Ellen White Vs. David Koresh

Ellen White Vs. David Koresh (Prophetic authority) As federal investigators sifted through the ashes after the hellfire outside Waco, Texas, thoughtful Adventists conducted their own spiritual autopsy of the charred corpses. While publicly we defended the church with the fact that the Branch Davidian movement split from our ranks 60 plus years ago, privately some loyal members wondered and worried. How did Vernon Howell, a guitar-strumming Adventist teenager of our own generation, become David Koresh, the maniacal monster? More troubling yet, what gave that madman of Waco such power over some of our Adventist brothers and sisters? Let's remember that most of Koresh's cultists had not been Baptists or Methodists, Mormons or Moonies, Muslims or New Age meditators. They came from the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists. Not the church of the 1930s but the church of the 1980s. Thank God, Koresh was rebuffed and rejected everywhere he went as he prowled Adventist campuses on three continents. He chased many but caught few. Of those he did catch, however, most seem to have been conscientious church members, vulnerable but quite sincere. They were not prodigals looking for a lark but pilgrims looking for perfec-

188

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? tion in their lives and in their church. They were Seventh-day Adventists who valued modern day messages from God, perhaps even more than they cherished the Bible. Koresh exploited this for his own sinister purposes. Yesterday morning I spoke with the sister of David Koresh's top lieutenant and most trusted associate. She described how her brother, while yet an Adventist, spent hours in his bedroom reading about the life of Christ. She remembers him as loyal to the church and loving to his family—qualities that the Davidians manipulated. She recalls how Koresh and his crew preyed upon his fear of offending God by bombarding him with quotation after quotation from Ellen White and text after Bible text. With powerful spiritual persuasion they lured him to their lair in Waco, Texas. You know the rest of the story. What was David Koresh's secret of success in entrapping Adventists? His basic approach was that our church had become lukewarm and desperately needed a reform message from the Lord. He implied that the Bible wasn't enough to accomplish this; needed was the straight testimony of a modern prophet. Ellen White admirably served that role in her time, he acknowledged respectfully—even glowingly. But she was dead and gone. With eyebrows raised in concern he inquired: Who was filling that indispensable prophetic role today? Who would guide the remnant through the perils of Armageddon? During hour after hour of high-octane brainwashing, his answer became obvious. God's final prophet was none other than David Koresh. Distorted similarities

189

ANOTHER WACO? Right about now you're probably feeling some anger, and I am too. What a terrible deception to have David Koresh posturing as Ellen White's successor! How distorted a comparison could there be? Ellen White was humble; David Koresh was vain. Sister White was self-denying; Koresh was self-indulgent. She was honest in her intentions; he was a deceiver to the core. The contrast between two human characters could hardly be more distinct, yet the deception was there just the same. You see, Ellen White spoke in the name of God, and so did David Koresh, Many Adventists give Ellen White authority to interpret the Bible; Koresh claimed the same. Ellen White communicated strict demands upon the conscience, and so did David Koresh. The difference was that Ellen White's call to holiness was sincere, whereas for Koresh it became a tool of manipulation. Only time revealed the danger of his deceptions. The problem was not the high standards of a prophet's message. Personally, I appreciate the challenge of Ellen White's straight testimony, don't you? We need to hear that sin—all sin—must be repented of and forsaken. How good to know God has power to help us overcome any sin He convicts us of. Don't you want the Lord to confront you with His high and holy calling in Christ Jesus? That's one of the reasons I read Ellen White. Her no nonsense, plain-spoken rebukes leave the reader humbled and subdued. That's good for us and good for the church. Problems arise, however, when we forget her counsel that "the feeling of guiltiness must be laid at the foot of the cross, or it will poison the springs of life."1 Unfortunately, many Adventists overlook or minimize her many comforting statements and 1

Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers, p. 518.

190

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? stumble over many other things she said that could be misunderstood or misapplied. It was precisely those quotations that Koresh exploited. He misused Ellen White to put people on a first-class guilt trip. He caused them to question their salvation and also the integrity of their church so that they were willing to listen to his reform message. Then he convinced them he had the prophetic gift of present truth. Fatal brainwashing Let's review the deceptive strategy of David Koresh. Targeting Adventists, he won their assent that the Bible was important but not good enough; it needed interpretation from a modern prophet. Koresh then assaulted his hearers with guilt and insecurity, and with his overwhelming spiritual knowledge he positioned himself as God's special messenger proclaiming the straight testimony for today. Following night-long brainwashing sessions, weary minds surrendered to his purported prophetic authority. The next logical step was to abandon career ambitions, say good-bye to friends and family, and join the fatal follies at Ranch Apocalypse. After Koresh's new converts packed up and moved to Waco, just two more things had to happen before they were ready to die for him. He tapped into their already existing paranoia about prophecy with nightly study sessions. They spurned the loving Revelation of Jesus Christ with its faith-inspiring instruction for the last days; for them, the last book of the Bible became a zoo full of beasts and an arsenal of warlike symbols pointing to a fiery Armageddon. Then came the final step to hell—tolerating Koresh's sinful lifestyle. How did those who shunned sin in their own lives tolerate it in their leader? The

191

ANOTHER WACO? great deceiver convinced them that the Lamb of God had to fully identify with fallen humanity to the point that He completely participated in the sinfulness of those being saved. By living a pure life, Koresh asserted, Jesus failed to fulfill that aspect of Messiah's role 2,000 years ago. So God called him, David Koresh, to pick up where Christ left off and experience sin in its fullness. Fulfilling that unholy calling qualified him as the final Lamb of God. Bad theology. Twisted logic. But it worked its deadly charm in the lives of earnest Adventists. The torched corpses sprawled among the ruins of Ranch Apocalypse were not the remains of stupid people or those looking for an easy way out of obeying God. Cult members were so spiritually committed that they sacrificed their personal freedom and dignity, their children and even their spouses to help the "Lamb" identify himself with sinful humanity. They rose before dawn to dig trenches while he slept past noon. They munched on popcorn and apples while he gorged himself on steak and beer. They slept on single beds in celibate barracks while he defiled virgins and their mothers in his private penthouse. Such was life, until it went up in smoke. Do you see how the pieces of the puzzle fit together?: 1) Conscientious Adventists agreed that the Bible wasn't enough for the final remnant—they needed the straight testimony of a modern prophet; 2) Koresh exploited their spiritual insecurity with his manipulations of guilt and fear, bombarding them with Ellen White quotations and Bible texts until they concluded that his knowledge of inspiration qualified him as a channel of new inspiration; 3) Presenting prophecy as a horror show of beasts culminating in a fiery finish, Koresh primed them to

192

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? fight and win the battle of Armageddon; 4) Koresh convinced them that the Lamb of God had to fully partake of sinful humanity. The above four points are not mere theological theory. They are documented history, the simple facts of life and death with David Koresh. Remember, the Waco cultists were not lacking in intelligence or spiritual fervor. These four points on which they succumbed are actually perversions of genuine spiritual truths: 1) God has placed the gift of prophecy in His last day church; 2) Laodicean Adventists indeed are doomed unless they gain new insight and inspiration; 3) Revelation does speak of beasts and other symbols culminating in Armageddon and a final fire; 4) Christ did become a human being. Unfortunately, the doomed cultists failed to realize that 1) While there is a modern gift of prophecy, the Bible remains the supreme authority and the standard by which all teaching is tested; 2) The remedy for Laodicea is not guilt and fear-based religion but faith, love and the Holy Spirit; 3) The bottom line of prophecy is not the behavior of beasts but the coming of Christ; 4) Jesus shared humanity with us but He remained "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). He picked up where Adam failed; Adam sinned in sinless flesh, and that's where Christ overcame. Have we learned yet? What happened in Waco is history now. The question remaining is, Have the rest of us learned each of those four lessons? We've spent some time in this book looking at the last three. Now let's ponder number one, the basis of all Koresh's deceptions: prophetic inspiration and authority.

193

ANOTHER WACO? There are two extremes in relating to modern prophetic authority—similar to popular misunderstandings in the Protestant world about the inspiration of the Bible. Some "liberals" suggest that the Bible isn't truly inspired but just a collection of wise sayings, interesting stories, and boring genealogies. Others at the opposite extreme uphold such a rigid concept of inspiration that they regard every word of the prophet as dictated right from God, with no regard for the prophet's own language, background or personality. If you maintain a balanced view that all Scripture is inspired by God, yet the specific language reflects the prophet's own choice, many fundamentalists will denounce you as a compromiser. There's a similar situation in the Adventist Church with the inspiration of Ellen White. Some "liberals" discount her counsels entirely, relegating them to the Victorian cemeteries of the nineteenth century. Others at the opposite extreme exalt Ellen White as lord over the Word; they almost need permission from her before believing what the Bible says. If something in the Bible appears to contradict her testimony, they automatically—even without realizing it—exalt the lesser light over the greater light. Other Adventists strive for a balance between those two extremes. They value the counsels of Ellen White but uphold the Bible as final authority. Such members in good and regular standing need not find out what Ellen White said in 1888 to know what to believe today about the gospel. God established the truth about righteousness by faith long before the days of Ellen White. The apostle Paul proclaimed by inspiration: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed"

194

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? (Gal. 1:8). That should settle it. What we find in the book of Galatians is the gospel's eternal benchmark. Not even a messenger from heaven could change the established Word of God. The bottom line One reason so many gospels flourish in the Adventist Church is that many members cannot accept the Scriptures as their spiritual standard. Some Adventist teachers seem to anchor their beliefs in her writings, perhaps even more than in the Bible. That makes it necessary for this book to include a chapter on prophetic authority. We never will settle what the gospel is until we first agree on whether the final authority of our beliefs is the Bible or Ellen White. Some among us believe that Ellen White added to the gospel, laying an extra burden upon the final generation. How could this be, though, in the light of the warning from Galatians we just read? Beyond that, consider the verse we quote to our Protestant friends who say that the salvation covenant was amended after Calvary to permit Sunday keeping: "Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case" (Gal. 3:15, NIV). So once the salvation covenant was confirmed at Calvary, nothing could be changed or added to it— not even by a messenger from heaven in 1888. And now in the final generation we don't have some new gospel to proclaim but "the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 14:6). We see then, that the eternal gospel itself hasn't changed since the days of Paul. But is it possible that our understanding of the gospel has changed—

195

ANOTHER WACO? even Ellen White's own understanding of it? Some suggest that prophets must not grow in their understanding of truth. Please consider John the Baptist, an inspired prophet acclaimed by Christ Himself as equal to the greatest of prophets—yet he erroneously expected a political Messiah to chase out the pagan Romans who occupied the Holy Land. Christ performed the opposite of his expectations until at last the great prophet even doubted that Jesus was the Savior: "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?" (Matt. 11:3). Not only was the prophet completely mistaken about how Christ would come, but John and his disciples also suffered from legalism; they hoped "to be justified by the works of the law."2 Yet despite such a serious misconception, John remained God's anointed prophet, inspired to herald the Messiah. Did the prophet's imperfect doctrine disqualify him from being God's messenger? Jesus didn't think so. John fulfilled his mission of announcing the Messiah. Then why did God permit him to preach immature theology along with truth? The prophet had to teach on the kindergarten level. God's people were not ready for the full message, so He gave them a prophet who could meet them on their own level and lead them where they finally could appreciate the gospel. God never intended for John to preach with the same insight that Paul would in later decades. The people were not ready for the lofty gospel of the apostle. God called a prophet that shared many of their misconceptions so they could relate to his teaching. Here's the point: If we accept Christ's testimony that John the Baptist was a prophet—despite his need for 2

Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 276.

196

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? theological growth—what about Ellen White? What right do we have to demand more from her than we do from the greatest of prophets? Both of them were called by God to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. And both of them learned and grew during the course of their spiritual leadership. Prophetic growth Did you know that Ellen White, though inspired, initially held a number of convictions which later changed as the Holy Spirit guided her understanding? Consider this: "In 1858, a somber, 30-year-old Ellen White wrote: 'John's life was without pleasure. It was sorrowful and self-denying.'3 By age 50 (1877), she had caught a glimpse of joy: 'John's life, with the exception of the joy he experienced in witnessing the success of his mission, was without pleasure.'4 But for Ellen White at 70, joy had conquered the camp of the saints: 'John enjoyed his life of simplicity and retirement.'5"6 One of two things had happened: either John the Baptist became progressively happier between 1858 and 1897, or Ellen White grew in her capacity to appreciate Christian joy. Since the Baptist was dead during the nineteenth century, we are left with only one option. If you disagree, perhaps you have an alternative explanation. Why should we resist the reality of Ellen White's growing understanding of truth? She herself ex3

Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 29. Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 69. 5 Ellen G. White, The Youth's Instructor, January 7, 1897. 6 Alden Thompson, "Alden Thompson Responds to Beast Bashing," Columbia Union Visitor, November 15, 1993, p. 6. 4

197

ANOTHER WACO? plained: "That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message for this time."7 One example of this is how, back in the 1850s, she counseled a brother not to forbid the eating of pork.8 Not until her health visions of the 1860s did she take a stand on unclean meat. Evidently the Lord was leading in His own good time. Another area of growth in Ellen White's understanding is her concept of God's character. Notice this from her Appeal to Youth, published in 1864: "God loves honest hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest." "The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and He has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love." "When you feel tempted to speak impatient [sic], remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong."9 Now, compare the above with the following, written 28 years later (after 1888): "Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that he loves them so that it grieves his tender Spirit to see them in transgression."10 Thank God, Ellen White was always moving in the right direction. Suppose that in 1864 she taught that God loved bad children then later said He didn't love 7

Ellen G. White, "Talk to Ministers," The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 133. 8 See Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 206, 207. 9 Ellen G. White, An Appeal to the Youth, pp. 42, 62. 10 Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, February 15, 1892.

198

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? them—that would be a problem. But the growth in her understanding of truth proves that she was led by the Spirit of truth. It has been an agonizing struggle for some Adventists to acknowledge the reality of Ellen White's need to grow. But why? If we see the need for growth in the greatest of prophets can we not accept it in our own? Just think. What if God had given the message of 1888 to us in 1844? We couldn't have digested it. It was hard enough to swallow 44 years later. Since Ellen White indeed was a true prophet, should we not expect to see a pattern of growth in her writings to correspond with the growing capacity for maturity in our movement? Ellen White also grew in her understanding of prophecy. Back in the first edition of The Great Controversy she wrote that Babylon "cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries."11 But in her 1911 revision she inserted a significant word: Babylon "cannot refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries."12 "The pastor did not rob the bank." "The pastor did not rob the bank alone." Do you see the difference in meaning coming from one little word? Some cannot imagine that Ellen White might have changed her mind regarding Babylon. Actually, the very person she asked to supervise the revision of The Great Controversy, W. W. Prescott, reported that indeed there was a fundamental doctrinal shift involved. At the 1919 Bible Conference, he testified to fellow church leaders that "before 'Great Controversy' was revised, I was unorthodox on a certain 11 12

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 1888 ed., p. 383. Ibid., 1911 ed., emphasis supplied.

199

ANOTHER WACO? point, but after it was revised, I was perfectly orthodox. 'Great Controversy' said that Babylon could not mean the romish church, and I had made it mean that largely and primarily. . . . I will tell you frankly that I held to that position on the question of Babylon for years when I knew it was exactly contrary to 'Great Controversy,' but I went on, and in due time I became orthodox. I did not enjoy that experience at all, and I hope you will not have to go through it. . . . What settled me to take that position was the Bible, not any secular authority."13* Notice that Elder Prescott took his stand on the basis of his Bible study, not through human reasoning or preferences. In doing so he was following Ellen White's own counsel that the Bible and the Bible only should be the foundation of our faith and teaching. However you may feel about W. W. Prescott's testimony, perhaps it may not matter whether that revision in The Great Controversy reflects a transition in Ellen White's understanding of doctrine or whether she was revealing a new dimension in what she already understood. The simple fact is that her 1911 position is more easily defended from the Bible. That should inspire our confidence. Even prophets learn and grow 13

"The Bible Conference of 1919," Spectrum, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 55. Emphasis supplied. The transcript of the 1919 Bible Conference may be one of the most important documents of Adventist Church history, casting light on how General Conference leaders and Bible teachers of yesteryear related to Ellen White's prophetic gift. Unfortunately, this landmark document has never been published in official church publications, although nothing I've ever read about Ellen White has helped me more than the excerpts of the document published in Spectrum.

200

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? During the doctrinal controversy in 1888, Ellen White questioned her previous position on the law of Galatians. Dismayed at the unchristian attitude of those defending the traditional view, she testified: "For the first time I began to think that it might be we did not hold correct views, after all, upon the law in Galatians, for the truth required no such a spirit to sustain it."14 Although Ellen White had previously supported the traditional view, now as always she was willing to walk in the light. Another clear example of growth concerns the vital doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Ellen White's rich and mature understanding the divine Comforter, so beautifully expressed in her later writings, is entirely absent in the first five decades of her ministry. Either the Holy Spirit changed from a divine force to a living being in the 1890s, or Ellen White changed her doctrinal position. I think we know the answer, and once again we see the Lord's leading. From the beginning of her ministry, God was leading Ellen White, and through her the Adventist Church, into a growing understanding of Bible truth. Remember, she could not teach the message of 1888 back in 1844. It would have been too much for the church to digest. One fascinating event in early Adventist history illustrates why God couldn't reveal the whole truth all at once. Prejudice, unbelief and perhaps plain old stubbornness blocked the way of advancement. Although Ellen White had a divine message and mission, some had difficulty relating to the testimony of a newlywed teenager. One such example was Joseph Bates, a cautious old sea captain who had been a pioneer Adventist. God did something dramatic to win 14

Ellen G. White, Manuscript 24, 1888.

201

ANOTHER WACO? his confidence in the prophetic gift. Let's read it in Ellen White's own words: "August 30th, 1846 I was married to Elder James White. In a few months we attended a conference in Topsham, Me. Bro. J. Bates was present. He did not then fully believe that my visions were of God. . . . The Spirit of God rested upon us in Bro. C.'s humble dwelling, and I was wrapt in a vision of God's glory, and for the first time had a view of other planets. After I came out of vision I related what I had seen. Bro. Bates asked if I had studied astronomy. I told him I had no recollection of ever looking into an astronomy. Said he, 'This is of the Lord.' I never saw Bro. Bates so free and happy before. His countenance shone with the light of Heaven, and he exhorted the church with power."15 Arthur White, in his biography of his grandmother, provides additional information and background: "Bates had been troubled with serious doubts as to the visions, but the evidence in the experience at Topsham was such that he accepted them wholeheartedly from that time forth. Ellen White never wrote out in detail what she was shown. It is evident that God's purpose in giving this vision was to establish confidence in the heart of Joseph Bates. It should be borne in mind that the number of moons she was shown was what Bates, up to that time, had seen through the telescope. Stronger, more modern telescopes have brought into view additional moons circling the planets described. Nevertheless, had Ellen been shown what stronger telescopes now reveal, Bates's doubts would have been confirmed, rather than alleviated."16 15 16

Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 83. Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White

Biography

202

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? Fascinating! God actually intended that Ellen White's testimony be inadequate and inaccurate. Otherwise, Bates would have rejected the revelation. In inspiring Ellen White's vision, God was not rewriting the laws of astronomy but convincing a sincere but stubborn man about Ellen White's prophetic gift. Erroneous information it may have been, yet inspired just the same. Actually, if Ellen White had communicated the whole truth, it would have been rejected and God's purpose would have been defeated. Do you see the implications for other things that Ellen White taught during the development of our church? A prophet's message may contain inadequacies and even inaccuracies, yet be genuinely inspired! Remembering this would save us from imposing unauthorized expectations on God's gift of prophecy. Let us clearly understand that a true prophet's message containing divinely-intentioned inaccuracies is not to be confused with heresy. It is just as inspired as later messages but suitable for its own time and place. Keep in mind that the content of prophetic messages cannot exceed the capacity of the intended audience. Jesus was aware of this when saying: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). He had to hold back until His people were ready to receive greater light. Likewise in Adventist history, God could not reveal in 1844 what He revealed in 1888. Our church wasn't ready for it. Thus the inspired counsels before 1888 were deficient of whatever truth was revealed later! (Hagerstown, Md.: Review & Herald Pub. Assn., 1981-1986), Ellen G. White: The Early Years, vol. 1, p. 114. Emphasis supplied.

203

ANOTHER WACO? That's one reason we cannot base our theology on extra-biblical revelations. When did Ellen White become "mature" theologically? I don't think God ever intended for her to reach a stopping point and declare herself infallible. Instead of worrying about how mature she may have been, how much better to assume that everything she wrote was given her by God to say, and then to test each individual message by the Bible. Just like she says we should! Of course, the Bible itself shows a pattern of development from Old Testament to New. By the end of the 66 books, however, the full body of truth was delivered to God's people. Paul spoke of "the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints" (Col. 1:26). Forevermore the foundation of God's truth was fully established in the Bible. No additional doctrine could be added by later prophets (see Gal. 3:15). Perhaps this information doesn't harmonize with everything we've usually believed about Ellen White, but do we dare set our own standards of divine inspiration? Some of us have supposed that if a prophet's message contains any error, it cannot be genuine. But if God in His wisdom permits a measure of error to linger with truth, is it permissible to reject His prophetic gift? Not at all! Doctrine was defined once for all time in the Scriptures, so there's no problem if Ellen White grew in her own understanding as she led this church. It helps to recall that inspiration is perfect for God's purposes, not ours. Also, that God cannot dump a load of truth upon an audience not yet capable of accepting it; thus inspired messages may

204

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? contain incomplete truth and even error. I believe Ellen White's sense of duty was so strong that until the time came to proclaim a particular truth, God had to withhold it from her own understanding. He knew that whatever truth she was convicted of she would feel compelled to proclaim. So if the church wasn't quite ready to hear something, the Lord simply withheld that information from her until the time was right. It hasn't been easy It seems sad when some Adventists criticize other loyal members whose intellectual honesty compels them to acknowledge Ellen White's theological growth. Some zealous members, concerned about compromising the Testimonies, arm themselves with certain quotations that do not nurture the assurance of salvation. When meeting them, I affirm their good intentions and then try to share my own testimony. If they still suspect me of undermining inspired counsel, I might ask them: "My brother, my sister, where were you when I forfeited my family, friends and scholarships, abandoning college because I didn't think the Testimonies were upheld there? And where were you during dinnertime when I was fasting on the mountaintop? Where were you when in obedience to the Testimonies I prayed all night as Jesus did? Is it fair for you to admonish me about obeying the straight testimony until you've followed your own quest for perfection to the brink of tragedy?" No, it hasn't been easy to arrive at the positions you find in this chapter. Cherished tradition and childhood beliefs fought me every step of the way. Only overwhelming evidence could finally compel

205

ANOTHER WACO? me to conclude that Ellen White exchanged error for truth as God continued to lead her. It actually inspired confidence when I saw she was always moving in the right direction, saying whatever the Lord wanted her to say throughout her ministry. In the process, she grew just like every other Christian does. In case you need a little more convincing, here's further evidence of Ellen White's growth in understanding truth. Immediately after the Great Disappointment when Christ didn't come in 1844, the branch of Millerites which later developed into this denomination believed probation had closed for the world. To them, whoever hadn't accepted the Millerite message never could be saved. Ellen White herself believed in this "shut door"—even after God gave her a vision to the contrary, according to Robert Olson, retired secretary of the White Estate: She "did not at first understand the meaning of the 'open door' in her February, 1845, vision."17 Previously she had mistaken her December, 1844, vision: "That seventeen-year-old Ellen should misinterpret one of her visions should elicit no surprise when one remembers that . . . at one time the apostle Peter mistakenly believed in a shut door."18 So Peter and his fellow apostles grew in their understanding of truth; John the Baptist grew as well. Why shouldn't Ellen White have the same opportunity? And all the while she was growing she was fulfilling God's purpose as His prophetic messenger. Where do we bed down? 17 Robert Olson, The Shut Door Documents (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1982), p. 12. 18 Ibid., p. 6.

206

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? Those who hesitate to acknowledge the reality of Ellen White's developing theology, please ponder this: At what point would you endow her with infallible spiritual authority? In her childhood, before she received the prophetic call? In the 1840s, when she interpreted her early visions to mean that nobody but Millerites could be saved? What about the 1850s, when she still ate pork and counseled against taking a stand on unclean meat? Perhaps in the 1860s, when she thought Jesus didn't love bad children? In the 1870s, before she equated Rome with Babylon and also before she changed positions on the law in Galatians? In the 1880s, before she taught that the Holy Spirit was a person? Earnest voices urge our church to go back to historic Adventism, but nobody's Adventism is so historic to believe only what Ellen White taught in the 1840s, the 1850s, the 1860s, the 1870s, or even the 1880s. Nevertheless, some feel compelled to reject the evidence about her theological growth. They offer no solutions to the questions raised; instead they suppress discussion and expect compliance with positions they will not and cannot logically defend. But there must be room in this church for those who have a slightly different understanding of the same truth. You can believe in the ministry of Ellen White as much as anyone else while acknowledging that she grew through the years, exchanging error for truth. Suppose you find it difficult to accept that. Then please think this through again: If God intended El-

207

ANOTHER WACO? len White to be our infallible theological interpreter, at what point did she assume that role? Furthermore, on what basis does she serve as an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Certainly not because of her own testimony. Ellen White says the Bible only Our prophet had no doubt about her calling; fearlessly and faithfully she rebuked, comforted and counseled. But it's interesting that she refused the role of a theological referee. Throughout her long and fruitful ministry she pointed to the Bible as the basis of doctrinal authority. For example, during the 1888 controversy over the law in Galatians, some church leaders tried to use her authority in establishing doctrine. They wanted to settle the discussion with a manuscript she had written. Here is her reply: "Has he [Waggoner] not presented to you the words of the Bible? Why was it that I lost the manuscript and for two years could not find it? God has a purpose in this. He wants us to go to the Bible and get the Scripture evidence."19 In this highly significant statement, Ellen White declares that God purposed that her manuscript be lost to compel the church to settle its questions from the Bible alone. They were not to use her writings to establish interpretation of Scripture. She repeated this position a few years later in a controversy over Daniel chapter 8.20 Ellen White reminded church leaders that "the Bible is to be presented as the word of the infinite 19

Ellen G. White, quoted in LeRoy E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971), p. 229. Emphasis supplied. 20 See Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 164.

208

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? God, as the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith."21 She left no doubt that the Bible is its own expositor. At times she became quite vigorous and intense in getting people to look away from her to the Bible. Have you ever read this amazing quotation?: "Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White said'—'Sister White said this,' and 'Sister White said that,' and 'Sister White said the other thing.' But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,' and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what He says."22 Vintage, untamed inspiration. And this: "But don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now."23 Despite such earnest, sound counsel, many who claim to believe her inspiration reject what she says about the Bible. It's amazing how some members claim to uphold everything she says but reject her clear teaching that the Bible alone is our rule of 21

Ellen G. White, Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 39, 40. Ellen G. White, Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 167. 23 Ibid., p. 174. 22

209

ANOTHER WACO? faith and doctrine. I remember an experience conducting a witnessing seminar in Chicago. I was explaining that Jesus must be the center of every Bible study lest we err like the Pharisees did. Christ accused them of searching the Scriptures to find eternal life, yet refusing to come to Him, the object of the Scriptures, in order to receive that life. I noted that the King James Version doesn't accurately represent the meaning of John 5:39, because it says Jesus told the Pharisees to "search the Scriptures"—when obviously they already were searching the scriptures while rejecting Christ. Immediately a man's hand went up. "Pastor, the Spirit of Prophecy used that text in the way you say is incorrect. Ellen White in the Testimonies quotes John 5:39 while exhorting someone to read the Bible, to 'search the Scriptures.' Do you think you know more about that text than the servant of the Lord does?" Well, it was an awkward moment. Fortunately, I had been reading the Desire of Ages, where Ellen White also quotes John 5:39 the opposite way—making the same point I was trying to get across. I identified the chapter where our brother could look it up for himself. I'm sure he finally accepted the true meaning of the text when he realized Ellen White endorsed it. But the Bible by itself wasn't good enough for him. He rejected the principle of "sola scriptura"—the Bible and the Bible only. You may have heard about the discovery of a previously unpublished Ellen White manuscript regarding the nature of Christ. Some Adventists are excited that now, at last, they can know for sure the truth

210

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? about the Lord's humanity. But is it right for them to put that nineteenth century document in authority over Scripture? Or is it a gross misuse of the prophetic gift, the type of thing Mormons do with Joseph Smith? Some would protest that they are not giving Ellen White authority over the Bible; they just let her "explain" it—but in effect they impose her interpretation upon Scripture. This is a terrible abuse of her prophetic role. Ellen White herself acknowledged that her gift operated under the authority of Scripture. When will we all accept that? Our only authority? Some would ask, however: "In what sense is the Bible our only rule of faith and practice? The laws of the land, employee handbooks, the Church Manual, and countless other documents are rules of practice." True, but all these are authoritative in only a limited sense. Corporate policies and even civil laws are not eternal absolutes. The Bible stands unique as a law unto itself, the standard by which all lesser authorities must be tested. At this point you may be thinking: "If the Bible can be understood without the gift of prophecy, why do we need Ellen White's books at all?" Notice this inspired answer: "The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed. Man's duty to God and to his fellow-man has been distinctly specified in God's word; yet but few of you are obedient to the light given." "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light."24 24

Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 3, p. 30.

211

ANOTHER WACO? So whatever we need to live for God we can find, explicitly or implicitly, in the Bible itself. Now, God's Word doesn't specifically condemn tobacco, but it does teach the body temple principle. And how about cocaine? Do we need yet another prophet to tell us we must "just say no"? Not when we have biblical principles to guide us. Well then, what is the authority of a prophet? Merely pastoral? No, much more. Pastors and teachers receive their instruction through studying the Bible. Prophets, on the other hand, receive direct inspiration from the Spirit outside the written Word. One would expect a direct revelation from God through a vision to be more reliable and authoritative than an indirect revelation received through personal study. Even so, prophetic messages must still be tested by the supreme authority of the Bible. A friend of mine served as a missionary in Korea. You may be sure he is more authoritative than I am in interpreting that language. I only have indirect access through an English-Korean dictionary, while he's had the benefit of direct dialogue with Koreans. Even so, despite his inside information, my friend's word is not final. Everything he says in Korean must be tested by the same authority available to anyone who can read the dictionary. In the same way prophets, despite their direct connection with heaven, must submit their messages to the Scripture test. That is, unless we want confusion in the church. During the first campaign I held as an evangelist, a visitor invited me to a non-denominational prayer meeting. It turned out to be a Charismatic praise service. I watched amazed as person after person jumped up with a prophetic message to bind the conscience of different ones in the audience. They

212

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? even spoke for God using the first person, such as: "Thus saith the Lord, 'I want John to sell his new car and be satisfied with a used one.'" As you can imagine, the will of the Lord became confusing. Those people needed some final authority to rule above spiritual gifts. No wonder the New Testament encourages us to put latter day prophets to the test: "Do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil" (1 Thess. 5:20-22, NASB). Remember the Bereans. Paul was a prophet, yet the people of Berea did not accept anything he said without proving it for themselves by Scripture. This was not doubting the prophet; they were spiritually noble. So it's a spiritual duty, not a matter of presumption, to test the prophet's message. But isn't this "picking and choosing" what is inspired and what isn't? No, because we test by the Word and not by human opinions or inclinations. When the instruction of a preacher or prophet is validated by the Bible, we must pick up the cross even if it has splinters. Many seem reluctant to be good Bereans, since it's hard to examine truth for oneself. Perhaps some of us invoke the doctrinal authority of Ellen White to escape the discipline of Bible study: "Sister White taught the importance of health reform and that settles it for me!" That sounds good, but was the gift of prophecy given to make us lazy? Human nature finds it is so much easier to default on our responsibility and simply take everything the preacher or the prophet teaches as gospel. But the Word of God is clear: regarding "prophetic utterances" we must "examine everything carefully."

213

ANOTHER WACO? Spiritual gifts must be judged by the Word, never the other way around. As Paul said: "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32). Circular reasoning Some Adventists, despite their sincere desire to uphold the Bible, end up making Ellen White their final authority. How does this happen? Through circular reasoning: "Why do I believe in Ellen White? Because everything she says agrees with the Bible. So everything in the Bible can be tested by her writings. I rely upon her interpretation of Scripture. This means that in principle I accept 'the Bible and the Bible only,' since everything she says agrees with the Bible." A Catholic friend of mine uses similar reasoning: "Why do I believe whatever the pope says? Because everything he says agrees with the Bible. So everything in the Bible can be tested by the teachings of the pope [including Sunday worship]. I rely upon his interpretation of Scripture. This means that in principle I accept 'the Bible and the Bible only,' since everything the pope says agrees with the Bible." You see the problem. Anything that defines Scripture threatens to replace it as the final authority. The fundamental issue of the Protestant Reformation was that the Bible must be its own interpreter. It was not that the pope was a bad interpreter of Scripture and now we must find a better lord over the Word. Remember, the Bible itself is its own final word. It contains the entire system of truth.

214

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? Once saved, always saved? Some suggest that since Ellen White proved herself to be God's messenger in the 1840s, ever afterward —for the next seven decades—everything she taught must without question be the word of God. Having once been proven faithful to the Scriptures, never again need the prophet be tested by the Bible. Is this "once saved, always saved" for prophets? We find examples in Scripture where certain prophets wandered away from God's will. Ellen White, of course, remained faithful throughout her long ministry. Yet still as a matter of principle, should we not test all her writings by the Word? At what point in her life could we pronounce her beyond the need of testing, having become in fact once saved, always saved? "Once saved always saved"—every good Adventist ought to flee in horror at the very hint of such heresy! And consider this: If we fail to test Ellen White's messages by the Bible and make her an infallible law unto herself, what could prevent some new prophet from intruding into the sacred circle of Scriptural authority? This question is more than a possibility. Back in the 1890s Anna Phillips Rice appeared, claiming the same prophetic gift Ellen White had. She actually won endorsement from some of our most influential church leaders. A. T. Jones held up her testimonies before a church assembly, proclaiming the new "prophet" to be just as inspired and therefore authoritative as Ellen White. Fortunately, Ellen White herself in Australia caught wind of the crisis and put an end to Anna's would-be ministry.

215

ANOTHER WACO? What if another Anna Phillips Rice appeared today? It's happening! In the Adventist Church today, dozens of members claim to have inherited Ellen White's prophetic authority. On the speaking circuit I've become acquainted with several. At one Atlantic Coast campmeeting someone reverently handed me a thick file folder full of "prophetic counsels" she valued on par with Ellen White's books and the Bible. Can you imagine the chaos in the church if large numbers of our members endowed a new prophet with the same doctrinal authority that they now give Ellen White? Actually, forcing everything we believe to be re-interpreted through new extra-biblical revelations? Isn't this the same thinking that empowered David Koresh's delusions? If we granted Ellen White the power to re-invent Bible truth, then every succeeding prophet must have the same authority. There would no longer remain any objective anchor for our faith. It is absolutely essential to test and keep testing by God's Word everyone who claims the prophetic gift. Our only safeguard against another Waco is restoring the Bible to its proper place. Testing times are coming; of that we may be sure. David Koresh is dead and gone, but more like him are waiting in the wings. We undo if we overdo God can help us honor the gift of prophecy without making it more than He intended it to be. The tombstones of those who exaggerated the prophetic gift line the hallway of Adventist history. Defectors from our church usually make their first mistake in putting Ellen White above the Bible. When their impossible expectations of her ministry

216

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? are shattered by reality, they feel devastated. Bitterly they reproach our prophet and abandon our church. We all know of former Adventists who had this tragic experience. How much pain we suffer through misconceptions about inspiration! Not only that, our witness to fellow Christians is severely compromised if we promote unauthorized claims about Ellen White. You know how it goes. Your Baptist friend down the street finally agrees to attend church with you. Unfortunately, before she ever hears an Adventist sermon, what happens in Sabbath School shakes her confidence in our message. Too often, all she hears is "Sister White says this, Sister White says that." So she leans over to you and whispers, "All this talk about Sister White! What about the Bible?" You've lost her. She brands the Adventist Church a cult and never comes back. To avoid such heartbreaking situations, many pastors and evangelists encourage Sabbath school superintendents and teachers to be discreet about invoking the authority of Ellen White. But is the real solution to hide what we believe about the Spirit of prophecy? Or should we get our thinking straight and put the Bible first and foremost? When we establish ourselves as truly people of the Book, we can quote Ellen White without repelling informed Christians. Many of them already know about spiritual gifts and will be delighted to welcome the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. But we must meet them on the solid rock of the Bible only as our rule of faith. Which Adventist doctrine cannot stand on the Bible alone? Despite such a solid biblical base, some Adventists perceive sola scriptura to be a threat to the

217

ANOTHER WACO? authority of Ellen White. Often they refer to this warning of inspiration: "The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. . . . Satan will work ingeniously . . . to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony."25 Is this ingenious deception happening right now? We are witnessing two basic attacks against Ellen White's authority. On one hand many despise her writings in order to "do their own thing," speeding along the highway to heaven in reckless abandon. Will they be lost for rejecting Ellen White? Only because her straight testimony which they refuse is based upon the Bible. False freedom is a dangerous temptation indeed, but perhaps Satan has reserved his most cunning deception for those whose blind zeal causes them to exalt Ellen White as lord of the Scriptures, where God never intended her to be and where she never wanted to be. Throughout our history some have bitterly forsaken the Bible, the Christian life and the Adventist Church after reality deflated their overblown expectations regarding Ellen White. Were the Millerites perfect in their theology? Not even the prophet John the Baptist was flawless in his teaching, so why must Ellen White be? We need divine insight to acknowledge her humanity and see God at work in her gift. Otherwise our appreciation of inspiration will be so shallow that we must deceive ourselves to retain "faith." Where would the Adventist Church be without Ellen White? Less enriched, for sure, but with our Bibles still in hand would we have no hope? Some insist that Adventism will collapse unless we build our 25

Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, February 24, 1874.

218

WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH? faith upon her writings. But is Ellen White the rock on which Christ built His church? Perhaps Ellen White's friends have done much more damage to her reputation than her enemies. Really, she doesn't need us to defend her; all we need do is read her books in their proper relation to the Bible. I believe that any genuine believer will recognize in her writings the voice of the Shepherd. Well, those are my convictions on Ellen White. Please do not accept them if you have better answers than this chapter has offered for the following questions: * If Ellen White has authority to redefine Scripture, when in her life did she receive that authority: In the 1840s? The 1850s? The 1860s? The 1870s? The 1880s? * If Ellen White has authority to redefine Scripture, on what basis did she receive that authority? * If we grant Ellen White the right to redefine Scripture, on what basis can we deny future prophets the authority also to reinterpret the Bible and even Ellen White's writings? * Since each Adventist doctrine is supported in the Scriptures, why do some members depend upon Ellen White to tell them what to believe? * If theological growth from error into truth didn't disqualify John the Baptist from a place among the greatest of prophets, why should it disqualify Ellen White? ___________________