Understanding Ellen White

Some problematic paradigms

Some in Adventist history have tried to integrate the various views in problematic ways by arguing for degrees of inspiration. Two examples follow: one from Adventist history and the other more recent. UEGW 36.1

G. I. Butler, General Conference president, and Uriah Smith, Review and Herald editor, argued that when Ellen White was shown something in vision and wrote “I was shown,” then it was inspired in the highest degree. When she was expressing her own opinion, it was not inspired. Butler developed this view in a ten-part series of articles in the Review and Herald in 1884. ⁷ He argued that there were five degrees of inspiration: Ellen White directly rejected this view. She also wrote to Uriah Smith and others who suggested that some of what she had written was just her own opinion and therefore not inspired: UEGW 36.2

Weak and trembling, I arose at three o-clock in the morning to write to you. God was speaking through clay. You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne. ⁸ UEGW 36.3

A modern example of the debate over approaches to inspiration appears in Prophets Are Human and More Than a Prophet: How We Lost and Found Again the Real Ellen White by Graeme S. Bradford when compared with The Greatest of All the Prophets by Russell Standish and Colin Standish. ⁹ UEGW 36.4

Bradford theologically followed the approach of graduated levels of inspiration and authority similar, in some respects, to Butler and Smith. Additionally, he cited modern evangelical systematic theologians and thinkers such as Wayne Grudem and D. A. Carson, though he diverged from some of their views on verbal inspiration. In 2002, Bradford published Prophets Are Human, which presented an extended Bible study between fictional personalities Dr. Smithurst and a couple named Doug and Jean. Although readable and evangelistic, the book gave a theologically and historically loose presentation with particular emphasis on the human dimension of Ellen White’s experiences. ¹⁰ UEGW 36.5

In 2006, Bradford published a more formal examination of Ellen White’s prophetic gift in More Than a Prophet. This book received promotion through its publisher, Samuele Bacchiocchi. It gave a more careful explanation of Bradford’s view on the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. He argued for different categories of the gift of prophecy with different degrees of inspiration authority. ¹¹ He saw Ellen White as having prophetic characteristics on different levels: (1) like “Daniel and John” with “apocalyptic visions”; (2) like Agabus with a widespread ministry to different congregations but less than the apostles; and (3) like the “prophets” in 1 Corinthians 14 who sometimes made mistakes, and needed to be evaluated by the congregation. ¹² It followed that the reader was left to determine which level of authority or inspiration to apply to Ellen White’s various writings. Thus some of her writings, according to Bradford, had full inspiration authority while others contained mistakes. UEGW 37.1

In 2004, independent reformist writers Russell and Colin Standish published a response to the ideas in Bradford’s first book, Prophets Are Human, and other publications in The Greatest of All the Prophets.¹³ The Standish brothers broadly condemned church leaders across the theological spectrum but were particularly strident in their opposition to then-current developments in Australia. They presented a functionally verbal approach to inspiration that was widely critical of Seventh-day Adventist teachers, authors, and leaders and in some cases factually inaccurate. They concluded, “One particle of error destroys truth irrespective of the quantity of truth remaining” and argued that even minor historical details in Ellen White’s writings were without error. ¹⁴ This position, as we will see, was out of harmony with Ellen White’s own understanding of inspiration and created new problems that diminish confidence in her writings. UEGW 37.2

Thus these various approaches demonstrate the confusion that has existed in the church and the need for a correct view of inspiration. A more comprehensive and wholistic approach to the subject of inspiration that includes Ellen White’s own understanding is needed. ¹⁵ UEGW 37.3