The Afterlife of EGW

[Gregory Matthews]

Dr. George Knight has written a book, published by the denomination, that discusses the manner in which the writings of EGW have been used in this denomination, following her death.  The following is an interview with Dr. Knight about his new book.

https://spectrummagazine.org/interviews/2019/ellen-whites-afterlife-author-interview-george-r-knight

NOTE:  The following quote is a part of the above article. Read the full article for all of the questions.

 

Quote

Question: Dr. Knight, as church historian, you have written more about Ellen White and her ministry than probably any other person. What prompted the writing of yet another book?

Answer: My previous books on Ellen White have dealt with her life, ministry, and the interpretation of her writings. There has been a great need to understand the treatment that she and her writings have undergone since her death. This book seeks to fulfill that need.

# # # # # #

Question:  What is the unique contribution this book makes in understanding Ellen White and her writings?

Answer:  The unique contribution of Ellen White’s Afterlife is to trace the history of how Ellen White and her writings have been treated since her death. And that story isn’t always a pretty one, but it is essential for the church to understand if it is to truly comprehend the prophet and her meaning for the 21st century.

Question:  This year marks the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Bible Conference. One of the significant issues at that conference was how to view and relate to Ellen White's writings. What did the conference get right and what are some of the major issues in regard to her writings that the church is still dealing with 100 years later?

Answer:  The 1919 meetings were significant for their openness in discussing Ellen White and the nature of her inspiration. Such openness, if it would have continued, would have saved the church from an “Ellen White crisis” in the 1970s and early 1980s. But due to the fundamentalist/liberal confrontation of the 1920s, the openness came to an end, to a large extent due to the threats and accusations of those Adventists who had swallowed the fundamentalist views on such topics as verbal inspiration and inerrancy — topics explicitly denied by Ellen White herself. The end result is that the denomination moved away from Ellen White’s understanding and that of her closest colleagues and created a mythology that caused a crisis when the facts began to come to light in the 1970s. One result is that Adventism is still struggling with topics openly discussed in 1919 related to the nature of inspiration and the place of Ellen White and the role of her authority. The leaders in 1919 were closer to the mark on those topics than we as a denomination were in the 1960s.

Question:  Following up on the previous question, in your view what is the most widespread misconception in the church today regarding Ellen White’s ministry and writings.

Answer:  Probably the most widespread problem with the church today regarding Ellen White’s ministry and writings is that her writings should be used as a Bible commentary and as a source from which to do theology — two ideas she rejected in her lifetime.

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

I am probably not going to reply to Knight's opinions as I tend to think of him as having totally discredited himself from further consideration. However, in the short portion of the quoted interview he used the word "fundamentalism" several times and that is concerning me as a misuse of the word.

Fundamentalism (Wikipedia) usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups–mainly, although not exclusively, in religion–that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group often results from this tendency.

Depending upon the context, the label "fundamentalism" can be a pejorative rather than a neutral characterization, similar to the ways that calling political perspectives "right-wing" or "left-wing" can have for some negative connotations.

When you look at a definition of the word you can see that it at one time was one of the things that was very important to SDAs, such as "indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs." We used to believe in the Bible alone and everything had to be measured by the Bible. Nowadays, people are using all sorts of ways to determine beliefs and practices.

The other part of this is that "fundamentalism" is one way to disparage people who try to maintain a close relationship to the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. The is an example "of the label "fundamentalism" can be a pejorative rather than a neutral characterization."

[phkrause]

Great article!! Thanks GM for the post and link.

[Gail]

Good for Dr. Knight!

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry B/W Photodude, but Fundamentalism is the word that fits this situation and Dr. Knight is right.

You see in the mid 1800s with the rise of the belief of evolution people looked for evolution in everything. Before the rise of evolution there were good people and bad people but people generally believed in God and believed that the Bible was inspired. People took for granted that the Bible was inspired for so many years that people did not stop to think what inspiration meant.

With the rise of evolution people started becoming atheists. With the rise in atheism there was a rejection of the Bible being inspired. In the 1700s people started to notice and point out evidence of editing in the Biblical books. These new atheists took this as evidence that the Bible was purely of human origin and that the editing followed human evolution.

In reaction to these attacks on the Bible people who continued to believe in God and the Bible started to try to answer these criticisms of the Bible. They began reasoning that if God is perfect then his word must be absolutely completely perfect in every way. Their reaction to the atheists was called "Fundamentalism" Some books were written in 1800s and then in the first decades of the 1900s there was a series of pamphlets called the Fundamentals. This lead to different fundamentalist Bible conferences climaxing in a Bible Conference in Philadelphia PA in the summer of 1919. 

These events caused churches to split into two camps, the liberal churches which rejected Biblical inspiration seeing the Bible as only a good moral book, accepting full evolution and willing to make religion only a social gospel. Other churches became fundamentalists churches. The misunderstanding of the shut door protected us from the onset of this. These ideas started to come into Adventism when W. W. Prescott read an early book on Fundamentalism and started to teach it in Battle Creek where Stephen Haskell picked it up. Prescott, and his two friends A. G. Daniels and D. M. Canright were getting excited with this new approach to the Bible.

When Mrs. White learn about this she asked the 3 of them to come and work for her. She gave them assignments to do things with her writings that was completely against what the Fundamentalists taught. Prescott told about how terrified by her assignments. Mrs. White put the three young men into such a predicament that Prescott and Daniels (although we might wonder to what extent) ended up choosing against Fundamentalism. Canright went to the other extreme he gave up Mrs. White. And if you look at his writings there is only one reason for his choice and it's that he became an extreme fundamentalist. He joined the Northern Baptists, and the Northern Baptists was the most extreme fundamentalist church that there was. If Canright did not become a Fundamentalist he would not have needed to turn his back on Mrs. White and Adventism. 

Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell were very good friends. But they did have one area of stress. Haskell was a fundamentalist and kept trying to convince Mrs. White to become a fundamentalist. He kept telling her how her visions worked and that she was infallible. She kept telling him that he was wrong and telling him that she was not infallible. That visions were like seeing photos and explaining what she saw. She liked to quote a pastor, only she made one modification. This pastor saw inspiration as more of a subjective experience. She made it very clear that it was an objective experience, but with that one change she saw what this pastor preached as the truth about inspiration. 

I'm sorry I forgot the pastor's name, but when the other churches were falling into fundamentalism or liberalism, he took a balanced view and would teach this balanced view. However he became hated by both sides. The liberals hated that he strongly believed in God and that the Bible was inspired, and the fundamentalists hated him because he rejected fundamentalism. He ended up loosing his ministry when a woman claimed that she was having an affair with him. It was proved to be a lie and she said that the reason why she lied was to protect the Bible from the horrible things he was teaching. You can find his teachings in Selected Messages and in the forward to the Great Controversy. 

Despite their difference in opinion over inspiration Mrs. White and Haskell stayed close friends. But both were frustrated that they could not convince the other of their view. Haskell wanted to marry Mrs. White when James died. But she helped to play matchmaker to another woman. This proved to be providential because the different views on Fundamentalism ended up causing more friction between Haskell and Willie.

 

[Kevin H]

In the 1880s General Conference President Butler wrote a series of articles against Fundamentalism. In 1888 he and his nephew, Elder Washburn were united in their opposition to Jones and Wagner. They were shocked that Mrs. White sided somewhat with Jones and Wagner instead of opposing them and also making a strong stand over issues such as who were the 10 horns and defending the traditional Adventist teaching of the daily in Daniel. 

Butler had to go and wrestle with these issues but came back stronger. In the 20th century Butler and his nephew Elder Washburn had a falling out over the issue of Fundamentalism. Butler of course having never accepted Fundamentalism and Washburn not being as extreme as Canright, but still was a firm believer in Fundamentalism. I believe that what helped Butler was his rejection of Fundamentalism. Washburn on the other hand tried to make some kind way for the anti-Jones and Wagner view, and one set of horns and the traditional view of the Daily to still be strong in the post 1888 Adventism. He and others who held similar views got some strong testimonies from Mrs. White. They would often reply by reminding her of some of her quotes and how they had come from God. She would talk about how she was not infallible and talk about how her visions work. 

While I have to give them credit that I did not see this next part in their letters, but in the early 1900s there were pamphlets and letters going around accusing Mrs. White of aposticy. One of the major issues in those claims was her no longer believing that she was a prophet because she rejected Fundamentalism and did not see her writings as infallible. 

Mrs. White's last major battle was trying to keep Fundamentalism out of the church. And as your post B/W gives evidence to, this was a battle that she lost. The closest she got to victory was that we never officially accepted Fundamentalism and that our fundamentalists have been on the liberal end of the Fundamentalist spectrum. 

Mrs. White died in 1915 and Elder Butler died in 1917. Prescott, Daniels and Willie continued the fight. 1919 was that major Fundamentalist Bible conference in Philadelphia. Many of our pastors and Bible teachers decided to attend. Elder Daniels was worried that if Fundamentalism was not checked in the church that people would find similar problems that Elder Canright found and that eventually Fundamentalism would end up destroying the church. So he invited the pastors and teachers who were on their way to Philadelphia to first stop by Washington DC for a Bible conference. Elders Daniels and Prescott lead out. Willie was to help them but saw the storm that was growing and had to be out of town on business. At first it appeared that the conference was going well.

Sadly at the close of the meeting Daniels and Prescott did not collect the tickets from Washington DC to Philadelphia and burn them like how Paul had those magic books burned in the Bible. The men went on the train and went to Philadelphia. Then they went home and left behind the Washington D.C. 1919 Bible conference and brought with them the Philadelphia 1919 Bible conference. 

Stephen Haskell, Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkinson among others were very upset at the 1919 Washington D. C. Bible conference. Although Prescott was more moderate than Washburn and Wilkinson, they united in a war against the anti-fundamentalists. This lead to the 1922 General Conference when Daniels and Prescott were demoted and Willie, although allowed to keep his job, had any authority removed. Basically he was fired but allowed to keep his office and pay check.  Daniels was replaced by  Elder Spicer. Now Spicer was seen as almost as big a heretic as Daniels and the others. Elder Spicer believed in two different types of inspiration. He believed that Fundamentalism  was true when it came to the Bible, but that Mrs. White was inspired in a different way than the Bible and thus Fundamentalism did not apply to her. But while Elder Daniels felt that Fundamentalism would destroy the church, Elder Spicer was willing to keep his heresy to himself. He believed that Fundamentalism, while wrong, was harmless and if members wanted to believe it them let them. 

 

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I definitely think you are right, and that "fundamentalism" has its good side and dark side. While the historical narrative that Kevin has supplied is very interesting, I am not sure it would be accurate to use "fundamentalism in quite the context he has described. Taking a quick survey of her writings, she doesnt use the word "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist." She does use the word fundamental, only 133 times, approx. Things like this:

I am presuming the reason Kevin used the word "fundamentalism", because G Knight did? Not sure, he will have to clarify.

No I am not using the word "Fundamentalism" because George Knight did. We studied this at Atlantic Union College, before I heard of Dr. Knight (before I had to read one of his books for an education class.). 

Yes the idea of the fundamentals has different meanings in different places but Fundamentalism is the specific name of this movement that started in the mid 1800s, which was widely spread in the pamphlets "the Fundamentals" in the first decade of the 20th Century and the resulting Bible conferences leading up to the Philadelphia 1919 Bible conference. 

There were two ideas that developed in the mid 1800s that joined together, the views known as Dispensationalism, and Fundamentalism. Our view of eschatology has decreased the influence of Dispensationalism (although we have been influenced enough to change how we look at our eschatology viewing it from the same perspective that the Dispensationalists use for their eschatology). 

Doctor Knight uses the word Fundamentalists for the same reason, it is the name of the specific movement. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Historically the meaning of the word "fundamentalism,"  as it is defined when used in a religious sense, is found in  that series of pamphlets, as cited below.

Yes, today, that word is used  in other contexts, outside of religion.  For example, it is used in a political sense.  In my opinion, when used in that sense, it can be traced back to a time in England.  But, that is not the sense in which it has been used in this forum.  So, I will not get into a discussion of those other meanings of the word.

The bottom line is that when used in a religious sense, the meaning of "fundamentalism:" is best defined by beginning with a reference to that series of pamphlets that discussed basic religious doctrine.  From that, one may decide to discuss how the meaning of the word may have  changed over time to the point as to how one might say  it is used today, if one is going to say that the  meaning today has evolved from the past.  

 

 

Quote

. . . 

Fundamentalism is the specific name of this movement that started in the mid 1800s, which was widely spread in the pamphlets "the Fundamentals" in the first decade of the 20th Century . . .

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is one short statement, from Wikipedia, as to the background of fundamentalism:

Quote

In 1910, a wealthy Presbyterian layman, Lyman Stewart, the founder of Union Oil and a proponent of dispensationalism as taught in the newly published Scofield Reference Bible, decided to use his wealth to sponsor a series of pamphlets to be entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. These twelve pamphlets, published between 1910 and 1915 eventually included 90 essays written by 64 authors from several denominations. The series was conservative and critical of Higher Criticism but also broad in its approach, and the scholars who contributed articles included several Presbyterian moderates who would later be opposed to "fundamentalism" such as Charles R. Erdman, Sr. and Robert Elliott Speer. It was apparently from the title of the pamphlets that the term "fundamentalist" was coined, with the first reference to the term being an article by Northern Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws.

 

The following, also from Wikipedia includes a statement of the doctrinal positions discussed in those twelve (12) phamphlets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals 

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

8 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Yes the idea of the fundamentals has different meanings in different places but Fundamentalism is the specific name of this movement that started in the mid 1800s, which was widely spread in the pamphlets "the Fundamentals" in the first decade of the 20th Century and the resulting Bible conferences leading up to the Philadelphia 1919 Bible conference.

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

You mentioned the 1919 Bible Conferences, and it sounds like you are grouping a combination of people/sources under the label of "Fundamentalism?

According to RCC apologetics, "Fundamentalism" is basically anyone who says "Sola Scripture."  Or "The Bible Alone. Who comprised what you are saying "Fundamentalism" is, or was back in the mid 1800s? (and thank you for your patience!)

KevinH posted two interesting posts earlier regarding different personalities in the various conferences, with some rising and some falling. However, it would have helped if the actual views of these people were also included since there seems to have been different opinions but they were reduced to "more fundamentalism" or "less fundamentalism."  It gets hard sometimes telling who is wearing the black or white hats!

There was some allusion to perhaps a change in Sister Whites own opinion of her ministry. Exactly what that change was would have been helpful. 

Given that a number of people were in a "descending" mode, it seems that that is almost standard procedure for all of the church's history. A number of them, deservedly or not, have even endured that in modern times including such names as Brimsmead, Ford, Andreasen, Louis Were, & perhaps others within my lifetime.

[Kevin H]

My apologies, I thought I did in my first post. Before evolution became popular most people believed in God and believed that the Bible was God's book. There were good people and bad people but most still held that belief. 

However with the rise of evolution people started to become atheists. They wanted to show that the Bible was purely of human origin. 

In reaction to the rise in atheists and the attacks on the Bible, Christians wanted to defend their faith and the Bible. They started to reason since God is perfect (and using a Greek rather than Hebrew view of perfection) that God's word has to be as perfect as he is. It was an over reaction to what the atheistic critics of the Bible was saying. Like Dispensationalism, Fundamentalism was embraced by many churches.