The question of what constitutes a proper test of fellowship strikes at the heart of how we understand church mission. In previous articles, we have examined whether vegetarianism and all cases of remarriage after divorce should serve as tests of fellowship. In each case, we found that the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 19:10) counsels against making tests where God has not plainly required them.
Now we turn to a question that may feel paradoxical: Should God’s church require belief in the inspired nature of Ellen White’s writings a test of fellowship?
At present, this is exactly what happens. The SDARM asks every baptismal candidate to affirm their belief in Ellen White’s prophetic gift before entering the waters of baptism. On the surface, this may seem entirely reasonable – after all, if her writings are inspired, shouldn’t accepting them be essential for membership in a movement that claims to follow her inspired counsel?
Yet here we meet a fact unfamiliar to many: Ellen White herself repeatedly counseled against making belief in her visions a test of fellowship. And this counsel was not given in passing or in obscure contexts. She addressed this issue directly in 1862, referenced it again in the 1880s, and reaffirmed it as late as 1906 – just nine years before her death.
If we profess to believe all the prophet’s counsel, we cannot ignore what she wrote about how her own writings should be used as criteria for church membership.
Before proceeding, we must draw an important theological distinction. There is a difference between believing in the ongoing prophetic gift in God’s church and believing that gift rested on a particular individual.
The first – belief in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, including prophecy – has a clear basis in Scripture. Paul explicitly states that God has “set” prophets in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), and describes these gifts as continuing “till we all come in the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13). To accept this biblical doctrine requires no application; it is simply receiving what Scripture plainly teaches.
The second – affirming that a specific individual exercised the prophetic gift – requires something more. It demands application of the biblical doctrine to a particular person. And this application requires time, because Scripture instructs us to test prophetic claims:
“Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world”
1 John 4:1
The fruits must be examined; the teachings must be compared with Scripture; the life must be observed.
This distinction matters greatly for how we treat baptismal candidates. We can reasonably expect candidates to accept the biblical doctrine of spiritual gifts – this is simply receiving what Scripture teaches. But requiring them to have already completed their investigation of a specific individual before baptism places a burden that not only Ellen White but also the pioneers of the Adventist Church counselled against imposing.
To understand this more fully, let us retrace our Adventist history and examine how the early church navigated this very issue during its formative years.
Ellen White’s Counsel in 1862 and 1863
Early in the experience of Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen White confronted situations where some were making acceptance of her visions a condition of church membership. Her response was decided, but to understand her counsel properly, we must first understand the interesting circumstances that prompted it.
A Church Finding Its Way
The years 1862-1863 were critical for the young Seventh-day Adventist movement. Church organisation was being established, and leaders were dealing with believers who had recently come from various religious backgrounds – or from no religious background at all. Many had much to learn and experience.
In a place called Wisconsin, fanaticism had left deep scars. The situation there deserves particular attention because it directly shaped Ellen White’s counsel on this issue. In 1860-1861, T. M. Steward and his wife, early believers who had come to some position of leadership, became involved in spurious ecstatic exercises. Multiple people claimed to have “the spirit of prophecy” and to have received visions – visions that directly contradicted Ellen White’s writings. James White visited the area and witnessed the fanaticism firsthand, reporting:
“This reformation, as it is called, has passed some very important decrees. It is said that one or more have the spirit of prophecy, and that they have seen things of the deepest interest… Also that Sister White’s writings, excepting the first tract, were all wrong.”
Review and Herald, November 13, 1860
Eventually, Steward himself confessed that the entire experience had been “the work of the enemy,” publishing a statement entitled “A Delusion Confessed” in the Review and Herald. James White observed that “Satan’s great object in this delusion in northern Wisconsin has doubtless been to bring the subject of the perpetuity of spiritual gifts into disgrace and doubt.” (Review and Herald, Nov. 13, 1860.)
This is precisely what happened. As Ellen White later wrote, the “false visions and fanatical exercises, and the wretched fruits following” had poisoned the atmosphere, making minds “jealous of everything bearing the name of visions” (1T 327.3). When steps were taken to organise churches in Wisconsin shortly after, many sincere believers – having just witnessed this spectacular deception – were understandably cautious about any prophetic claims, including Ellen White’s.
The Unwise Course at Marquette
It was in this context that Ellen White addressed the church at Marquette, Wisconsin, located just twenty or thirty miles from where the Steward fanaticism had occurred:
“In the last vision given at Battle Creek I was shown that an unwise course was taken at Marquette in regard to the visions at the time of the organization of the church there. There were some in Marquette who were God’s children, and yet doubted the visions. Others had no opposition, yet dared not take a decided stand in regard to them. Some were skeptical, and they had sufficient cause to make them so. The false visions and fanatical exercises, and the wretched fruits following, had an influence upon the cause in Wisconsin to make minds jealous of everything bearing the name of visions.”
1T 327.3
Notice the acknowledgment: some who doubted were “God’s children,” and “some were skeptical, and they had sufficient cause to make them so.” This is remarkable candour. Ellen White recognised that the false visions and fanaticism that had recently plagued Wisconsin gave honest believers legitimate reasons for caution.
Her counsel was clear:
“All these things should have been taken into consideration, and wisdom exercised. There should be no trial or labor with those who have never seen the individual having visions, and who have had no personal knowledge of the influence of the visions. Such should not be deprived of the benefits and privileges of the church, if their Christian course is otherwise correct, and they have formed a good Christian character.”
1T 327.3
This statement directly contradicts the practice of requiring belief in the inspired nature of Ellen White’s writings before baptism. According to Ellen White herself, individuals with otherwise correct Christian courses and good Christian characters should not be excluded from church fellowship because they haven’t yet reached settled conviction about her prophetic gift.
She continued with practical guidance:
“Some, I was shown, could receive the published visions, judging of the tree by its fruits. Others are like doubting Thomas; they cannot believe the published Testimonies, nor receive evidence through the testimony of others; but must see and have the evidence for themselves. Such must not be set aside, but long patience and brotherly love should be exercised toward them until they find their position and become established for or against.”
1T 328.1
Ellen White’s counsel here reflects more than a momentary accommodation to early-church disorganisation – it reveals a principle of mission and pastoral care that transcends its historical setting.
Her counsel argues that the church’s treatment of individuals should be shaped not only by the church’s God-given mission, but by the personal experience of those they reach, their context, and the integrity of their Christian life – not by an inflexible, one-size-fits-all rule. Those who doubted were not to be shut out, but lovingly nurtured within the fellowship until they could “find their position.”
This model places mission and the spiritual journey of the individual at the center of the church’s approach. It guides people toward conviction through community and personal engagement, rather than erecting a doctrinal threshold that bars entry until full certainty is reached. Ellen White envisioned people coming to accept her gift from within the fellowship, not only from outside of it.
This becomes even more significant when considered against James White’s observation that Satan sought, through fanaticism, to bring “the subject of the perpetuity of spiritual gifts into disgrace and doubt.” The Steward fanaticism had done precisely that in Wisconsin, creating an atmosphere where sincere believers were understandably cautious about claims to visions or prophecy. Ellen White did not dismiss their concerns – she validated them. She recognized that such doubt, under those conditions, could be both honest and justified.
The same dynamic exists today. Christianity is broadly divided between those who believe in the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts (particularly the prophetic gift) and those who reject their continued relevance beyond the apostolic age. And among those who do believe in the ongoing gifts, the modern religious landscape is littered with false prophets, self-proclaimed visionaries, and spiritual abuses that bring reproach upon genuine manifestations of the Spirit. This environment naturally breeds skepticism – and often for good reason.
For this reason, doubt about the perpetuity or authenticity of spiritual gifts must be handled with the same caution, empathy, and pastoral wisdom Ellen White advocated in her own day. The circumstances that foster hesitancy now are not unlike those present in 1860s Wisconsin: confusion, excess, and the discrediting effects of false claims. Her counsel directs us toward an approach that is both principled and missional – one that honours conscience, respects the integrity of honest believers, and nurtures spiritual conviction through loving fellowship rather than enforcing it as a prior condition for belonging.
The Problem: Making Visions a Condition of Membership
Ellen White specifically addressed the practice of making acceptance of her visions a condition of church membership – and condemned it:
“Brother G sought to move with great caution. He knew that the class who opposed the visions were wrong, that they were not genuine believers in the truth; and therefore, to shake off these clogs, he proposed to receive none into the church who did not believe the third angel’s message and the visions. This kept out some few precious souls who had not fought against the visions. They dared not unite with the church, fearing that they should commit themselves upon that which they did not understand and fully believe.”
1T 329.2
Here was a church leader acting with what he considered “great caution” – requiring acceptance of the visions as a condition of membership. Ellen White’s assessment? This “kept out some few precious souls.” The well-intentioned policy had the effect of excluding genuine seekers from God’s church.
Different Cases Require Different Approaches
Ellen White’s counsel in the Marquette situation is not an isolated statement – it is part of a broader and consistent principle: different cases require different approaches. In Testimony No. 9 (January 1863), she confronted a troubling pattern among some ministers who were treating all doubters as if their situations were identical.
She wrote:
“I have been shown that some, especially in Iowa, make the visions a rule by which to measure all, and have taken a course which my husband and myself have never pursued… If persons are not settled in regard to the visions, they should not be crowded off.”
1T 382.1
She then issued one of the most practical counsels on this topic:
“Ministers should have compassion of some, making a difference… God’s ministers should have wisdom to give to everyone his portion of meat and to make that difference with different persons which their cases require.”
1T 382
She explained the consequences of failing to make this distinction:
“Those who were, comparatively, strangers to the visions have been dealt with in the same manner as those who have had much light… Some have been required to endorse the visions when they could not conscientiously do so, and in this way some honest souls have been driven to take positions against the visions and against the body which they never would have taken had their cases been managed with discretion and mercy.”
1T 382
The approach taken by some of the leaders was self-defeating and serves as a warning to us: carelessly requiring honest seekers to prematurely endorse the gift of prophecy does not create conviction – it creates opposition. The church leaders in Iowa, with good intentions but poor judgment, were actually driving people away from both the visions and the church itself.
Yet Ellen White immediately follows this warning with an important balance. She affirms that experienced believers – those who have seen the fruits of the visions firsthand – should be treated differently when they later reject what they once acknowledged:
“Some of our brethren have had long experience in the truth… They have tested the truthfulness of these testimonies and asserted their belief in them… If such, when reproved through vision, rise up against them, and work secretly to injure our influence, they should be faithfully dealt with.”
1T 382–383
James White’s Balanced Position
This same balanced approach appears clearly in James White’s response to concerns raised in 1856 when a brother wrote to him saying that some believers feared he placed too little value on the visions and asked him to clarify his position.
James responded:
“It is well known that we have been charged with testing all men by the visions… This I have denied, and deny it still.”
James White, Review and Herald, 1856
He then addressed the core issue – the question of whether the visions should be treated as a test for everyone:
“To say unqualifiedly that they are a test, and carry out the principle with those who know nothing of their teachings… would be the wildest fanaticism.”
—ibid.
This echoes Ellen White’s warning: those who know little of the visions should not be tested by them. But James immediately balances this with equal clarity:
“On the other hand, for those who profess to believe them to say they will in no wise be tested by them, is most irrational.”
—ibid.
Finally, he clarifies his position:
“I believe them to be the property of the church, and a test to those who believe them from Heaven.”
—ibid.
In other words, the prophetic gift functions as a test for believers, not of unbelievers. This principle reflects the same distinction made by the Apostle:
“So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.”
1 Corinthians 14:22 NASB95
Prophetic manifestations, according to Paul, are inherently inward-facing – they hold meaning and carry authority primarily for those already within the community of faith who acknowledge their divine origin. For those outside, or those still uncertain, prophecy is not a test of loyalty but a phenomenon to be approached patiently and wisely. James White’s position is thus not only consistent with Ellen White’s counsel but deeply rooted in Scripture.
When the testimonies of James and Ellen White are taken together, a clear and consistent pattern emerges. New believers, visitors, and honest doubters must be given time to investigate, space to grow, and the warmth of fellowship in which conviction may naturally develop. Endorsement of Ellen White’s prophetic gift should never be demanded of them as a condition of membership, for neither Scripture nor the Testimonies support such a requirement.
By contrast, believers who have long walked with the church, who have personally tested the influence of the visions, and who have previously affirmed their divine origin bear a different responsibility. If such individuals later reject what they once accepted and actively work to undermine confidence in the prophetic gift, the church must deal with such cases firmly, for their influence endangers those who lack experience.
This twofold framework – patience with the inexperienced, firmness with the seasoned – was foundational to early Adventist practice and mission. It offered a path that was both pastoral and principled, protecting the church while nurturing those still on their journey toward conviction.
Counsel Repeated in the 1880s
About twenty years later, Ellen White revisited this counsel. In Testimonies for the Church volume 5, in a section entitled “Wrong Use of the Testimonies,” she wrote:
“Some who believe the Testimonies have erred by urging them unduly upon others.”
5T 668.1
She then quoted directly from her 1862 testimony – the very passages we’ve examined above. The repetition is significant. This was not outdated counsel that had been superseded by changed circumstances. Ellen White herself considered it sufficiently relevant two decades later to reaffirm it.
Counsel Reaffirmed in 1906
The third time Ellen White referenced this counsel came in 1906, in a letter addressing questions about “the proper use of the testimonies”:
“My answer to those who are asking questions regarding the proper use of the testimonies is that in the published testimonies they will find this matter clearly explained. The use that should be made of my writings is dwelt upon at some length in an article entitled, ‘The Nature and Influence of the Testimonies,’ published in Testimonies for the Church, Vol. V, pp. 654-691. The prayerful study of this article will help many who are perplexed.”
21LtMs, Ms 113, 1906, par. 1
She then proceeded to quote the same passages from Testimonies volume 5 that she had quoted from volume 1. Here, just nine years before her death, Ellen White was still pointing people to this counsel as the definitive answer on how her writings should be used – including their relationship to church fellowship.
If changed circumstances had made this counsel obsolete, 1906 would have been the time to say so. She did not. Instead, she reaffirmed it.
But weren’t circumstances back then actually different?
The fact is, things weren’t so different. Early American society was deeply acquainted with charismatic movements – movements that left a bad taste – just as society is today. Between 1750 and 1820, over 300 men and women in England and America claimed prophetic gifts. Many were fraudulent or fanatical. Among the more prominent were Jemima Wilkinson, Ann Lee (founder of the Shakers), and Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism).
The Millerite movement itself had been plagued by false prophets and fanatical manifestations. At the Millerite General Conference of 1843, delegates voted that they had “no confidence whatever in any visions, dreams, or private revelations.” After the Great Disappointment in 1844, mainline Adventists rejected all visionary claims.
Among Sabbatarian Adventists, scepticism toward Ellen White’s visions was significant. The “Messenger Party” and “Age to Come” movements actively opposed her prophetic claims. Critics published that they wanted to be “distinguished as standing disconnected with all people who make vain visions their rule of faith and practice.”
But the question is still valid and deserves further attention – are circumstances today so different from those of Ellen White’s time that her counsel should now be reversed?
Three main objections that are commonly raised
1. Skepticism about spiritual gifts was more widespread in Ellen White’s time
This objection argues that Ellen White’s counsel was tailored for her own era because skepticism toward spiritual gifts was (supposedly) far more widespread back then. Since she lived in a time shaped by fanaticism, false visions, and spiritual counterfeits, her warnings against pressuring honest doubters were necessary for that environment – but, it is argued, not for ours.
But this objection misunderstands both the historical and present context and the nature of the principle in the counsel.
First, skepticism toward the spiritual gifts is not less prevalent today – it is far more prevalent. Modern Christianity is deeply influenced by:
- cessationism (the belief that all prophetic gifts ceased with the apostles),
- secularism and scientific naturalism,
- mistrust of supernatural claims,
- widespread exposure to false prophets and failed predictions,
- and an overall decline in confidence in religious authority.
If skepticism justified patience in the 1850s and 1860s, how much more does it justify patience today, when disbelief in prophetic claims is significantly more entrenched?
Second, even if skepticism had been uniquely intense in Ellen White’s time (and it was indeed widespread in certain regions), her counsel was not based on a passing cultural moment. She did not limit her instruction to a specific crisis. She articulated a principle of pastoral care, grounded in justice and mercy:
- do not pressure those who are new, uninformed, or cautious;
- allow conviction to grow through experience within the fellowship;
- treat different cases according to their backgrounds and opportunities.
This principle is timeless, not tied to the peculiarities of 19th-century fanaticism.
Third, the present situation mirrors the essential features of her era. The details differ, but the underlying issue is the same: honest Christians today, just like those in Wisconsin, may struggle with the idea of modern prophets – often for very good reasons. The presence of false prophets and sensational claims in the modern religious landscape has only increased suspicion.
The irony is that the objection actually reinforces her point. If skepticism in her day required gentleness and patience, greater skepticism today calls for even greater gentleness and patience – not less.
2. Ellen White is no longer alive to be observed firsthand
This second objection argues that circumstances have fundamentally changed because Ellen White is now dead. People today cannot meet her, observe her life, or witness her visions directly. This objection is often built on her statement:
“There should be no trial or labor with those who have never seen the individual having visions… Others are like doubting Thomas… they must see and have the evidence for themselves.”
1T 327.3
Some reason that since no one living today can “see for themselves,” the church must now require belief outright.
But this actually strengthens Ellen White’s original point. If those who could have met her, but had not yet done so, were not to be pressed into endorsing her prophetic gift, how much more should those who never had any possibility of such firsthand exposure be treated with patience? If immediate endorsement was inappropriate for people who might have met her, it cannot suddenly become mandatory for those who never could.
Her counsel, by its own logic, becomes more applicable – not less – with her passing.
3. Ellen White’s writings are now widely available
The third objection suggests that because Ellen White’s writings are now more abundant and easily accessible within the church, newcomers have sufficient opportunity to investigate; therefore acceptance should be required before baptism.
But this objection ignores the historical reality:
By 1906, when Ellen White reaffirmed that her visions must not be made a test of fellowship, her writings were already widely published, distributed, and systematically promoted throughout the English speaking demographic of the denomination.
The General Conference had been urging every Adventist family to obtain her books for decades. Tens of thousands had read her extensive published works long before her 1906 statement.
If the broad availability of her writings warranted turning her prophetic gift into a test of membership, Ellen White had every opportunity to make this clear. Instead, she reaffirmed the very opposite. Furthermore, greater access today does not automatically make investigation easier. Along with a wider range of supportive material, newcomers can now access:
- a larger body of critical historical studies,
- previously unpublished documents,
- difficult interpretive questions,
- and complex historical and theological debates.
The sheer volume of information – supportive and critical – makes the process more complex, not more straightforward. More material does not eliminate the need for patience; it only makes patience more essential.
The Testimony of the Pioneers
Ellen White was not alone in her position. The pioneers of the Adventist movement consistently maintained that belief in the visions should not be made a test of fellowship.
In 1855, James White and leading brethren addressed accusations that they made the visions a test:
“This certifies that we have been acquainted with Bro and Sr White, and their teachings, and labors in church trials, and have never known them to urge the visions on any one as a portion of religious faith, or make them a test of fellowship.”
Signed by J.T. Orton, S.T. Belden, T.B. Mead, on behalf of the Church
Joseph Bates, J.H. Waggoner, and M.E. Cornell offered a balanced statement at the 1855 conference:
“But if any ask how we regard those who do not acknowledge them as of God, we answer that we are very willing to exercise toward them that spirit of toleration which is taught in the Bible, believing that ‘to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin’; we are willing to make due allowance for the impressions received in youth, and the prejudices of the age.”
Review and Herald, Volume 7, No. 10. December 4, 1855
In 1856, James White himself clarified the matter:
“It is well known that we have been charged with testing all men by the visions, and of making them the rule of our faith. This is a bold untruth, of which those who uttered it were not ignorant. This I have denied, and deny it still. But there need not be so much blind-fold stumbling over this matter. To say unqualifiedly that they are a test, and carry out the principle with those who know nothing of their teachings, spirit and fruit, at this time when the world is full of manifestations as near the genuine as Satan can get up, would be the wildest fanaticism.”
Review and Herald, February 14, 1856
And in 1883, G.I. Butler, twice General Conference President, stated:
“Our enemies try very hard to make it appear that we make the visions a test of fellowship… Our leading men have never done this, and the visions themselves teach that it should not be done… No; we do not make the visions a test, and never have.”
Review and Herald Supplement, August 14, 1883
The testimony is unanimous. From Ellen White herself, to James White, to General Conference presidents – the position was consistent: belief in Ellen White’s visions was not to be made a test of fellowship.
The SDARM Position
The concern is not what we believe about her prophetic gift – our statement of belief on that is sound – but how we use that belief as a criterion for membership.
At the 1955 General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, the following resolution was made: “Should we continue to make the belief in the Spirit of Prophecy a test of fellowship? It was resolved that candidates could not be accepted as members of our church unless they are definitely convicted that the writings of Sr. White are inspired.“
This requirement, while seemingly harmless, creates several problems:
- It excludes genuine believers: Individuals who sincerely accept all core Adventist doctrines but are not yet settled on this issue are kept outside the church – precisely the “few precious souls” Ellen White said should not be excluded.
- It delays baptism unnecessarily: An ordinance that should be approached with urgency is postponed for those who could benefit from nurture within the church community.
- It disregards inspired counsel: Perhaps most troubling, it requires us to set aside the explicit testimony of the very prophet we claim to believe. This creates an awkward inconsistency.
- It undermines pastoral wisdom: A one-size-fits-all rule replaces the discretionary judgment Ellen White said ministers should exercise: “God’s ministers should have wisdom to give to everyone his portion of meat and to make that difference with different persons which their cases require.”
A More Faithful Approach
What would a more faithful approach look like? Based on the counsel we’ve examined, several principles emerge:
- Require belief in the biblical doctrine of spiritual gifts before baptism: As a minimum – candidates should affirm that God has placed prophetic gifts in His church, as Scripture plainly teaches.
- Inform candidates of the church’s position: Those seeking membership should understand that SDARM believes Ellen White exercised the prophetic gift and that her writings are valued as inspired counsel.
- Allow time for investigation and conviction: Rather than demanding settled conviction before baptism, provide opportunity for new members to study, experience, and become established regarding Ellen White’s ministry – just as the pioneers practiced.
- Exercise pastoral discretion: Recognise that different individuals may require different approaches. Most candidates will be completely settled on the question prior to baptism – it is the ‘few precious souls’ that this approach relates to.
This approach honours both the prophetic gift and the prophet’s own counsel about how that gift should be handled in relation to church membership.
Conclusion
The irony of our present situation should not be lost on us. In our zeal to honour Ellen White’s prophetic ministry, we have adopted a position that her prophetic ministry explicitly counselled against.
Ellen White gave her counsel on this matter in 1862. She repeated it in the 1880s. She reaffirmed it in 1906. The pioneers – James White, Joseph Bates, G.I. Butler, and others – consistently maintained the same position. They denied making belief in the visions a test of fellowship, and the visions themselves, as Butler noted, “teach that it should not be done.”
This is not a question of whether we value Ellen White’s writings – we do, profoundly. It is a question of whether we will follow her counsel about how those writings should function in relation to church fellowship.
A rule by which to measure all removes the requirement to exercise the very wisdom and discretion that the Spirit of Prophecy said ministers should employ. In making belief in EGW’s writings a test of fellowship, we may be keeping a “few precious souls” from the church – the very outcome she warned against.
As we have seen in our examinations of vegetarianism and remarriage, the deeper issue at stake is our consistency in following the Testimonies. If we can disregard Ellen White’s explicit counsel when it conflicts with our established practice, what authority do the Testimonies really hold for us? And what message does this inconsistency send to those evaluating her prophetic claims?