Monday, March 19, 2007
Apathy and Ardor: Acts 22 and Ellen White
Paul's address to the crowd who had just nearly beaten him to death is one of the more surreal moments in Acts. The previously irate Jewish crowd is hushed listening to Paul give his personal testimony regarding Jesus Christ. Perhaps they are lulled into apathy hearing the familiar Hebrew inflections and hopeful discussion of a Messiah. The brief moment of apathy quickly reverts to the former zeal when Paul claims to be sent with a message of hope to the Gentiles. Their Messiah would come to free them from oppression. Their Messiah would direct curses not blessings toward their oppressors. They acted according to the God and Messiah of their own understanding.
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Our understanding of God dictates so much of the life that we live -- the life that we live dictates so much of our understanding of God.
There are a few topics which consistently have the potential for evoking similar ardor and zeal within our Adventist community and Ellen White is one. There seems to be agreement that we all desire to keep Ellen White as a conversation partner as we continue to define ourselves in relation to God. Disagreement arises when we come to the issue of her human faults.
Many of the anti-Ellen White websites engage in the very worst forms of hyperbole and misrepresentation. However, those websites in support of Ellen White often attempt to claim too much and in the process do even more damage. The internet is a sketchy place to look for objective research based information (this blog included!). Unfortunately while level-headed research has been done on the issue of Ellen White's use of sources and some of her other personal issues, even the eggheads disagree on the interpretation of many facts! Here is a link to some excellent research from the General Conference archives with a rather long and detailed article dealing with issues of how we as a church relate to Ellen White entitled Ellen White and the SDA Church: Sligo Series. (I am biased because I know the author and have a great deal of respect for him.)
It seems likely that we will never come to a unified homogeneous consensus on this issue within the Adventist community. Just like the Jews of Paul's day created a messiah of their own understanding, we have created an Ellen White of our own understanding. In his review of the play Red Books Julius Nam writes, "The truth is, we make White what we need her to be. I certainly do. It’s a temptation that Adventist preachers, teachers, scholars, students, parents, and the White Estate have failed to resist successfully over the years. Perhaps it’s time to embrace it—not just our individual iconographies of her, but a collective, mosaic one."
It is encouraging that more open conversations are occuring and perhaps a beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White and her meaning for Adventism is just around the corner. In order for this to happen though, we must not allow our opinions to eclipse love and reason degenerating into the mob brutality of the Jews in Acts 22. We must also avoid being lulled into a state of apathy by disregarding difficult issues and only seeking the familiar. Instead, we need to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ. After being beaten by the enraged mob of Jews, Paul begins his address to them by saying, "I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just as all of you are today." He affirmed their best intentions and expressed empathy with the very crowd that nearly beat him to death! If he could do that by the grace of God, perhaps we could extend the same grace and understanding to those who have very different perspectives from our own.
What will this say about our understanding of God -- what will this do for our understanding of God?
Labels: Acts, community, diversity, Epicenter, religion, unity
Comments:
<< Home
EGW is and will be continue to be a controversial topic. For those of us remain in the church, it seems as though we are divided not only by our perception of her personal faults but also by her writings or more specifically how we regard and use her writings.
I appreciate your phrase of having her as a conversation partner. It is a nice concept and I would parse it further and assert that she should not, however, be THE authoritative voice in the conversation. It is very interesting that the link you have in your blog very clearly asserts that she did not want her writings used for exegetical purposes. Yet very often that is exactly how we use her—“Well, Mrs/Sister White says...” to end all further discussion. Based on Haloviak’s paper she would probably be appalled that we are using her as the court of final ruling rather than as part of the conversation as we depend on the Holy Spirit for further understanding. (Note the reluctance to answer your first question in class last week because as it was stated ...we want to hear what EGW said so we would not get the answer wrong).
I think that underlying the controversy is our understandings of inspiration. While we, in our church, say we do not believe in verbal inspiration, there is not agreement on what that means... how much error can there be in the passage or writing still be inspired? What do we do when there is error? How do we determine what in the inspired writings is error? Should we even be looking for error?
The disagreement on EGW and her writings may not even be our greatest problem. What seems to divide us more is how we deal with the enigmas. From my standpoint, I do not think that the church has been very forthcoming. I have not personally explored "Anti-EGW" sites on the web because of their bias and tone. On the other hand, I think that there are theologians and historians within the church who have attempted to pursue truth no matter where it leads. It is these that I find most useful. Yet it seems as though the church has attempted to hide the work of their academics when the result does not fit into their preconceived ideas. For example, the link in your blog should include Veltman's paper. After all he was commissioned by the GC to examine Desire of Ages for passages from other sources. His paper and others from credible academics need to be included especially if “problems” are found.
In my view, why this is so important is because of the trauma that these issues inflict on our community’s interpersonal relationships. Seeing “true believers” leave when they find out her enigmas is heart wrenching because it so often divides families and fractures close relationships. Is this really necessary? Does God think we who remain have handled the situation correctly? How we prevent this is not entirely clear but being open and forthcoming about all the facts seems like a good first step. Even if we disagree about the interpretation of those facts, the facts still need to be readily available through official sites and channels.
The other stance that would be very helpful to quell the divisions is how those who are searching and find “disturbing” facts are treated. We need to recapture the spirit of our ancestors in striving for present and progressive truth no matter where it leads. Much of this stance, of course, depends on our understanding of God; how he runs his universe and how He wants us to relate to Him and those around us.
I hope like you that we are headed toward a “beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White” because I think that we have a God who loves us not despite but because of our differences. After all, He created us so.
I appreciate your phrase of having her as a conversation partner. It is a nice concept and I would parse it further and assert that she should not, however, be THE authoritative voice in the conversation. It is very interesting that the link you have in your blog very clearly asserts that she did not want her writings used for exegetical purposes. Yet very often that is exactly how we use her—“Well, Mrs/Sister White says...” to end all further discussion. Based on Haloviak’s paper she would probably be appalled that we are using her as the court of final ruling rather than as part of the conversation as we depend on the Holy Spirit for further understanding. (Note the reluctance to answer your first question in class last week because as it was stated ...we want to hear what EGW said so we would not get the answer wrong).
I think that underlying the controversy is our understandings of inspiration. While we, in our church, say we do not believe in verbal inspiration, there is not agreement on what that means... how much error can there be in the passage or writing still be inspired? What do we do when there is error? How do we determine what in the inspired writings is error? Should we even be looking for error?
The disagreement on EGW and her writings may not even be our greatest problem. What seems to divide us more is how we deal with the enigmas. From my standpoint, I do not think that the church has been very forthcoming. I have not personally explored "Anti-EGW" sites on the web because of their bias and tone. On the other hand, I think that there are theologians and historians within the church who have attempted to pursue truth no matter where it leads. It is these that I find most useful. Yet it seems as though the church has attempted to hide the work of their academics when the result does not fit into their preconceived ideas. For example, the link in your blog should include Veltman's paper. After all he was commissioned by the GC to examine Desire of Ages for passages from other sources. His paper and others from credible academics need to be included especially if “problems” are found.
In my view, why this is so important is because of the trauma that these issues inflict on our community’s interpersonal relationships. Seeing “true believers” leave when they find out her enigmas is heart wrenching because it so often divides families and fractures close relationships. Is this really necessary? Does God think we who remain have handled the situation correctly? How we prevent this is not entirely clear but being open and forthcoming about all the facts seems like a good first step. Even if we disagree about the interpretation of those facts, the facts still need to be readily available through official sites and channels.
The other stance that would be very helpful to quell the divisions is how those who are searching and find “disturbing” facts are treated. We need to recapture the spirit of our ancestors in striving for present and progressive truth no matter where it leads. Much of this stance, of course, depends on our understanding of God; how he runs his universe and how He wants us to relate to Him and those around us.
I hope like you that we are headed toward a “beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White” because I think that we have a God who loves us not despite but because of our differences. After all, He created us so.
I agree, the facts need to be open and available. The attempt by the Adventist leadership to 'protect' Adventist lay people from the truth of Ellen White's use of literary sources is quite ironic for a denomination with a penchant for claiming to have the truth.
The problem, as you recognized above, is that we will disagree on the interpretation of the facts. I am listening to a presentation by Hoyt right now in which he references Veltman's research and asserts that Ellen White attempted to hide the fact that she used literary sources. On the other hand, Fortin, Moon, and Coon at Andrews University maintain that Ellen White never denied using literary sources. In fact, they claim that she openly acknowledged the fact.
However, for me her confession or denial is not the main issue. I am saddened by the very fact that she took others words and ideas and presented them as her own. In my original post, I included a quote from Julius Nam's review of Red Books. I don't think it would have gotten me in legal trouble, but it would have been dishonest and mean spirited of me to have taken the thoughts and words that I admired from his post and presented them as my own. Even her ardent supporters admit that this is what she did. (See the slide presentation entitled "Inspired author or plagiarist? Can we trust Ellen White's books?" on Fortins website for a side by side comparison of her words and the works she copied from). As an influential prophetic voice in our church, Ellen White should have done better.
Now the question comes -- can we forgive and continue the wonderful conversation which she began? Many of us have been able to. Others have not. By engaging in open, honest conversation and humbly extending empathy and understanding to those with whom we disagree, we will be in a better position to forgive the flaws of those who came before us.
The problem, as you recognized above, is that we will disagree on the interpretation of the facts. I am listening to a presentation by Hoyt right now in which he references Veltman's research and asserts that Ellen White attempted to hide the fact that she used literary sources. On the other hand, Fortin, Moon, and Coon at Andrews University maintain that Ellen White never denied using literary sources. In fact, they claim that she openly acknowledged the fact.
However, for me her confession or denial is not the main issue. I am saddened by the very fact that she took others words and ideas and presented them as her own. In my original post, I included a quote from Julius Nam's review of Red Books. I don't think it would have gotten me in legal trouble, but it would have been dishonest and mean spirited of me to have taken the thoughts and words that I admired from his post and presented them as my own. Even her ardent supporters admit that this is what she did. (See the slide presentation entitled "Inspired author or plagiarist? Can we trust Ellen White's books?" on Fortins website for a side by side comparison of her words and the works she copied from). As an influential prophetic voice in our church, Ellen White should have done better.
Now the question comes -- can we forgive and continue the wonderful conversation which she began? Many of us have been able to. Others have not. By engaging in open, honest conversation and humbly extending empathy and understanding to those with whom we disagree, we will be in a better position to forgive the flaws of those who came before us.
I'm a little curious about what the "journalistic" atmosphere was like in Mrs. White's time. Luke made a comment on Sabbath that what today is considered plagiarism, was at one time considered an honor. It was considered a privilege to have one's words used by another. I don't know about this, but I am curious. So often we take a situation and try to fit it into our current understanding. We forget the context of the original.
Does any of this weaken the message? Are the Psalms of David rendered useless because the author was a murderer and an adulterer? What about the message sent to Ninevah....What would have happened to the Ninevites (?) if they had said, "Boy, you know that Jonah, he ran from God and wouldn't obey Him. Maybe his message isn't true." Would the city have survived?
It seems that throughout the Bible, there are plenty of examples of great leaders and messengers who were far from perfect. Samson, David, Paul (the king), Peter, James and John, Paul (Saul), and the list goes on (and on).
I firmly agree that the church has dealt poorly with issues regarding Mrs. White. The real question is this: In these last days of the Earth as we know it, have we as a church been given a message of unimaginable importance? Do we have a road map for salvation, sent by God to a fallen world, albeit sent through a much less than perfect messenger? If so, then maybe we should focus more of our energy on the Sender of the message, and just a little less on the messenger.
People will question. Yes, she was human (gasp!). Yes she made mistakes (gasp again!). I'm just not sure how that affects the message.
I've witnessed Satan's attacks on Mrs. White's human nature, but this seems diversionary. Where are the attacks on the message (yes, I know there are some). Maybe Satan just doesn't want to draw attention to that little detail.
Boy, this is a complicated mess we find ourselves in. We know that God will not fail those who are honestly seeking truth with a heart that is open to His leading. It is my prayer that we as a church family will always remain open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. After all, we sure do need it.
Does any of this weaken the message? Are the Psalms of David rendered useless because the author was a murderer and an adulterer? What about the message sent to Ninevah....What would have happened to the Ninevites (?) if they had said, "Boy, you know that Jonah, he ran from God and wouldn't obey Him. Maybe his message isn't true." Would the city have survived?
It seems that throughout the Bible, there are plenty of examples of great leaders and messengers who were far from perfect. Samson, David, Paul (the king), Peter, James and John, Paul (Saul), and the list goes on (and on).
I firmly agree that the church has dealt poorly with issues regarding Mrs. White. The real question is this: In these last days of the Earth as we know it, have we as a church been given a message of unimaginable importance? Do we have a road map for salvation, sent by God to a fallen world, albeit sent through a much less than perfect messenger? If so, then maybe we should focus more of our energy on the Sender of the message, and just a little less on the messenger.
People will question. Yes, she was human (gasp!). Yes she made mistakes (gasp again!). I'm just not sure how that affects the message.
I've witnessed Satan's attacks on Mrs. White's human nature, but this seems diversionary. Where are the attacks on the message (yes, I know there are some). Maybe Satan just doesn't want to draw attention to that little detail.
Boy, this is a complicated mess we find ourselves in. We know that God will not fail those who are honestly seeking truth with a heart that is open to His leading. It is my prayer that we as a church family will always remain open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. After all, we sure do need it.
Tre,
What is the most troubling is what the church does with their own when they honestly seek truth with a heart that is open to His leading. While we have mainly discussed her humanness in our Sabbath School class, problems with some of her writings are probably even more significant.
My main concern is for those who have yet to discover her enigmas and for those who are being evangelized. How do we approach not only her humanness but also the mistakes she made in her writings? How do we do this without destroying faith? If we as a church care as much about those who have left as those yet to be "converted", we have to find a better way of dealing with her. Our current method since the 1919 Bible conference is not working. Just asking them to look at the message may not take care of the problem because the next question is which part of her message? In fact if you have a chance read the transcript from the 1919 Bible Conference at http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive06-10/index10-1.html, What is striking is that it is as though we are stuck in the same day like the movie Groundhog Day.
So lets do something different. Lets look honestly at her writings. Lets use them as she intended -- not for exegesis (see Havoliak's article linked in Brent's blog). Lets look for a understanding of inspiration that incorporates the humanness of the authors and the "mistakes" that creep in and helps us deal with our disappointment in our church's prophet and leadership. And yes, we desperately need to be open to the Holy Spirit because this is a big mess and good honest people are being hurt.
What is the most troubling is what the church does with their own when they honestly seek truth with a heart that is open to His leading. While we have mainly discussed her humanness in our Sabbath School class, problems with some of her writings are probably even more significant.
My main concern is for those who have yet to discover her enigmas and for those who are being evangelized. How do we approach not only her humanness but also the mistakes she made in her writings? How do we do this without destroying faith? If we as a church care as much about those who have left as those yet to be "converted", we have to find a better way of dealing with her. Our current method since the 1919 Bible conference is not working. Just asking them to look at the message may not take care of the problem because the next question is which part of her message? In fact if you have a chance read the transcript from the 1919 Bible Conference at http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive06-10/index10-1.html, What is striking is that it is as though we are stuck in the same day like the movie Groundhog Day.
So lets do something different. Lets look honestly at her writings. Lets use them as she intended -- not for exegesis (see Havoliak's article linked in Brent's blog). Lets look for a understanding of inspiration that incorporates the humanness of the authors and the "mistakes" that creep in and helps us deal with our disappointment in our church's prophet and leadership. And yes, we desperately need to be open to the Holy Spirit because this is a big mess and good honest people are being hurt.
Well said, Yung. Good words for thought. I'm going to have to give this more attention over the next week, but in the meantime I just have one thing to say: Happy birthday! I think I might have missed it by a day, though. Sorry. If I have the date completely wrong, then sorry about that too :)
By the way, if I was posting at 1:50 am in the morning, there's no telling what would end up here :)
By the way, if I was posting at 1:50 am in the morning, there's no telling what would end up here :)
Tre'
You make a very good point that we make a mistake when we pass judgement on past spiritual giants from our own limited postmodern perspective. Ellen White does indeed need to be understood from her time. In what must be the most exhaustive research into White's literary dependence, Veltman writes that at times it was difficult to determine which book White had borrowed from because there were similar paragraphs in multiple books. It seems that literary borrowing was a popular thing to do. I still don't think that makes it right but I will admit that may be my own personal hangup.
On a related note, she was accused of literary dependence by her contemporaries, not just 20th century academics and 21st century bloggers. Yet, it seems to me that her contemporaries main concern was that she was getting words from other people rather than directly from God. I don't share that concern because my understanding of inspiration does not consist of 'verbal inspiration'. So, again context is vital and I readily admit I am not a 19th century Adventist woman with the weight of being God's messenger in a new religious movement on my shoulders.
Here is a link to Veltman's research entitled "Life of Christ Research Project". If anyone has time to read the whole 800+ page document then have at it and let us know what it says! Otherwise, there is a 100 page summary at the end and a few pages of conclusions at the end of that.
Young,
I think part of the trouble with being honest is that there is just too much material. Which parts of it are we to be honest about. If we try to be honest with everything she wrote and everything written about her it is completely overwhelming. But, if we try to be honest about selective points we risk being unbalanced. (Perhaps this is the advantage of a 'beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White' where we bring balance in a communal understanding.)
I have tried to dig through some of the material out there to find out what the facts are about when she denied using sources but there is so much information that it quickly becomes overwhelming. I got mental whiplash going back and forth from the opinions of academics to the interpretations of apologists and then wondering which ones were the academics and which ones were the apologists. (I have my suspicions but how is one to know?)
I like the concept Carmen brought up in class. The important thing is the overall message. If we get too focused on the words and where they all came from we might miss the overall theme. White's focus on God and God's character as revealed in many ways through the great controversy but most clearly through Jesus Christ is a major theme we shouldn't miss.
You make a very good point that we make a mistake when we pass judgement on past spiritual giants from our own limited postmodern perspective. Ellen White does indeed need to be understood from her time. In what must be the most exhaustive research into White's literary dependence, Veltman writes that at times it was difficult to determine which book White had borrowed from because there were similar paragraphs in multiple books. It seems that literary borrowing was a popular thing to do. I still don't think that makes it right but I will admit that may be my own personal hangup.
On a related note, she was accused of literary dependence by her contemporaries, not just 20th century academics and 21st century bloggers. Yet, it seems to me that her contemporaries main concern was that she was getting words from other people rather than directly from God. I don't share that concern because my understanding of inspiration does not consist of 'verbal inspiration'. So, again context is vital and I readily admit I am not a 19th century Adventist woman with the weight of being God's messenger in a new religious movement on my shoulders.
Here is a link to Veltman's research entitled "Life of Christ Research Project". If anyone has time to read the whole 800+ page document then have at it and let us know what it says! Otherwise, there is a 100 page summary at the end and a few pages of conclusions at the end of that.
Young,
I think part of the trouble with being honest is that there is just too much material. Which parts of it are we to be honest about. If we try to be honest with everything she wrote and everything written about her it is completely overwhelming. But, if we try to be honest about selective points we risk being unbalanced. (Perhaps this is the advantage of a 'beautiful collective mosaic of Ellen White' where we bring balance in a communal understanding.)
I have tried to dig through some of the material out there to find out what the facts are about when she denied using sources but there is so much information that it quickly becomes overwhelming. I got mental whiplash going back and forth from the opinions of academics to the interpretations of apologists and then wondering which ones were the academics and which ones were the apologists. (I have my suspicions but how is one to know?)
I like the concept Carmen brought up in class. The important thing is the overall message. If we get too focused on the words and where they all came from we might miss the overall theme. White's focus on God and God's character as revealed in many ways through the great controversy but most clearly through Jesus Christ is a major theme we shouldn't miss.
I want to elaborate a bit on the academics/apologists bit in the last comment. Hoyt makes this distinction in his last presentation at the San Diego Forum. He calls F. D. Nichols an apologist and argues that his role was important but he overstepped his bounds. I think the situation today is similar.
It seems to me that many in the Adventist community will point to apologist's books and comments as 'academic' works to refute those whose findings indicate Ellen White was dishonest or unethical at times.
I do however like the way Ellen White's apologist supporters attempt to cast her actions in the best light possible. This seems to me a very Christlike way of looking for and affirming the best in others. The problem comes when they ignore or gloss over problems in their effort to be affirming and end up continuing the great cover up. The at times brutal honesty of academics is therefore necessary. However, I don't think the academics presentations are complete either. My hope would be that these very different views of Ellen White could come together in conversation and lead to that beautiful communal mosaic we have been talking about.
So, do the apologists have a legitimate point? Yes, they make some valid points. However, they refuse to deal in reality and it seems to me in their concrete thinking they are unable to engage in any real conversation. This is to the detriment of all of us within the Adventist community, making our communal mosaic incomplete and disjointed.
In circumstances where there are opposing viewpoints or diverging interpretations of facts would it not be better to err more toward the side of her supporters if possible? I personally recognize that there are comments in her writings (masturbation causing mental illness), situations in her life (her dealings with Fannie Bolton), and actions (leaving a large debt for the church to pay off) that display her human faults which are common to all of us too clearly to allow any interpretation other than that of her detractors. In these situations and so many more, her supporters damage their credibility and set good people up for disaster by ignoring or falsely interpreting the facts. Yet, extending grace to Ellen White when possible seems like the right thing to do and that is something I learned from listening to her supporting apologists.
It seems to me that many in the Adventist community will point to apologist's books and comments as 'academic' works to refute those whose findings indicate Ellen White was dishonest or unethical at times.
I do however like the way Ellen White's apologist supporters attempt to cast her actions in the best light possible. This seems to me a very Christlike way of looking for and affirming the best in others. The problem comes when they ignore or gloss over problems in their effort to be affirming and end up continuing the great cover up. The at times brutal honesty of academics is therefore necessary. However, I don't think the academics presentations are complete either. My hope would be that these very different views of Ellen White could come together in conversation and lead to that beautiful communal mosaic we have been talking about.
So, do the apologists have a legitimate point? Yes, they make some valid points. However, they refuse to deal in reality and it seems to me in their concrete thinking they are unable to engage in any real conversation. This is to the detriment of all of us within the Adventist community, making our communal mosaic incomplete and disjointed.
In circumstances where there are opposing viewpoints or diverging interpretations of facts would it not be better to err more toward the side of her supporters if possible? I personally recognize that there are comments in her writings (masturbation causing mental illness), situations in her life (her dealings with Fannie Bolton), and actions (leaving a large debt for the church to pay off) that display her human faults which are common to all of us too clearly to allow any interpretation other than that of her detractors. In these situations and so many more, her supporters damage their credibility and set good people up for disaster by ignoring or falsely interpreting the facts. Yet, extending grace to Ellen White when possible seems like the right thing to do and that is something I learned from listening to her supporting apologists.
I think it is Christlike to err on the side of kindness and justice and fairness when viewing Ellen White and the methods that were used in propagating her writings. I do believe that supporters like Thompson and Hoyt have tried to do that. Yet, it appears that many of her apologists are not doing her justice. Perhaps they damage her credibility by claiming more for her than she claimed for herself. One can acknowledge human error in her life, yet still value her overall contribution to the founding and early culture of our denomination. Moreover, I concur that detractors (such as Ratzlaff) do not seem to be treating her fairly and with Christian civility.
However,
In recent years, I have become more ardent in my passion for honesty when analyzing the method of her inspiration and the methods of the White estate and the official church voice pertaining to Ellen White. I can name half dozen close friends (plus more people who I only know by name) who have been disillusioned, or gradually disenfranchised because they were seeking the truth about her. Yet, it seems that in many localities the local (or conference) church milieu is not fertile for an honest dialogue. So, what is the responsibility for those of us who stay; in standing up for justice and fairness and kindness for people who are searching now??
However,
In recent years, I have become more ardent in my passion for honesty when analyzing the method of her inspiration and the methods of the White estate and the official church voice pertaining to Ellen White. I can name half dozen close friends (plus more people who I only know by name) who have been disillusioned, or gradually disenfranchised because they were seeking the truth about her. Yet, it seems that in many localities the local (or conference) church milieu is not fertile for an honest dialogue. So, what is the responsibility for those of us who stay; in standing up for justice and fairness and kindness for people who are searching now??
# posted by 
: 8:53 AM
: 8:53 AM
Why have people left our church? Here are some possibilities: distracted by the cares of the world, wanted to live a more worldly life, hurt feelings, disillusioned by our emphasis on Ellen White, other reasons I am sure.
One could surely say that Satan is working from that angle on our church (making people leave). I know church leaders analyze evangelism methods to increase membership. In the same vein, I think it would be so very helpful for the church to articulate a construct that would allow people who have trouble with EGW be able to stay, yet the conceptual framework would also be such as to not discourage people who do not currently see problems with her ministry.
I think we have a wonderful biblical message. I fear that EGW might be a stumbling block when we ignore "problems".
Post a Comment
One could surely say that Satan is working from that angle on our church (making people leave). I know church leaders analyze evangelism methods to increase membership. In the same vein, I think it would be so very helpful for the church to articulate a construct that would allow people who have trouble with EGW be able to stay, yet the conceptual framework would also be such as to not discourage people who do not currently see problems with her ministry.
I think we have a wonderful biblical message. I fear that EGW might be a stumbling block when we ignore "problems".
# posted by : 9:58 AM
: 9:58 AMSubscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]