Did Ellen White ever write anything that supports making diet – specifically meat eating – a church-wide test of fellowship? The evidence suggests no. However, there is a well known statement that has often been interpreted as supporting that idea. It was a statement she wrote in 1911 under the heading of ‘Anti-Meat Pledge’:
“I am not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question with our people. There are some things on this subject that I can write out to be read before the churches, which it is essential for believers to understand; but when it comes to making this a test question, I dare not place it before our people in that positive way. There are those who would stumble over such a presentation, and there are others who would make of it a stone of stumbling.”
25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 7
“Let us give this matter due consideration. I am prepared to stand for some things; but not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue. There should be first a fair representation of the subject, and it should be considered in all its bearings. Read carefully the record of Genesis 18:6-8.”
25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 8
Some have interpreted the phrase “not yet are we as a people ready for this issue” as suggesting that making meat eating a test of church fellowship was simply a matter of timing. However, the “test question” Ellen White referred to was not what we would today consider a formal test of fellowship – particularly in the sense and context of SDARM practice. Rather, it was connected to a proposed church-wide “Anti-Meat Pledge” that had been promoted by certain denominational leaders (particularly Dr. Kress) and was on the verge of circulating to Seventh-day Adventist churches around the world.
Ellen White’s March 29, 1908 Letter to Elder Daniells
To understand her 1911 statement, we need to begin three years earlier. On March 29, 1908, Ellen White wrote a letter to General Conference president Elder A. G. Daniells (though she did not send it until late May 1908). In it, she addressed what she perceived as backsliding on health reform, particularly among believers in Washington, D.C. It’s crucial to understand that this letter was aimed at the leaders and ministry of the world church headquarters. Throughout the letter, she repeatedly emphasises the Washington context.
The letter begins by addressing the need for a meetinghouse “in view of the large number of our people who are living” in Takoma Park, the location of the General Conference headquarters in Washington.
Ellen White continued:
“A true reformation needs to take place among the believers in Washington in the matter of healthful living.”
23LtMs, Lt 162, 1908, par. 6
Her appeal for reform (in which was the mention of a pledge) was framed explicitly as a Washington initiative that would then serve as an example:
“Let the good work begin at Washington, and go forth from there to other places. I know whereof I am writing. If a temperance pledge, providing for the abstinence from flesh foods, tea and coffee, and some other foods that are known to be injurious, were circulated through our ranks, a great and good work would be accomplished.”
23LtMs, Lt 162, 1908, par. 11
Near the conclusion, she reiterates:
“I am sure if you will begin in Washington to do this work of reform—in the school, in the printing office, and among all our working forces—the Lord will help you to present a pledge that will help the people to return from their backslidings on the question of health reform.”
The emphasis throughout is on headquarters workers and church leaders setting an example. She appeals to “influential men” whose example in “the indulgence of appetite” had prevented “the truth” from making proper impressions. She wanted leadership at headquarters to model health reform so their influence would inspire voluntary reformation elsewhere.
Under the subheading “Backsliding in Health Reform,” she wrote:
“I am instructed to bear a message to all our people on the subject of health reform; for many have backslidden from their former loyalty to health reform principles. The light God has given is being disregarded.”
23LtMs, Lt 162, 1908, par. 5
“A true reformation needs to take place among the believers in Washington in the matter of healthful living. If the believers there will give themselves unreservedly to God, He will accept them. If they will adopt in the matter of eating and drinking the principles of temperance that the light of health reform has brought to us, they will be richly blessed. Those who have received instruction regarding the evils of the use of flesh meats, tea and coffee, and rich and unhealthful food preparations, and who are determined to make a covenant with God by sacrifice, will not continue to indulge their appetites for foods which they know to be unhealthful. God demands that the appetites be cleansed, and self-denial be practiced in regard to those things which are not good. This is a work that will have to be done before His people can stand before Him a perfected people.”
23LtMs, Lt 162, 1908, par. 6
“The Lord has given clear light regarding the nature of the food that is to compose our diet; He has instructed us concerning the effect of unhealthful food upon the disposition and character. Shall we respond to the counsels and cautions given? Who among our brethren will sign a pledge to dispense with flesh meats, tea, and coffee, and all injurious foods, and become health reformers in the fullest sense of the term?“
23LtMs, Lt 162, 1908, par. 7
This letter contained three references to the idea of a pledge, and it’s clear that Ellen White was supportive of some form of voluntary commitment regarding health reform – commencing in Washington.
However – and this is crucial – Ellen White never authorised this letter for publication or general circulation. When copies of the letter reached other church leaders and they sought permission to publish it or portions of it, both Ellen White and W. C. White consistently declined. This decision was deliberate and reveals much about how she intended this counsel to be applied.
W. C. White’s Response to Publication Requests
In June 1908, Dr. W. A. Ruble, Secretary of the General Conference Medical Missionary Council, sought permission to duplicate and circulate the letter. W. C. White replied on July 24, 1908:
“The testimony sent to Elder Daniells, dated March 29, regarding backsliding on health reform, contains some statements regarding local conditions in Washington which Mother desired that our brethren there should read and study, but which she does not think it would be well to give a wide circulation. That part of the testimony which is of general interest will soon be prepared for publication.”
Following this, in March 1909, a conference president who was writing articles on health reform asked if he could quote from the March 29, 1908 letter, in order to make the appeals in his article stronger. Ellen White instructed W. C. White to respond:
“This morning Mother has read your letter and the article, and she wishes me to write to you that she does not wish this letter published, or extracts from it. It has been Mother’s intention to prepare an article for the Review dealing with this same subject, but of course, she will deal with it somewhat differently when preparing it for publication than she has in this letter.”
“Shortly after this testimony was written to Elder Daniells, Mother’s attention was called to the fact that there are in different states, both extremists and fanatics on health reform, who have not enough wisdom and love to use wisely their knowledge, and who would be prompt to seize upon some portions of this letter and make an unwise use of it were it made public. When this letter was sent to Elder Daniells, there was no thought of its being published or having any general circulation. Otherwise Mother would have used the same care in writing it that she does in addressing a large public audience, leaving out names of places and individuals and making the statements so guarded that there might not be liability of misuse.”
This last paragraph is significant: Ellen White’s private appeal to a church leader was different from what she would say in preparing counsel for worldwide circulation. She recognised that without proper context and careful wording, her words about a pledge could be misused by extremists.
Moreover, it’s crucial to note that Ellen White herself never drafted the wording of any pledge. Any pledge circulating with portions of her letter and claiming to be from her pen is spurious.
W. C. White’s Response to Publication Requests
W. C. White’s detailed account from 1934, written from his “Elmshaven” office in St. Helena, California, provides crucial insight into these events. In 1908, Dr. D. H. Kress prepared an “Anti-Meat Pledge” that he wished would be circulated to all Seventh-day Adventist churches worldwide. The pledge was explicit in its wording and framing:
“In compliance with the revealed will of the Lord, and trusting in His help, we pledge ourselves to abstain from the use of tea, coffee, and flesh foods, including fish and fowl.”
Notice the theological weight placed on the pledge – it wasn’t merely presented as a health commitment, but as obedience to “the revealed will of the Lord.” This framing would inevitably make it a test of loyalty to divine revelation and, by extension, loyalty to the Testimonies.
When General Conference president Elder A. G. Daniells received this proposal, he and other leaders who had worked in foreign missions felt it was unwise to launch such a pledge universally. W. C. White recounted:
“The officers of the General Conference, and especially those who have labored long in foreign countries, and who have engaged in controversies in various foreign lands over this and kindred questions, felt that the movement on the part of our people to pledge themselves to not eat flesh would cause unnecessary strife and unnecessary criticism of our people in mission fields. The officers of the General Conference advised that we should not make the pledge against flesh meats a general issue, and it was agreed that the matter should rest until we could give it deliberate consideration.”
W. C. White, “Statement Regarding the Anti-Meat Pledge,” July 1934, Elmshaven Office, St. Helena, California
In a letter dated March 25, 1909, to Elder J. W. Christian Parker, W. C. White articulated the underlying hermeneutical crisis that the proposed Anti-Meat Pledge would create:
“In some parts of our field and with some of our brethren, the matter of our living as health reformers and believing in the testimonies stands somewhat as follows:
“Some of our brethren do not accept the teaching of our ministers regarding health reform because they regard it as an unnecessary self-denial. They think it is not clearly taught in the Scriptures and that the teachings of science are not clear enough to lead them to the self-sacrifice called for by the adoption of health reform principles.
“They do not fully believe the Testimonies because the Testimonies teach some things that they have not been able to find in the Bible, chief of which is the instruction regarding health reform, the vegetarian diet, and the non-use of meat.
“To meet this difficulty, our brethren feel that they must preach and print something to convert these brethren and in doing this they make up articles largely composed of selections from the Testimonies.”
As can be seen, some church members questioned the Testimonies precisely because, in their view, Ellen White taught things about health reform they couldn’t find clearly in Scripture. The proposed solution – creating a pledge based on “the revealed will of the Lord” and publishing more selections from the Testimonies – would only exacerbate the problem. It would force the issue into a test of loyalty without addressing the underlying biblical and scientific questions that caused the doubt in the first place.
W. C. White understood that this approach would undermine rather than strengthen confidence in the Testimonies. By making diet a “test question” framed as divine revelation, church leaders would be setting up a confrontation that could only damage the Testimonies’ influence.
The 1909 General Conference: Ellen White’s Public Response
Between Ellen White’s private 1908 letter to Daniells and her 1911 statement about not making diet “a test question,” there was a crucial public moment that reveals how she intended her health reform counsel to be applied church-wide.
The 1909 General Conference Session, held at Takoma Park, Washington D.C., provided the perfect opportunity. W. C. White later explained:
“When we came to the General Conference of 1909, and Mother saw the multitude of delegates from the foreign mission fields, she presented an address on Health Reform, adapted to the occasion.”
Ellen White prepared two statements which she presented in person at the 1909 General Conference Session:
- “A Lesson in Health Reform“ – delivered as a sermon on May 26, 1909 (published in the General Conference Bulletin, May 30, 1909, pp. 213-215)
- “Faithfulness in Health Reform“ – delivered as a sermon on May 31, 1909
The second sermon was particularly significant. A few months later, it was published in Testimonies for the Church, Volume 9, pages 153-166, making it widely available to the worldwide church. Notably, a large part of the letter addressed to Elder Daniells dealing with the subject of backsliding in health reform was reprinted in this presentation. Other parts were largely paralleled. But there was one crucial difference: she did not include a call for an anti-meat pledge.
Most significantly, Ellen White’s 1909 sermon contained this explicit declaration:
“We are not to make the use of flesh meat a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers, who use flesh meats, have over others.”
The Anti-Meat Pledge Effort Continues
Despite this counsel, the pledge continued to circulate in California. At the 1911 Stockton camp meeting, W. C. White discovered that Dr. Hudson had passed both the Anti-Meat Pledge and a copy of Ellen White’s March 29, 1908 letter to Dr. Rand, who then read it publicly.
White met with Dr. Rand, Dr. Hudson, and Elder Andross, explaining his concerns:
“I pointed out to Drs. Rand and Hudson that such a pledge as this would naturally lead to endless controversies regarding the authority of the Testimonies, and the exact meaning of their teachings, and I told them that I thought that when a pledge was prepared for general circulation that it should come from the Medical Department, and should be based principally upon our general information regarding the dangers of meat-eating.”
He further recounted:
“I told them that my feelings and sympathies were all in favor of the circulation of a pledge for the non-use of meats, provided it was placed upon the right basis, accompanied by wise instruction, and carried forward in the right spirit. I related my experience with the tea and coffee pledge, in which I saw scores of people receive rich blessings as the result of taking decided stands.
“I mentioned some of the perplexities which might come into our work by the launching of a pledge in such a way that it would be regarded as a test of loyalty to the Testimonies. I thought that such a pledge would prove a great stumbling-block to our brethren in many lands where our people but imperfectly understood the principles of health reform, and were not prepared to meet the issue of being urged by earnest advocates of vegetarianism to sign a pledge.”
The matter was subsequently brought before the Medical Council at Loma Linda in June 1911, where it was debated and referred to the General Conference Council to be held in Friedensau, Europe. However, the minutes of that European Council show no record that the matter was considered – Elder W. A. Spicer later confirmed that “no place was found for it in the Council.” The Anti-Meat Pledge quietly disappeared from official church consideration. It was in this context – with the pledge still circulating informally despite being set aside by official church leadership – that Ellen White made her definitive statement in October 1911.
Ellen White’s Response in Context
With this historical background in view, we can now properly understand Ellen White’s October 1911 statement. When she wrote that she was “not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question,” and that “not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue”, she was addressing the specific proposal of this Anti-Meat Pledge and the difficulties the manner of driving such a pledge would create under the circumstances of the time – not establishing a principle that vegetarianism should eventually become a membership requirement once the church matured spiritually.
The dictionary defines “pledge” as a binding promise or agreement, similar in meaning to the word “vow.” However, the difference between a pledge – such as the proposed Anti-Meat Pledge – and a baptismal vow is significant.
A Pledge:
- Voluntary commitment – individuals choose whether to sign
- Not required for membership – people who don’t sign remain members in good standing
- Personal accountability tool – helps individuals commit to goals they’ve personally embraced
- Influence through example – those who sign inspire others through their voluntary commitment
- Examples: Temperance pledges (tea, coffee, alcohol), missionary service commitments, financial stewardship pledges
A Baptismal Vow (as practiced in SDARM):
- Mandatory requirement – must be affirmed to be baptised or remain a member
- Conditions membership – failure to comply can result in church discipline or membership loss
- Institutional enforcement – the church requires and monitors compliance
- Creates a binary – you either meet the requirement or you don’t qualify for membership
- Examples: Sabbath observance, belief in core doctrines
There’s a vast difference between an individual voluntarily signing a personal pledge to abstain from meat, and establishing vegetarianism as a mandatory requirement for baptism and church membership. Ellen White supported the former approach – encouraging voluntary commitment through education and spiritual conviction, and even then she dared ‘‘not place it before our people in that positive way (driven as a test)” after she understood the circumstances affecting different localities. Furthermore, in her consequent address to the General Conference, she specifically declined to endorse institutional enforcement of this issue when she said:
“We are not to make the use of flesh meat a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers, who use flesh meats, have over others. As God’s messengers, shall we not say to the people, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God”? [1 Corinthians 10:31.]” 4LtMs, Ms 37, 1909, par. 24
Ellen White made her position clear in two separate, public statements:
- 1909 (General Conference): “We are not to make the use of flesh meat a test of fellowship”
- 1911 (Published statement): “I am not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question”
Both statements reject the idea of turning diet into a test (even in the form of a pledge). Both were made after she had refused to authorise publication of her private 1908 letter. Both were made with full knowledge of the Anti-Meat Pledge controversy. Together, they form a consistent message: health reform through education and conviction, not through institutional enforcement as a membership requirement.
Understanding “Time and Place”
This historical episode also sheds light on an often-misapplied phrase. Ellen White’s statement that “Nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside, but time and place must be considered” (25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 1) is sometimes quoted today to suggest that her counsel against making vegetarianism a test of fellowship was merely situational and no longer applies.
However, this statement wasn’t intended as a license for modern readers to dismiss specific testimonies as irrelevant. Rather, it explained Ellen White’s own careful handling of inspired messages – her responsibility, shared with W. C. White, to determine the right timing and setting for releasing counsel, precisely to prevent misuse.
The Anti-Meat Pledge controversy perfectly illustrates this principle in action. Ellen White’s March 1908 letter contained valuable counsel – but as private correspondence addressing a local situation at church headquarters. When others sought to publish it universally, she refused, recognising it would be misused by extremists. She then crafted carefully worded public counsel for the 1909 General Conference that explicitly stated diet was not to be a test of fellowship.
Those who cite “time and place” to dismiss her counsel are doing the very thing the phrase warns against: carelessly applying (or dismissing) testimonies without proper consideration of their context and intent. Ellen White’s statement about not making diet a test of fellowship wasn’t situational – it was principled. She made it publicly, repeatedly, and in the most authoritative format available to her.
What Does “Fully Ready” Actually Mean?
Ellen White’s 1911 statement that “not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue” naturally raises a question: what would it look like when the church is ready? And what approach should be taken at that point?
Her own words provide us with insight. First, she called for careful deliberation:
“Let us give this matter due consideration.”
“Readiness” isn’t about reaching a point where the church can quickly implement dietary requirements. Rather, it’s about achieving the wisdom and maturity to handle the subject with appropriate care.
More significantly, Ellen White specified what this consideration must include:
“There should be first a fair representation of the subject, and it should be considered in all its bearings.
The phrase “all its bearings” is important. She wasn’t calling for simple advocacy of vegetarianism – she was calling for comprehensive consideration of how urging a pledge on all would impact the church in multiple dimensions. What are these “bearings” that must be considered? Here are some suggestions:
Pastoral Considerations:
- What approach should be taken with ministers and church leaders who haven’t received light on health reform?
- How should members at different stages of spiritual understanding be counselled?
- Would such a requirement create an environment of condemnation rather than conviction?
Missional Impact:
- How would making diet a test of fellowship affect evangelism in diverse cultural contexts?
- Would it create “unnecessary strife and unnecessary criticism of our people in mission fields,” as GC leadership feared?
- Could it become a stumbling block that prevents people from hearing the gospel message?
Theological Foundation:
- Is there sufficient biblical warrant to make dietary practices a membership requirement?
- Would such a requirement risk “endless controversies regarding the authority of the Testimonies”?
- How do we avoid the circular reasoning of using the Testimonies to prove the Testimonies?
Practical Application:
- What provisions exist for those in regions where plant-based diets are difficult to maintain?
- How do we distinguish between progressive sanctification (the goal) and entrance requirements (the minimum)?
- Can we advance health reform through education and influence rather than enforcement?
- Would there be exceptions to the rule?
Ellen White then directed readers to a specific biblical passage:
“Read carefully the record of Genesis 18:6-8.”
This reference is remarkable – even startling – in its context. What does this passage say?
“And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.”
Genesis 18:6-8 KJVS
Conclusion
The historical evidence provides a decisive answer to our opening question: Ellen White never endorsed making diet a test of fellowship. Her 1911 statement was not an endorsement of vegetarianism as a future membership requirement, but a specific response to the Anti-Meat Pledge controversy – a proposal that would have framed dietary choices as compliance “with the revealed will of the Lord” and created “endless controversies” about the authority of the Testimonies without adequate biblical foundation.
In the next part of this series (part 4), we’ll address a practical question: If vegetarianism shouldn’t be a test of fellowship, what should our approach be? How do we maintain our collective witness for health reform while removing an unbiblical requirement? What structures and practices can preserve the Reform Movement’s distinctive health emphasis without erecting barriers God hasn’t authorised?
Primary Source Documents
The historical account presented in this article draws extensively from two important primary source documents that provide firsthand testimony about the Anti-Meat Pledge controversy. We encourage readers to examine these documents for themselves to verify the historical details and gain fuller context.
W. C. White’s 1934 Statement on the Anti-Meat Pledge – W. C. White’s firsthand account of the Anti-Meat Pledge controversy, written from his Elmshaven office. As Ellen White’s son and literary assistant, he provides detailed recollections of the events from 1908-1911, including the Stockton camp meeting incident and meetings with church leadership.
“The Question of an Anti-Meat Pledge” (1951) – An official Ellen G. White Estate document reviewing the complete history of the March 29, 1908 letter and the pledge controversy. Includes correspondence between Ellen White, W. C. White, Elder Daniells, and other leaders, clarifying what counsel was given and how it was meant to be applied.