Brief History:

​

       Seventh Day Adventism originated in the movement of William Miller who set the time for the end of the world to be 1843. They now claim to be carrying on the work begun by Miller. (Miller was a farmer who lived in Low Hampton , New York. When he was a Baptist (1831), he won 50,000 people to his views regarding the coming of Christ in 1843. It was at this time that the 7th Day movement began.  

      When this prophecy failed, he declared he had miscalculated and he then set the time at 1844 which also passed without incident. When he re-set it at 1845, some of his followers divide, and out of those fragments came Seventh Day Adventism. Adding some new doctrines (principally Sabbath keeping-Miller had observed Sunday as the Christian day of assembly), James White and his wife, Ellen G. White, became the leaders of the Sabbath branch of Adventism. She wrote:  "I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them; that his hand (was over and hid the mistake in some of the figures" (Early Writings, p. 64). "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time 1843" (Spiritual Gift, Vol. I, p.133).  Mr. White also endorse the Miller movement of Adventism (Life of Miller, p.6). Mrs. White further wrote: "as the churches refused to receive the first angel's message (Miller's work), they rejected the light of heaven and fell from the favor of God" (Early Writings, p. 101, quoted in Seventh Day Adventism Renounced by D.M.Canright, p.68-69). 

        None  of those who were later the leaders of Seventh Day Adventism such as White, Andrews, Bates and Rhodes were of any note in Miller's movement, though they were all in it. Yet afterwards, they claimed to be the only ones who had the right view of it, and all the rest were "in the dark." "foolish virgins," "apostates," etc. (Canright,p. 78-79). So today you may see some say that the 7th Day Adventist denomination started in Battle Creek, Michigan as late as  1863.The word of Mrs. White came to be regarded as the voice of God. She claimed to have had visions emphasizing the importance of Sabbath observance, and Adventists regard her as a prophetess and her writings as inspired (see The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, 144 pages. In this her inspiration is defended). Her writings are called Testimonies.  "It is God and not an erring mortal, that has spoken" (Testimonies, Vol. III, p. 247. Those who oppose her are  "not fighting against us, but against God,"  p. 260). Her last book is The Great Controversy. 

​

Selective Interpretation of Ellen G. White

As it relates to the counsel of Ellen G. White, “A Study of Church Governance and Unity” proposes the following: “’The judgment and voice of the General Conference’ represent ‘the authority and influence that God has vested in His church…, and most importantly, ‘private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered’.” (page 29) Yes, this is exactly what the document says—including the words “most importantly”!

Did Ellen G. White say these things? Absolutely (apart from the “most importantly” bit)! Does a contextual examination of her writings suggest that these are inflexible edicts? Absolutely not! This is the same Ellen G. White who said about the same General Conference, “For men to claim that the voice of their councils in their past management is the voice of God seems to me to be almost blasphemy.” (Manuscript 35, 1901; Manuscript Releases, Volume 17, page 250)

The careful reader has probably noticed that the quote in which the General Conference is accused of near blasphemy is taken from the very document that my essay finds fault with. One could reason that if the authors of “A Study of Church Governance and Unity” wanted to push an agenda, they could have omitted the evidence that goes against their thesis. However, while this may have been the strategy in the pre-Google age when the vast volumes of Ellen G. White’s writings were under carefully supervised lock and key, it is difficult to use those tactics in our information age.

What we have in our possession, is a document that provides the pretense of fairness by providing White’s contrary statements about the General Conference. Without a doubt, she clearly states that the General Conference is God’s representative. Contrarily, the evidence is clear that she also says the General Conference is not God’s representative. So which is it?

The authors dealt with this obvious contradiction by approaching the issue chronologically and concluding that she said it did before she said it doesn’t and then she said it does. In other words, the documents in which she said it does are chronologically located between the ones in which she said it does not. Indeed, it is true that the original statement was made in 1875. However, it is also true that there are a series of statements around the turn of the twentieth century in which she says the General Conference did not speak for God. And then we have a final statement in 1909 where she declares that it does.

Nonetheless, a chronological approach to the statements only serves the purpose of those who wish to manipulate Mrs. White’s words for their own political agendas. The fact that she changed her mind about the authority of the General Conference on at least two occasions is evidence that her final position should not be viewed as perpetual canon law. In case we have not realized, Ellen G. White has been dead for over one hundred years and the General Conference is still operating—without her.

In my estimation, if the authors of “A Study of Church Governance and Unity” really wanted to use Ellen G. White as a source for decision making, they would have been more honest in their application of her writings. Given the fact that she is not present in our midst to personally address the issue, the hermeneutical process should have been driven by context rather than chronology.

To be fair, the document does address the contexts in which White viewed the General Conference negatively, but it is done in a way that supports their chronological framework. It’s almost like a game of “musical chairs” in which the person who cannot find a seat when the music stops playing is the loser. As far as the authors are concerned, the prophetic music stopped playing when Ellen G. White died and her opinion about the authority of the General Conference is forever frozen in time.

Unfortunately, this chronological emphasis fails to apply the relevant question to our contemporary context: “Does the current General Conference behave like the one that speaks for God, or the one that doesn’t speak for God?” What would Ellen G. White have said to this General Conference?

Conclusion

While we may have our personal convictions, we will never know in which camp Ellen G. White would have placed this current administration. Nonetheless, even if she were still around, we already have a guide for spiritual decision making, and that is the Bible. Further, we already have an unmovable basis that should inform our decision making, and that is the Kingdom. No, I didn’t forget about the “Gospel,” I’m simply acknowledge that the Gospel we share is about the Kingdom over which Jesus our Lord and Savior reigns supreme.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​