This article analyzes the recent publication titled Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet,¹ which came out as a result of a conference on Ellen G. White held in 2009, in Portland, Maine. Approximately forty scholars, including some prominent scholars of American Religion, participated in the meeting. Afterward, Terrie Aamodt, Ronald L. Numbers, and the late Gary Land compiled some of the best papers into the present volume. While some critical historians may find this book to be too sympathetic of a portrait, others may have a different opinion.

While this is a significant milestone for Ellen G. White studies, we should not confuse this collection of critical essays as one intended to build up confidence in the prophetic gift. Although the book makes contributions, it does not represent positions of mainstream Adventist scholarship or of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. In this essay I summarize some of the main arguments of the book and respond to what I believe are significant points within each chapter.

The book begins with “A Portrait”² by Jonathan M. Butler, who compares White to Queen Victoria (1819–1901). Both exerted the right to rule, with White exerting her “divine right” through her prophetic calling. Quoting the historian David Walker Howe, Butler observes that Victorian culture may have been “more intensely” experienced in America than even in Victorian England.³ White, Butler argues, can be said to have become more Victorian than even Queen Victoria “as another of those homegrown American religious figures whose life and career blurred the distinction between marginal and mainstream.”⁴ Butler follows a common interpretive pattern by many historians, noting that Victorian culture marked a taming of the myriad pulses found in the period before the American Civil War, as denoted by the Second Great Awakening. What made Ellen Harmon White stand out, in his view, was that she saw “the most complete understanding of Christianity yet revealed” that must be proclaimed immediately before the end of the world. “All ages prior” were “incomplete stages” that “mattered like none before it because her world marked the end of the world.”⁵ While Butler recognizes White’s concept of the Great Controversy as pivotal, he fails to note that her view of theodicy was constructed upon a rich Puritan theological heritage dating back to John Milton.

I contend that Butler goes too far in his analogy with Queen Victoria. While White made significant contributions to Adventist lifestyle, most notably in the areas of health and dress reform, she fought against extremisms. Repeatedly she urged Adventist believers to look to Jesus instead of herself.⁶ Common sense must be exercised, and even at the end of her life she noted that the early “reform dress” was a start in the right direction, but that those who now advocated had failed to note just how much they had progressed since that early, formative period. Part of the genius of early Adventism, I believe, was their ability to view truth progressively, and to exert a flexible stance in the development of Adventist lifestyle. The Testimonies, as she corrected those who abused her writings, help to illustrate a tendency that she assiduously fought against her whole life.

The second chapter, “Visions”⁷ by Ann Taves, is largely an adaptation from her influential work Fits, Trances and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience.⁸ Particularly important, for Taves, is the Israel Dammon trial, which gives a raw and unedited version of Ellen Harmon’s interactions with other believers. White’s positive assessment of Dammon is ignored in light of her later statements castigating him as one of the most extreme fanatics. While White certainly downplayed the Dammon incident, part of this can be explained by later interactions she had with Miles Grant during the 1870s. What this suggests is that it is plausible that Israel Dammon, initially a supporter of Ellen Harmon, became the recipient of reproof, which may have in turn prompted the bedlam that broke out in Atkinson, Maine, in early 1845.⁹ Taves goes on to argue that these Adventists, by opening the door to visions, marked a way forward by allowing one the status of prophet as “an authoritative guide to scripture.”¹⁰ While Ellen Harmon would have vigorously denounced such a position, she repeatedly refrained from active participation during the Sabbath and Sanctuary conferences until after they had arrived at key theological positions such as the integration of the Sabbath and Sanctuary doctrines. Taves ultimately acknowledges that Ellen Harmon “brought something more to the task than her competitors.”¹¹

Perhaps the most helpful chapter for furthering Ellen G. White studies in this volume is the interpretative essay by Graeme Sharrock on the “Testimonies.”¹² “The testimony letter remains Ellen White’s distinctive literary signature.”¹³ She adapted a literary and rhetorical device with deep cultural resonances as an important tool of persuasion. Over time the “testimony” developed “into a distinguishable document with a definable structure, standard sentence types, stock arguments, and repeated rhetorical strategies.”¹⁴ Some accepted her reproofs, whereas others “reacted defensively” too.¹⁵ Publication of “testimonies” allowed for a wider readership as she and James worked and re-worked them into new editions. Sharrock uses the Rumery family along with others in Monterey, Michigan as a case study that demonstrates just how influential these “testimonies” were among early Sabbatarian Adventists.¹⁶ Within an emerging market economy, White exerted moral ideals in which she “negotiated the space between cold formalism and heated fanaticism” as a reversal of the earlier powerlessness of the Millerites.¹⁷

Ronald Graybill’s chapter on Ellen White as “Prophet”¹⁸ surveys the rise of her prophetic leadership. He argues that once Ellen White assumed the identity of “prophet” she was no longer able “to recognize or acknowledge any evidence that might be at odds with it.”¹⁹ Graybill looks at other prophetic contenders, including one example where she recommended getting the person a pitcher of cold water to help them come out of vision. What Graybill fails to note are the many other examples of would-be prophetic contenders (even outright frauds) with whom she worked on a personal basis. In each instance she appealed to the authority of Scripture as the ultimate arbiter for the genuineness of the prophetic gift: Anna Garmire, Anna Rice, and Helge T. Nelson are just a few of many other examples not cited which could have provided a broader perspective on how White dealt with prophetic rivals. The broader context of her life makes clear that she evaluated such contenders based upon Scripture. In conclusion, Graybill argues that White clearly made an impact that extended from her family to the church, and even to detractors.

Ellen G. White as “Author”²⁰ by the late Arthur Patrick covers familiar territory in White studies. Scholars often state that her literary corpus amounted to some seventy thousand pages. While this detail may seem insignificant, it is much more cautious and probably accurate than the hundred thousand pages that is typically bantered about.²¹ This is a good example, used throughout the volume, where scholars such as Patrick serve as a useful corrective to help challenge typical statistics and make sure that such figures are indeed accurate. Patrick notes White’s own admission that she was a “poor writer” who was “rarely a solitary author” in order to produce such a huge literary output.²² While her use of literary help is no surprise for someone from this time, her “claims of divine agency” coupled with her “unacknowledged use of sources” complicates things, according to Patrick.²³ Even during her lifetime, critics such as D. M. Canright capitalized on such claims to prove that she was a fraud.²⁴ He notes that “some detractors and defenders are as far apart as ever” on this issue²⁵ although claims by Walter Rea that she stole eighty percent of her material seem grossly exaggerated, whereas more cautious research by Fred Veltman appears to indicate that figures between ten and twenty percent are much more tenable.²⁶ The Ellen White Encyclopedia offers a different interpretative framework. Denis Fortin argues that White was always the “master” and never the “slave” of her sources.²⁷ Without a doubt, the issue of literary sources remains a controversial topic, as it does for many of her literary contemporaries—Leo Tolstoy is a notable example.

The next chapter by Terrie Aamodt covers Ellen G. White’s contributions as a speaker.²⁸ Initially she formed a speaking alliance with her husband James. After his death in 1881, she was dramatically healed while speaking at the 1882 Healdsburg camp meeting.²⁹ This marked a turning point in her physical health. “For Ellen White,” observed Aamodt, “public speaking supplied a measure of confidence and energy.”³⁰

In the next chapter³¹ Floyd Greanleaf and Jerry Moon state that as the builder of institutions, “Ellen White arguably exerted a greater influence on the development of Seventh-day Adventist institutions than any other person, but she did not act alone.”³² Her contributions included publishing, church organization, education, and the Western Health Reform Institute.³³ Altogether, her contributions as a public speaker as well as builder are remarkable. This chapter was the most positive in its assessment of Ellen G. White’s life and legacy.

The next two chapters cover White’s religious views. Fritz Guy addresses the topic of “Theology” and Bert Haloviak covers “Practical Theology.”³⁴ Guy argues that White’s thinking was “intuitive rather than deliberate, informal rather than structured, practical and occasional rather than theoretical and systematic.”³⁵ She was “motivated by practical concerns,” and did not consistently use her theological library. In fact, White “did not have a high opinion of the traditional discipline of theology and its practitioners.”³⁶ Her primary focus was on the near Advent of Christ. The “great controversy” conflict between Christ and Satan became a primary metanarrative for her theology.³⁷ While it is certainly true that Ellen White was not a formally trained theologian, this does not lessen her profound theological themes and impact. Many profound theologians throughout church history have had less than a formal theological training or have not necessarily written a systematic theology. Karl Barth, perhaps one of the most famous twentieth-century theologians, never earned a doctorate.³⁸ Similarly, John Wesley never wrote out a technical systematic theology. Each made profound theological contributions in their own way, as did White. One notable theme, observes Guy, is that as “a child of her times” she relied heavily on King James Version literalism.³⁹ Guy asserts that she made little use of other Bible translations. I argue, however, that although she admired the prose of the King James Version, her view of the Great Controversy opened the door for the possibility of other Bible translations that she increasingly used toward the end of her life.⁴⁰ Such a view helped move the church away from the rigid Fundamentalism of B. G. Wilkinson during the 1920s. Altogether, Ellen White “was always more a prophet than a theologian, but on occasion she expressed significant theological insights.”⁴¹ Haloviak argues that as a “practical theologian” White was influenced by the restorationist teachings of the Christian Connexion through her husband James (who early on was a Christian Connexion minister). Such views reinforced a literal reading of Scripture,⁴² especially a literal view of the “shut door”—the notion that the close of probation had occurred as illustrated in the parable of five wise versus five foolish virgins in Matthew 25:1–13. As a practical theologian she helped push the Church toward a more pragmatic open door.⁴³ This extended to practical aspects related to the Sabbath and Three Angels and Christian character.⁴⁴

A second chapter by Jonathan Butler is on the “Second Coming.”⁴⁵ “Though she remained the spiritual child of Father Miller, in many respects she had also grown up and left home . . . Ellen Harmon had been called as a prophet less to proclaim Christ’s imminent coming than to explain His delay.”⁴⁶ Through the “third angel’s messages” of Revelation 14, the seventh-day Sabbath, and her exclusive personification as the “Spirit of Prophecy” she distanced herself from Miller.⁴⁷ She created an “extension of time.” She abandoned earlier millenarian enthusiasm for a new kind of community.⁴⁸ She thus “abandoned the apocalyptic telescope” to place “her people under a spiritual microscope and looked to their moral development as the means to the Second Coming.”⁴⁹ White’s continued adherence to Miller’s historicist approach “ensured that her Seventh-day Adventist followers would remain in an American backwater of prophetic interpretation for generations to come” replete with “her own unique interpretations of the Bible.”⁵⁰ Ellen White needed to “slow down the eschatological clock,” noting that Adventists could hasten or delay the Second Coming.⁵¹ There is no doubt that the Second Coming was a significant and recurring theme throughout her life and ministry, but one historiographical challenge is to grasp the fervency and conviction of her belief. One criticism, noted by Simon Chan, is of historians who after the fact may not experience deep emotions through direct context. In a similar way, it can be difficult for historians after more than a century to appreciate the deep fervency of White’s conviction about the far-reaching fervency and impact of the Second Advent for her beliefs and even daily life.⁵²

Ronald L. Numbers and Rennie B. Schoepflin co-authored the chapter on “Science and Medicine.”⁵³ “Ellen White attributed most of her scientific and medical knowledge,” they observe, “to divinely inspired ‘visions’ rather than to reading or research.”⁵⁴ A remarkable amount of her ideas about health reform are borrowed from contemporary health reformers. But perhaps the greatest challenge, for the authors, pertains to White’s writings about science, most notably the geological column and the idea of a six-thousand-year-old earth.⁵⁵ Especially problematic is her statement about amalgamation, arguably her most controversial statement.⁵⁶ This latter statement has been explored in-depth in an article I co-authored with Timothy L. Standish in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia. Our conclusion was that the obscure statements were never clarified and therefore impossible to determine with the one caveat that she was not a racist. “She may not have been the most original American health reformer,” observe Numbers and Schoepflin, “but she ranks among the most influential.”⁵⁷

The chapter on “Society” by Douglas Morgan examines the intersection of Ellen G. White and culture.⁵⁸ “The ‘great controversy’ narrative shaped, though not without tension and ambiguity, her approach to public issues such as temperance and prohibition, woman’s rights, poverty and economic injustice, race relations, and religious liberty.”⁵⁹ She recognized that the prophetic minority throughout history should have a “transforming influence in society.”⁶⁰ Evangelism should include attempts to relieve and restore the poor and suffering. Such attempts included her disdain for labor unions⁶¹ and the need to take the Advent message to the large cities.⁶² Yet labor for the poor should not eclipse the Adventist message, a trend that led to her criticism of some of Kellogg’s humanitarian efforts.⁶³ Other areas of influence included race relations and religious liberty, where she insisted in both areas upon a modest pragmatism.⁶⁴ While some may observe a tendency to “practice craven compromise” others may detect a “wise, pragmatic flexibility in the service of faithfulness.⁶⁵ One could wish that such a nuanced interpretation could have been used by some of the more critical essays in this volume.

Benjamin McArthur in chapter 13 on “Culture”⁶⁶ notes that Ellen G. White “shaped a set of Adventist attitudes about recreation and culture that endured for decades.” Such a “shared sensibility” was characteristic of “a thorough-going moralism that was shaped by culturally middle-brow Methodism” (245). Adventists, as a consequence, did not develop an artistic tradition. Yet Ellen White did stress dangers, particularly when it came to objectionable literature, but was not afraid to utilize certain forms of fiction herself.⁶⁷ She recognized music as a central part of worship, but like most Protestants emphasized the exposition of Scripture through the sermon. She supported iconography through prophetic charts, as well as through a series of engravings similar to the Currier & Ives lithographs.⁶⁸

The chapter on “War, Slavery, and Race” by Eric Anderson examines the tendency by both her followers and critics to distort her statements about the American Civil War and its aftermath.⁶⁹ The war was “centrally important” to her and both agree that her “credibility would be damaged” if she was proved to be a racist.⁷⁰ Ellen G. White, like early Adventists, was an abolitionist. “She placed a divine imprimatur on their insights that slavery was wrong, that the war was about slavery, and that the North’s early missteps were based on a failure to act on these truths.”⁷¹ She urged Adventists to disobey the 1859 Fugitive Slave Law, but rejected Lincoln’s call for a day of fasting and prayer on Thanksgiving 1861. She “offered little in the way of specific predictions.” Furthermore, she “did not foretell the outcome of particular battles or campaigns or identify crucial turning points.”⁷²

One of the most scintillating chapters is by Laura Vance on “Gender.”⁷³ Four years after Ellen G. White’s first vision, a group gathered in Seneca Falls, New York to vote upon their Declaration of Sentiments. The “prevailing ideology related women to the domestic realm” that left Ellen White in “a precarious position.”⁷⁴ She actively supported the participation of women in religious work. This was despite the notion of “separate spheres and responsibilities” for men and women characteristic of the cult of domesticity. White did not believe that women should be “limited to the domestic realm.” She “remained ambiguous in delimiting the specific parameters of women’s access to authority—via ordination, especially—she unequivocally and repeatedly called all Adventists to religious work.”⁷⁵ Thus women played an essential role through a variety of capacities, even if there continued to exist an essential difference between genders. Thus women should participate in public religious work, but not at the expense of domestic responsibilities.⁷⁶ She saw ordination by men for herself as unnecessary. Vance suggests that “she may have perceived advocacy of women’s ordination as excessively controversial.”⁷⁷ She thus addressed three major reform movements: suffrage, temperance, and dress reform. “White did not radically challenge gender norms, except in her support for reform dress, and she retreated from the controversial components of this when resistance to it proved intransigent.”⁷⁸

T. Joe Willey describes in brief about Ellen G. White’s “Death and Burial” (295–304). Three funerals were held, but what surprised Willey in his research was that her interment did not occur on July 24, as reported in the Review and Herald, but on August 26, thirty-four days afterward. This pattern resembled a similar delay in burying James White. Such discoveries surprised White’s grandson, Arthur L. White.⁷⁹ Wiley postulates that the most likely explanation for the delayed burials is theological with the supposition that White’s two surviving sons, Willie and Edson, hoped to facilitate an opportunity for a special resurrection. Without any “direct evidence,” I believe that all such speculations remain suspect.

In the penultimate chapter, Paul McGraw and Gilbert Valentine reflect on Ellen G. White’s “Legacy.”⁸⁰ Her death “produced conflict and tension” as Adventists grappled with life without a living prophet. Her writings went to an estate “who controlled them, and the authority attributed to them.”⁸¹

In “Biographies”⁸² the late Gary Land wrestles with the “relatively little attention” given to Ellen White within American religious historiography by historians, at least until the publication of this book, from those “outside her religious tradition.”⁸³ He divides Adventist historiography about Ellen G. White into three categories: early narratives that chronicle her life as God’s messenger (1850s–1910s), the consolidation of her image as prophet (1920s–1970s), and the challenge to that image. Land cites Numbers with his Prophetess of Health⁸⁴ as developing two major themes: attention to her use of other health reformers, and that her views of health and health reform changed over time.⁸⁵ When dealing with historiographic issues, the question should be asked whether divine inspiration should be excluded. At first glance, new challenges, notably by Donald McAdams on White’s chapter on John Huss in the Great Controversy, might present some challenges. As noted by Land, Fred Veltman conducted a study of White’s literary sources in The Desire of Ages that concluded that approximately thirty-one percent of her material indicated some degree of literary dependency, even if her emphasis was frequently different from that of her sources.⁸⁶ Land furthermore asserts that Numbers played a significant impact on the new denominational textbook by Richard Schwarz, even if there were no direct references within the actual book.⁸⁷ At the same time Arthur L. White published a six-volume biography on White’s life in line with older approaches to Ellen White. Signs of change were evident in the historiography of George R. Knight who “sought to present a realistic view of Ellen White and yet maintain a positive tone.”⁸⁸ Outside of Adventism, historians increasingly reference White in narratives of religion in America, especially as a health reformer. “Beyond that of most other nineteenth-century women, she has left a legacy both in American and abroad that remains to be more extensively explored and more completely understood.”⁸⁹ Basically the historiographical landscape that Land paints is one with three different historiographies: apologetic (Arthur L. White), critical (Numbers), and moderate approach (Knight). It should be noted that most Adventist historiography for the past two decades has followed Knight’s approach among Adventist historians. Furthermore, Land also overlooks the contributions of an earlier generation of Adventist historians, especially E. F. Albertsworth, who during the 1910s and 1920s, and at the 1919 Bible Conference, set the stage for the pursuit of the professional study of history within the denomination. Land approaches Adventist historiography as a sort of evolutionary model, but it is in fact much more nuanced and complicated.

Altogether, Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet makes a significant contribution to Ellen G. White studies. It is a major new interpretive work. Overall, it highlights new interpretative trends.

Yet the volume forces a much deeper discussion about methodological presuppositions that moves beyond a construct vis-à-vis inspiration. In doing so, this volume assists Ellen G. White studies by providing a critical counterpart for Ellen G. White scholars, in the same way that Heiko Oberman observes is beneficial within Luther studies.⁹⁰ Of course one could wish that more of the essays had modeled after Doug Morgan’s chapter by offering two interpretative options. Few of the essays reflect a largely positive assessment of White (most notably Moon and Greenleaf), whereas Butler, conversely, in his two chapters completely lacks such nuance. In fact, one could wish, as Adventist theologian Jon Paulien observed, that the book had been strengthened by leaving out some of the more critical references.⁹¹ Perhaps one of the contributions of this book is that it will help broaden Ellen G. White studies, despite the critical references, so that scholars outside of Adventism can recognize White’s life and thought as much broader and more significant than simply as a health reformer.

This new volume, as well as The Ellen White Encyclopedia, will challenge Adventist scholars to evaluate the nature and role of revelation and inspiration. Larger interpretative patterns appear at work, including historiographical trends. While it is true that some have leaned towards inerrancy, especially during the 1920s when some Adventist thought leaders espoused essentially an Adventist version of Fundamentalism, at the same time this has not always been the normative view. As I read through some of the chapters I wondered if some of the authors, particularly those who have left Adventism behind, may at times be reacting against their own experience rather than the historical Ellen G. White.

This book furthermore highlights the role of a prophet. What is a prophet? To what extent do Adventists admit to White’s humanness and frailty? White argued in the Testimonies for the Church that one of the greatest proofs of the inspiration of the Bible is that it records not just the accomplishments, but also the failings of people within the biblical narrative. This tension, if true of biblical prophets, remains equally true in reflecting upon both the accomplishments as well as mistakes in White’s life. “The life of a true Christian is ever onward,” she once wrote.⁹² She was a woman caught between two worlds, the present and the heavenly world to come. The logical next question is: did her limitations eclipse the more significant aspects of her prophetic ministry? For one thing, it appears that she was consistent in her witness to uplift Jesus Christ. From her first vision in 1844 to the end of her life she increasingly emphasized and desired to point people to Jesus Christ. Another closely related theme was her high view of the authority of Scripture. She understood her writings as subservient to Scripture. She was far less preoccupied with many of the finer points, including some of the more obscure statements such as her statement on amalgamation, or her experience with Israel Dammon, that she most certainly did not consider to be normative of her life or prophetic calling. In fact, she felt she had a duty to ignore such critics along with their criticism, which was a perpetual challenge and one that she grew in her understanding of how to cope in the midst of such criticisms. Thus one can grasp a little bit of the frustration she must have felt when she publicly noted, “Great advantage is taken of my words, therefore I must move very cautiously.” Along a similar vein she mourned her unlikeness to Christ. She appealed to people to not look to her, but instead, to look to Jesus Christ.⁹³ She viewed her life not as a Victorian Adventist version of Queen Victoria issuing lifestyle edicts, but rather as another sinner saved by grace.

Abraham Heschel asserts, “The ultimate purpose of a prophet is not to be inspired, but to inspire the people; not to be filled with a passion, but to impassion the people with understanding for God.”⁹⁴ It is possible, with all the historical scrutiny, to miss out on what she considered as the most important contributions of her prophetic life and ministry. If this is true, then some of the authors are correct in ascertaining that she did truly believe that she had the most complete understanding of a cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan. She did not make such a statement in an absolute sense that no one could ever grow in their understanding. Instead, she viewed the Great Controversy in an absolute sense that the basic premise and storyline is true. The question of eternity is one that continues to hang in the balance. At the same time it also explains White’s juxtaposition as someone caught between two worlds. She agonized over how to explain what she had been shown to others. In one particular instance, which could be characteristic for many of her “testimonies,” she warned, “I would you could see these things as Heaven has opened them before me.”⁹⁵ As she struggled, she grew in her conception of what it meant to be a prophetic spokesperson for God. She became more confident and less trustful of self—which explains her increasing reticence as she matured to engage with critics. From a personal perspective, I find the ideas she espoused incredibly relevant to my personal life. While it is certainly true that some have misused and even abused this gift, when it is heeded, it is a blessing. And in my study of Adventist history, I have noted that when the Church has collectively heeded the prophetic counsel, the Church has been blessed as well.