are all questions that I had upon joining the Seventh-day Adventist Church in September of 2004 following a Revelation seminar the year prior. After hearing different things about Seventh-day Adventist and Ellen White from different people, this caused me to do some research. The first place that I went in order to do my research was the internet. I surfed the web and looked up everything that I could about the Adventist church, the Spirit of Prophecy and Ellen White. I read things from former Adventist and almost every critic of the S.D.A church and Ellen G. White that I could find online. Upon completing my online research I wasn’t sure if my family and I made the right decision by joining the Adventist movement. I wasn’t sure if I did the right thing by taking my family out of the small non-denominational charismatic Christian church that we were attending. I started to question the views that I heard about Ellen White and whether or not the Adventist church was a cult. This belief was in primary because of the way in which they viewed the ministry of Ellen White. Up until this point I agreed with every doctrine of the Adventist Church, but questioned who the Adventist church said Ellen White was.
Then I met someone from my local church who finally explained to me the ministry of Ellen White and how she was truly looked at by the S.D.A. church. He told me that she didn’t call herself a prophet but instead called herself a messenger of God. He told me that God used her as well as others to help get the church started. Thanks to the Holy Spirit using this Elder all my doubts about the ministry of Ellen White and the Spirit of prophecy were put to rest. However what about the many others who are out there and are about to leave the church because of the way some view Ellen White? People need to be educated on the ministry of Ellen White and to make sure that they keep her ministry in proper context.
I appreciate Dr Hanna’s simple explanation of Ellen White in regards to the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe this topic needs to be explained more in like fashion in our churches. Referencing 1 Cor 2:1-2 (Testimony of God = Jesus). Referencing John 15:26 and Rev 19:10 (Testimony of Jesus = Holy Spirit). Then referencing 2 Peter 1:19-21 (Holy Spirit = Spirit of prophecy). Then I would reference 1Cor 12:1-11 to show that the gift of prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Then I would simply explain that Ellen White had the gift of prophecy which is a result of her being endowed by the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Prophecy. I would explain that the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Prophecy, is not limited to just the writings of Ellen White but works through whomever has the Holy Spirit. Some may have the gift of prophesy while someone else may have the gift of healing.
I believe if Ellen White’s ministry is explained along these terms then it will be much easier for member or non-members to understand how the Spirit of prophesy was working through Ellen White.
AS OTHERS KNEW HER
Matthew 7:20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
The room was dimly lit and quiet. The family gathered around the hospital bed but the only sound was the erratic beeping of the heart monitor. “Thank you for coming,” Deborah said as I walked out of the hospital room. A few days later, Deborah called and sadly reported that her twin sister lost the battle to cancer and had died. “Pastor,” she asked, “Would you speak for her funeral?” I was terrified! I knew nothing about this lady! I had just accepted a call to be an associate pastor the week before and this was my first member visit! What could I possible say about a woman I didn’t know?
At first glance, it would appear hard to learn about a woman who this week, died ninety-three years ago (July 16, 1915). However, we are fortunate that Ellen White left behind about 100,000 pages of published and unpublished materials (Douglass p.62). We can not only get a glimpse into her life, but also her thoughts. We are able to read the actual words that she wrote with the intent to communicate God’s message.
As presented in class, one of the marks of a true prophet is to confess Jesus as Lord and convey a Christ-centered message. Jesus declared, “…among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist!” (Matthew 11:11) Yet, when John’s disciples seemed disturbed that Jesus was becoming more popular than John, the greatest of prophets humbly declared, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Ellen White displayed similar humility when referring to her ministry, “Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be His messenger.” (1SM, 32.2) She acknowledged that she was only the messenger, not the message.
Another way to learn of someone’s life is to ask those who knew him/her. In Section II of Messenger of the Lord, Douglass attempts to present the “real” Ellen White by incorporating what others said of her. Elder Stockman said, “Jesus must be preparing you [Ellen] for some special work.” (p. 49) On her fiftieth birthday, her husband honored her by writing of her great labor in the Signs of the Times. (p. 55) On her eighty-fifth birthday, Norwegian Adventists began a letter by addressing her as “Dear Mother in Israel and Servant of the Lord” (p. 61) John O. Corliss, who lived in the White’s home for several years, wrote that Ellen White practiced what she preached. (p. 82)
Reflecting on the lessons that I learned from week one of this course, an important question surfaced. What fruits do I bear? If I died, would the things I’ve written (whether emails, letters, or even blog postings) point others to Christ? My prayer throughout this course will be that the Spirit will reveal to us how to decrease and faithfully exalt Christ. May we, the bride, participate in the fulfillment of the prophecy of John, “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come” (Revelation 22:17). Let us extend the invitation to the entire world to come to Jesus.
For the rest of the story (presented in the introduction) email…leblancs@andrews.edu
Life and Ministry of Ellen G. White: Reaction paper – Week 1
Allen Decena
Greater light versus greater light
During the first week of class one of the concepts that were introduced was ‘the lesser light leading to the greater light’. This is to say that Ellen White is the lesser light that is drawing attention to a greater light. Traditionally I was under the impression that while Ellen White is the lesser light that the Bible is the greater light. However, in the class it mentioned that Jesus is the greater light. So it seems that there is a discrepancy, at least in my understanding against what was said in class, but as also discussed in class, it can be both. Since the greater light is not specified it can either be referred to the Bible, which is a light greater than Ellen White but a lesser light to Christ Himself, or Jesus which is a greater light to Ellen White, the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Prophecy which inspired holy men to write the Bible and who testifies to Jesus Christ. But in addition, it can also refer to God the Father who might be considered the greatest light. The scripture that comes to mind to support this is Revelation 1:1-2 which says, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” The other passage is where Jesus rebukes Simon when he asks when will they see the Father and Jesus replies “if you have seen me you have seen the Father”.
Furthermore, just as the gift of prophecy and thus the Spirit of prophecy are not relegated to just Ellen White neither is being a light that leads to a greater light exclusive to her. Jesus asks us not to hide our light under a bush or a bed but to place it in the center of the room or on top of a hill that all might see the light. Yet, it is not our light that leads people to salvation, for our light draws attention for the purpose of pointing out the greater light until the greatest light, God the Father (and Jesus) is seen by those that were attracted by our light.
So while it seems that there are lights to varying degrees of ‘greatness’ (although it should be noted that the greatness attributed to the light is equalled in humility of the ones attributed as light/lightgivers), I am left to ponder what makes one light greater than another among human beings. And while in class, I began to compare the differences between a Biblical giant like Moses or Paul and that of a church member who had been inspired by the Holy Spirit to give a message. As noted in class the same Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Prophecy which inspired each holy person equally, although Elisha did ask for a double portion of the Spirit which he did receive yet I doubt many people would say that Elisha is a greater light than Abraham or Moses.
So it may not be that one is a greater light because of the inspiration by the Holy Spirit, which comes in equal amounts, but rather it is more likely that the message that is given by the Holy Spirit reaches a varying degree of people. For example, the message given to Moses concerning Israel’s history, which is in effect Christianity’s history and truly humanity’s history reaches and affects a larger target audience than Ellen White’s target audience (i.e. Seventh-day Adventists although it is not relegated exclusively to Adventism) which is also larger than that of Tammy’s friend whose target audience was a single person.
But this also begs the question, if a ‘lay person’ who is inspired by the spirit of prophecy to give a message which brings someone to salvation, is that light which greater in importance than Ellen White’s message to a broader audience but is less impact on a personal level?
Joseph V. Thelusca
The Life & Ministry of E.G. White
July 14, 2008
Reflection I
Ellen G. White’s views on being a Messenger
I am elated to have been given an opportunity to reflect on the issues which have been discussed in Herbert Douglass’s book as well as the lecture presented in class. Having such a multitude of categories to select from, I would like to ponder on Srs. White’s views concerning her role as a prophetess to the SDA church. I was astonished when I came across one of her statement in which she said that she was not a leader nor a prophet, but simply a messenger of the Lord. Even though she stated clearly that her message came from the Lord in that people ought not to regard her counsels as her own human initiatives. I found her remarks to be exemplary because it takes much discipline, self-control and guidance from the Holy Spirit to humble oneself to such degree. In her case, she knew well that her inspiration and her message had divine origins in that she could have easily chose to promote herself as the prophetess with the critical revelation for the remnant church. However, she warned her readers that her role was to only help them to better understand biblical truth since they had not made God’s word, the bible, their Christian standard that would guide them to perfection.
I further commend her for blatantly admonishing her readers and the members of the SDA Church that her visions and writings must not be use as substitute for bible study. It would be a tragedy for the prophet to claim that her counsels could be used in lieu of the Holy Scripture as a vehicle of gaining divine wisdom. I am also delighted to know that as a messenger, she realized that her works are not infallible which means the bible is the ultimate guide and rule of faith for Christians. I suppose she would have put her credibility on line had she claimed that her works was to be equated to the Bible. However, let is be known and without reservation, I trust she met all the criteria of a true prophetess. First, the fact that she prophesied according to the testimony of Jesus qualified her as a prophetess. Second, as a result of her inspiration, which she received from the spirit of prophecy, which is the Holy Spirit, the fruits of her works can be sited through the development of the Seventh Day Adventists church and her health message which revolutionized the nutrition and medical fields. Thirdly, many of her prophecy were fulfilled during her 70 years of prophetic ministry and others are yet to be fulfilled as they are related to the ends of time. Lastly and equal important is the fact that her messages are focused on Jesus Christ. She often stated that her revelation came directly from Jesus and aiming at preparing people to meet their savior and Lord Jesus in his Second Coming.
That’s being the case, I would like to address certain issues which I think are relevant to our discussion. Is it possible for the spirit of prophecy to lead God’s people at a specific point in history and afterwards cease from doing so? Why did Sister White state that if people were to make the bible their standard of living to reach perfection, her works would have not been necessary? After the death of sister White and the other pioneers the church failed in many areas to exhibit true Christian principles and authentic devotions to the gospel. As a result of the failure of many of our leaders, a lot of true brethren left the flock. I am afraid that people have either overlooked the spirit of prophecy or just ignore its guidance which opens the door for the enemy to find enough space to cause chaos and much casualty. Such is the case, the importance to pay close attention to the messenger’s counsels and admonitions cannot be emphasized enough because I think we’re living at the end of time and we need to listen to the messenger’s words for our time. Lastly, God knew that we would be distracted from his words, thus he sent E.G. White to reaffirm his message through her writings.
Chad Washburn
GSEM532
Martin Hanna, Ph. D
Response for week 1
Response to class lectures: I like how Ellen White always pointed God’s people back to the Bible. She recommended the Word of God as a rule of faith and practice for the believers. She never considered herself higher or even equal to the Bible but always a lesser light pointing to the greater light, the Word of God. I agree with this 100%, but how much sacredness should we give to her writing; are we to honor them as we do the Bible? Most Adventist today don’t read her books, or respect the messages they bring. However there also the few who equate EGW office with the office of the prophets of the Bible and they fear and tremble at her message. I believe the majority of our church body today, is afraid to say we have a prophet.
The clarification what the Spirit of Prophecy and it relation to the ministry of EGW was interesting. The biblical equations helped me visualize what the Spirit of Prophecy is all about. 1st beginning with 1 Corn. 2:1,2 The Testimony of God is Jesus Christ, 2nd Rev. 19:10 Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy, 3rd John 15:26, and 2 Peter 1:19-21 Spirit of prophecy is revealed to man through the Holy Spirit who also testifies of Jesus and is also the Spirit of Prophecy. The Spirit of Prophecy is the ministry of the Holy Spirit along with all the Spiritual gifts. Since the Spirit of Prophecy is really the testimony of Jesus, which is the testimony of God, and it is not limited to prophets only but also available to angels and all those who proclaim it’s message; how then can we say that the Spirit of Prophecy is the identifying mark of the Remnant Church when most churches have it? I always thought having a prophet whose message was the Spirit of Prophecy made us the Remnant but that doesn’t seemed to be the case anymore. I always thought that having the Spirit of Prophecy is what made SDA different than all other churches. However now it seems that having the Spirit of Prophecy doesn’t make a church the remnant since all who proclaim Christ have the Spirit of Prophecy. I like how the teacher brought out that our unique prophetic mission and message is what makes SDA God’s true church. I also liked how he related SDA to Israel; that having a prophet doesn’t guarantee that God will always be with our church till the in of time, this is what Israel thought. This just show that we need to adhere to the prophet’s message to church or we could be in danger of being dropped from our prophetic mission.
Response to The Messenger
I find it interesting that God provides sufficient evidence for the inspiration of the Bible and the prophetic ministry of Ellen White but He “never will remove all chance for doubt, never will force faith.” (Douglass 45). What if God gave us so much evidence that there would be no room for doubt, does that take away our freedom of choice or leave no room for faith? If this is true, God in creating Eve and Adam must have left room for them to doubt His Love for them.
I wish every church member was required to read this book, it sheds so much light the on the time in which EGW lived, and who Ellen was as a person. I find that in our churches we have so many construed pictures of EGW, and we have some who lift her up as high as the Bible and others who don’t want to do anything with because of their false legalistic connotations. Douglass paints a nice picture of the time in which EGW lived. I think placing EGW writings in the context they were written is very important and the sad thing most people including myself fail to do this. I find the human side of EGW is very important to know, some have made her into a super hero, but she really lived a trying life, (e.g. always being sick, husband’s bad health, two sons dieing, and the grief put upon her as being a prophet.) When I read her life story, I’m inspired and also amazed that someone who was blessed by God with a message also lived in poverty and went through so many trials. I guess prophets don’t get special treatment; it looks like they get hit with the brunt of Satan’s attacks. EGW says that she was thankful her experience of suffering, that it helped her get better acquainted with her Lord. (Douglass 64). Something I found comforting is that EGW says that “Sometimes the enemy presses me the hardest with his temptations and darkness when I am about to speak to the people” (Douglass 68). I can relate to this so much, every time I prepare to speak and even after I speak a dark cloud seems to cover, so much that I don’t ever want to speak again. The most amazing thing I learn about EGW is her speaking skills, which is something I long for. She had a voice that could be heard in a crowd of 20 thousand, and she had penetrating eyes that convicted the soul and a message that could capture her audience attention for hours.
Title: "Traumatic Experiences and Thorns in the Flesh"
1st Reflection on Life & Ministry of Ellen White
As I read “Messenger of the Lord” this past week, a new thought hit me concerning Ellen White! During her childhood days she was hit in the face by a rock thrown by one of her schoolmates. This incident knocked her unconscious, threw her into a coma, made her unrecognizable even to her father, affected her respiratory system for life, made her hand tremble whenever she wrote, and virtually made schooling impossible for her (Douglas p. 48). Douglas further tells us that “the letters of the alphabet in her books would run together, her eyes could not focus properly, perspiration flowed, and she would become dizzy and faint…this bright student left her academic preparation in great disappointment, never to return to formal schooling.”
After reading this, the thought hit me, “why did God allow this to happen to Ellen White?” If God had allowed something like that to happen to me, how would I have responded? Would I have continued to put my faith in him and trust him with my future? The more I thought about this the more I came to the conclusion that God really does work in strange and mysterious ways. I’m inclined to believe that God in his foreknowledge knew that such a life changing event would work to bring about Ellen’s total dependence upon him. Ellen herself admitted that “the cruel blow which blighted the joys of earth, was the means of turning my eyes to heaven. I might never have known Jesus, had not the sorrow that clouded my early years led me to seek comfort in him.” (Douglas p.48)
It almost seems as if God was saying, “Ellen, my child, don’t worry. By man’s standard you will only have a third grade education, but when I’m finished with you, others who possess multiple doctorate degrees by man’s standard, will learn from what you will share with them – life’s most important truths, truths that will point them to eternal life.” Wow! What an anointing! God, it seemed, saw it best to prevent her from becoming corrupted with the formal school teachings she might have received. This also points me to another great person who never attended the great schools of his day. Jesus, never attended the schools of the scribes and the Pharisees. I would hasten to conclude that perhaps God did not want him to become corrupted with the formal school teachings of his day. Despite his having no such formal education, the Bible tells us that Jesus was wiser and more learned than all the scribes and Pharisees.
The first lesson I learned here is that sometimes, when God is getting ready to use a person in a powerful way, the avenues and methods he chooses often run contrary to our human logic, but if we continue trusting, God will work it out better than we ever expected.
Some of the complications Ellen White suffered as a result of her childhood accident had negative physical effects that stayed with her for life. I suppose we can say that they were her thorns in the flesh. They were a consistent reminder of the sinful world in which we live. Similarly, the Apostle Paul also had his thorn in the flesh. Yet, Paul, Ellen White and countless others throughout the ages, have endured, grew stronger in their faith and accomplished the grand purposes God had for them to accomplish.
I thought of what my thorns in the flesh might be. I easily counted off the first five on one hand then started on the next. But I soon realized that it does not matter, for none of them even came close to the effects of Ellen White’s traumatic experience. While many of us dig deep within the inspired writings of Ellen White for the truths and gems and encouragements hidden therein, we often overlook one of the brightest gems of encouragement right there on the surface – that of her traumatic experience and how God was able to use her in spite of her deficiencies. Such encouragement helps us to look upward to Jesus and not to focus on ourselves and our own deficiencies. It encourages us to focus our attention on the one who is able to make us overcomers, not only to overcome our thorns in the flesh, but to overcome our spiritual battles as well.
So, even before exploring what the prophet of the Lord had to say, her life itself begins testifying to the power of God. “What has God done for you?” is the question many seeking to know God would ask, and once they see what he has done in your life, they will be much more inclined to listen to what you have to say about him. I believe such was the experience and testimony God gave to Ellen White.
Eric Ollila
In class last week it was mentioned that “There is a visible church and an invisible church. In history God’s visible church has been Israel. But God has also always had gentiles (the nations). Israel was a nation among the nations that was specifically commissioned to share His message with the other nations.” I have been thinking about this and it would seem that if this is true, we as Seventh-day Adventists ought to be going around to the various different churches trying to share the message with them.
If I remember correctly, when William Miller started preaching the message of the second coming of Christ and the 2300 day prophecy, he preached at any church that would give him a hearing. It didn’t matter what denomination it was, if they were willing to open up the pulpit, he took the invite and preached the message.
It seems to me that our evangelism could be extremely effective and impactful if Seventh-day Adventist preachers started searching for ways to share with other denominations and other non-Adventist types of groups. I don’t mean sending out flyers and trying to get them to come out to our meetings at some rented hall. I mean finding out ways to actually get into their pulpits on Sunday morning during their main worship hour and preaching the Word. When I think about the statement that was made in class that “Israel was a nation among the nations that was specifically commissioned to share His [God’s] message with the other nations” I realized that this is what Solomon had done. The other nations learned from the Israelites the deeper ways of God. The nation of Israel at that time had such an influence on the nations around that they would even travel long distances, bringing gift offerings to Israel, just so they could hear of the wisdom of this nation and its king.
Hasn’t God set Adventists in this world in a similar way? I would have to agree with the sentiment expressed in class that--Yes He has. God has ordained that this church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church should be a light in the midst of darkness. Not as some sort of elite and exclusive club that says our walls are too high and holy to come down from, we cannot associate with such great sinners, but rather as a sort of leaven in the world of churches and religions. Salt that gives some flavor to the whole lump.
This idea challenges me. It presents a new way of thinking to me. A new concept of what ministry is all about. Perhaps we should rekindle the spirit of the Waldensees and purposely go to other schools and centers of learning to spread the great truths that God has given to us. Perhaps instead of worrying about the Jesuits infiltrating our churches, schools, and institutions we should instead be infiltrating theirs! Let the Jesuits be worried about those SDA infiltrators!!! That would be really cool!
I believe Ellen White makes a statement that goes something along the lines of “Strength to resist evil is best gained through aggressive service.” (I think it is in Acts of the Apostles) This concept coupled with that shared in class is something that I choose to embrace. It already seems to provide a whole world of more ministry opportunities than I ever conceived of before.
I mean the sky is the limit. If a Seventh-day Adventist was so sold out to Jesus Christ and the message He has given to this church then no matter what position he found himself in, he could work it to share the message of truth. Take for example an Adventist pastor who is either looking for a church or who is already working for a conference and who learns about a non-denominational church looking for a pastor. What would stop the Adventist from seeing if they would be willing to let him be their pastor? Then every Sunday morning, he could over time and in a gentle winsome way share the great message that we have and gently lead them to see God’s magnificent truths. And perhaps over a period of time the whole church would embrace the Advent message and even start keeping the real Sabbath! Some may think this extreme or radical, but is it? I am starting to wonder. The commission says to Go ye therefore to ALL NATIONS baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, TEACHING them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. That commission mandates a going and teaching people the true ways of God. Wouldn't that truly be considered "going?"
A Modern Day Prophet
By
Bill Watson-Payne
The image that we have of a prophet/prophetess is often one of a person who is superior in all that he/she does. We tend to notice primarily the times when that individual is functioning in their official capacity and regularly overlook their day to day life experience. I suppose it is that our understanding of inspiration is coming from the standpoint of what God has specifically said or is saying to us through that person and their “uninspired” times do not really matter much or may not be as relevant. Our class discussion on Monday was interesting as we talked about the life of a prophet and that everything that he/she does is somehow inspired. It was communicated that, the entire life of the prophet serves as a source of inspiration. Lessons should be extracted from their activities whether we believe it to be inspired or it is that individual’s personal opinion.
Our readings from, “Messenger of the Lord” by Herbert E. Douglas helped us to envelop ourselves in the life of a modern day prophetess, although she died in 1915. The book showed very careful detailed and frank accounts of the life and ministry of Ellen G. White. It tells of her capacity as mother, wife, writer, public speaker, leader and messenger of the Lord. Having written approximately 100,000 pages of information, raising a family and traveling as extensive as she did was a tremendous task for anyone to accomplish. These chapters showed the real life of Mrs. White a messenger of the Lord to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and people of the last days. I enjoyed reading where she wrote letters to her husband in encouragement and in some case what seem to be a scolding. Like all human families, it seemed that they had disagreements from time to time and seemed to have departed with issues unresolved. While they expressed their love for one another, it seemed that there were some struggles in terms of dominance. I wonder how James White handled the fact that his wife was more a public figure than he was. Did it affect him in later years as her popularity grew? He seemed to have become quite discouraged in his later years
The family experienced many hardship, trials and loss. They lost two of their four sons and I could not imagine going through such an awful ordeal. One could sometimes wonder why God doesn’t intervene in certain situations. We are talking about one of God’s called servants to guide His last day people to better understand His will for the last day church with a special message for these special times. God allowed Ellen White and her husband to suffer such great loss that it would be very easy to say, if you are the messenger of the Lord, why is your life in such chaos; people criticize you, your health is very bad, the terrible accident you had as a child has damaged you, your husband is sickly, you lost not just one child but two out of your four, what kind of life are you living?
While all these questions may arise, we see a loving relationship between a wife and husband. We see a mother who had a great longing to be with her children even though she had to travel and spend many days and weeks away from them for the sake of the Lord’s work. This was to the point that she was spoiling the children when they were together trying to overcompensate to make up for lost times away from them. The above questions cannot be answered unless one is familiar with the scriptures. As we examine the life of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joseph, Job, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and yes our Lord Jesus Christ, we will see that they did not have easy lives. Their lives were filled with difficulties and antagonists who refuted their teachings and doubted their messages. A life of ease is not a sign of favor with God, neither is a life of suffering an indication disfavor. We are all under the Grace of God as we work for Him. None are exempt from the trials that come our way but God is faithful and will see us through each situation we have faced and will face.
Title: Threads of Gold
Patricia McCue
In reading the text book I have been so moved by the call and life of Ellen White. It is a privilege for me to be in this class and gain a deeper perspective on her life and work. It was through the writings of Ellen White that Jesus found me. I am deeply impressed by the way that our pioneers were called and lived. What was especially interesting to me was the amount of suffering that both James and Ellen White experienced in their life. I appreciate the way she frames her experience of suffering. It seems that the times that she suffered the most were during the times that she was writing some of the most profound books such as Desire of Ages. When darkness was gathering around her she said, “it was not long before I saw that the affliction was a part of God’s plan. I carefully reviewed the history of the past few years, and the work the Lord had given me to do. Not once had he failed me. Often He had manifested Himself in a marked manner, and I saw nothing in the past of which to complain. I realized that, like threads of gold, precious things had run through all this severe experience.” What I love about this quote is the beauty that she sees in the midst of our suffering. We all recoil from the thoughts of suffering and yet our master and “suffering servant” explains to us that in this life we will have suffering. He does not promise to take us out of the suffering but promises to be with us in our suffering. I appreciate the example that she is to us in drawing near to God in our suffering.
I am aware in my own life that in my most intense suffering I have learned the sweetest lessons of the love that the Saviour has for me. I also appreciate that Ellen White did not let her suffering consume her to the point that she stopped being productive. It was mentioned several times in the text book that she made herself and her husband be active to overcome either illness or depression.
I think that it is encouraging to realize that the book Ministry of Healing was fruit that was produced while the prophetess was dealing with suffering. I liked the way that Douglas summed it up when he said, “Her life of literary production and personal ministry, plus her extensive public travels, strongly argues for an awareness of how the human will can triumph over physical hardships in the pursuit of God’s plan to one’s life.” (p.65)
It has been an interesting and delightful process to read over the notes while reading the textbook. The lectures emphasize the principles by which God works when communicating to humans. I am noticing more clearly the congruence between these operating principles in the life and work of Ellen White and the way God interacted with the Bible prophets.
The readings in the textbook and the class discussions have helped me to remember my roots. In looking back and reviewing the life of the pioneers a fire is being rekindled in my heart. It is amazing the power that it is the written word, especially and most importantly when it has been inspired by God. This movement on hearts alone offers a special kind of evidence that can not easily be ignored.
In Him,
Patricia McCue
It’s All about Balance.
This posting deals with our discussion of Appendix P, The Ellipse of Salvation Truth, from class on Thursday, July 17, 2008, and other discussions during our second week of class.
As we began our discussion on Appendix P James asked a clarification question on the difference between the imputed and imparted biblical view on righteousness that really got the ball rolling in my mind. Dr. Hanna began to answer the question by writing three words on the white board; righteousness, justification, and sanctification. As he began to answer James’ question I immediately began to see a correlation with the ellipse model. Dr. Hanna shared his feelings on how people often reduce righteousness to justification and leaves the issue of sanctification untouched. I saw and understood that righteousness by faith includes justification AND sanctification and must be viewed together, which is the concept the ellipse model taught. I appreciated seeing and hearing this example because it gave me additional insight from what the book taught and helped me see this method being put into practice. I discovered that with the ellipse model one needs to look at all aspects of the truth being discussed because when one part is overemphasized it can easily become distorted truth.
Earlier in the week part of our discussion in class dealt with misunderstandings in regards to Ellen Whites writings. I believe it was Emma who shared that her feelings towards Ellen White have been negative for years because of the way her writings were used, or misused, while she was growing up. I can relate to Emma’s feelings because I too, often felt a heavy pressure to live up to the standards of Ellen White growing up. Through my reading I am finding out more and more that my prior understandings were more misconstrued than anything else. I think the main cause of this problem for me was the way her writings were picked apart and used, often times, out of context and in order to rebuke and correct certain actions or behaviors. As I have learned more about who Ellen White was as a real and genuine person rather than a highly elevated prophet that must be obeyed…or else! (This is truly how I felt sometimes) I came to realize she was a regular person with an extremely beautiful connection with Christ whose writings needed to be understood within the proper context. My problem was that for a very long time I carried an unbalanced view of Ellen White because of my lack of knowledge and teenage misunderstandings. By harnessing the power of a more holistic approach and mindset along with the truth found in Appendix P, I am beginning to have a much more balanced view.
This new understanding has also helped me relate to our church within a much broader context. As we discussed the role of the SDA church in regards to the ellipse model I appreciated Dr. Hanna’s explanation of our church being part of God’s universal church. My understanding is that if we claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we will be extremely skewed in our thinking and become very unbalanced. God’s universal (invisible) church expands far beyond the realm of the SDA church and calls for the truth to be spread all throughout it. Indeed God has given His remnant church special and additional light that is to be shone to all His people but it must not be shined from a higher position or with a haughty spirit. The majority of the Seventh-day Adventist beliefs came from the beliefs that were constructed early on in the Christian church and because of that fact we must not allow our thinking to become so highly elevated with the new truths God has given us that it causes us to distort them. This thought is touched on by Douglass in Appendix P when he says, “All the divisions between various churches within Christianity…occur when the ellipse is ignored. When one of the foci becomes the “circle of truth,” we surely have a heresy.” It is my hope that this problem does not occur within our church.
I continue to be blessed by our class discussions and appreciate learning alongside such brilliant minds! May God continue to bless His truth as it is spread throughout the world.
-MR
Second Reflection Paper
In this particular paper, I will begin by sharing how I view the holistic concept of truth and how this view has impacted my ministry and my theology. Second, I will share some highlights from the book Messenger of the Lord—sections III and IV—where I have been touched by some of the concepts presented.
The “holistic” concept, as described by Dr. Hanna, is a concept that was introduced to me in 1996 by Dr. Leroy A. Moore. Dr. Moore termed this idea “poles of truth” or “paradoxical truth.” Nevertheless, while the terminology is different, the concept remains the same. Dr. Moore also taught what Dr. Douglass calls “the ellipse,” which again is the same concept as holistic or paradoxical truth. Dr. Moore’s teaching transformed and revitalized my thinking in how to read the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, and even books and articles written by other authors.
Dr. Moore has seen, as have many others, the essence of the major conflicts happening within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As Jonathan pointed out in Thursday’s class, an understanding of this concept of paradoxical or holistic truth or ellipse can make us more aware of how to approach and share the truths of the Bible without being unbalanced. This does not mean that there is no room for error, but the possibility of unity will be more likely.
This particular understanding of the totality of truth has helped me in my ministry when talking with my members, preaching, or writing papers. The Bible is full of truths that appear at the surface to contradict each other, but in reality they build on each other and strengthen a particular truth. The challenge is not with what the Bible presents to humanity, as is being suggested by some scholars, but rather how humanity uses the Bible. I do not believe that I have arrived at a perfect balance of Biblical truth and, yes, I do have some challenges to reconcile some aspects of truth found in the Bible that appear to not make sense; however, I strive to seek a better understanding and a more complete view that will help me spiritually and in my ministry.
It is hard to imagine that the Bible can be so complex on one hand and yet, on the other hand, so simple. How can this be? This must also be true about its Author. God is so complex and yet He is so simple. I would like to suggest that this is also true with the Spirit of Prophecy (E.W.’s writings). It can be so complex and yet it can be so simple. After all, who is the author of the spirit of prophecy (I am referring here to E.W.’s ministry)? Complexity and simplicity might just be part of this paradoxical or holistic truth or ellipse.
Moving on to the second part of my paper, I am intrigued by the method God used to deliver His message to this world. God could have used hundreds of other ways to share the same information; instead, He commissioned one frail woman to do His biddings. Ellen White’s messages were timely instruction and predictions needed for this newly born church to grow and move forward. The section “visions, at times, modified Ellen White’s theological opinions” (p. 155) impressed my mind in seeing how inspiration works. Prophets did not always understand the full picture and throughout the years they may have added more detail to a previously revealed truth as it became clearer to them or as they gave it further study. Thus, it would follow that the prophets did not contradict themselves, but rather matured in their development of truth and, thus, expanded on it from time to time by writing on it at a later date.
Another element also seen in the same chapter is that Ellen White’s visions were also conditional based on what people would decide to act upon. Ellen White’s ministry was not only limited to rebukes but also included ways to live better, encouragement, and affirmation of newly discovered truths that were brought forward by other leaders of her time. It is fascinating how the Holy Spirit worked in communicating the truth in a variety of ways through her ministry.
I had not previously thought about the importance of the role of Ellen White in the organization and unity of this church. Dr. Douglass points out in chapter 17 (p. 183) five reasons for the rapid development of organization within the Adventist Church, none of which would have led to a worldwide movement without her worldview and her messages. Now that I am reflecting on this prophetic ministry, I see in the Bible how many prophets were also involved in organizing and uniting the church. For example, the book of Acts points out this organization and unity through the role of prophetic ministry. Samuel is another example.
My final reflection here is that I do not envy the role of a prophet. The challenges that she faced and conflicts that she had to address in theology, organization, and other areas, make me shiver. I do know that if you do what God asks you to do, He will sustain you; however, this does not make the prophetic role any easier or enjoyable.
Life and Ministry of E.G. White – Week 2
Allen Decena
The Loneliness of Mrs. White
Without becoming too personal suffice it to say that I have experienced loneliness within my church. Much had to do with culture but when reading of her loneliness I felt a personal pang. Attending a secular public school, then a secular high school, followed by a heathen university, it was often hard to feel like there was a sense of belonging to the peers around you and the sense of loneliness more pronounced. By nature of her position (office of Prophet) Ellen White would have been lonely; she was the only one! By no means am I placing myself on equal footing with Adventism’s prophet yet I, as well as a number of my seminary classmates (I would imagine) have probably gone through a period where we could sympathize what she went through because we have experienced loneliness ourselves. Perhaps some of us still do, and will in the future.
By nature of our office as pastors and church leaders, although there are a good number of us, within our churches, we are often the only ones who, by the nature of our tasks, whether by choice or by circumstance, carry burdens of others or even those belonging to ourselves, alone. As just alluded to, the ironic aspect about this is that even if we are in situations where we are surrounded by people with similar positions and tasks, we can fall into the trap of being reclusive and thereby bringing about a state of alone-ness. I realize that it does not have to be this way, that as pastors we can garner the support of other pastors or others with similar tasks and burdens. Even Mrs. White, who was given the office of prophet, as we have learned in the class, would not have been the only one engaging in ‘prophesying’ and thus would have others who similarly prophesied (albeit in more focused ways – see previous post) to have fellowship with and support. But it was not so. In the book (pp 76-77) it notes how Ellen White, although not discouraged nor driven to despair or reclusiveness, did acknowledge this circumstance. Various aspects contributed to this. As mentioned her office as a bonafide prophet when no others were officially recognized is one aspect. Another aspect was that she was, as the book notes, in charge of leading a fledgling denomination (albeit with her husband and Bates) and when her husband died, I can imagine that it got that much harder. The final aspect is that she was a woman leader in a male-dominated society (some may argue that it is still this way). Although her authority both as a prophet and leader were upheld by her husband and other strong leaders in the Adventist movement, I cannot imagine that this last aspect did not have an impact on the loneliness she experienced.
Yet as with many struggles, God used this circumstance to help us cling to a hope for a better future in the Kingdom of God and rely more heavily in the comfort of the Spirit thus more constantly keeping a focus on God and everything He is associated with. I am very sure that Ellen White used this ‘paradigm’ to not only keep her on task with regards to her responsibilities that God entrusted with her but to also constantly work towards and maintain an inward joy and happiness that can be found in Jesus alone. As the book says (pp. 77) ‘people can be happy though lonely’. If Ellen white could do this we should be able to do this too.
Title: A Light unto our Path
Comments on Class Discussions and Messenger of the Lord - Section 3, chapter 16 - "Ellen White’s Self-awareness as a Messenger" (Week – 2)
I believe that we should continually strive to better understand Scripture. God continually leads His people into more truth. Using Ellen White’s Christ Object Lesson as his reference, Herbert Douglass is correct in pointing out that “progressive truth…does not contradict previously revealed truths but expand it” (p. 170).
After Daniel had his visions, he still did not understand all the meanings of some of the scenes and imagery that were shown to him. He was told to close the book since what he saw concerned the time of the end. God will be faithful to show us many more things as we approach closer and closer to the time of the end. We just need to be in tune with what He has to show us!
For instance, the group that decided to conduct further Bible studies after the Great Disappointment of 1844 leaves us with a good example of the necessity to continually search Scripture. This remnant group would not have blossomed into the church that we are today if they had not endeavored to increase their understanding of the Bible. God progressively increases our own understanding of His Word when we allow His Holy Spirit to continue to lead us into all truth. This goes along with the text that we have discussed in class which says that “the path of the just is as the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Proverbs 4:18). As we walk toward God, His lamp will indeed continue to shine at our feet while His light increasingly brightens our path (Psalm 119:105). The important thing is that we remain teachable!
It is also interesting to note how confident Ellen White was about the Source of her revelations in writing to her contemporaries. She knew that her visions were from God. She demonstrated a great deal of tact in cautioning those who rejected the light that she had been given to bear. She did not demonstrate a prideful or haughty spirit but gently rebuked those who rejected messages that are indeed aligned with the Bible. This is in line with the text that reminds us as we “speak the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). Ellen White helped several people grow in their understanding of the Word by clarifying certain biblical truths that many had not previously understood. Personally, during my time here at the seminary, I have come to better understand certain biblical truths and teachings. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I was in darkness before; rather, it simply means that my level of understanding of biblical truth has expanded.
I think that it is safe to say that we don’t presently know all there is to know. As we move closer to the end of time, we will uncover more and more truth out of the Word of God. Today we face some impasses in dealing with varying viewpoints on certain topics. We still wrestle to define our positions on certain issues. I believe that the early Sabbatarians’ example of intense Bible study should continually be emulated. The pioneers spent a good amount of time in Bible study dealing with difficult issues. Some of the issues that we wrestle with may only involve people in our local congregations while others are broad scale issues that need to be grappled with by the world church organization. Whatever the scale of the issue, the key principle is that we need to surrender to God so that He can continually illumine our path. With God’s help, the issues and prophecies that we struggle with will be made clearer and clearer to us with the progression of time.
Strength of Frailty
She crossed the continental United States 24 times before 1885 (all of these within the eighteen year period after 1867 when the two railroads joined up making the trip possible), spoke to large groups wherever she went (all the time writing so that when she died she left more than 100,000 handwritten pages), she is the 3rd most translated author since the dawn of time (and the most translated American author - male or female), yet this 5’ 2” lady was given only months to live at the age of nine and suffered all her 87 years (making her one of the few to reach that age in that or any era) with headaches, eye inflammation, respiratory weakness, tuberculosis, a heart condition (called “dropsy”), and even a stroke in her midlife which left her without some use of her left arm. Her ill health began early so that in 1844 she could hardly speak above a whisper, yet she cultivated her speaking voice so that only a few years later she could project her voice with such support as to be heard outdoors to tens of thousands for more than an hour. How did she do it? How was it possible for this small lady to have done all she did (which included some well documented miraculous feats) in a time when women were not even allowed to vote or hold public office? The answer is, “strength in frailty”.
Paul wrote of this phenomenon in his own life in his second letter to the Corinthians in chapter 12, verses 5-10. “Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me. And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
The apostle Paul experienced physical hardships in his ministry. What got him through and made him the most traveled and prolific New Testament author? He says that it was the power of God. God, Himself, in speaking to Paul says that the strength of God is made perfect in our weakness.
Could it be, then, that these two Messengers of God (physically small yet theologically giant) are trying to tell us through their example and words that God can use us best when we are not at our best? But isn’t that when most people go to God for help anyway? Do we need to be at our worst constantly, then, to have perfect support and strength from God? I suggest the answer is, “No”.
The reason for this, I believe, lies behind the truth of that statement of weakness and God-strength. Since God is always strong, and we are always weak (in comparison) we can always benefit from His strengthening of us. So what really is happening is that when we realize how weak we really are (through the trials and tribulations) we ask for His strength. Is it not at that moment that He provides the strength? The giving takes place at the moment of asking which was brought on by realization. Perhaps what we need to focus on is our need for God at our strong moments of life. We need a constant realization of our true frailty, then we will be weak (in our own estimation) and seek God’s strength. He will provide it and then we will be truly strong (in God’s eyes).
Title: "Boldness for Christ and Acts of Faith"
2nd Reflection on Life & Ministry of Ellen White
In my reading of Ellen White this past week, I found many treasures of which I had to take note. One of them in particular was the account of Ellen White’s preaching at a camp meeting in Tasmania, where it is reported that “she finished her sermon with an altar call. A large share of the audience came forward. But she wasn’t satisfied. She was hunting souls. She left the platform, and went to the back seats where five young people sat. In her quiet way, she invited them to give their hearts to the Lord. All five did, and several other young people joined them, as they went forward in their decision to make Jesus their Master.” (Douglas p.72)
This stood out in my mind because when I was a teenager, I attended various evangelistic meetings and tent revivals where I had seen this done by the evangelist on many occasions. The evangelist would preach and during the altar call he would walk down the aisle, get close to the people, have eye contact with them and personally invite them to accept Jesus. Rarely did those invited refuse to take their stand for Jesus. Sometimes it was a struggle and the evangelist had to linger and plead for a while, but he was often successful.
These memories parallel the account of Ellen White’s altar call. However, it seems this was a much more acceptable practice in the past than it is today. In 2008, it seems such practice is frowned upon because it is viewed as manipulation and coercion, pressuring people into responding. While I don’t believe every evangelist should make this approach a standard practice, I believe there is much more room for it in today’s evangelistic meetings. When we take into account the issues of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, we are reminded that Satan is fighting with all his power for the souls of men and women, and he is fighting for keeps. We try as much as possible not to offend people, to give them their space, and to be politically correct; and while these are good practices, sometimes I think as ambassadors for God, we need to be more bold and daring for the gospel’s sake. This is exactly what I see Ellen White doing – being bold for the kingdom of God. God rewarded her boldness with the youth which came forward and I believe he will do the same for us today.
Another treasure of which I took note from this week’s reading was the way in which God strengthened Ellen’s voice from a whisper to a clear and strong speaking voice. Douglas tells us of her first invitation to relate her vision in Poland, Maine. He says, “driven by a sense of duty, able to speak only in a whisper, she began to make known to others what God had revealed to her. After five minutes her voice became clear and strong, and she spoke for nearly two hours with perfect ease. When she finished, her vocal problems returned – until the next time she stood in public to share her message.” (Douglas p.124)
This is an account of a miraculous happening! Such miraculous happenings stand out for me because they give me strength and hope that God could do the same in my life. I often find myself sniffling or clearing my throat sometimes when speaking to others and I’m concerned that this could be a hindrance for my future as a pastor or teacher. Furthermore, the situation bothered me so much that I had it diagnosed only to be told I have a post-nasal drip condition and that I will have it for the rest of my life. Such news was quite disheartening. However, I claimed that if God was able to give Ellen supernatural speaking ability at the time she needed it, even with her infirmities, he can do the same for me.
It seemed that Ellen’s whole life was stringed with miraculous occurrences. I am reminded also of her feeble hand which trembled as a result of her infirmities. She said that as soon as she took the pen in her hand to write, in response to the Lord’s command to “write out the things which I shall give you”, her hand became steady and she was able to write. This was no doubt God’s doing in response to her act of faith. Her story reminds me that God will also honor my act of faith.
I’VE HAD IT!
Perseverance. I like etymology, but I don’t think I like this word. Perseverance – from Latin per- (through) + severus (severity).
Reflecting on this past weeks class experiences and reading, I discovered that all things were pointing me to that 4 syllable word (unless you have a Southern accent like me) “perseverance.” One night this week, Romans 5:3-5 seemed to blink like a red light when approaching an intersection. “…We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”
Speaking of the Holy Spirit, I found that each lesson presented in class seemed to also reveal the perseverance theme. Ellen White had innumerable physical challenges but she didn’t quit. Although caught in the middle of tensions between her husband and J.H. Kellogg, this faithful messenger persisted and performed her duty in the fear of God despite the potential cost to her reputation and ministry.
When her husband was suffering from a deep depression she didn’t say, “Look, I’ve got problems too. Pull yourself together dude!” She refused to let him waste away. She walked a quarter of a mile in deep snow, asked the neighbors to excuse themselves so that James could work more, and blistered her hands to encourage him to exercise.
Ellen would not stop trying to revive her infant son who had drowned in a pail of mop water. She endured despite the Great Disappointment, critics, the death of two children, and financial strains. How odd that such a courageous woman could have written, “I coveted death as a release from the responsibilities that were crowding upon me.” (p. 87) Had she not experienced God’s faithfulness? Did she forget how He had led her in the past? Had the visions of heaven faded?
The perseverance theme spilled over into Sabbath. The Scripture reading was 1 Kings 19:1-8. I quickly wrote down part of verse 4 “It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers.” Pastor Clifford Jones then delivered God’s message that Elijah had been running for his life from Jezebel and collapsed under a tree and declared, “I’ve Had It!” Although Scripture presents prophets performing great feats for God, it also doesn’t hold back their deficiencies and weaknesses. James presents Elijah as a man with a nature like us. Douglass presents Ellen White as a woman with a nature like us. What, then, may we learn from their lives?
Elijah asked to die. When Elijah was ready to resign, God decided to re-assign. Elijah later went up by a whirlwind into heaven and never received the death he requested (2 Kings 2:11). Ellen White knew discouragement and sought to be released from her responsibilities, but God granted her strength and she served him for seventy-seven years.
The life of a Christian, especially one who has been called to do great things for God is not immune to despair. To my fellow classmates, you are here for a purpose. God has called you to do great things for Him. Things may be tough for you now. I write with hesitation that things may get tougher. Please “consider Him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” (Hebrews 12:3)
Stick with it! Don’t give up! Hold on! Persevere!
Joseph V. Thelusca
The Life & Ministry of E.G. White
July 17, 2008
Reflection II
The Inspired Messenger
It’s a well known fact that the Seventh Day Adventist Church strong believes that Mrs. Ellen G. White was an inspired prophet who was raised by God to be entrusted with a specific message for the remnant church. Such is the case, it is a necessity to dwell on the issue of inspiration as related to the role of God, the Holy Spirit and the inspired prophet. Throughout this week, the subject of inspiration dominated a great portion of both lectures and parts of the reading in the book. For sake of brevity, let’s it known for the purpose of this reflection, I want to discover what sister White had to say concerning inspiration since the SDA church convinced she was an inspired prophetess. Generally speaking, inspiration has to do with the method by which God prepares a person to be his messenger. For the most parts, there are two types of inspiration that is verbal or thought inspiration.
It is clear based on class lectures and the words of sister White, we don’t support the idea of verbal inspiration because such idea denotes that the inspired prophet or prophetess must record the exact words or messages that God or the Holy Spirit are revealing to his messenger. On the other hand, those who endorse thought inspiration hold that God inspires the prophet, but not his or her words. In other words, God through the Spirit of Prophecy, which is the Holy Spirit gives the thoughts to the prophet, however the prophet has the luxury to use what literary devices available to him or her to deliver what God wants to be transmitted to his people. I think the position of the SDA church and that of sister White are more rewarding because the prophet would be a mechanical subject and/or a robot who’s just being dictated words by words what to write without taking into consideration the social-cultural milieu in which the prophet lives. Sister White in making reference to the 1883 General Conference decision to adopt certain changes that were made to her prior testimonies clarified that God inspired his servant with the thoughts and ideas and He expected his messenger to exercise his or her best judgment in wording the message to his people.
I would agree that in putting the message together prior of delivery, the prophet or prophetess needs to be mindful of his or her targeted audience because the way one puts a message is as important as its content. Whereas to the verbal inspirationist there is no room for flexibility because the prophet has been directed to write the very exact words he or she heard from God. It was said in class that sister White had a library collection of more than 800 literary resources, therefore that would confirm that she did not believe in verbal inspiration because she equipped herself with many research tools in order to better put in word what God had inspired her to tell his people. It was reported that her friends and colleagues were extremely afraid that her critics would have used the changes made in her prior testimonies to discredit her as a real prophetess to the remnant church. On the contrary, she vehemently rebuked such conceptions and ideology by saying that it was perfectly correct to make change to previously revealed truths because sometimes due to certain circumstances the messenger might not have been able to pen the message to the best of his or her ability. Furthermore, she concluded by stating that as she received greater light, it was necessary to make changes to reflect what had been added to her inspiration and such did not make her former writings less inspired.
To that end, as noted in our class discussions and the reading of the book, God inspires his messenger through the works of the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Prophecy, but not the wording of the messenger. I am excited to know that God can choose to inspire anyone of us to perform certain tasks for his church at any capacity and therefore the spirit of prophecy must not be diminished to just the pastor, E.G.W, the church leaders, the conference officials because it is the same Spirit who is distributing all the spiritual gifts.
Chad Washburn
GSEM532
Martin Hanna, Ph. D
Response for week 2
Response to class lectures regarding illumination: This week Dr. Hanna talked about Inspiration and Illumination and how they interplay with each other in the believers perception of an inspired text. Both Inspiration and Illumination are both inspired by the Spirit of God, however Illumination is when the Spirit makes something relevant to the believer. I agree with this, but it does raise some questions in my mind. How can the Spirit of God illuminate a passage of scripture differently to each individual in God’s church and not contradict Himself? I think illumination of the Word of God does happen when the Spirit knows a person’s specific need, and illuminates the Word to speak to that need. However, I have a problem when illumination of the Word of God is drastically conflicting with the indispensable truths found in God’s Word. In Christianity we have so many denominations and everyone claims that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them what they hold as doctrine truth. Why are there contradictions when the same Spirit illuminates the word of God to all people? I don’t have a very good answer, but I can propose one reason? We aren’t properly reading the Word of God. Scripture is God breathed, it “… is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). Wow, that’s pretty powerful, I bet it even has the power in itself to reveal what it is trying to say. I think we humans sometimes play the role of the Holy Spirit, by following our emotions and we end up being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting” (Eph. 4:14). I don’t know if you ever given a Bible study and you present the truth so clearly in the Word of God and the person just seems to not grasp it. Sometimes they say, “when the Spirit of God reveals it to me or convicts me, I’ll believe it.” The question that runs through my mind when I hear this is “do you think that the Spirit of God would be illuminating something different than what He has already inspired in scripture?” I don’t think so. So, when this happens to me in a Bible study I stick to my ground, the Word of God, and pray that God’s Spirit will soften their heart.
The teacher also talked about illumination should be different when we contextualize it for our time and culture. However I agree and disagree with this, because I believe principles of truth don’t change but their application could change given in certain contexts, and cultures.
Response to The Messenger: In this quote I think we can get a picture why God sent His church a prophet, “If you had made the God’s Word you study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies. It is because you have neglected to acquaint yourselves with God’s inspired Book that He has sought to reach you by simple, direct testimonies” (Testimonies, Vol. 5, pp. 664, 665). As I read this quote it brought many thoughts to my mind about EGW purpose and how it applicable for God’s church today. As I look at our church in light of this quote makes me tremble and fear what is near to come to our church because we as a church, at least in North America and Europe no longer study the Word of God as we should. Our churches have become that lukewarm church spoken of in Revelation 3:16, "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” EGW’s Testimonies to the church were to lead us back into our Bible, however today we neglect reading the Testimonies and the Word of God. What is God going to do with His Church? I can tell you I haven’t read any of Testimonies, maybe a quote or two and reading the Bible has always been a on going battle. After reading section three and four of Douglass’ book which gives us glimpse EGW’s role of a prophet at the birthing stages of God’s Church, I now know I need to get better acquainted with the Lord’s Prophetess EGW and of course the Word of God. EGW has a message from the Lord to prepare His church for His second coming, however most of us don’t have our lamps trimmed and a good amount of oil to get us through the coming crisis.
EGW’s inspired advice to the Church was highly valued by the church leaders and they looked to her during the church’s organization, and establishments of its institution (eg. Schools, publishing houses, and hospitals). Some of the best advice EGW I think she gave to our church is Her clear directions of expanding the Church beyond America. The Three Angel’s message was to go “clear around the world in 1848 when there were fewer than one hundred Sabbatarian Adventists…” (Douglass 212).
What really caught my interest in section 4 is Ellen White’s intervention in the Kellogg crisis with the publishing of His book “The Living Temple.” The Lord in vision told her, to meet it head on, and this is what she did right on time when the church needed her the most. What really caught my interest was her comment that this was the Alpha apostasy and the Omega was still to come. I went online and did some searches regarding this topic of the Omega apostasy and found some really interesting things which makes me want to get into those little red books of hers to see what else She has to say regarding end time events.
Comments to Section 3 from Messenger of the Lord: By Herbert E. Douglass
As I read section 3 of the book there were a few comments from the book that I found particularly striking and gave me a broader view and peek into how Ellen White viewed herself and her writings.
On page 157 she makes the following comment regarding her visions:
I have felt for years that if I could have my choice and please God as well, I would rather die than have a vision, for every vision places me under great responsibility to bear testimonies of reproof and of warning, which has ever been against my feelings, causing me affliction of soul that is inexpressible. Never have I coveted my position, and yet I dare not resist the Spirit of God and seek an easier position.
Reading that quote made me realize how humble Ellen White was. While on one hand she respected the calling God gave her, she did not seek high position and desire the prestige such a position would afford her in her authority over people. In that quote one cannot help but also see a woman filled with compassion for people. Though she had a position that demanded that she give some advice that at times would be rather painful (Douglass gives specific visions of people being caught in adultery and other shameful acts) she did not revel in those opportunities. Instead she was pained by the responsibility she was given to reprimand someone for their wrongdoing. This attitude seems so contrary to those that misuse Ellen White’s writings to beat people into submission to follow a certain way of life. While it is necessary to correct people of their mistakes, following Ellen White’s attitude, before jumping so quickly to reprimand, we should seek to do so in a caring and compassionate way as demonstrated by the life of Ellen White.
A quote that speaks directly to the misuse of her writings was found on pg. 172, 173. Here Douglass takes the following quote of Mrs. White regarding this topic.
Do not feel that you can dissect them (Testimonies) to suite your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the Word of God, reject them.
That was a strong statement and one that shows how real she was. As she would state, again and again, God’s words must reign supreme in faith and practice and we should always look to God’s word as our rule for faith and practice.
Another comment by Douglass in regards to how her writings should be used was as found on pg. 172,173. Here she recognized that her message had a dual rule, one to be an “evangel of appeal to the general public and to be a counselor-teacher to the Adventists.”(pg. 172) But as Douglass says, “she emphatically declared that her writings were not to be used as doctrinal authority for the general public.” Reading is an appeal to both camps (those that hate Ellen White and those that overuse her). On the one hand, here is a most balanced statement regarding the use of her writings. Reading her work, how can one not sense how Christ-centered her writings are? Having anyone read her work; even if they are non-Adventist will inevitably draw them to a more amazing view of God, probably even better than all the writers that have written since her time. For the camp that misuses her work, reading this comment should caution them as to how to use her work properly. In fact if people had followed her caution, we wouldn’t have the controversies over her writings that this church has had.
Reading this section gave me insight to a woman who had a humility about her that was unlike the way many people portray her or use her. She was one who did as God asked, yet did it in a way that He would have. While she recognized her calling and her position as one who had insight and a special connection to God, she always cared for the individual. While prophets are called to call people to repentance, it should always be done in love and in this reading; I found that to be true of Mrs. White. I found this view refreshing, it has helped me grow in my appreciation of this oft misunderstood woman of God.
Rebuking, Repenting, Baptism and the Remnant
I’ve read many E.G. White books and have developed a warm appreciation for her writings. Her welcoming personality and gentle spirit seem to flow through her writings. H. Douglass seems to have found this too. I wondered how people handled the God-given rebukes that she writes in the Testimonies and why there are always blanks and initials? Who put those blanks in there? Was it to avoid legal liability or defamation lawsuits? EG White put in the blanks and filled in the initials of people. She did not needlessly or continuously cause injury, so she removed their names but left the counsel. How kind to both those who needed the lesson and those who had already received the lesson!
EG White was direct, but only as required by God, blunt. I have often not been gentle with my rebukes and seen others who used rough words to reprimand and rebuke and noticed how the rebuked person didn’t repent and turn from their wicked ways. The prophet or messenger, if you will, of God found that “their greatest difficulty was the testimony was given before others and that if I had sent it to them alone, it would have been received all right. Pride was hurt.” (138-39). If one can avoid directly assaulting someone’s pride, one can help the wrong-doer see and correct his actions. Pride can then be chipped away bit by bit until it crumbles.
I’ve been particularly preoccupied in our discussions about the meaning of baptism and the remnant church. Over the years I’ve had numerous and sometimes heated discussions with old-timers and newbie Adventists about the remnant and baptism in Christ verses baptism into Adventism. Our discussion brought so many questions again. Is baptism required to into heaven? We seem to say “No” in class, but what type of baptism? One must be born of water and the spirit. Is this a literal requirement—literal water and the Holy Spirit? The thief on the cross had not been baptized by water as far as we know. Is he a random exception? If one is required unless it’s impossible because of time/circumstances than why don’t we enforce circumcision, anymore—unless it’s impossible? What if someone accepts Christ but doesn’t really get the not eating unclean meats, does that person really accept the SDA message? The verse seems crystal-clear on its face, but is it? We discussed how Catholic Theology recognizes baptism as a sacrament that does something unexplainable in the believer, but for Protestants it’s just a symbol? If baptism is just a symbol than why does it matter if the person is sprinkled on or dunked under? I have now come to the realization that I need to research the SDA theology of baptism—I’m sure we’ve got a class on it! How can a bible student know when to take a text literally or symbolically? What are the keys to unlocking the interpretation of the scripture?
Now with regards to the remnant. What exactly is the remnant? The question that evokes the most discussion we slightly sidestepped or I missed it, is will all those currently living in the last days who are caught up after the dead rise be Seventh-day Adventist? Are the 144,000 (literal or symbolic) SDAs? I believe some will be and some will not be SDA’s but all of them will have the Testimony of Jesus Christ and keep the commandments (all of them) of God. When Christ says he has sheep in many pastures and that he will bring those sheep into one fold, is he talking about an organization or is he talking about a system of belief? I think he is talking about a belief system—one that worships in spirit and truth in other words one that has the testimony of Jesus and keeps the commandments of God.
While I write this, I believe that God needs an orderly vehicle to send out this message and that vehicle is the SDA Church. Everyone may not get on the vehicle but everyone who is living at the end of time and is caught up to heaven will have accepted the message carried by the vehicle and at least be going the same direction.
Evangelism, Local and Global, and Race Relations: Chapter 19
I chose to write about this chapter because I believe that evangelism is the whole point of our church existence. The Seventh day Adventist church organized so that they can spread the three Angel’s messages to the world.
However after the great disappointment of 1844, Sabbatarian Adventist adopted what was called the “shut door” policy. This was the belief that since the Sanctuary was cleansed on October 22, 1844, probation was now closed for everyone that didn’t accept William Miller's message. So therefore there was no need to witness or proselytize. Then there was a paradigm shift from the “shut door” policy to the belief that if they preached the “Three Angel’s messages” throughout the United States then they were preaching to the entire world. They believed that if they preached the three Angel’s messages to individuals in America from all over the world then they were in a sense preaching to the entire world. Then by the Holy Spirit working through Ellen White, Adventist again had another paradigm shift to the mentality that the “three Angels messages needed to go the entire world. Since that shift the three Angel’s messages have been spreading worldwide.
J.N. Andrews was the first Seventh-day Adventist missionary of which our school is named after. He and his family were sent to Europe to do missionary work. Then G. Matteson and his family were sent to do missionary work in Scandinavia. By 1890 Adventist missionaries were in about 18 countries.
Through the Spirit of prophecy the counsel that Ellen White gave for evangelizing I thought was paramount as pointed out in this chapter. From a Dec 10 1871 vision that she had Ellen White said that “Young men should be qualifying themselves by becoming familiar with other languages, that God may use them as mediums to communicate His saving truth to those of other nations. Missionaries are needed to go to other nations to preach the truth in a guarded careful manner.” (Life Sketches p.204) This was as much sound doctrine yesterday as it is today. The focus was spreading the three Angels messages on a global scale. I believe we need to be reminded of this principle on a constant basis. Sometimes it may seem that our resources are limited, however if we push forward by faith God will supply our every need.
The Holy Spirit also used Ellen White to give counsel for public Evangelism. She emphasized that workers need to be properly trained and prepared before they conduct evangelistic efforts. This is sound doctrine because no matter how much zeal one has to spread the “three Angels messages” there still needs to be some form of education to be most effective for the glory of God. As the world is constantly changing in this information age, we must continue to learn and to teach how to effectively evangelize.
Ellen White also gave counsel on the manner in which evangelistic efforts should be conducted. Evangelistic campaigns should be conducted in the Spirit of Jesus. Jesus should be exalted and reflected in all soul winning ventures. Even in Ellen White’s writing, Jesus is depicted as our Savior and example in all things no matter what the subject is that she is writing about. Ellen White gives counsel that we need to meet people where they are as Jesus met people where they were. Christ avoided controversies, speaking with simplicity by not bringing many things before them at once. This again is sound advice for today as well as it was for yesterday. I feel that we always need to take heed to this counsel when conducting any evangelistic effort. I wish I would have known this before. I thank God for maturing and learning this the hard way.
The reason why I picked this chapter to write about is because evangelism is near to my heart. Then to read the counsel that was given by the Holy Spirit through Ellen White I find to be of great advice.
Ellen White Wars and Other Reflections
I have always been fascinated by the fact that Adventists are adept at starting significant intra-denominational warfare using quotations from our esteemed prophet as their primary source of ammunition. I have heard it suggested that these wars are waged to defend “the truth” from the attacks of the evil one. However, I generally feel as if these battles do little to advance truth, instead betraying the feeble spirituality of the combatants. From the time that I was very young, I always had the sense that a large part of ministry was helping the church come to a point where these arguments ceased to be a major issue. However, I am beginning to understand that the issue may not be as easily remedied as I once thought. Our textbook reveals that from early on in the formation or our church, this squabbling over the statements of Ellen White. A prominent example comes up in relationship to the argument between James White and Dr. J.H. Kellogg. Although the details are sparse, it seems as if White and the Kellogg disagreed on an issue and used EGW quotations to make their point, belittling the other’s use of EGW quotes. Unfortunately, things haven’t changed that much. It seemed that Ellen had a lot of wisdom in this situation, sitting down in a closed room with both men and interpreting her statements for them to clarify her position. Here’s the question: since we don’t have the prophet in our midst, what is the best way for us to deal with these squabbles. Part of the problem, it seems, is that in the context of these battles, we can’t even agree on a hermeneutic to use in approaching her writings. Obviously, it’s a difficult situation. Yet there must be a way to resolve these issues without doing harm to the people involved in the conflict. If Ellen White could do it, we must be able to do through the work of the Spirit.
One thing I appreciate about this book is that it puts Ellen White and the birth of the Adventist Church in its specific socio-economic context. I’ve often thought of the beginnings of the church in almost ethereal terms at times. I very much appreciate the earthiness that is brought to the story here. We think we’re in revolutionary times because we have seen the economy shift from industry to information. We think we’re so overwhelmed by our tax burden. We feel like our culture is melting down around us. These were all feelings that seem to be shared by our early church pioneers, as brought out by Douglass. In some ways, it was even more severe. The United States was still in the process of becoming a nation. The economic base was moving from agriculture to industry. The people moved from country to city to keep up. Their politicians weren’t any more popular than ours. This was a real world with real problems. Yet in the midst of some of the biggest changes in the history of the United States, God used the Spirit of Prophecy to guide the church onto a solid foundation. It is a testament to the glory of God and the ministry of Ellen White.
I read with intrigue the chapter on her writing ministry. This section troubled me in a sense, because it brought my idea of inspiration down to earth. I’ve never really been in the camp that accepts verbal inspiration, yet I must say that my model of inspiration didn’t leave a lot of room for copyists and editors to work. The fact that Ellen White had so many copyists and trusted people that could edit her work demonstrates that inspiration isn’t restricted to the prophet. There was an interesting statement that suggested that certain editors were allowed to make changes to manuscripts as long as it didn’t alter the clear meaning of the passage. The statement interested me because five people can read the same essay and have five different evaluations of what the “clear meaning” is. Thus I would ask, the clear meaning according to who? These stories force us to crack the door of inspiration a bit wider to include those who worked under Mrs. White as she did her writing. Apparently, she always reviewed the work after it was done, yet it would be only through the Holy Spirit’s leading that an editor could always maintain the “clear meaning” of a passage as they did their work.
There were several things that stood out last week in class and in the readings that I will comment on. The first is that of the ellipse of truth. It has been very helpful in understanding the writings of Ellen White and Scripture to realize that there is a broader scope that one must come from in order to understand it correctly. One thing in particular is regarding the application of the writings. There is a pull in the natural heart towards extremism, some call it fanaticism, in many different directions. As the book says common sense is needed but that it is not to “negate Bible counsel.” (p. 96).
I can agree with all of this. Common sense is very important, and in the book it is refreshing to read about how Ellen White herself at times struggled with how to apply the word practically and with common sense. We see that each case was approached in a unique fashion, but that God’s word and principles were kept in the forefront. At times mistakes were made, but corrections were wrought and then things moved forward.
I like the statement “Sanctified common sense applies immutable truths to the human situation, taking all circumstances into account.” (p. 96). However, I have to mention a few observations about it. Perhaps the word “sanctified” is a very important key to this sentence, because it is certainly not possible for a human being to “take all circumstances” into account. For it seems that there are certain circumstances that a human can not possibly foresee or even be aware of. Take for example being confronted with a decision to abandon your “nets” and follow Jesus. Common sense would tell a person that you need to make sure you can provide for your family, make sure things are in order, and then when you have that all taken care of you can consider leaving your nets and following Jesus. But, the common sense that is of this sort is really not common sense at all, it is worldly wisdom. Sanctified common sense, on the other hand, would be to abandon ship, nets, and your earthly father and to follow the LORD of life such as the early disciples did—and some here at the Seminary.
Thus the importance of hanging on to Jesus Christ and being self-distrustful. God alone can see all circumstances and it is His wisdom and vision that is needed. So the point is that common sense good, but it must be sanctified because without God, it really is no common sense at all.
The other thing I wanted to comment upon was the idea that came out of the class discussion. I believe Stephane noticed that between each period of the remnant transition, there was a prophet. For example Abraham was a prophet and of course he was the father of the Jews. John the Baptist and Jesus Himself came on the scene during the transition from Israel to the Christian Church. Then after the Christian church you have the protestant reformation, then you have the Adventist Church. Although I do not see a particular “prophet” that was raised up to transition between the Christian church and the protestant church, unless of course you count the reformers as prophets. Which they were in a certain sense, but in another they were not like Daniel or Moses or Paul or even Ellen White.
With all of that said, Staphane is on to something. When I was at AFCOE Pastor Stephen Bohr did a biblical presentation on five totally different ways to test Ellen White Biblically. One such way looked at all of the time prophecies of the Bible and the idea was consistent that before each time prophecy in Scripture a prophet was raised and at the time of the time prophecy’s fulfillment another prophet was raised to point to the fulfillment—a prophet before the prophecy and one after it just like two book ends. Examples were Enoch and Noah (Flood), Jeremiah and Daniel (70 years captivity), Daniel and John the Baptist (70 weeks), and if I remember Abraham and Moses were in there as well somehow. Anyways, because this holds consistently true with all of the time prophecies in Scripture, it would be logical that we should expect to have seen a prophet appear at the end of the 2300 day prophecy (Daniel to start it and some prophet who would mark its fulfillment). What is amazing is that the 2300 day prophecy ended in October of 1844. Ellen White had her first vision in December, 1844. And incidentally many other “prophets” sprang up around that time, but none of them spoke to the issue of the 2300 day prophecy like Ellen White did nor did they arrive at precisely the right time. Some were years before and some after, none were in that precise year. Anyhow, I thought that was interesting.
This comment is for Clifford Lims post about Section III
The quote that you cited regarding how painful it was for Ellen White to fulfill her calling also impressed me.
I have observed that most of the men and women who have been prominent disciples of Christ such as Ellen White, Martin Luther, Paul, and others whether they were prophets or reformers they all had a heavy sense of responsibility for the souls of others.
They were willing to risk being misunderstood and even risk their entire reputation in order to deliver the message.
Ellen White gives a terrific example of what it means to labor for the souls of others. But what I really want to point out about all of this is that we look at the prophet as being on a pedestal. And lest I be misunderstood, we would do well to respect her.
However, I find that placing her on such a pedestal tends to lessen the conviction of modern day followers of Christ of their need and calling to suffer for Christs sake and bear a decided testimony against sin.
There is much talk these days about how faithful women and men of old were to the Lord Jesus Christ and a justification for a lack of obedience today.
Yet I find that in my own personal walk with Christ that He calls me personally to a life of obedience to Him and that obedience to Him requires some very painful things at certain times. LIke preaching sermons that are not popular, or visiting a backslider and sharing straight words with them.
In this day, when someone does that they are labeled as judgmental or unchristlike or unloving. It is no different today than it was in the days of the "great" men and women of faith.
My point is this: That pain that Ellen White felt is the pain that each one of us should be currently experiencing in our walk with Christ if it is that we have truly received a call from God to be His ministers. That pain is not reserved just for prophets. It is reserved for ministers of the gospel, men and women who will bear a decided testimony against sin all the while lifting high Jesus Christ and His blood stained banner.
Building Community
By
Bill Watson-Payne
I wanted to write a few comments on our class discussion yesterday, Wednesday July 16, 2008. We began with devotion on the subject of unity. Christ and the Father are one. John 17:19-21 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. NIV.
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit forms a perfect community. God wants his church to build community. Without community we are fragmented into different subsets and sects around the world. Often denominations are splintered, Conferences are splintered, and local churches are splintered. Although we know that it is God’s will for us to be unified, we still allow our desires to lead us away from community.
The gifts of the Spirit were given to lead us into community and unity of purpose. Eph.4:11-13 tells us that; 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (niv). It saddens me that it takes us so long to understand the magnitude of this text. It is after years of experience in the Field of ministry that we pastors discover that the primary focus of our ministry is to equip our people for the “works of service” and that we cannot do all the work but that we need help.
I searched the Adventist model of equipping and found none. Yes we have the Sabbath School lessons, which is supposed to lead a person into daily study of the Word and should help equip individuals for service but there is no accountability gauge in place. At our typical Sabbath School Classes, most of us sit still while the teacher instills into us what he/she has studied. The teacher should realize that she is a facilitator who stimulates the student to share their ideas and experience. Sabbath School is our only formal small group time to build community but that falls short of what it should really be. Ellen White says, “The Sabbath School should be one of the greatest instrumentalities and the most effectual in bringing souls to Christ.” —Counsels on Sabbath School Work, p. 10. Where is this taking place in the current model of Sabbath School?
I have had the joy of studying holistic small groups ministry for 10 years and one of the biggest part of small groups ministry is building community. As a matter of fact we are very intentional about it. The five pillars that build holistic small groups can be assigned to each finger on one hand. The thumb represents community, the pointer finger represents evangelism—Jesus said “GO”, the middle finger or the longest finger represents leadership, the ring finger represents accountability and the weakest finger represents equipping. Most of our churches do not have a process to equip their members, the Adventist church and other denominations.
I strongly believe that Small Groups Ministry is the answer to building the community that Jesus spoke about. That is what the early church was built on, that was also how the Advent Movement got started and it is something that Ellen White encouraged and taught. She said, “The formation of small companies as a basis of Christian effort is a plan that has been presented before me by One who can not err. If there is a large number in the church, let the members be formed into small companies, to work not only for the church members but for unbelievers also” Evangelism, p. 115.
Third Reflection Paper
In this last reflection paper, I am going to touch on two aspects that I have found in our section 5 reading. First, I will take issue with something that Dr. Douglass mentioned on page 259 under the subtitle, “One thread unravels the fabric.” Second, I will comment on some aspects mentioned in chapter 29, “Principles and Philosophy.”
First, Dr. Douglass refers to the dire consequences of “unraveling” even one doctrine, as demonstrated in the history of the Christian church. Then he states how Ellen White has traced doctrines in a skillful matter, and the beneficial effect her unifying influence has had on the Adventist Church. I would agree with Dr. Douglass that Ellen White did in her writings solidify and contribute to the doctrines that we hold very dear, and that the Christian church in its history has largely failed to hold the fabric of truth together.
Thus far I have no problem with his concept of one thread unravels the fabric. However, I do take issue with Dr. Douglass in the second paragraph where he states: “Ellen White’s theological concepts were not ‘divinely’ transmitted through her as water passes through a pipe. Nor was she a systematic theologian. She was primarily a communicator, guided by heavenly counsel. Her mission was to comfort where people needed encouragement and to correct those errors that either misrepresent God or incorrectly define how men and women are finally saved.”
I think I know what he is trying to say; however, he may not have made himself clear or perhaps he has a different view of Ellen White’s role than I do. I believe that Ellen White was a communicator; her mission was to comfort where people needed encouragement and to correct the misrepresentation of God, etc. However, I do not believe this was her “primary” role, but those elements were part of the entire picture of what she did as a prophet. Furthermore, my biggest concern in this paragraph is the comment that Ellen White was not a systematic theologian. I would have liked for Dr. Douglass to define what he meant by this term.
I believe, as I have mentioned in the previous paragraph, that Ellen White fulfilled these elements stated by Dr. Douglass, and yet she was also more than that; she was also a theologian or a “systematic theologian.” Dr. Douglass may not have meant it that way, but the paragraph gives the impression that Ellen White was everything but a theologian. If this was the case, how do we account for her contribution of deep Biblical truth about the Trinity, for example? What about concepts in her writings where some theologians who have Greek and Hebrew language are able to understand passages because of the special meaning brought forward by these languages, yet Ellen White, who did not have a knowledge of those languages, brought out their meaning as clearly as do those well-educated professors? I believe that Ellen White was just as much a theologian as was Paul, who also was a prophet. If Ellen White is not the type of theologian that we are imagining, why do we look at Jonah for theology? What about Moses, Isaiah and John; were they not also theologians? If these people are not theologians, but primarily communicators to God’s people of what was going to happen or to help them to grow spiritually, why do we study those books in the Bible or do theology on those books?
I do resonate with Dr. Douglass that Ellen White’s “understanding of theology was grounded in vision experiences and grew through the years as she listened to her Adventist colleagues cross-pollinate each other with their Biblical studies” (p. 259), especially at the beginning of her ministry. But this was not always the case throughout her ministry. She also theologized the Word of God when writing about it, as did the prophets found in the Bible. Perhaps there is a lack of balance or clarity in this area on the part of Dr. Douglass.
Second, Dr. Douglass outlined the “principles and philosophy” of education, which, in this terse chapter, reminded me about good education. One principle that I really enjoyed reading and reflecting on again is that students need to be thinkers, not mere reflectors of others’ thoughts. We as students too often tend to be more reflectors of what we hear, read and learn because of the stress of education. I also do acknowledge the fact that we often see this “self-seeking, self-ambition and selfish rivalry” in the educational system that we are in. One may think that it does not have to be that way, but perhaps it is augmented by the fact of our having slipped away from some of the principles and philosophy given to us. Of course there may never be a full conformity to these principles, yet perhaps our educational system should strive for a better balance and endeavor to be more in harmony with what God has counseled.
I was glad to read that a good “thinker is a learned event. Learning to think is a joint effort by thinking teachers and eager students” (p. 350). It may not always be the case with either party, but I hope that there is an eagerness by both sides to reach this level of quality of learning. I also hope that I as a pastor will be able to transmit this type of learning to my churches. May God help us.
Miraculous Reality
Ellen G. White is said to have had around 200 visions in about 23 years (by 1868, however she lived until 1915, and had visions up until she died), some for as long as three hours. Her first came over 150 years ago. During these visions she would sometimes display physical phenomenon such as super-strength, no breathing at all, the ability to point to a verse in the Bible that she could not see (for the Bible might be above her head) and read it word for word as her finger followed along, among other things. And she was not the only one to have had visions in her lifetime. At least two other people (both men) had them before she did.
If they happened today would we believe? In a recent article in Philippine Frontier Missions two stories were told of dead men (boys) who were medically dead but even after their stiff bodies were pronounced dead, the faith of two different individuals asking for God’s intervention, brought them both back to life. This was mentioned in class and a classmate made a joke about it (and he was from the Philippines). Do we really believe that miracles happen today? When they happen do we dismiss them out of hand? What then does that say of our faith in the miracles mentioned in the Bible?
Take time to read the stories surrounding the visions of Ellen G. White and you will find that many had miraculous events attached to them. The people who lived at the same time with her were also skeptical of them, but these miracles served to prove to these skeptics that the visions were of supernatural origins. But what if they were too skeptical of the miraculous happenings? What if they didn’t believe the miracles even though these miracles were sent to help them get past their skepticism? Even more important, what happens if we don’t believe?
In 1863, Ellen G. White had her most important vision on health. The point of the vision was that to work for God we must have good health. Dr. Don McMahon writes that before 1863, on October 21, 1858, Ellen wrote that she was against eating only vegetables, that if God wanted His people to stop eating swine flesh He would convict them of it, that she was dependent on a meat diet to survive, that she hated eating bread, and that she ate more than three meals a day. The Whites lived on a high-salt, high-animal fat, low-bread, almost no-vegetable diet in which they had more than three meals a day that was mostly meat. They were under a high-stress, high-strain workload. Two years after the 1863-vision, James had a stroke and no wonder! A modern doctor would have recommended a radical change in lifestyle. None of the drugs available in their day would be recommended. James would have been told to reduce stressful activity, increase rest, increase relaxation, exercise more with non-stressful activity, undergo a dietary change that would reduce kilojoule intake, and to lose weight. He would have been told today to reduce meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption. And salt would have been highly restricted. All of this is what was in her vision, but none of it was being recommended by doctors in their day. Ellen followed this council and lived to a rare age (in her day) of 87 years. In 1888, she uplifted Jesus along with Waggoner and Jones. After 1888, she wrote, Steps to Christ (1892), Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings (1896), The Desire of Ages (1898), Christ’s Object Lessons (1900), and The Ministry of Healing (1905). What if she hadn’t accepted the health message? What if she hadn’t changed? These are the greatest books that she wrote! What if we don’t accept the message?
It is too easy to just dismiss the workings of God. If someone had a vision today, would we be open-minded enough to test? When we hear of miracles in the mission field or hear at home are we too quick to search for a scientific explanation? When we hear the name Ellen White do we remember the kooky things we have hear or read that people say about her? Isn’t the existence of God miraculous to the scientific mind? Maybe we need to hold back the skepticism of things that sound too good to be true and weigh the facts. If we don’t we might forget that God is also a miraculous reality.
Ellen White ate oysters and drank a pint of wine!
My mom joined the Seventh-day Adventist church when I was eight years old. Each session she attended of the Daniel and Revelation seminar brought change - no more Saturday morning cartoons, no more snacking on fruit roll ups, no more sharing a jar of pig’s feet with grandpa. I am grateful that my mom was convicted and implemented these changes while I was young. It seems the older one gets, the harder it is to change. While reading through Section V, I appreciated the segment entitled “Led Step by Step.” (p. 282). Two thousand years ago, Jesus declared to his disciples, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” In Ellen White’s day, He was calling Adventists to take the next step in personal reform. Even though Ellen White received visions regarding health reform, she did not receive all of the principles at once nor implement changes all at once in her personal life. This is evident from the reading that Ellen White ate oysters, cheese, meat, and drank a pint of fermented grape juice.*
I reflected on the previous readings regarding the revelation of spiritual truths. God works in His time and it is always the right time! The call of Ellen White came just in time to encourage the disappointed Millerites. The telegram containing a Bible verse was received by Pastor Campbell “in the nick of time.” Ellen White received visions in time to correct many doctrinal issues as demonstrated in the question of when to begin the weekly Sabbath. Another timely truth was revealed in the interaction of the body, mind, and spirit.
Most of the dietary aspects of health reform seem common sense today. Internet search engines feature a health nugget on their daily homepage. Commercials promote their product as the answer to the latest health crisis. Cereal boxes flaunt “heart healthy” labels and entice consumers to submit their stories to be featured on the back of the cereal box! Restaurants add “vegetarian” items to their menu to keep up with the growing demand. Being healthy is in vogue.
But the middle of the nineteenth century had different notions regarding health. “People generally saw no connection between their life style and disease.” (p. 320) There was no surgeon general’s warning printed on a cigarette pack. Ellen White presented seemingly fanatical views regarding: yeast germ in bread, butter, dietary fiber, eating meat, mixing fruits and vegetables at the same meal, drinking milk, consuming caffeine, city living, soaking up the sun, exercising, sleeping, and trusting in God.
Although I am a vegetarian, (thanks to watching cows and chickens being slaughtered in the dead of a Chilean summer) I appreciate Ellen White’s comments that eating meat should not be a test of salvation. However, I could see how her counsel such as found on page 322 (“Ministers who eat meat “set an evil example,” and make it difficult for others to have “confidence” in them) could be misconstrued. Did not the diet of Jesus, Minister of Ministers, consist of fish and lamb?
*To apply common sense and avoid the spreading of rumors, I feel compelled to clarify this statement. According to Douglass, “Early Adventists did not understand the distinction between clean and unclean meats.” (p. 314) Also, drinking the "pint" was over the course of a year for medicinal purposes and not intentional. A considerable amount of knowledge can be acquired by reading the endnotes as exhibited in #5 on page 317 “In the nineteenth century; no method had been devised to keep grape juice from fermenting…When the Whites used the term “domestic wine,” they referred to grape juice as free from fermentation as possible.”
Joseph V. Thelusca
The Life & Ministry of E.G. White
July 25, 2008
Reflection III
The Role of the Inspired Messenger
Our journey began a few weeks ago as we have been examining the life and ministry of Ellen G. White in relations to her prophetic roles as the messenger of the Lord for the remnant church. Having said that, I want to spend a great portion of my time in this brief reflection to discuss her role as a prophetess, the authority of her writings and how she viewed her writings vis-Ã -vis the only rule of faith and practice, i.e., the Bible. Also, the fact that we spent much time discussing the issue of inspiration and biblical interpretation throughout the week, I think there should be something said on this if time and space permit. However, my main priority is to explore the role sister White and her writings as the inspired Messenger of the Lord. First and foremost, the prophetess herself stated that her writings and visions are not a substitute for Bible study. She categorically urged her readers and fellow brethren make the word of God, the Bible the only source of light and guidance of their lives. That’s being the case, would that imply that her visions and writings were less inspired than that of the Holy Scripture? My answer to that pertinent question would be a big “no” because as we have seen in class throughout our weekly discussion, the biblical writers were not more inspired than Sister White because they were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Prophecy.
Based on my reading of the book and having come across some significant insights from the prophetess, it is clear that her writings had a dual role that are unique to her ministry and the development of remnant Church. The primary function of her writing is to serve as warning to the general public, but not as doctrinal authority because only the Holy Scripture must be used as proof when debating with unbelievers. The second purpose of her testimonies is geared toward the believers and church members in that she advised those who are already in the church to embrace her writings as truth from God because they are in full harmony with the word of God and because they are divine inspired truths from heaven. Another striking observation that I make is that Mrs. White made it clear that her writings are not infallible in that only God is infallible because He is God, the creator of all things. Such is the case, her writings should not be elevated to that of scripture even though the inspiration of both was a manifestation from the same Holy Spirit.
In addition, Mrs. White appeared to believe that it was quite normal for her to revise her later works as she was given greater lights or truth. Whereas the Bible is the unchangeable inspired word of God which will last until eternity, therefore I fully concur with her that the only rule of faith and practice ought to be the Bible. In addition, I further agree with her reasoning that her writings must not be presented to folks who don’t know the Lord yet because her writings are not and should not be treated as an alternative for the holy word of God. Now, on the area of inspiration, she made it by accentuating that God did not dictate her word even though her writings reflect the inspired thoughts of God to his people. I would like to believe that sister White did her best to convey God’s thoughts and message with the best possible words that she could use taken into consideration her human frailties and lacking. I am amazed to across one of her statement where she bluntly penned that her writings would have not been necessary if the Christians had made God’s words the focus of their study in order to reach the Bible standard and reach Christian perfection. With that in mind, I would argue that the Christians should always start with the word of God, i.e., the Bible and if further clarity is needed, her works ought to be consulted. However, I think regardless of one’s views about her works, they ought to be viewed as God’s revealed truths and should be read as frequently as possible in addition to the word of God.
Chad Washburn
GSEM532
Martin Hanna, Ph. D
Response for week 3
Response to class lectures regarding: The Spirit of Prophecy is still alive and well today in the Church, however it seems that no one is embracing it, or maybe they don’t know they are embracing it. When I’m talking about the Spirit of Prophecy, I’m not just talking about EGW but the Bible as well. This class has been refreshing to see that the Spirit of Prophecy is much broader than EGW or the Bible, but it includes all those who proclaim to follow Christ by embracing and sharing the message. As we look at the church in it’s sleeping state, it seems that we need another prophet to get us back on track; to get us back in our Bibles and the Spirit of Prophecy, but does God need another prophet to do this? I like what the teacher said in class that the Spirit of Prophecy in EGW is still relevant for today, and it message is applicable. We as pastors are called to bring the church back to the Bible and to the Spirit of Prophecy. We are all lesser lights as EGW was, to bring people back to the Bible, to help them gain a deeper knowledge of God and His plan of salvation. What a great responsibility and challenge that lies ahead of us because of the secular world we live in. I heard from some friends who just came back from Germany and they said that our church is dieing over there because people of the Church don’t want to hear the Bible preached from the pulpit any more, they want something new and exciting. Dr. Hanna mentioned in class that when we go out to preach, we need to bring new insights out of the scriptures, and we should do it in a way that people can see that it is possible to find these new insights by themselves, that it doesn’t take a masters degree in theology. He said you could do this partly by not preaching as if you know everything about the text, thus leaving the church members a challenge of exploring the Word for themselves. I think it would be cool as a pastor to prepare some study questions that go along with your sermon and challenge people to find the answers and share what they found the next week. What really got me into the Word was when my pastor left our church and the elders of my church gave my brother and I the responsibility of teaching the pastors class. Getting members active in ministry will definitely get them in the Word; people need the challenge of sharing their faith, which comes by the Word of God.
Response to The Messenger: I really enjoyed Section five, partly because I’m a health nut myself. I’ve been SDA all my life but had no clue that we had a health message beside my mom saying I couldn’t eat pork, and certain sea foods. It wasn’t until I was 20 years old I heard the health message and it was from my youth teacher who was a fairly new SDA who was just learning it himself and it didn’t take him to long before he became a fanatic and I became one too, a full fledge Vegan. I had come from a fourth generation SDA Family and I couldn’t understand why they didn’t fully embrace the health message. The health message became hell message for me and I felt it was my duty to try to convert my whole family, to get them ready for translation. How did this all happen, that is, my fanatic view of the health message? Well it started by not knowing how to read EGW’s book on Counsels on Diet and Foods. Douglass in Section five made it clear to me where I went wrong by this quote from EGW in the Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1870: “The Lord also knew how to introduce to His waiting people the great subject of health reform, step by step, so they could bear it, and make good use of it, without souring the public mind.” (Douglass 282). God doesn’t reveal truth in one big step, but by step by step so you’re able to bear it and especially so people can bear to be around you. Our churches health reform didn’t come all at once. I found it interesting to see that Ellen White had her own struggles with the health reform; she said it “came directly across my own ideas.” I found it interesting that it took Ellen White some time to embrace the health message (such as not eating meat and dairy) and that in some situations, when circumstances made it impossible to be a vegetarian she would eat meat. I don’t know if I could do this.
I also like how Douglass brought out the real reason why God gave us the health reform: 1st Humanitarian principle (it was the Lord’s means for lessening suffering in our world, 2nd Evangelical principle (used as a bridge to share the gospel), 3rd Soteriological principle (getting people bodies ready for the coming of the Lord). Out of these three principles I only embraced the last one, and I think this what made me unbalance.
Douglass said “…Ellen White wrote that some who were health reform advocates ‘were extremists, and would run the health reform into the ground…Their influence would disgust believers and unbelievers’” (Douglass 306). I know I lost my influence with my family because of the way I first presented the health message, however I did learn on my own, that I should live the message myself, and let my life be example what the health message can do in a life of a believer. I did have a friend who lost His wife and two boys over the health message. I’m glad my family gave me a break and forgave me for my arrogance. I wished I had known that the health message were only principles to live by, and not a policy demanded from the Lord’s prophet.
Douglass does a very good job showing that the principles of the health message do work and can be seen in the life of the believers. Douglass shows lots of data that shows SDA are much healthier and live much longer than the vast population.
Wk3
Openness:
I was impressed during my reading this week by how open Ellen White was to change. We have gained a clear understanding from our textbook and also from Dr. Hanna that Ellen White clearly did not mean for her writings to ever supersede the Bible. Her writings were in fact written so that believers would have a stronger desire to search scripture and strive to reach the biblical standard of Christian perfection. I appreciated the quote on page 170 in Messenger of the Lord that said, “She never claimed infallibility, always emphasizing that “God alone is infallible.” She was always open to the unfolding of new truth. Progressive truth, for her, would not contradict previously revealed truths but expand it.” This idea of progressive truth seemed so prevalent in her ministry that I think it allowed her to have a more open or, dare I say, holistic approach to scripture and God’s workings.
I have appreciated the way Dr. Hanna has challenged us to view ideas more openly and to not be close-minded in our thoughts. To me having an open mind is crucial in a world of uncertainty. I like knowing there is more than one way to look at a situation or problem and have enjoyed hearing thoughts along those lines during our lectures and throughout our reading.
I saw how this process of thinking openly took place during our class discussion on Tuesday, 7/22. We were discussing certain ideas behind baptism, whether water baptism was necessary or if the baptism by the Spirit was what really mattered. Our discussion brought up questions such as “What is more important, water baptism or Spirit baptism?” and “If water baptism is a symbol pointing to the greater baptism (Spirit) then was no one baptized before Jesus came?” These types of questions required me to open myself to a different style of thinking. As we strived to answer these questions we realized that the full truth about the Holy Spirit was not completely understood during the Old Testament, however the Bible clearly teaches that the Spirit was present in the Old Testament and also that the power of God was more than available prior to the coming of Christ that it even took some home to heaven early! By not limiting my understanding I was able to a deeper level of understanding than before.
This thought can be elaborated on while thinking about Hebrews 1:1, a verse that was shared in class by Dr. Hanna. The idea that God spoke at different times and in different ways to the prophets of old should speak loud and clear to us that we serve a multi-faceted God who does not limit Himself to one direct route. By expanding on this thought it would be easy to think that God is speaking through many of us today and in many different ways, which might be scary to some, but fortunately God has given us though His grace, the Spirit of Prophecy that enables us and helps us discern a wide variety of thoughts and ideas.
I have really enjoyed reading and learning the different ways in which Ellen White’s ministry was open to greater light. I’m finding that her openness is enabling me to have a stronger and more well-rounded perception of her and it is helpful to me. An example of this can be found in chapter 19 where Mrs. White deals with Race relations. Her counsel was to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” She recognized that the dark times they were living in were only temporary and that eventually a brighter day would come. Her thinking was not limited; it was open to brighter ideas and larger thinking. This open-minded style of thinking is something that we as Pastor’s would do well to incorporate into our lives if we have not yet done so. Thankfully we are able to learn beneath and alongside wonderful teachers here at the seminary that help us expand our mental boundaries and become more open to new light!
Blessings,
Mike
In this blog, I want to comment on a few things in Section 4 that I found interesting to me, particularly because they have relevance to things we face in today’s society.
In the 1888 General Conference, the delegates saw a principle held through Ellen White’s ministry. First, Bible study, then confirmation through divine revelation. Reading this was a challenge to me as to how to use her works. Too often I have found myself taking a shortcut to Bible study by going to her comments on the particular passage and preaching a sermon based on that. Looking at this principle, I see this as a challenge to how we as pastors write sermons. Its so easy to get caught up in the busyness of ministry that before we know it it’s late in the week and we have no sermon, so we find ourselves looking online, looking to commentaries, looking to Ellen White for a shortcut to a sermon. While this method may work sometimes, it cannot substitute for good Bible study and time in God’s word.
Looking at the issues we have against Ellen White in recent years, I have found in my own personal experience, that the reason that people dislike Ellen White so much is that they have not used this principle. The go to divine inspiration first and take bits and pieces of her writings to prove a personal point they have. As a result of not using this principle, needless people have been hurt by people who do not go about using this principle of searching the scriptures first then looking to her comments on the subject and taking a “holistic” understanding to the issue, which would have prevented many of the misunderstandings that have happened.
The bottom line in this issue is the issue of taking time to do good Bible study. In today’s society, we like things fast and easy. In fact there is a commercial on TV that has people pressing the “Easy” button so things happen quickly and without much effort. As pastors its easy to fall into that mindset and that lifestyle. This principle is a challenge to not go down that route, or if we’re on that route, avoid it and learn to do good Bible study, so that our sermons will come out of a heart that is grounded in the word, rather than a sermon put together the night before by stringing a bunch of Ellen White quotes together and calling it a sermon. A challenge for ministers who are constantly pressed for time on every side, but one that I believe God wants us to take up for the sake of His children.
A second challenge that she issued to ministers was in dealings with ministers of other faiths. Too often we are scared of mingling with others as we either don’t want to get polluted and converted by them or we don’t think it important, yet Ellen White “urged that Seventh-day Adventist ministers should come near to the ministers of other denominations. Pray, for and with these men for whom Christ is interceding…As Christ’s messengers, we should manifest a deep earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock.” (Douglass 223) The underlying emphasis is on unity as it fulfills Christ’s prayer in John 17 is this simple concept: Truth must not be sacrificed to achieve unity.” (Douglass 223) How often have I neglected to do this in my ministry, yet how important it is to reach out to my friends of other denominations and build bridges for Christ and gain credibility for the work of the church. This may be a bit of a challenge, but as a pastor, it challenges me to dig deep into what I know and be firmly grounded in the truth, yet at the same time, be willing to focus on the relationship with other men and see them as other human beings not as sheep from another flock that are misguided and going to hell. This is something that I will have to be intentional about when I head back into the field.
As I have said in earlier blogs, as I have read more about this oft misunderstood woman, I have found a woman who was deeply committed to her God and let His love influence her interactions will all men. What a challenge for us as ministers to follow this woman’s example. If we do, I believe we will be better students of the word and more loving to our fellow man.
Section IV
The section on receiving government aid was very interesting to me. From time to time I have run across individuals who have held that the church should not receive any sort of government aid. Along with this is the idea that a church should not ever become a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization. There was one individual who even was trying to say that the 501(c)3 status was an indication that the church had apostatized and was caught up with anti-Christ.
It is encouraging to read about Ellen White’s encouragement to read the book of Nehemiah prayerfully and to consider how God worked things out between His people and the secular government of that day. I have wondered how some have concluded that we are to never receive government aid in light of that passage of Scripture, for it was the government aid that enabled Nehemiah to be able to do what God was calling him to do.
The section did challenge me to consider religious liberty and study it out more. Because I have read some of A.T. Jones material, especially when he stood before congress fighting against the Sunday law that was being promoted in his day. Based upon how he argues in there, if I remember correctly, I could see how he could come to the conclusion that we should not ever receive government aid. But, then in our reading it says that White warned against buying into “false principles” regarding religious liberty. Exactly what does that mean? What portion of the religious liberty principles being advocated were false? Which were true?
Once again a recurring thought popped its head up again in this section, namely that Seventh-day Adventists are to be reaching out to the other denominations. On page 223 of the book it said “Further, she [Ellen White] urged that Seventh-day Adventist ministers should ‘come near to the ministers of other denominations. Pray for and with these men, for whom Christ is interceding…As Christ’s messengers, we should manifest a deep, earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock.’”
I also appreciated Hanna’s comments in class regarding having John the Baptist’s attitude:
We need to have John the Baptist’s attitude “He [Christ] must increase but I must decrease.” Because in the end it is not going to be limited to an institution. God is not bound by an institution to finish the work. Does that mean that God does not have a remnant? No, it just means that God’s remnant is not confined by physical institutional boundaries, it transcends denominational boundaries. In the end there is only going to be two groups, the righteous and the wicked. How many organizational structures and denominations will make up the wicked? Will it only be one denomination? (i.e. the Catholic’s or the Protestants? What about Wiccan’s or Buddhists? In the end is there only going to be one organizational structure or one denomination that is saved? No, God does not save institutions, He saves people.
It seems that in the end there will be several organizational structures used and many different dynamics going at the same time involving those who will be saved. Already we are seeing entire churches adopt the Advent message entire Sunday keeping churches are becoming Sabbath keepers, but I am not sure how these churches are working out the logistics of their change in terms of tithe and offering structure. It is going to be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I think Hanna has a point that we are silly to think that when things get down to the wire, the pressure is on, and people are joining and leaving the ranks that all the “organizational” matter is going to be clear cut. God’s church is going to have to be extremely fluid and able to roll with the punches. What if an entire Non-Adventist denomination of some sort who had teachings and doctrines similar in some respects to us saw the way things were heading in the final moments of earths history had its leadership suddenly have a change of heart and decided to join the ranks of the Adventists and proclaim the Three Angels Messages?
Ellen White (Health Reform)
In section V of the “Messenger of the Lord” the book discussed the health message that was given from inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy to Ellen White. This health message was clearly ahead of all the medical expertise of its time. The medical world to this day is still behind in some regards to the Health message but is slowly catching up.
Ellen White connected a healthy mind and body in the role of the Great Controversy. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Ellen White knew that a healthy and sober mind was needed in order to understand Bible truths and here clear direction from the Spirit of Prophecy. Ellen White connected the relation of health and spirituality in a serious manner. In 1875 Ellen White called this interaction between mind and body “a mysterious and wonderful relation. They react upon each other.” She also said that ‘it cannot be to the glory of God for His children to have sickly bodies or dwarfed minds.” The Bible says in 1Corintians 10:31
“ Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
So that view is also supported by the Bible as well.
However Ellen White wasn’t the first Adventist that actually had the health message. Through his gained wisdom from being a sea captain at the age of 32 Joseph Bates gave up and abstained from all intoxicating drinks. Then 19 years later he decided to give up all flesh food. Then later on Ellen White was given vision concerning these matters and advocated to abstain from them as well.
Just recently I read an article online explaining that if you eat less then you are likely to live longer. It’s funny that this counsel was given over a hundred years ago by Ellen White. This just goes to show you how far ahead of time were her counsels.
Ellen White had also consistently linked the health message with the “third angel’s message”-as close as the “hand is with the body.” Today I believed that a lot of us Adventist who are aware of these words of inspiration from Ellen White have become lazy in really applying these health guidelines to our life and also connecting it with evangelism. I catch myself some time bypassing the meat selection in a buffet to go the dessert aisle only to indulge in cake and cookies. I don’t believe that this is the health message that Ellen White had in mind. I believe now than ever before we need to fine tune our views on health reform. We need to have a more holistic approach to the way in which we go about teaching the health message. This past 4th of July weekend my family and I had the opportunity to spend some with my wife supervisor’s family. My wife supervisor is also attending Andrews University where she is trying to get her Doctorate’s in Education. She had already expressed to my wife that she noticed that Adventist were very strange. She taught that they were strange because the ones that were in her class abstain from meat but they ate candy, ice cream, cake and just about everything else. My wife supervisor therefore couldn’t understand the over emphasis on not eating any meat but at the same time eating junk food with no regards. I think too many of us, and I say us are guilty of given this false unbalanced view of the health message. Too many of us approach eating chicken and fish as if that is a sin but at the same time drown a boat load of cookies, cake and ice cream. If we are educated better from what is written from the Spirit of Prophecy, then we will clearly see that large amounts of sugar as well as fat is very damaging to our bodies.
Therefore all us who are in ministry must educate better and have a more holistic approach to the health message.
Title: Only God is Infallible
Comments on Class Discussions (Week – 3)
I think that the in-class discussions that we have been having regarding prophets and infallibility is quite interesting. God in His merciful ways uses human beings as His instruments. He is the One who designates some to serve as His agents/prophets. However, God could communicate His messages to us without any human intermediaries. He chooses humans to reach fellow human beings. However, no human being can claim infallibility. Only the One giving the message is infallible. The message that He transmits to us is also infallible. However, His messengers at various times and for various reasons falter in communicating God’s intended message. At times, it may be that a prophet is too hasty in communicating that which God had not prompted him/her to say. Nathan’s response to David’s desire to build the Temple is a classic example of the fallible nature of prophets. The fact that Nathan spoke out too quickly and out of terms did not cause him to lose his status as a prophet. God, in His merciful ways, decided to still use him just a few moments after he had erred in delivering the intended message. We still consider Nathan a legitimate prophet despite this shortcoming. I think that Ellen White should also be regarded in the same light even though she missed the mark on certain points and had to recant and reinterpret her messages. For instance, those who discredit Ellen White’s status as a prophet on the account of her struggles with the “shut door” theory must also consider Nathan’s status as a prophet given that the Bible clearly refers to him as such.
In addition to Nathan, there are also other individuals referred to as prophets who did not live infallible lives. Moses is one such example. Though Moses received direct commands from God throughout his life, he made some very egregious and costly mistakes. Even though Moses was called by God in an extra ordinary fashion and received clear instructions from Him, he still faltered in his response to God’s leading. As a prophet who, at times, received audible messages from God, Moses was in a prime position to live an infallible life. This leads us to understand that infallibility, even in the ranks of prophets, is unattainable. Therefore, infallibility cannot be one of the tests used to determine whether an individual is a prophet. If that were the case, no one would actually be able to attain the status of prophet. Thus, it becomes critical that we look at the sum total of a prophet’s life. In every instance, we should apply the test supported by Isaiah 8:20 saying “to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” We should also apply the other tests prescribed in the Word of God in analyzing the legitimacy of a prophet. However, we should not be too quick to dismiss a person as being a counterfeit prophet. However, this is not to say that there aren’t false prophets. There are indeed countless individuals who claim to speak for God without that ever being the case. Thus, it becomes important for us to follow the balanced approach that Dr. Hanna has been advising us to take. So, in terms of this topic, we need to keep in mind that prophets aren’t on the same level as God. Prophets are not divine! They are divinely inspired. At the same time, we must not denigrate or discount the status of a prophet. We should also not lower the bar in terms of the importance of their roles. Prophets are indeed special in that they have a particular connection with God. They are unique in that they have been divinely commissioned for an extraordinary task. Nonetheless, the bible says that all (including true prophets) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All the true prophets who have ever walked on the face of the earth will be saved solely by the blood of the Lamb. Thus, there is only One who is just, infallible, and without any blame – that is God!
James Dieujuste
This comment is in regards to Stephane B’s post #3:
Hi Stephane,
I appreciated your comments and thought that you made several good points. But I get a little different perspective when I read the quotes you referred to and so I’d like to share.
Regarding the statement you made “However, I do take issue with Dr. Douglass in the second paragraph where he states: “Ellen White’s theological concepts were not ‘divinely’ transmitted through her as water passes through a pipe. Nor was she a systematic theologian….”
The way I understood the phrase of her theological concepts were not “transmitted…as water through a pipe” can best be described by asking a few questions.
How is water transmitted through a pipe? Is it a direct shot? Does the pipe itself make any contribution to the water?
In light of the answers to these questions how about God’s conveying a theological message through Ellen White. Did God “dictate” to her His theological message and all she was like was a pipe that channels the “direct” message right to the people, like water in a pipe? Or did God inspire her and Ellen White then conveyed God’s message using the literary talents and language that she knew?
In other words, what I got from the author using the phrase “water in a pipe” I thought that it fit in harmony with everything else he has been saying in the book thus far. Namely that God did not dictate to Ellen White, or any of the prophets, exactly word for word the theological message they were to write down.
The second aspect of your comment regarding taking issue with Douglas in saying that Ellen White was not a systematic theologian. Once again, I think the author may have had a different idea of what a systematic theologian is. When I read his comment and read that he didn’t think Ellen White was a “Systematic Theologian” I didn’t get the sense that he didn’t think she had anything theological to contribute, for he has written a whole book affirming that she did indeed, but what I got was that she was not some “official systematic theologian” in the technical sense of the term. Wikipedia indicates that there are three overlapping uses of the term 'systematic theology' in contemporary Christian theology and while I won’t quote those here, I don’t think Ellen White fits into any one of those categories.
I guess technically one could argue that Ellen White examined themes topically and in some cases chronologically. But as I look at the definition of what a systematic theologian does, I do not immediately think of Ellen White as one. And to be honest I am not so sure that I would think of Peter or James or John the Baptist, and maybe even Paul as one either. They were prophets and their main mission was not “systematic theology” but they were sent as God’s messengers to get His message across to the people in the best way possible. But they did not sit down and try to categorize and systematize and create theological systems as to how things worked.
Anyhow that’s my two cents worth. Regarding education, I agree whole heartedly with you. There needs to be more teaching that shows students how to master texts. The Bible for instance. As future pastors, it seems to me that the primary text book of each class that we take in the seminary should be the Bible. We study a lot about the Bible, and we read a lot of books about what the Bible teaches and about what other people have discovered for themselves out of the Bible, but it is rare that we actually are taken to the text itself. Except in Dr Hanna’s class.
Hanna’s class so far for me has encouraged the most Bible reading! So that is a good thing, I appreciate Hanna’s use of Scripture in class and his encouragement to wrestle with the concepts.
I found the section on Theological Crisis really interesting. This comment will address legalism vs. liberalism, difficulties in clarifying the present truth, and departing from ‘landmark truths.
The protestant world is suffering the same weaknesses in polarity as in Ellen White’s (EGW) day. They either “do not see the wondrous things in the law of God for all who are doers of His Word or the others cavil over trivialities and neglect the weightier matters, mercy and the love of God.” We go to one extreme or another, Adventists in particular like to stress the law and argument. Unfortunately, we fail to show Christ’s love, we keep the commandments of God but lack the faith of Jesus Christ. I think there is a movement within the Church to rediscover what it means to have Christ’s accepting love. At the same time, we are having difficulty finding the balance of love and obedience individually and corporately. I believe it is our failure to “go to the Bible,” meaning real personal bible study on our personal questions at home, which has led to our frequently off-balanced approach. We do not study the positions that we do not like and seek a fresh and open understanding.
I found particularly interesting the authors’ points on page 198 in particular, the last “clarifying and restating the principles of the “precious message” that was the beginning of the “loud cry” will become “the one subject that will swallow up” all others.” What does the author believe EGW meant by this? It seems that each of the controversies, 1888, Holy Flesh movement, the Kellogg Pantheist issue started out as clarifying positions but then went off track. It seems a fine line to discern between restating and clarifying to a radical departure.
One way presented by the author was to see how the belief completely works out in the lives of the believers. This seems to be how EGW acted in the Kellogg Pantheist issue. She warned gently and then waited—prayerfully so all could fully understand the issues. This seems the hardest to deal with because it seems like it allows for the possibility of more strife.
Another way to discern was if it departs from landmarks. However, one has to understand what the landmarks of our faith are! Before, I came to the Seminary, I read about the 1888 Minneapolis issue and some of the writings of Jones and Haskell. As I read I realized I wasn’t sure what the landmarks of the SDA church were. I asked several pastors. I found that they seemed to have little idea beyond the Sabbath. They weren’t helpful. This may be are problem today, that our leaders and members do not understand the foundations of our belief, the relevance of the sanctuary message, Jesus as High Priest in the first phase of the Holy place and the second in the Holy of Holies (205). As I read this I thought, “umm how does that relate to the Ballenger/Sanctuary Crisis?” Apparently, I too am not understanding how this landmark belief practically impacts our unique understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in these last days! I agree with the author that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to change our character and then send the latter reign (I’m not sure how he comes to this determination), but how does this relate to the Sanctuary message?
The last idea I thought that seemed a way to discern departure truth was EGW quote, “I’m instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, Your theories which have multitudes of fine threads, and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God”. If something is really complicated and convoluted it probably isn’t right. I like that.
From my reading, I was fascinated to learn about how our health vision as Seventh-day Adventists came into being. There many different principles of health which we pay close attention to as a people, but how did it all start? How did we get on this health conscious roller coaster ride? It’s easy to say Ellen White had a vision about it, but Douglas tells us that Joseph Bates was the “first Adventist who came to terms with health principles and the cause of disease.” (Douglas, p280) “On the basis of observation and personal experience, he had decided in 1824 to abstain from all intoxicating drinks. Earlier, he had given up tobacco in all forms. After another seven years, he determined not to drink tea or coffee. By 1843 Bates had given up flesh food.” However, we have no record that he ever felt convicted enough to persuade others to do the same. Douglas tells us that “during the 1850s Adventists freely ate pork!” (Douglas, p281) It was not until Ellen White had a vision on June 6, 1863 that Adventists had a clear word from the Lord on the issue of eating pork. It was as a result of this Otsego Health Vision that Ellen White wrote “God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances.” (Douglas, p281) Furthermore, this prohibition is also laid out in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. It is a clear “thus saith the Lord” in the Bible. Yet, we read in Douglas that “it seems God waited until the church had completed its organizational struggles before giving them the next step in their assignment.” When the time was ripe, this next step was to make them aware of His commands concerning pork and other unhealthy consumptions. Douglas reports that early Adventists were undergoing much change in those days, and to declare further that Adventist Christians should not smoke tobacco, drink alcoholic beverages, use tea and coffee, or eat swine’s flesh, would have been too much to contemplate; because change takes time.”
After taking a good look at this development, a few thoughts came to my mind. I compared the process which God takes with us to the process we often take with others. God, it seemed, was willing to “introduce to his waiting people the great subject of health reform, step by step, so they could bear it, and make a good use of it, without souring the public mind.” (Douglas, p282) If God has patience and waits for the opportune time to reveal things to us, should that be a lesson as to how we ought to deal with others, especially those new to the Adventist faith? Would it be better for us to help them understand and accept biblical doctrines and proper practices step by step, over time? Or continue, as we sometimes do, in expecting them over the course of a 4-6 week evangelistic revival meeting to understand, accept, become baptized and implement Christian lifestyle and health principles? It seems like this quick turnaround is what our evangelists and pastors expect at times. Yet, this is not the way God chose to work with our early Adventist pioneers. Is there a lesson to be learned from his timing and method?
“Answer to all my questionings” & “one of the last strongholds”
The hymn “Live out thy life within me” has a section that sings of Jesus being the answer to all questions brought on by life. Ellen White also shares this sentiment but in a more focused way, that is Jesus in the context of the Great Controversy. In her eyes, the answers to all life’s major philosophical questions (i.e. why do bad/good things happen to good/bad people?) can be answered within the context of the Great Controversy. I have, since reading her book on the subject, believed that these great philosophical questions that people surmise can be answered in the Great Controversy.
Yet not only could Mrs. White answer these philosophical questions with the ‘conceptual key’ but it also engulfs her entire theology as well. The subsequent explanation in chapter 22 of how our theology fits within the Great Controversy was extremely helpful and at the same time enlightening particularly the sections on the relationships between concepts. It is often said that every place in the Bible points to the Cross, and while I agree with this idea I also understand that what happened at the cross also has its’ place in salvation history and the Great Controversy. While the cross has eternal significance to the fallen human race (which we should be forever grateful), the cross is but a part (albeit the pinnacle) of God’s plan of redemption which has ramifications to the entire universe of God’s creation. Of course this leaves the danger of lessening the significance of the cross, although that would be grave miscalculation. If considered properly, the cross signifies the genius of God’s plan and is the climax in the story of redemption. Without it, Satan wins and the most I dare to think about the results of that situation is that the entire universe falls into chaos.
On a different topic, I have always been a believer of the Adventist health message, unfortunately I have not supported it by example very well. I grew up in an Adventist home that followed the Levitical health laws but also took advantage of the meat provisions that were included. I was fully versed in the benefits of vegetarianism, loved the bible stories of Daniel and his three friends being healthier and smarter than the other governmental candidates because of their diet, and I fully endorse that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and must be taken care of. I understand that focusing on a healthier lifestyle would be extremely beneficial especially with regards to my physical performance (i.e. peaceful sleeping, increased energy and concentration in class and individual studies, etc.) here in seminary, and even in some ways I strongly desire to have a healthier lifestyle complete with vegetarian diet and regular physical activity. But as the old saying goes (and I suppose a well worn out excuse) “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”.
Excuse? Sure. Cop out? Probably. But the fact remains that I am not a model of our SDA health laws for the simple reason of ‘I don’t want to give up my lifestyle’ despite chronic tiredness, poor concentration and more than a couple of pounds overweight. But what I didn’t consider very well was the linkage of the health message with the gospel commission. I suppose that the implication was there but the humanitarian aspect to teaching a healthy lifestyle as a means of lessening suffering in our world wasn’t a perspective I thoroughly pondered. I didn’t exactly rank ‘proclaiming the health message’ on par with finding the cure for cancer or AIDS (although I suppose promoting the health message encompasses the prevention of both), I just thought it was an added bonus, not a main tenent to be made. Nor did I view it as soteriologically significant. Sure it gives you a better chance at making the right decisions (i.e. keeping the mind and body strong and not at a disadvantage to be exploited by Satan), but the way Douglass writes it implies that such a people are singled out to be significant because of their healthy choice which I have trouble readily accepting.
People, not Culture
The question of how Christians can relate to a secular world has been on my mind a lot lately. The bottom line is that we have to present the truth of the gospel in a way that is relevant to the world. Yet, because the secular world clearly holds values that are not compatible with Christianity, it oftentimes appears to us that relevance to the world means sacrificing the truth as we understand it. Is there a way to be both truthful and relevant? If we look at the ministry of Christ, the answer is yes. Christ embodied the truth of God, yet he shared the truth in a way that first century Palestinians could understand. It’s in my pursuit of relevant truth that this quote from Douglass’s book made me distinctly uncomfortable. “In modern times, both conservatives and liberals cross lines when they no longer ask, ‘Is it true?’ but rather, ‘Does it work?’ Pragmatic experientialism puts the question, ‘What is there in it for me?’ rather than the more Biblical ‘What am I going to do about it?’” The implication of this quote in its context is that when we ask the question, “does it work?” we have crossed the line into error. The first time I read this, I didn’t like it because it seems to fly directly in the face of the culture that we live in. The values of post-modern culture suggest that one of the most important questions people ask is, “does it work?” Thus, at first glance, it seems as if Douglass is suggesting that relevance to this culture would be error. However, as I have continued to reflect on this statement, my thinking is evolving.
It would be silly to suggest that Ellen White or Douglass or anybody else believes that it is wrong to ask the question, “does it work?” The point he is trying to make here is that this practical question is not the epitome of knowledge. There are a lot of things that may “work” for their purpose but are completely immoral. Likewise, many people in our culture that find that spiritualism “works” because it appears to fulfill a need that they are feeling in their own soul. However, the fact that it seems to work for them doesn’t make it right. As Christians, our primary focus must remain on the truth as it is laid out in scripture. However, we must share that truth in a way that answers this fundamental post-modern question. Too often, we present evangelistic sermons that present truth that is basically disembodied. We spend a lot of time painstakingly proving our positions from scripture, closing with an appeal of, “do you believe it?” Few evangelists really wrestle with how the truth affects them in their own lives. And if they haven’t come to terms with the practical effect of truth in their own life, how can they share the practical difference truth will make in the life of another? Lately, many people in our denomination have been proclaiming that public evangelism is dead, and admittedly, I have been one of those. However, I must refine my position. Evangelism, however we do it, must be re-worked to spend more time dealing with the real-life issues of how this stuff makes a difference in the lives of people. There’s no shortcut to this application. It takes time. It takes energy. It takes the ability to allow for the fact that the journey toward more of the truth of God may affect different people in different ways. Whether we are doing door to door work, or public campaigns, or any form of new, “improved” evangelism, the common denominator is that we must be able to present every aspect of truth in terms of its relevance to the individual.
We must always remember that the truth is paramount yet if it is really truth, we must be able to relate it in a way that makes a difference to the people we’re speaking to. Having said all of this, how is it possible to make truth relevant? I wonder if the answer lies in the fact that we don’t speak to culture, we speak to people. While understanding our cultural milieu in broad strokes is important to our evangelistic efforts, it is incomplete. It is far easier to understand how the truth of the gospel affects the life of the individual when one is sitting across the table from that individual, listening to their personal concerns, struggles, and confusion. The truth we share is a personal truth, applicable to the life of each individual person we come in contact with. As I consider this idea, I realize that I must not get so carried away with understanding culture that I forget that each individual has unique needs and perspectives. Maybe there’s a lesson in there for all of us.
Thoughts on Restoration and Forgiveness, Character Development and Education.
I was caught by Jonathan’s comment on Restoration that the goal of forgiveness is restoration. This is such an obvious truth, but yet I didn’t see it until he said it. Forgiveness is the act that allows the restoration of a relationship after some schism in the friendship. It may be an instant healing or it may be a gradual including healing in the present and continuing into the future until the friendship is fully restored to where it was or closer than before. It’s like a wound. One puts antibiotics on it to cover and cleanse the wound and the healing begins. Yet, a complete healing may take many days or a day depending upon the deepness of the wound. Sometimes grit gets in it and it scars so one must then clean it again and apply salve to prevent scarring. So like a relationship, one person is injured by a friend. The friend seeks forgiveness, and the other forgives her. The two continue their relationship, But, sometimes the friend makes additional errors and the old fault is recalled. Then additional forgiveness must be given by the one to the friend, so they can continue. If the two stay friends and overcome their friendship will be stronger than before, like the skin over a wound is tougher than before it was injured.
One of the worries of the SDA Church is fear of fanaticism going wild in the church, so we tend towards legalism. Unfortunately we fail to recognize that even in the ‘honest’ manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Spirit filled people cannot be controlled by outside forces. EGW reinforces this thought in her comments on education. We are to raise up children who are “thinkers and not mere reflections of other men’s thoughts”. These are people whose characters cannot be moved but by principle. No matter the church position, they will not change their ideas until they have studied and believe it’s God’s will. Such persons are actually more difficult to control than a fanatic.
This takes me to character development. We in the SDA Church seemed to be focused on the latter reign, but few seem to preach on character reformation. Character reformation or as EGW puts it character perfection is the work of the Holy Spirit which prepares them to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, accept and manifest those exceptional spiritual gifts which enable the preaching and conviction of the world of the Gospel of Jesus. As I’ve read EGW works she has an intense focus on personal bible study and prayer, until a sufficient number of SDA’s practice personal study, they cannot be changed by the Holy Spirit, and thereby their characters are not reformed by the Holy Spirit. Then we will begin to see more love in individual and between members.
Further, as the members’ own individual Bible studies continue in the home, they will begin to see differences in biblical interpretation than from what they hear in church. These members will become hard to deal with, they are thinkers now, so they have questions—some polite, others put roughly. This will challenge the established church and may hurt our feelings. (We all have errors which can be pointed out.) The members will be weighing and testing the spirit, then they can guard themselves from fanaticism. They can control themselves and they can push us towards a deeper understanding of our distinctive truths (as iron sharpenth iron). As each of us continues our private bible study and conversation with God our characters will become more loving, the questions just as tough but put more kindly and we can all grow in unity into the body of Christ.
--Tammie L
The Conference Office and the Pastor
I was intrigued by this morning’s discussion about baptism quotas and the role of the conference office in the pastor’s ministry. I am about as anti-quota as anybody could be so I appreciated what was said in the class. However, there was an element of the discussion that deserves further consideration. A number of times throughout the conversation, references were made to the fact that the pastor need not be accountable to the conference because we are all accountable to God. While I understood the spirit of the comments in relationship to the issue of quotas, I feel compelled to explore the concepts further so as to maintain a healthy view of our church. This idea is especially troubling to me because to be reflective of the general attitude toward our conferences both among pastors and among church members.
Too many times, I’ve heard conversations where the conference office is seen in an antagonistic light. Pastors get frustrated with the conference office because the conference officials want to tell them how to do their ministry. Additionally, many pastors only see their conference presidents or ministerial secretaries when there are problems in the church. Many church members that I’ve interacted with see the conference office as unnecessary, or worse antagonistic to the church, because there are mandates that the church must participate in, whether they want to or not. The bottom line is that there seems to be very little appreciation for our conference offices and their officials.
I grant that conference officers make mistakes, and at times do really dumb things. I personally hate the idea of baptism quotas and some of programs that get passed down from the conference office. However, in spite of my personal frustration, I’ve become convinced that the perception of our conference offices must change both in the eyes of our pastors and our people.
If we are to work most effectively as a world church, we must work together at all levels. Our conferences exist to help combine and distribute resources so that we have opportunities to do things within our districts that we’d never be able to do otherwise. Conferences also ought to provide healthy accountability to the pastor to help him/her fulfill his/her potential in ministry. Yet, in my experience, these functions can’t truly happen because the relationship between the local church and conference office is already strained. As ministers of the gospel, and agents of the conference office, it is our job and our duty to help the conference office be all that it is intended to be. “I can’t do that, I’m just the pastor.” Yet by changing our attitudes about how our conferences operate, we can help promote and encourage the change that we desire. Unfortunately, criticizing and marginalizing are not the behaviors that will help our conferences fulfill their God-given calling. We must swallow our independence and pride, recognizing that the accountability our conferences offer are important to our development as ministers.
In no way am I suggesting that our conferences are operating effectively, or are even deserving of our support in some cases. Yet, if we believe in our church, it is our duty to do our utmost to help the conference succeed in its God given role. This doesn’t mean being mindless drones, going about the bidding of the conference officials. But it does mean supporting the conference in every way that we can, accepting that they do serve an important function in keeping us accountable, and helping to bridge the gap between the conference and the local church.
As I was reflecting on last weeks class discussions along with some of the questions that were on the test it occurred to me that a core issue with following the Bible is the interpretation of it. And well, you might be saying, “Yeah, duh!!! Of course a core issue is how you interpret the Bible.” That is the big problem, everybody interprets it a different way.
But, I want to say—wait a second. How we interpret the Bible is such a core issue and pretty much everybody knows that it is important and yet we have a big gap somewhere. What is this gap that I am referring to? The gap that I am referring to is that I have never heard a sermon and have never attended an evangelistic series that breaks down how to interpret the Bible.
You say, “What to you mean? I’ve been to plenty of Evangelistic series that talk about how to study the Bible and this and that and the other.” But I counter with this, “Yes, but have you ever had anybody explain to you how the Bible could be the word of God and yet have many different dynamics as to how the Word was given?” In other words, has anybody ever explained to the common church member how it is that within the Word of God you can have one portion of Scripture that was directly, word for word, dictated to man from God and yet in other portions of Scripture it was God inspiring the thoughts of the prophets and it was the prophet who put the message into his/her own words?”
Take for example the Ten Commandments. Those words were direct from God Himself. You could technically say that those words would fall under the category of verbal inspiration. The thing was that God was both the penman and pen! He wrote with His very own finger!!! In contrast, take Paul’s words to bring his books and cloak. Some have argued that this was “not inspired.” But what we have been learning is that the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet, not just the words. The person of the prophet was inspired. So, yes even the words that Paul wrote regarding getting his cloak and books are inspired. All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc….
And have you ever thought about this for a moment? Could not God instruct some person even with those words? Of course he could and He has done so.
Now back to my main point for writing all of this…have you ever heard any of these things explained to the common church member? Based upon my own personal observation of churches and church members, I would venture to say that most of the people that I have spoken to have no clue whatsoever about these important truths. Yet this is one of the most important issues confronting the Christian. How does one interpret the word of God?
In the book it was talking about A.T. Jones and Kellogg and Waggoner and some of the other defectors. One of the main issues was how they interpreted the writings of Ellen White and ultimately how they interpreted the Bible. It boiled down to their view of how inspiration works and because of the positions that they took they eventually gave it all up. This is a serious issue. If some of the top “pillars” of our church could be swept away because of a misunderstanding of this issue, wouldn’t it be well for us to consider that church members should understand how it works for themselves?
The bottom line is if more of our people understood these things, I think it would help us to be better people of “The Book.” If you catch my drift. We used to be people of the Word, yet many Adventists simply do not know their Bibles, they do not read the writings of Ellen White and they have no idea how Scripture was actually given. And it makes me wonder, if the majority of people do not understand how Scripture was given, what makes us think any of them would recognize a genuine prophet today? This seems to be a foundational issue.
Close the Umbrella
By Bill Watson-Payne
On the last day of class, one of the discussions that came up was that of the out-pouring of the Latter Rain. We do not hear much about that teaching as much as we used to in early Adventism. It seem that our people have become very comfortable with things as they are; people including us as pastors are doing fairly well financially, housing market is bad but not impossible, food prices are rising along with fuel but there is still enough to get what we need when we need it. There are no immediate terrorist threats to our nation and community that we are aware of, we face set backs but more often than not we are doing well.
In speaking of the Latter Rain or the time of Trouble motif, it seems to wreak havoc in our minds and lives. Why upset my apple cart? Why bring up negative things when every thing is going so well. Why bother me with that pessimistic view of religion? I just want to go to church and hear a good sermon, go home and rest peacefully. I don’t want anyone to hurt my brain by having me to think about that time of scarcity, gloom and doom.
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. In our natural thinking the above might be OK. In the life of the spiritual man it is not. The question of the latter rain not being preached was asked about in class and the answer given by the professor was profound. “God has not closed up heaven, the Holy Spirit is being poured out BUT we have an umbrella that is blocking the Holy Spirit.” Therefore we need to close the umbrella. Many of us as church members and as pastors have not closed our umbrellas; we go to the scriptures with presuppositions that block the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We hold on to yesterdays interpretation and forget that “the path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Truth is progressive and never standing still. God wants us to know more, experience more; increase in faith more than yesterday’s experience.
We are told that all Scripture is given by inspiration, and that it is profitable for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete (or mature). This is not a one time endowment but a life-time process on to maturity. What we learned yesterday is a stepping stone of preparation for the work of tomorrow. It is the Holy Spirit who equips and prepares us for the work that we must do. We need to close and put away our umbrellas so that the Holy Spirit can do His work in our lives. Imagine if those who were in the upper room had opened their umbrellas when the Holy Spirit came down upon them, they would not have received what they were intended to have from God. In Chapter 23 we see that the pioneers had to have an open mind to what they believed. God used His servant Ellen White to help in the clarification of major doctrinal issues. As the Spirit worked with them, He is available to work with us today.
Post a Comment