Jack W. Provonsha
The issue of Ellen White’s alleged literary dependency has now been fairly well laid out on our collective table. Most informed Adventists now have at least some awareness of her extensive use of quotations, parallels, and paraphrases and the general formal structural similarities in her writings to books with which she and her editorial assistants are known to have been familiar.
Some of this has been recognized for many years. During her lifetime charges of “plagiarism” were lodged against her by her adversaries especially in relation to such books as The Great Controversy (e.g. D. M. Canright). Undoubtedly, a few individuals have always had some conception of the extent of the problem but it is only in recent years that this information has become generally available through the efforts of such persons as Ronald Numbers, Don McAdams, and Walter Rea.
The few who have known of its wide extent have apparently been reluctant to share that information with rank and file church members presumably out of concern lest this weaken Ellen White’s position of authority in the church. This reluctance continues to be expressed as an attempt to minimize the quantity of dependency.
This effort is understandable but misplaced. It may also prove to be counter-productive in the end. If the issue had been dealt with candidly from the beginning we might now be spared what is and will continue to be a wrenching experience for many sincere church members.
Actually, the discovery should not be all that disturbing. Mainly what it places in jeopardy is a verbal - inspiration concept that has always been logically untenable and was officially rejected by this denomination from the beginning. W e would have benefited from its demise long ago.
And the facts are that once that false notion is dispensed with the amount of “borrowing” is not of great moment. A concept of inspiration that can accept in principle borrowing as a legitimate prophetic modality (for example, “it is not the words that are inspired, but the men who were inspired”) will not find the amount crucial be it 3% or 80%. Theoretically the figure could be 100% providing only that the prophet retained essential control over the selecting, combining and interpreting editorial process as he or she used the words of others to express his or her inspired thoughts.
An interesting analogy is provided from the world of art. Some of the great works of the masters were designed by the credited artists who maintained quality control over the painting but actually employed assistants to carry much of it out. Gutzon Borglum conceived the massive sculpture at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. He designed it, supervised it and maintained control over its artistry, but he, himself, did very little of the actual “jack-hammer” work on its face. He did not even survive to see it completed. But no one denies that it is his work of art. It is my understanding that Ellen White read and approved virtually everything published under her name and thus it was her work under the Holy Spirit even if she had considerable “jack-hammer” assistance.
Some of this assistance was in the form of “scissors and paste” compilation which has continued after her death (and, of course, she had no supervision over this latter. Apparently some of this also took place without her supervision while she was still living. I know from experience that editorial people can sometimes be an independent lot as they attempt to improve on the writer’s literary efforts.)
It is important to faith that we come to understand inspiration in such terms. The foundation of our faith, the Bible, apparently came into existence in a similar way. And this is not limited to the well-known Synoptic problem. (Matthew and Luke both “borrowed” liberally from Mark--not one of the twelve--copying even grammatical errors in some instances and they all apparently had access to other sources including a mysterious “Q” document.)
Anyone familiar with historical biblical criticism is aware of the problem. I have before me as I write four pages of typewritten, almost verbatim, parallels between the book Revelation and an apocryphal book I Enoch written roughly two centuries prior to John’s inspiration on Patmos. The similarities between passages taken from the two books are striking. There is even one “I saw” couplet that is virtually identical.
Biblical scholars (who are willing to face up to it) are well aware of other parallels--the Mesopotamian creation and flood epics, the code of Hammurabi, the Ugaritic parallels from Ras Shamra, the similarities in the Sibylline oracles, the ancient Middle East wisdom literature, the Zoroastrian scriptures--and on and on, They also are familiar with varying collections of documents and of editorial modifications by later “redactors”. It appears that what has been going on of late with regards to the writings of Ellen White has already largely been worked out for the Bible by the historical biblical critics and with similar conclusions. I submit, how we handle the issue relative to Ellen White has implications for the Bible also whether or not we realize it. This is a fact we have tended to ignore. (Apparently God has revealed Himself in a variety of ways besides the supernatural visions and dreams promised in Numbers 12. Might this include the scrolls and books the prophets read in their libraries? And apparently the traditional prophets have also had editorial assistance and sometimes long after the prophets, themselves, were gone.)
To repeat, the chief danger some will face in such a discovery has mainly to do with diminished certainty-and that is the reason for much of the resistance against it. Persons who have felt secure in their beliefs, “because the Bible tells me so,” are likely to feel uneasy over the possibility that others besides those time-honored worthies to whom God spoke directly may have had a hand in the process--particularly when they are not sure who, when and to what extent.
I received a telephone call this week from one of our theologians who contacted me because he knew I was familiar with this issue and had access to most of the current material. He is apparently working on the theological problem of Christ’s human nature (sinless or sinful) which, as you know, has been the subject of some controversy in recent years. You are possibly aware of an apparent conflict in Ellen White’s writings in this regard. For example, she says in The Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5, pages 1128, 1129,
“Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is cal led “that holy thing.” The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgression. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.”
This and some other passages suggest that Christ’s human nature was “pre-Fall” human nature. But there are other passages.
“But our Savior took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.” (Desire of Ages, page 117.)
“It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son God to take man’s nature even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What those results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.” (Desire of Ages, page 49).
“For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.” (Desire of Ages, page 117.)
It is not our concern to deal with the tension created by these apparently opposing statements. It is resolved by an adequate definition of sin, I think. My point is, the theologian called me to see if I knew whether or from what source, Ellen White had borrowed the Desire of Ages statements. I do not know. Neither do I find that information of overriding interest. But that he should inquire interests me very much. Before we can now use statements from Ellen White must we know whether or from whom it is “borrowed?” Do we now require a completely annotated set of Ellen White’s writings in order to benefit from them?
Remember this will also apply to the Bible if we take our historical critics seriously. Do we also require a completely annotated Bible? For the Bible this is impossible. We can never know fully what is “borrowed” and what is not. The materials are largely no longer available. Does this mean then that we shall always remain uncertain in our Bible study, that the thing we need to know, that is, what is inspired and what is not, will always be denied us?
I submit that what we really need is a more adequate conception of how inspiration operates. Such questions belong to an essentially verbal notion of inspiration. They will disappear along with the passing of that concept.
But this is not the primary concern of this paper. I shall leave it to our biblical scholars who are familiar with the historical critical approach (and who have the courage and faith to apply it) to deal with this aspect of the problem. I write as a Christian moralist and there is an aspect this matter that comes directly within my purview.
I have before me a letter (in fact two letters one granting permission to quote from the other) that states the matter bluntly. Referring to the meeting of a special commission set up earlier this year in Glendale, California to air Elder Walter Rea’s allegations regarding Ellen White’s literary “borrowing” especially in the book Desire of Ages, the writer, who had listened to tapes of that session, says,
“It seemed to me that the members of the committee needed a gentle reminder of Christian morality.
“If a writer borrows from other authors without giving credit, this is called plagiarism. If the writer denies plagiarism, this is called lying. If the writer says the Holy Spirit brought it all about, this is called blasphemy.
“No one in the session dealt with the morality of plagiarism. No one mentioned that paraphrasing is the most subtle form of plagiarism and potentially the most dishonest.
“Ellen White obviously tried to hide her literary dependency.
“The above is called fraud. Surely someone at the meeting must have entertained the notion that Ellen G. White may very well be a fraud. No one had the courage to mention it.”
The author of these words had listened to various of my presentations, “many times,” he says, and anticipated that I would come to Ellen White’s defense. He prepared for that defense in his most recent letter, (the one granting me the freedom to quote from his previous communication).
“I will await eagerly to see how your concept of inspiration accommodates to plagiarism, deceit and theological contradictions. Intellectuals and scholars have the capacity to retreat to a position where nothing matters, and nothing bothers them. It is an area where there are no absolutes and everything is relative. The average churchgoer simply lacks the ability to follow along through this intellectual maze to such a rarified atmosphere. He needs a philosophy that is consistent, rational and honest.”
It is not a new charge. Ronald Numbers, for allegation in his Prophetess of Health, where Ellen White supposedly denies having read material from which Dr. Numbers says she obviously quotes.
And I do not anticipate changing my correspondent’s mind by my feeble attempts to understand. His mind is made up and having stated his position so forthrightly he now has a cause to defend. But there are others who have been troubled by this matter, including myself. I write for them and to clarify my own feelings. It is a serious charge which if not faced fairly and openly has potential for threatening the faith of many honest souls in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
It is one thing to recognize that we do not totally depend on Ellen G. White’s writings for the major doctrinal positions of the church which is true. At this stage in our history if Ellen White were completely to disappear from the scene our major doctrines would remain intact. They are biblically based. But the admission that we have been fraudulently misled by the founder and founders of this movement could produce enough moral outrage to endanger what they brought into existence.
Even if what they taught us were doctrinally correct, most of us would feel put upon and alienated from such persons, and while we might remain in intellectual agreement with their doctrines we would be emotionally estranged by their actions and the community would probably disintegrate. Certainly the motivation to win others to it would wither, and the death of the movement would thus, if delayed, probably be assured in the end.
What follows is my attempt as a Seventh-day Adventist moralist who is committed to this church and sympathetic to Ellen White, to resolve the struggle in my own heart. It has taken some time to develop but I am at peace and these are the reasons:
Let us face the issue in its worst possible terms--which is about what my correspondent describes. It probably was not nearly as simple as his letter suggests, of course. There is the possibility that her “borrowing” was not always conscious or deliberate. This author, at least, has had the unsettling experience of writing down something he thought was original only to discover later that what he wrote he had read and underlined in someone else’s work sometime before and forgotten. What had seemed a novel idea was, in fact, a paraphrase of another’s work-though neither deliberate nor conscious. And this is not an experience unique to me.
Moreover, given the manner in which many of her books were put together, there is a built-in mechanism for possibly losing track of the original sources. Note the following portion of a letter from Mrs. White to Elder and Mrs. J. A. Burden:
“Dear Brother and Sister Burden: I feel very thankful for the help of Sister Marian Davis in getting out my books. She gathers materials from my diaries, from my letters, and from the articles published in the papers. I greatly prize her faithful service. She has been with me twenty-five years, and has constantly been gaining increasing ability for the work of classifying and grouping my writings.” (Letter 9, 1903)
Again in a letter to G. A. Irwin (at the time, president of the General Conference),
“The books are not Marian’s productions, but my own, gathered from all my writings. Marian has a large field from which to draw, and her ability to arrange the matter is of great value to me. It saves me poring over a mass of matter, which I have no time to do.” (Letter 61a, 1900, pages 4, 5)
In a letter written by W. C. White to Mrs. Maggie H. Bree we read,
“Sister Davis had a wonderful memory, and this was of great service in her work of searching for and grouping together the choicest things that Sister White had written....
“When a goodly number of extracts had been gathered and grouped together as possible material for chapters, they were read to Sister White. This revived her memory of the scenes presented to her, and she entered into the work of rewriting many chapters, giving them a fresh touch and greater vigor, also adapting the various passages more fully to the people who would read this book.” (W. C. White Correspondent File, White Estate.)
A letter from Marian Davis to W. C. White suggests the scope of her task,
“You will remember some things last spring about the matter from articles and scrapbooks, that might be available for use in the life of Christ, copied, so as to be convenient for reference. Perhaps you can imagine the difficulty of trying to bring together points relating to any subject, when these must be gleaned from thirty scrapbooks of Ellen G. White materials), a half-dozen bound volumes, and fifty manuscripts, all covering thousands of pages.” (White Estate Document File #393a)
How much of this material represented notes taken by Mrs. White as thoughts were impressed upon her mind while she was reading, notes not clearly intended for publication, for example the material in her diaries? Does one exercise the same care regarding quotation marks and sources in one’s private notes (and diary’) that one would in doing conscious research for a book manuscript? I think not. (At least this author sometimes does not much to his regret. It is difficult to go back and pick these up later.) As Marian Davis later brought these “scraps” together she would have no way of knowing whether the materials were quoted or not, and placed in their new setting Mrs. White might, herself, not recall that she had “borrowed” them in her original notes.
One may properly ask whether this is the ideal way to write books, and of course it isn’t. Fortunately, God has never insisted that his chosen workmen be ideal in every respect. His chosen ones are often merely the best that is available (and willing) at the moment of need. This instrument, recall, was identified as the “weakest of the weak,” an expression that may not have referred only to her physical state. On January 10, 1873, there is an entry in Ellen White’s diary,
“We rose early to prepare to go to San Francisco. My heart is inexpressibly sad. This morning I take into candid consideration my writings. My husband is too feeble to help me prepare them for the printer, therefore I shall do no more with them at present. I am not a scholar. I cannot prepare my own writings for the press. Until I can do this I shall write no more.” (Manuscript 3, 1873, page 5).
The next day there is an entry that reads,
“We rested well last night. This Sabbath morning opens cloudy. My mind is coming to strange conclusions. I am thinking I must lay aside my writing I have taken so much pleasure in, and see if I cannot become a scholar. I am not a grammarian. I will try, if the Lord will help me, at forty-five years old to become a scholar in the science. God will help me. I believe He will.” (Manuscript 3, 1873, page 5).
And the help, as we now know, came chiefly from the mind and pen of Marian Davis.
But back to our worst of possible scenarios. In it the prophet sits down in her study with a number of books by authors such as C. E. Stowe, Conybeare and Howsen, D’Aubigne, Wylie, Hanna, Edersheim, and others, spread out before her (not necessarily all at the same time, of course) and as she wrote her “inspired books” she simply lifted material out of these authors, usually paraphrasing, but sometimes using the same words, and often following their sequence of ideas. And then she deliberately denied dependence upon these authors, claiming rather guidance from God. In this scenario my correspondent’s charges would seem to be appropriate. This sounds very much like conscious, deliberate deception.
Suppose we accept this depiction for the purposes of discussion. Is it possible to have something like this happen but there be an honest denial of human dependence? Is that too tall an order? Let us see.
First, my reactions to the notion of fraud. (Fraud implies an intent to deceive.) I must confess at the outset that I find the idea of Ellen G. White being a fraud both logically and emotionally repugnant. It is almost the same feeling I experience in the face of the charge that the resurrection stories of Jesus grew out of a
WAS ELLEN G. WHITE A FRAUD?
conspiracy on the part of the followers of Jesus to conceal the death of their Master to preserve the movement from disintegration. That charge has been both made and believed including the allegation that Jesus, Himself, inspired the fraud.
I do not believe it for admittedly biased reasons. Take away my resurrected Lord and you have removed the center of my whole belief system--indeed my very inner spiritual life. If Jesus did not die and emerge from the tomb alive on the first day of the week nothing remains of my faith and hope. And without my faith and hope I am nothing. And if He were a fraud!
At a less intensive level something similar can be said of the writings of Ellen White. I admit it. I have always believed, respected and loved her. Some, I realize, have, through authoritarian misuse of her writings, experienced her as a restrictive, inhibitive, and oppressive force in their lives. Her writings have frequently been misused in this way. But it was different for me. My early life involved much insecurity and uncertainty. The important role-people in my life were perhaps too permissive and uninvolved in the direction of my life. Not that they did not care. But they didn’t understand my anxious search for meaning and purpose. I discovered Ellen White largely for myself--and I found purpose and direction in that discovery. And no books of any kind have been as important to my spiritual life as have her Desire of Ages and Christ’s Object Lessons. They were even more important to me than the Bible in my early years. At least I could understand her words and I eagerly read them again and again. Take these away from me now and something central to the core of my being will have died.
But it is not merely a question of emotional bias. I find the charge that Jesus’ disciples were guilty of one of the great frauds of history logically incredible. They were simply not up to it. To envision so many individuals of such obvious moral sensitivity conspiring to perpetrate so blatant a falsehood strains credulity beyond rationality. They would all have had to possess multiple personalities, to be Jekyll and Hyde psychopaths to nave pulled it off and that is an extremely rare disorder.
(The odds against finding so many multiple personalities in one would be astronomical.)
A much more likely alternative explanation would be that they were unsophisticated people who reported what they honestly believed to have happened--but were deluded. For some reason, call it wishful thinking or whatever, they came to believe, strongly enough to die for it, what was, in fact, quite in error. Mass delusions have occurred in history. But there were so many believers and so many different situations! And one of them (Thomas) was a confirmed “show-me” skeptic about things he hadn’t seen with his own eyes and handled with his own hands. Such an alternative strains the credulity more than, at least this believer, is prepared to tolerate. I simply do not and cannot believe it. That’s the sum of the matter!
For similar logical reasons I have difficulty believing that so manifestly a godly woman was capable of so crass a falsehood over so long a lifetime. Somewhere, sometime, the truth must have slipped out. (I do not know if I can so vouch for all of the persons who surrounded her. I just don’t know them all that well. And I do know that self-serving is not entirely absent from ostensibly religious people--not absent even now, and surely it has never been in the past.)
Before we proceed let me interject a word about what I consider to be the correct relation of truth to authority. A thing is so because it is so and not because someone, be he biblical or modern priest or prophet, (or even a god) says so. It is not so even because God “says” it is so. He says it because it is so even if His speech may bring it into being in a creative sense. Truth is related to reality not to authority.
It is on this basis that I quote something Ellen White has written in several places. These are philosophically and psychologically true statements whether she or anyone else has said them. They are philosophically consistent with the logic of human freedom--that is, if there is such a thing as freedom to choose, then something tike this is a necessary corollary. Their psychological truth is attested to by psychological observation and experiment. Anyone who has experienced human behavior at the learning level will have little argument with the notion. One might wish to modify somewhat, of course, the language in which it is expressed. The first statement is found in Volume 2 of the Testimonies, page 347.
WAS ELLEN G. WHITE A FRAUD?
“The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system, are the only medium through which Heaven can communicate to man, and affect his inmost life.”
“Brain nerves” is, of course, not modern, technical language. We would now speak of the central and peripheral nervous system. But the point is that human neuro anatomy and neurophysiology are very much involved in the cognitive, knowing process. Thus even prophetic revelations and inspiration are properly dealt with by psychological learning theory. This is a point of very great importance and removes some of the magical element from the relation of the divine to the human. God talks to our minds and His speech is transmitted over the neuro sensory pathways--even if we are prophets. He may talk in unusual ways at times in response to unusual needs and circumstances. And thus there are hallucinatory dreams and “visions”. But probably most of the time the speech is rather ordinary like God speaking through written words (e.g. the Bible) and other ordinary sensory experience.
This is in keeping with another notion expressed by Mrs. White in Desire of Ages,
“If we consent, He will so identify Himself with our thoughts and aims, so blend our hearts and minds into conformity to His will, that when obeying Him we shall be but carrying out our own impulses.” (page 668)
The point here is that human ideas and impulses can be God’s thoughts and aims. Support is also found for this concept in another well-known passage from Education, pages 13, 14.
“The world has had its great teachers, men of giant intellect and extensive research, men whose utterances have stimulated thought and opened to view vast fields of knowledge; and these men have been honored as guides and benefactors of their race; but there is One who stands higher than they. We can trace the line of the world’s teachers as far back as human records extend; but the Light was before them. As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun, so, as far as their teaching is true, do the world’s great thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Every gleam of thought, every flash of the intellect, is from the light of the world.” (Italics mine.)
Both of these statements express an underlying concept of reality expressed in another statement by Ellen White in Volume 8 of the Testimonies, pages 259, 260.
“God does not annul His laws, but He is continually working through them, using them as His instruments. They are not self working. God is perpetually at work in nature. She is His servant, directed as He pleases. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all His works according to His will. It is not by an original power inherent in nature that year by year the earth yields its bounties, and continues its march around the Sun. The hand of infinite power is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God’s power momentarily exercised that keeps it in position in its rotation.
“The God of heaven is constantly at work. It is by His power that every leaf appears, and every flower blooms. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats, and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. Every breath, every throb of the heart, is a continual evidence of the power of an ever-present God.
“It is God that causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. He causes the grass to grow upon the mountains....
“The Lord is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made.”
A naive, over literalistic, magical or superstitious reading of these words would be manifest nonsense, of course. We are able to write textbooks on astronomy, biology, physiology and meteorology describing such natural qualities because they operate in lawful, orderly, predictable, causal sequences. But the point is God works through such astronomical, biological, physiological, and meteorological laws. They are His laws as surely as are His revealed moral laws. Nature is not something apart from God. God is its author and sustainer. Nature represents God at work. Note we did not say that nature is God--the pantheistic error. Nature represents God at work (Not only God in a fallen world, of course).
WAS ELLEN G. WHITE A FRAUD?
And nature is not just rocks and trees and birds and bees, it also includes social interactions--the social order. And nature includes psychology and neurophysiology, in a word, human thought processes. A man’s mind a-thinking can represent God at work as surely as can a man’s heart a-beating.
Now the truth of this view of reality is not confirmed by Ellen White’s having held and expressed it. As we said earlier, a thing is so because it is so and not because someone, even a prophet says so. Its truth will have to be determined on other grounds--rationality, consistency, etc. But the facts are she held such a view. And since what we are investigating is Ellen White’s morality, fairness dictates that we take into account all the presuppositions lying behind her actions that may in any way enlighten us regarding the moral character of those actions.
In light of the above, including the volume two statement regarding the “brain nerves”, some consideration of learning and perception processes would be appropriate. What follows is an oversimplification but in its general outlines represents generally accepted (and substantiated) learning theory.
All of our perceptions of reality are conditioned by previous experience. Presumably at some point in time completely novel “raw” sense can occur, but not “raw” perception if we define “perception” as “sensing with meaning.” Previous experience, previous perceptions, desires, needs, character traits, even the state of the central nervous system--its psycho-chemistry, for example--provide a “filter” through which all new experience must pass. In the process the experience comes to be seen in terms of that filter as light filtered through colored glass is seen as taking on the color of the glass.
Thus none of us is ever able to perceive reality as it really is. Only God could do that, by definition. We can only perceive reality from our perspective--as we see it. We see things thus not as they are but as we are.
The amount of freedom in this is minimal. It is usually restricted to choosing within limits what we shall experience. We are not free to choose how we shall experience it (or perceive it) except as selection of what we experience may eventually condition the how things are perceived by effecting the character of the perceiver. In other words, none of us chooses our immediate points of view or biases. We can, however, affect them in the long run by selecting our experiences where possible.
Since our way of looking at things (our perception of reality) may not precisely correspond to actual reality it is appropriate to speak of our point of view as a “delusional system.” Delusion is here defined as a sincerely held belief that is at least in some respects inaccurate-honestly held but inaccurate. A “delusional system” is a set of beliefs that possesses a greater or lesser inner consistency--but is only relatively accurate in relation to “the thing itself” (Kant’s ding an sich) which is never perceptually fully available to us.
The term delusional is a technical term and could be misleading so a word of caution is necessary. Delusion suggests pathology. Indeed there are pathological delusions which represent so great a degree of perceptual distortion as to produce isolation and destructive behavior-destructive to others and to the self.
But there is normalcy in perceptual delusion also. When there is a commonality in our “delusional systems” usually brought about by there being minimal or shared distortion of reality--the possibility of community and communication is present. We can talk to each other only when we look at things reasonably nearly the same way. The more the perceptual commonality the closer knit the community.
But the point is, all of us are prisoners of our normal “delusional systems.” There is no way to avoid this fact of existence.
This is so even if we are prophets. If what Ellen White said is true about how God communicates to men and affects his inmost life, (and this is consistent with both logic and experience, it certainly is consistent with a concept of human freedom. Were God to bypass the “brain nerves,” man’s rational processes, to reveal Himself to him, God might indeed violate a principle apparently valued highly by God--human freedom and responsibility. A man’s character on this basis could itself by a divine super imposition--and thus essentially morally meaningless.) then that includes Ellen G. White--and all of the prophets as well. Ellen White had her personal “delusional system” as a member of the human race.
WAS ELLEN G. WHITE A FRAUD?But one thing more must be considered: the prophet’s own understanding of the process of inspiration is a factor in the prophetic self-consciousness. How did Ellen White perceive what took place as God spoke to her?
There is no single answer to this, obviously, since the communication took a number of forms. But certainly her statement in Selected Messages, Book 1, page 21 is important to the matter at hand. (It is fairly well known that the words of this passage were not entirely original with her. They represent a creative copying and reworking of a portion of a book by C. E. Stowe, Origin and History of the Bible. See William S. Peterson’s article in Spectrum, Autumn, 1971, page 81.)
To my knowledge this material was not published until 1951 when it appeared in appendix M, page 655 in F. D. Nichol’s Ellen G. White and Her Critics long after Mrs. White’s death. (I am told that it appeared in her diary in 1885 indicating that the concept was close to her heart.) The key point is contained in the following passage:
“It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind.”
What she appears to be distinguishing here is the concept revealed from the wording which is the vehicle of its expression. Only the former is attributed to the Holy Spirit. It is important that we recall this distinction when we consider her claim that what she wrote she received from the Holy Spirit (what my correspondent labeled “blasphemy.”)
How does this differ from the “inspiration” each of us may feel as we read moving or especially enlightening passages in books by a variety of authors--including some we would think of as quite secular? Are all men “inspired” in this manner?
All men can be inspired in this way. The Holy Spirit is not the private property of prophets. The Volume 2 statement quoted earlier is a general statement of how God affects the “inmost life.” There is no absolute difference between prophets and other men and women at the level of humanity and process. The difference, if any, is at the level of the divine activity.
The prophet is chosen by God. The prophet does not decide to become a prophet like one chooses to become an engineer, a doctor, or a tradesman. “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man.” (2 Peter 1:21). God selects the prophet and the selection is not at random or purely arbitrary.
Since all men perceive reality in a more or less “delusional” distorted way, it is appropriate that One who wished to reveal absolute truth to men as clearly as possible, chose as His vessels those who, of persons available (and willing) would, from God’s perspective, distort reality the least. The prophet is therefore selected, not because he is able to perceive things absolutely “as they really are,” but because he or she is the best (least distorting) vehicle available at the moment of need.
God also provides the ongoing experiences by which the “delusional system” of the prophet more and more approximates the reality that God sees. Truth is thus progressive, (or better perception of truth is progressive) even for prophets. Ellen White’s later observation that she was “no longer the child she once was,” is consistent with this notion.
The prophet differs also in being given a role in his community. The prophet is chosen for leadership and communicative purposes. Therefore he or she must be given a hearing. When the prophet speaks people must listen. God’s word must carry authority and one way to make this happen is to invest the vehicle of His word with authority.
What will provide this ring of authority may differ according to time, place, and custom. For John the Baptist it was the account of his birth, his early training and diet, his wilderness habitat and dress. For Ellen
WAS ELLEN G. WHITE A FRAUD?White the times seem to have been suited to paranormal manifestations--her physical state in vision, etc. (What would provide such authority in our time? Academic credentials?)
This, God provided, prophetic role would also have an undoubted effect on the self-concept of the prophet. (The role one plays inevitably is a basic component of his personal “delusional system.” The physician looks at the world through physician’s eyes, the minister perceives as a minister, a housewife as a housewife, a church administrator as an administrator, etc.) The prophet, having accepted and “lived with” the prophetic call would come to experience reality not merely as other men but as a prophet. Thus the prophet would be unlikely to look at things exactly as do others. (This is true, of course for all role-conditioned self-concepts, for doctors, preachers, etc. But this would be intensified, I should think, in the prophet’s sense of “calling.”)
A third difference between the prophet and other men would again derive from the divine action. God having chosen a prophet and set him or her apart in a way that insured his or her being listened to as one speaking with authority, then reveals Himself in special ways. Moses records God’s statement in Numbers 12:6, “If there be a prophet among you I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision and I will speak unto him in a dream.” Prophets become the vehicles of “special” communication--and that’s why they are chosen.
Now let us put all of this together and see if it has anything to say to the situation at hand.
All of us have had the experience, while reading, of feeling that God has spoken to our hearts in something we have read. (And this can, indeed, be quite true as we have suggested. The Holy Spirit is individually available to each one of us--otherwise the reading of even inspired Scripture would be largely an empty and meaningless experience.) Now, when this happens, do we say, “Ah, C. S. Lewis, or Francis Schaeffer, or Karl Barth, or even Ellen White really spoke to my heart today?” Or in reading the Bible do we say, “Ah, Moses, or Isaiah, or John really spoke to my soul in that passage this morning?” No. We place the credit where it belongs if we are sensitive to such matters. We say “God or the Holy Spirit spoke to me in my reading today.” And that’s quite correct and we know it. That’s God’s usual way of revealing Himself to our inner heart of hearts--just as “pulse follows pulse and breath follows breath” where God is at work.
But what if you had as a major element in your self-concept, the role of messenger or prophet with al I of those years of believing that God had been speaking to you in general as well as very special, unusual ways. When we read expressions like “The word of the Lord came unto me” or “I was shown”, “I saw” we must remember that those expressions come out of a prophet’s intensive, self-consciousness not ours. Such phrases, might have quite special meaning in a prophet’s perceptual system.
Moreover, I suspect that a prophet, who felt the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit while reading in his or her library would be even less inclined to give the credit to the human author of the specific words he or she was reading. The sense of the Divine presence--the “light” behind those. Words would seem so intense that it would seem inaccurate, indeed almost blasphemous, certainly demeaning, to attribute the enlightenment to a human source.
Could that be a factor in the borrowing, the parallels, the paraphrases, even the quotations- -without giving human credit that we see in Ellen White’s and the Bible prophets’ writings? In a sense the prophet “delusional system” would tend to place the prophet back in those times before modern copyright ethics where the gifts of the Muses were nobody’s private property. They came from the Muses and therefore one gave credit where it belonged. It is only in the relatively modern period that one assumed that creative effort was a personal possession. I think that it is quite possible that a “prophet” might see things that way even in our times--and act accordingly.
In other words the charge of plagiarism or fraud would be appropriate if one of us did what the prophets did, knowing what we now know and seeing ourselves as we do, whereas the intent to deceive might be utterly absent from a prophet’s perceptual point of view. If God were speaking to her in these written words she was not dependent on the human author. To such a person, what is now coming to light could be an expression of her daily sense of closeness, and the intensity of her continual atonement to God’s voice even
WAS ELLEN G. WHITE A FRAUD?while doing ordinary things like reading and writing books. I see no reason why she should not be expected to feel free, with such a consciousness, to share with others the very words which formed the occasion of God speaking to her heart. She may be employing another’ s words and thus “borrowing” those words but her dependence for enlightenment was on God--not the mere words which were its vehicle. And she gave credit where due--and I think rightly so, given her perception of reality. Being a life long prophet might very well do that to one --quite normally and innocently. (Although from our point of view we might wish to counsel her to make certain concessions to our ordinary conventions.)
In summary, was Ellen White a fraud? No. I think the more likely possibility is that this godly woman was so sensitive to the many voices of God and responded to them so intensely that she tended to overlook customary amenities like saying thanks to the ordinary writers who provided the occasion. A woman who as a child could “hear” workmen “praising God” while they were probably saying and doing rather ordinary things would very likely in her adulthood be attuned to things that most of the rest of us might never hear.
In any case the specific written words that provided the occasion for God’s speech would have little of the importance to her that we have tended to ascribe to them--their words or even hers. She was good and she was honest, though human. But she saw things differently. Would that we all were prophets.
This doesn’t mean that everyone involved gets “off the hook” that easily, however. I feel a justifiable resentment toward those even well-intentioned people who concealed these “facts of life” from us all of those years out of a mistaken impression that we couldn’t handle them. Those leaders who spoke so freely at that 1919 Bible conference and then went home with their lips sealed showed at the very least a lack of courage.
And for some the lack of courage also represented self-interest. The church having misused the gift as an authority instrument, serving both pride and power (the frequent basis for the verbal inspiration fallacy) placed persons who knew better in a position of professional vulnerability. To speak out was often to risk one’s career. But to misuse a gift of God--and thus the power of God--for self-serving ends is to take His name in vain.
The fact that Ellen White’s writings have been so misused says something about the users. The authority that comes from possessing a prophet-and thus the “truth”--can come to serve individual and group pride. It is the special sin of those who label themselves the “remnant people” and who possess “the Spirit of Prophecy.”
And pride is usually a fig leaf cover for weakness. If ever a people needed to discover the strength that comes from an acceptance of their “son ship” through the grace of God it is a people who have been blessed with the prophetic gift. It is out of resistance to that discovery that a people can come merely to possess a prophet rather than having the “spirit” of prophecy.
Having the spirit of the prophets is to have one’s eyes open to the future. The prophet is given to open doors not to close them, to give guidance to growth not merely to give final (and prideful) authoritarian answers to our questions.
It may be good for the church to go through this period of crisis, a period characterized by the shaking of our certainties. Perhaps it may be a new occasion for discovering that certainty never lies in having all the right answers, but in knowing and trusting our Lord and thus being free to face up to the questions. The finding will ever be in the questing, not in final solutions. The spirit of the prophets is a spirit of eternal openness and expectancy.