Toward A Third Testament
By , Adventist Currents, February
The defrocking of Desmond Ford in 1980 and subsequent dismissal of a number of other ministers for doctrinal dissent raises the question of the basis for the Seventh-day Adventist church's doctrines. The Adventist church in its statement of fundamental beliefs officially states that the Bible is the source of its teachings. It declares that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by divine inspiration and are the authoritative revealer of doctrine. At the same time the church affirms that the writings of Ellen White are a manifestation of the Spirit of Prophecy and an authoritative source of truth. This gift of prophecy in the ministry of Ellen White is believed to be one of the marks identifying the Seventh-day Adventist church as the remnant church.
How Authoritative Are Ellen White's Writings within Seventh-day Adventism?
Because the church has, by these statements, accepted two sources of authoritative written revelation, the question arises as to which of these — the Bible or the writings of Ellen White — is considered the norm of Adventist faith and practice. The church has attempted to answer this question with the assertion that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching, including Ellen White's, must be tested. She is said to be classed with the non canonical prophets such as Nathan and Iddo of the Old Testament or John Baptist and Agabus of the New.1
Classification of Ellen White's role with that of the non canonical prophets is not consistent, however, when one considers the volume of her writings and the influence they exert in the Seventh-day Adventist church. Ellen White was a prolific writer who commented extensively on the Bible and on every aspect of Christian life. Her works are published, studied, and quoted by Adventists to an extent never matched by any of the non canonical prophets. The Adventist explanation that Ellen White's writings are inspired by the same Spirit that inspired the biblical writers, yet are not to function as Scripture, is difficult to understand. Because Scripture is the written revelation which a religious community regards as being inspired. When the Adventist community accepts the divine inspiration of the White writings, has it not accorded them a position of Scripture in the community?
Rhetoric Aside, the SDA Sect Relies Heavily on Ellen White
What happens when someone believes that the Bible and Ellen White disagree? Ford's dismissal from the Adventist ministry resulted from his questioning of the church's sanctuary doctrine (that Christ entered the most holy place in heaven in 1844, at the end of the 2300-day period of Daniel 8:14). His teaching on this topic was perceived as a challenge to the authority of Ellen White, who had written that Christ did enter the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844.2 The extent of the church's reliance upon Ellen White in its sanctuary doctrine can be judged by a two-part article entitled "The Sanctuary Truth," which appeared in the Adventist Review, subsequent to Ford's dismissal. The article contains more than 250 lines quoted from Ellen White and only one verse from the Bible (Dan. 8:14).3
But the emphasis on Ellen White's writings extends beyond the points of doctrine into all Adventist activities. Sermons quote Ellen White's statements in the same context as the Bible and usually to a greater extent. Sabbath School lesson leaflets in recent years contain ten times as many words from Ellen White as from the Bible. Articles in the Adventist Review frequently quote more extensively from Ellen White than from the Bible. Students in Adventist schools are indoctrinated in the writings of Ellen White from the earliest grades through college years. Even the tithe envelopes carry not texts of Scripture — but her statements on the subject of giving.
So the very sources by which the Adventist is instructed and informed place an emphasis upon the writings of Ellen White that is traditionally reserved for the Scriptures. Moreover, there is in operation a curious "ratchet effect" whereby the more questions that are raised about the White revelations, the more the revelations are promoted by the church's administration and publishing houses. Even though President Reagan designated 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" in honor of Gutenberg's achievement, the Adventist church named 1983 the "Year of the Spirit of Prophecy", i.e., the "Year of Ellen White."
Evolution of White's Writings into a Third Testament
At the church's 1919 Bible Conference, responsible Adventists criticized the then-current practice of making Ellen White's writings the interpreter of the Bible and the source of sermons.4 During the ensuing sixty-five years, that practice has proliferated. There has been a gradual evolution of the White writings into a functioning "Third Testament" within the Adventist church. Just as the Christian Church in general has interpreted the Old Testament by the New Testament, the Adventist church interprets both the Old Testament and New Testament by the messages of Ellen White. Having acknowledged her as the messenger of the Lord, Adventists accept her revelations on points of doctrine and in the interpretation of the Scriptures.
Hence, while the Adventist church professes that the Bible is the authoritative written revelation, in its practice every interpretation of the Bible must agree with Ellen White's statements. From this perspective the Bible is no longer the unique revelation of God's purpose, nor is it the ultimate norm for the Christian life. It is functionally subordinate to Ellen White's comments, by which the biblical message must be understood. Such an attitude negates both the primacy of the Scripture and the personal leading of the Holy Spirit in the individual reader's understanding of Scripture. It also furnishes an explanation for the perfect agreement between Ellen White and the Bible, which Adventist apologists are invariably able to find. They simply interpret the Bible by Ellen White.
Desmond Ford's dismissal from the ministry means that in Adventism today, as in the past, there can be no disagreement with Ellen White in doctrinal matters. A Presbyterian minister may disagree with points of the Westminster Confession and still occupy his pulpit. A Catholic priest (such as Hans Kung) may publicly challenge Catholic doctrine and retain his priestly office. But any Adventist minister who has questions about Ellen White's writings has to choose between keeping his reservations or doubts concealed or seeking other employment. Appeals to the biblical text are useless in the face of a statement by Ellen White.
This basic contradiction between the Adventist profession of biblical primacy and the practical denial of that primacy goes unnoticed in Adventism until someone challenges a doctrinal position of Ellen White. The General Conference president alluded to this in his Glacier View statement that "the bottom line, of course, is the role of Ellen White in doctrinal matters."5 One might properly add that the resolution of all doctrinal problems will depend upon the settlement of this basic contradiction.
Seventh-day Adventism Teaches the Gospel According to Ellen White
The church presently publishes in 183 languages. The translation and promotion of the White writings will eventually spread them worldwide. Unless the Adventist leadership is willing and able to take positive action to restore the primacy of the canon of Scripture and in its practice to agree with its profession, it is not unreasonable to foresee in Adventism a multinational form of "Third Testament Christianity" teaching a gospel according to Ellen White. The consequences of such a development will be more serious than the defrocking of non conforming ministers. It will mean nothing less than separation of the Adventist church from its Protestant heritage, which is based ostensibly upon sola Scriptura.
The role of the Protestant Reformation was not so much a point of doctrine but the role of Scripture itself. The term "sola Scriptura" expressed the Reformers' stand that the Bible is the ultimate authority on any teaching, in contrast to their opponents' position that the Bible is authoritative only as it has been interpreted by the "inspired" leadership of the Church. It is important that Adventist ministers and laymen understand that the same central issue of the role of Scripture is present in the doctrinal controversies that exist in Adventism today. The present administrative leadership of the church thus far appears to have missed this point completely.