Does the Spirit of Prophecy support making vegetarianism a test of fellowship?

How we defend our doctrinal beliefs matters as much as what we believe. Ellen White gave a caution that is worth keeping in mind whenever we examine or defend a doctrinal position:

“Agitate, agitate, agitate. The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny.”

5T 708.1

This counsel establishes a principle that cuts two ways. We are to defend important truths earnestly – “agitate, agitate, agitate” – but the arguments we use must also be “wholly sound.” It is not enough for an argument to answer an objection or win a debate. It must be faithful to the evidence and able to stand up to careful examination.

That leads to a more personal question: what if some of our interpretations are mistaken? What if positions we have defended strongly rest on arguments that do not hold up under closer examination? Are we willing to reconsider them? And when evidence points us in a different direction, are we prepared to adjust our understanding rather than simply defend what we have always held? That kind of willingness requires both humility and a genuine desire to follow truth wherever it leads.

In Part 1 of this series, we examined SDARM’s biblical arguments for making vegetarianism a test of fellowship, and we found that Scripture does not provide the clear “Thus saith the Lord” necessary to make vegetarianism a requirement for baptism and church membership.

But our examination is not complete. In this article we examine the statements from Ellen G. White’s writings that SDARM uses to support making vegetarianism a test of fellowship.

If these statements genuinely support the SDARM position and contradict our reading of Scripture, then those of us who disagree with that position need to be willing to reconsider our interpretation. If we accept the prophetic gift as a help in understanding Scripture, we cannot simply set aside statements that challenge us.

But if these statements have been applied beyond their context, or used to support a conclusion they were never intended to establish, then the question changes. We then need to ask – have we in SDARM moved beyond what God has required and made vegetarianism a test of fellowship on a basis that does not hold up?

Scrutinising our arguments and interpretations

If we truly believe that our doctrinal defenses must “bear the closest and most searching scrutiny,” then we must be willing to subject even cherished positions to that scrutiny. This requires moving beyond how statements appear when excerpted in our publications, and examining them in their original context – with attention to who was being addressed, what specific situation prompted the counsel, and whether the application we’ve made truly aligns with the author’s intent.

What follows, then, is an examination of the key Spirit of Prophecy statements used to support SDARM’s position on vegetarianism as a test of fellowship. For each statement, we will seek to answer three questions:

• What was the original context?
• What did Ellen White actually say?
• And does it support the use to which it has been put?

We proceed in the spirit of this sentiment expressed by Ellen White during the turbulent period of the 1888 General Conference:

“If every idea we have entertained in doctrines is truth will not the truth bear to be investigated? Will it totter and fall if criticized? If so, let if fall, the sooner the better.”

1888 186.2

The results may surprise us. But we must be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads – even if it leads away from positions we’ve long held.

Doing away entirely with meat eating

The folllowing quote from the Testimonies, referenced in Fundamental Christian Beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement (p. 92) and found in the compilation Counsels on Diet and Foods (p. 407), has often been used to support making vegetarianism a test of fellowship:

“You may ask, ‘Would you do away entirely with meat-eating?’ I answer, ‘It will eventually come to this, but we are not prepared for this step just now.’ Meat-eating will eventually be done away. The flesh of animals will not longer compose a part of our diet, and we shall look upon a butcher’s shop with disgust.”

CD 407.1

At first glance – especially when excerpted in the SDARM Fundamental Beliefs on this point – it appears that Sr. White is referring to a church-wide test of fellowship. However, the full context reveals something quite different.

The book Counsels on Diet and Foods was compiled by the staff of the Ellen G. White Publications (then called the Ellen G. White Estate) from various letters and manuscripts and published in 1938. This particular quote was extracted from a letter Sr. White wrote on February 5, 1884, to the leadership of the Rural Health Retreat in Healdsburg, California. When we examine the complete letter (4LtMs, Lt 3, 1884), we discover it addresses institutional dietary policy at a church-owned health facility, not church baptismal requirements.

The letter opens by establishing the problem:

“You are all acquainted with the light upon the subject of health reform. But when I visit the Retreat, I see that there is a very marked departure from health reform on the matter of meat eating, and I am convinced that there must be a change, and at once. Your diet is largely composed of meat. God is not leading in this direction.”

The issue wasn’t merely that meat was available – it was that the institution’s meals were predominantly meat-based, a shocking departure for a facility established to teach health principles.

Sr. White challenged them pointedly:

“The Health Retreat was established at a great cost to treat the sick without drugs… But if we have no standard in this respect ourselves, what is the need of going to such large expense to establish a health institute? Where does the reform come in?”

The management had been excusing their practice by claiming that “the pleasure-seekers who come are not pleased with any other diet.” Sr. White’s response was direct: “Then let them go where they can obtain the diet they wish. When the institution cannot be conducted, even for guests, according to right principles, then let it drop the name it has assumed.”

It is in this specific context – addressing a church-run institution serving a meat-heavy diet – that Ellen White wrote: “You may ask, ‘Would you do away entirely with meat-eating?’ I answer, ‘It will eventually come to this, but we are not prepared for this step just now.'”

But who wasn’t prepared? The very next paragraph clarifies:

“In the place of educating the taste to love this gross diet, it is high time that we were educating ourselves to subsist upon fruits, grains, and vegetables. This is the work of all who are connected with our institutions. Use less and less meat, until it is not used at all.”

The counsel was directed to institutional workers – those “connected with our institutions” – not to church members as a test of fellowship. She was instructing them to gradually phase out meat in their institutional menu planning: “Use less and less meat, until it is not used at all.”

Even more telling, she acknowledged practical realities: “Occasionally some meat may have to be given to outsiders who have so educated their tastes that they think that unless they have meat, they cannot keep up their strength. But they will have greater powers of endurance if they abstain from meat than if they subsist largely upon it.”

Her counsel reinforced that this was about institutional standards and the testimony those institutions bore:

“By parlor talks and example, educate in the other direction…Do not, I beg of you, argue that meat-eating must be right, because this one or that one, who is a slave to appetite, has said that he could not live at the Health Retreat without meat… Those who are connected with the Health Institute should set a right example in these things.”

These statements do not refer to a church-wide test of fellowship, but rather to the dietary provisions and educational mission of church-run institutions – health retreats, sanitariums, and (as similar statements elsewhere indicate) schools. The counsel addresses what kind of food should be served to clients and patients, what example should be set by institutional workers, and how to educate the public toward better health practices.

By extracting a single question and answer from a lengthy letter about institutional management, have we in SDARM inadvertently transformed practical counsel about health facility operations into a mandate for church fellowship standards – a transformation the original context simply does not support?

The time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet

Another example of how a disconnected Spirit of Prophecy statement can be pressed into service for unintended purposes appears on pages 92-93 of Fundamental Christian Beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement – the quote is arranged as follows:

“In 1909 the church was instructed not ‘to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship’ (9T 159), because many ministers and leaders were still meat eaters (9T 160). For this reason, the strictly vegetarian diet could not be imposed as a test for new members. ‘The time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet.'”

This statement makes a specific historical claim: Ellen White said not to make flesh food a test because ministers and leaders were still eating meat. If this were true, it would support SDARM’s position – the implication being that once leadership had reformed, vegetarianism could then become a test. But does the evidence support this claim?

At this point, the objection could be rephrased as follows: “SDARM has never made flesh a test of fellowship in the sense the Testimonies use that phrase. We didn’t impose vegetarianism on an already established group that disagreed on the issue. From our denominational origins, we abstained from flesh from the outset. Since all our brethren were in harmony, it became a natural test of fellowship rather than an excluding test imposed later on existing members.”

It’s true that SDARM’s circumstances differed from those of the SDA pioneers. The Reform Movement began with a membership already committed to vegetarianism.

But this defense, while it sounds reasonable, rests on a questionable premise: that the only reason the Spirit of Prophecy advised against making flesh-eating a test of fellowship was because the church at that time lacked full agreement. If disagreement were the sole issue, then the objection would hold.

However, this reading fundamentally misunderstands Ellen White’s counsel. The question was never merely sociological (will this cause division?) but theological (do we have biblical authority to impose this?). As we’ve established in previous articles, the key question for any doctrinal test is not “Do we all agree?” but rather “Where is the supporting ‘Thus saith the Lord’?”

This distinction becomes critical when we consider that Ellen White explicitly counseled against making flesh-eating a test even while vigorously promoting health reform. If mere consensus were sufficient to authorise a test, she could have said, “Don’t make it a test now because you lack agreement, but once everyone is convinced, then you may.” She said no such thing. Instead, she consistently pointed back to biblical authority as the standard for establishing tests of fellowship.

The 1881 Letter: A Pattern We’re Repeating

On March 23, 1881, Ellen White wrote a letter entitled “Proper Use of the Testimonies on Health Reform” that speaks with clear relevance to our current discussion. We’ll quote from the full letter available at https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/4264.1#0.

The situation she addressed will sound familiar: individuals were taking selected portions of her Testimonies on health reform and using them in ways not intended by the author. Even in her day, people were using her writings as “proof” that a plant-based diet should be made a test of fellowship. Her response was to call this practice out and draw attention back to the authority of the Bible.

She began by acknowledging the value of health reform while warning about unwise advocacy:

“Great light has been given upon health reform, but it is essential for all to treat this subject with candor and to advocate it with wisdom. In our experience we have seen many who have not presented health reform in a manner to make the best impression upon those whom they wish should receive their views.”

Ms 5, 1881

The problem wasn’t with health reform itself, but with how it was being promoted.

She urged caution:

“We wish to present temperance and health reform from a Bible standpoint and to be very cautious not to go to extremes in abruptly advocating health reform.”

Ms 5, 1881

Then she identified exactly what was happening – and her description could have been written about us:

“Questions are coming in from brethren and sisters making inquiries in regard to health reform. Statements are made that some are taking the light in the testimonies upon health reform and making it a test. They select statements made in regard to some articles of diet that are presented as objectionable…They dwell on these things and make them as strong as possible, weaving their own peculiar, objectionable traits of character in with these statements and carry them with great force, thus making them a test and driving them where they do only harm.”

Ms 5, 1881

Notice the pattern: selecting statements from the testimonies, emphasising them as strongly as possible, and driving them as a test. This is precisely what happens when statements about institutional dietary standards or counsel against specific items of food are extracted from their contexts and repurposed as evidence for fellowship requirements.

Ellen White saw clearly where this led:

“And such persons may take health reform and do great harm with it in prejudicing minds so that ears will be closed to the truth.”

Ms 5, 1881

Look at the contrast. Health reform, presented wisely, “will prove an entering wedge where the truth may follow with marked success.” But presented unwisely, making dietary questions “the burden of the message,” it creates “prejudice with unbelievers” and bars “the way to the truth, leaving the impression that we are extremists.”

She continued:

“Through weaving in unconsecrated self, that which we are ever to present as a blessing becomes a stumbling block.”

Ms 5, 1881

The issue, then, was more than simply how health reform was presented. It was also about the spirit in which it was presented. Something that God intended to be a blessing could, through “unconsecrated self,” be turned into a stumbling block. Health reform itself was not the problem. The problem was the way it could be pressed, emphasised, or used in a manner that placed an unnecessary obstacle in the way of the gospel.

The Practice of Selective Citation

Ellen White then addressed the underlying problem in how the issue was being interpreted:

“We see those who will select from the testimonies the strongest expressions and, without bringing in or making any account of the circumstances under which the cautions and warnings are given, make them of force in every case. Thus they produce unhealthy impressions upon the minds of the people. There are always those who are ready to grasp anything of a character which they can use to rein up people to a close, severe test and who will work elements of their own characters into the reforms.”

Ms 5, 1881

There is a pattern here worth recognising: taking the strongest statements, separating them from the circumstances in which they were given, applying them broadly, and then using them to establish “close, severe tests.” That is the same concern we have seen in the way certain statements are used to support vegetarianism as a test of fellowship.

Her next sentence is especially relevant to the issue we are considering:

“But let the testimonies speak for themselves. Let not individuals gather up the very strongest statements given for individuals and families and drive these things because they want to use the whip and to have something to drive.”

Ms 5, 1881

Let the testimonies speak for themselves. Don’t gather up statements given to individuals and families and drive them as universal mandates. Don’t look for ammunition to use as a whip. This is the opposite of the careful, contextualised hermeneutic we should employ.

Biblical Tests vs. Dietary Counsel

Ellen White then made an important distinction:

“The question whether we shall eat butter, meat, or cheese is not to be presented to anyone as a test, but we are to educate and to show the evils of the things that are objectionable. Those who gather up these things and drive them upon others do not know what work they are doing. The Word of God has given tests to His people. The keeping of God’s holy law, the Sabbath, is a test, a sign between God and His people throughout their generations forever. Forever this is the burden of the third angel’s message—the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Ms 5, 1881

The point she is making is quite clear. Meat-eating “is not to be presented to anyone as a test.” And the reason she gives is important: “The Word of God has given tests to His people.” In other words, the church is not free to create additional tests where Scripture has not established them. She points to the Sabbath and the commandments of God as examples of tests that have clear biblical authority. Making abstinence from flesh a condition of baptism or fellowship is a different matter, because Scripture does not establish it as such a test.

But what about things like coffee, alcohol and smoking? Aren’t they just as bad as eating meat? Ellen White further clarified the distinction:

“Tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol we must present as sinful indulgences. We cannot place on the same ground meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and such articles placed upon the table. These are not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work. The former, tea, coffee, tobacco, beer, wine, and all spirituous liquors, are not to be taken moderately, but discarded. The poisonous narcotics are not to be treated in the same way as the subject of eggs, butter, and cheese.”

Ms 5, 1881

Notice the deliberate distinction Ellen White draws here. When addressing “sinful indulgences”- she places tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol in one category requiring complete abstinence. But she explicitly refuses to place “meat, eggs, butter, cheese” on the same “sinful” ground – particularly in the context of the mission ‘front’ or what forms part of the ‘burden of our work’. These dietary items are to be addressed through education about their objectionable nature, not driven as tests.

Church Rules vs. Biblical Tests

In another letter, written 21 years later, in counsel specifically about institutional dietary standards, Ellen White wrote:

“We are to be careful not to treat our own ideas as if they were the law of God. Let us look at this matter as it is. We are not to make rules with the idea that they are never to be changed or modified. In our sanitariums the seventh-day Sabbath is ever to be kept holy. No tea, coffee, or flesh meat is to be served, unless it is in some special case, where the patient particularly desires it, and then, these articles of food should be served to him in his room. No tests that the Bible does not require are to be brought in. Every effort should be made to win the confidence of the patients, that their hearts may be reached by the truth. The workers are to draw as near to them as they can, bringing them into the sunshine of Christ’s love.”

17LtMs, Lt 213, 1902, par. 18

She made the same distinction in institutional settings. The Sabbath rested on a clear biblical requirement, while dietary standards were matters that could be adjusted according to circumstances. Her guiding principle was straightforward: “No tests that the Bible does not require are to be brought in.”

If this principle applied to church-operated institutions, how much more does it apply to church membership requirements?

The Application to SDARM

In these quotations, we see a clear and consistent distinction between Biblical tests – such as the Sabbath and God’s commandments – and dietary counsel found in the Testimonies. Ellen White repeatedly stood against turning elements of health reform into a test of fellowship. In the very same contexts where she urged the importance of health reform, she reaffirmed that the true tests given to God’s people are already clear in the Word of God.

That raises a difficulty for the SDARM position which cannot be answered simply by appealing to differing circumstances. The concern was not only that dietary tests might create unnecessary division among believers who were at different stages of reform. The more fundamental question was whether such dietary restrictions had sufficient biblical authority to be made conditions of fellowship in the first place.

Yes, SDARM avoided the sociological problem of internal conflict by beginning with a vegetarian membership. But the theological problem remains: Where is the “Thus saith the Lord”? Where is the biblical warrant for making vegetarianism a condition of church membership?

The fact that this has been part of the denomination’s practice from the beginning does not, by itself, establish that the practice is required by God. It may partly explain why our position is held so strongly, but it does not answer the question of scriptural authority needed to make it a test of fellowship.

The Medical Meaning of “Prescribe”

Another statement from Testimonies volume 9 used in our SDARM Fundamentals requires examination:

“While working against gluttony and intemperance, we must recognize the condition to which the human family is subjected. God has made provision for those who live in the different countries of the world. Those who desire to be co-workers with God must consider carefully before they specify just what foods should and should not be eaten. We are to be brought into connection with the masses. Should health reform in its most extreme form be taught to those whose circumstances forbid its adoption, more harm than good would be done. As I preach the gospel to the poor, I am instructed to tell them to eat that food which is most nourishing. I cannot say to them: ‘You must not eat eggs, or milk, or cream. You must use no butter in the preparation of food.’ The gospel must be preached to the poor, but the time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet.” 9T 163.1

Our Fundamentals booklet applies this prophetically on page 93: “When the coming of Christ is now so near, we believe we have reached a time when those who ‘make a covenant with God by sacrifice, will not continue to indulge their appetite for food that they know to be unhealthful.’ Therefore, the half converted ones, who still want to eat meat, cannot be united with God’s remnant people (CD 382). It is evident to us that the time has come for ‘the strictest diet [to] be prescribed.'”

This interprets “the time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet” as prophetic – pointing to a future when the church would enforce dietary tests. But the original context reveals something entirely different.

Dr. Kress and Sanitarium Practice

This counsel in Testimonies vol. 9 was originally prepared from a letter written to Dr. Daniel Kress, a leading Seventh-day Adventist physician and sanitarium director. Ellen White was addressing a specific problem in his medical practice:

“I have something to say in reference to extreme views of health reform. Health reform becomes health deform, a health destroyer, when it is carried to extremes. You will not be successful in sanitariums, where the sick are treated, if you prescribe for the patients the same diet you have prescribed for yourself and your wife. I assure you that your ideas in regard to diet for the sick are not advisable. The change is too great. While I would discard flesh meat as injurious, something less objectionable may be used, and this is found in eggs. Do not remove milk from the table or forbid its being used in the cooking of food.” 16LtMs, Lt 37, 1901, par. 16

Dr. Kress and his wife had adopted an extreme vegan diet and he was medically prescribing this same restrictive regimen to his sanitarium patients. Ellen White’s counsel was practical and immediate: stop prescribing your personal dietary convictions to patients who need to be met where they are.

In this context, she wrote: “We are to be brought into connection with the masses. Should health reform be taught them in its most extreme form, harm would be done. We ask them to leave off eating meat <and drinking tea and coffee>. That is well. But some say that milk also should be given up. This is a subject that needs to be carefully handled. There are poor families whose diet consists of bread and milk, and if they can get it, a little fruit. All flesh food should be discarded, but vegetables should be made palatable with a little milk or cream or something equivalent. The poor say, when health reform is presented to them, ‘What shall we eat? We cannot afford to buy the nut foods.’ As I preach the gospel to the poor, I am instructed to tell them to eat that food which is most nourishing. I cannot say to them, ‘You must not eat eggs or milk or cream. You must use no butter in the preparation of food.’ The gospel must be preached to the poor, and the time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet.” 16LtMs, Lt 37, 1901, par. 31

The word “prescribe” is important here because it points to the setting in which the counsel was given. Doctors prescribe diets to patients; churches normally speak in terms of requirements, standards, or tests. That makes it much more natural to understand this statement as referring to medical or institutional practice, rather than as authorising a general church-wide condition of fellowship.

This understanding is confirmed by a manuscript Ellen White wrote in 1903 regarding the St. Helena Sanitarium, which provides crucial insight into how she expected dietary standards to be applied even in church-operated institutions.:

“Lately the number of patients at the Sanitarium has decreased, owing to an array of circumstances that could not be helped. One reason for the lack of patronage is, I think, the stand that those at the head of the institution have taken against serving flesh meat to the patients. Ever since the opening of the Sanitarium, meat has been served in the dining room. We felt that the time had come to take a decided stand against this practice. We knew that it was not pleasing to God for flesh meat to be placed before the patients.”

18LtMs, Ms 3a, 1903, par. 2

Here we see institutional reform in action: a church-operated sanitarium removing meat from its dining room service. But notice what happens next – even in this context, Ellen White advised discretion:

“If patients come who are so dependent on a diet of flesh meat that they think that [they] cannot live without it, we shall try to make them look at the matter from an intelligent point of view. And if they will not do this, if they are determined to use that which destroys health, we shall not refuse to provide it for them, if they are willing to eat it in their rooms and willing to risk the consequences. But they must take upon themselves the responsibility of their action. We shall not sanction their course. We dare not dishonor our stewardship by sanctioning the use of that which taints the blood and brings disease. We should be unfaithful to our Master if we did that which we know He does not approve.”

18LtMs, Ms 3a, 1903, par. 5

This is extraordinary counsel. The institution’s testimony was preserved (not serving it publicly), education was given (helping them understand why it was harmful), but ultimately individual choice was respected.

In a letter dated March 10, 1903, Ellen White continued this theme with Dr. Kress:

“Brother and Sister Kress, I wish to present for your consideration a few points that have been revealed to me since first there arose the difficulties connected with the question of discarding flesh meat from the tables of our medical institutions.”

18LtMs, Lt 45, 1903, par. 6

“I have been plainly instructed by the Lord that flesh meat should not be placed before the patients in our sanitarium dining rooms. Light was given me that the patients could have flesh meat, if, after hearing the parlor lectures, they still urged us to give it to them; but that, in such cases, it must be eaten in their own rooms. All the helpers are to discard flesh meat. But, as stated before, if, after knowing that the flesh of animals cannot be placed on the dining-room tables, a few patients urge that they must have meat, cheerfully give it to them in their rooms.”

18LtMs, Lt 45, 1903, par. 7

The Vegan Problem

Even if we set that context aside and read the statement in 9T 163.1 as having a future application, another difficulty remains. The “strictest diet” Dr. Kress was advocating excluded not only meat, but also eggs, milk, cream, and butter. So if that phrase were intended to describe a future test of fellowship, the standard it points to would be veganism rather than vegetarianism.

Yet SDARM requires vegetarianism (allowing eggs and dairy) as a test of fellowship. The interpretation is internally contradictory – it can’t simultaneously mean “a future dietary test” and “vegetarianism specifically” when the original “strictest diet” referred to in the testimony was clearly vegan.

The contextually-supported reading is simpler and consistent: Ellen White was not setting out future conditions for church membership. Her wider counsel on institutional diet follows the same general pattern: health reform should be taught clearly and faithfully, but not turned into an inflexible rule that makes no allowance for individual circumstances or difficulty.

Extracting this statement from its medical context and redeploying it as evidence for fellowship tests represents exactly the kind of misapplication she warned against in her 1881 letter – taking statements about specific qualifying circumstances and driving them as universal mandates.

The Half-Converted Ones: A Subtle but Critical Misquotation

In the same quote mentioned earlier, the SDARM Fundamentals booklet states on page 93: “Therefore, the half converted ones, who still want to eat meat, cannot be united with God’s remnant people (CD 382).”

At first glance, this quotation can sound as though Ellen White was supporting the exclusion of meat-eaters from church fellowship. But when we go back to the original statement in Counsels on Diet and Foods, page 382, her wording is quite different – and that difference matters when we consider what she was actually teaching.

What Ellen White Actually Wrote

The original statement from the manuscript “The Need of Medical Missionary Work” reads:

“Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God’s people to walk no more with them.”

Notice the difference:

• SDARM version: “cannot be united with God’s remnant people”
• Ellen White’s actual words: “will go from God’s people to walk no more with them”

This is more than a difference in wording. The two statements describe quite different situations, and they lead to very different conclusions about how the church should respond in practice.

“Cannot be united with” suggests exclusion – a barrier erected by the church that prevents meat-eaters from joining. It implies that the church should exclude such individuals from membership.

“Will go from God’s people to walk no more with them” describes self-separation – individuals who, over time, choose to distance themselves from a people increasingly committed to health reform. It’s a prediction about what such people will do, not a prescription for what the church should do to them.

This is precisely the kind of interpretive violence that Ellen White warned against: taking statements from their context, strengthening them beyond their original meaning, and driving them as tests. The result dishonors both the author and the truth she sought to communicate.

“Extracts May Give a Different Impression”: Ellen White on Misusing Her Writings

During her lifetime, Ellen White encountered a similar problem. Some were asking to take statements from her writings and use them to “give force” to positions they were already advocating. Her response is especially relevant to the question we are considering here.

She wrote:

“Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects which they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them.

25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 4

“It is true that there is a reason why some of these matters should be presented: but I would not venture to give my approval in using the testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose.

25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 5

“The persons who make these propositions for ought I know may be able to conduct the enterprises of which they write in a wise manner; but nevertheless I dare not give the least license for using my writings in the manner which they propose. In taking account of such an enterprise, there are many things that must come into consideration; for in using the testimonies to bolster up some subject which may impress the mind of the author, the extracts may give a different impression than that which they would were they read in their original connection.”

25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 6

The troubling question is whether SDARM has done exactly this with the vegetarian fellowship test. Did we begin with the practice (vegetarianism from our movement’s beginning) and then search Ellen White’s writings for statements that could bolster that practice (when these quotes are read without reference to their original connection), and turn it into a test of fellowship?

Conclusion

We began by considering Ellen White’s counsel that our doctrinal positions should rest on “arguments that are wholly sound” and able to “bear the closest and most searching scrutiny.” With that standard in mind, the question is whether the arguments used to support vegetarianism as a test of fellowship actually meet it.

This doesn’t mean abandoning health reform. It doesn’t mean compromising the call to vegetarianism or a plant-based diet. It means recognising that a practice can be right and important without being a fellowship test. It means that we can uphold vegetarianism while also asking whether Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy provide sufficient authority to make it a fellowship test.

Ellen White managed this balance throughout her life. She advocated passionately for health reform while refusing to make dietary restrictions fellowship tests. She urged ministers to be examples in health while warning against making tests where God has not made them. She presented health reform as “an entering wedge” for truth when handled wisely, while cautioning that handled unwisely, it becomes “a stumbling block.”

We can do the same.

The question also reaches beyond vegetarianism. It concerns the way we establish doctrine and practice, the way we use inspired writings, and whether long-held traditions are still open to careful examination in the light of Scripture and the full context of the Spirit of Prophecy.

If we can make vegetarianism a fellowship test based on misapplied Spirit of Prophecy statements despite explicit counsel against doing so, what other positions might we be defending with similarly unsound arguments? Are there other practices we have come to regard as tests that may rest more on tradition or accumulated interpretation than on clear biblical or prophetic authority?

The most dangerous errors are not those we recognise in others but those we’ve woven so deeply into our identity that we can no longer see them clearly, and especially dangerous are those that undermine the efficacy of the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy – the very gift Christ gave the church to help it see.

“The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony. “

2SM 78.2

May we have the courage to walk in the light God sends us, wherever it leads.

In the next part of this series (part 3), we’ll address a well known statement Ellen White wrote in 1911 about then not making meat a test of fellowship:

“…when it comes to making this a test question, I dare not place it before our people in that positive way…I am prepared to stand for some things; but not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue.” 25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911, par. 8

Does the ‘not yet are we as a people fully ready for this issue’ imply a future time where a test would become necessary?