Those who oppose remarriage often quote from the Spirit of Prophecy writings in order to support their argument. Many times, quotes are taken out of context. They are wrested from their original meaning, with personal opinion forced upon their interpretation. To clarify this misuse of the inspired writings, we will outline several historical cases relating to divorce and remarriage that occurred in the SDA church during the time of Ellen White, and how statements pertaining to them are often misappropriated. When we see the original context, the true meaning of the texts will be very apparent, and the false teachings that extend from the misrepresentation of the passage will be thoroughly disproved.
An example of this was previously revealed in the article Vegetarianism as a Test of Fellowship, Part Two. Counsels directed at the operations of the health retreat were misrepresented as pertaining to the church and its requirements for baptism. Upon reanalysis of the statements within the context in which they were written, it was revealed that arguments using these statements to support vegetarianism as a test of church fellowship were completely unfounded.
Taking statements out of context is a ubiquitous problem that has potential to infect every area of our faith. We must be absolutely diligent when preparing research to ensure that our conclusions are based on the true intention of the counsel, that time and place are considered, and that our own opinions are not forcing the text to say what it does not say.
This article examines three historical cases of divorce and remarriage that occurred during Ellen White’s lifetime. When we restore these statements to their proper context, a very different picture emerges than the one presented by SDARM. It is a picture that reveals both the wisdom of inspired testimony and the danger of proof-texting Ellen White’s writings.
We must note that misuse of the Bible or SOP is often unintentional. Study of the full context is always encouraged, but sometimes we forget to review it, or the context is not immediately obvious. When the research for this study was first being prepared, the author had to write to the White Estate to obtain a digital copy of a certain manuscript, as it was not originally included with the release of Ellen White’s writings. At the time of this writing, it appears these manuscripts are still absent from the EGW writings app and website but can be obtained by contacting the White Estate. However, we make them available to you here (MR448) and here (MR449).
This manuscript contains the full context of the situation from which portions were pulled and included in other compilations. Because of human nature, difficulty in interpretation, and even difficulty in obtaining context, we must always assume people generally operate in good faith when studying, and thus do not seek to condemn or accuse anyone when delivering this information to you, the reader.
The Isolated Statements
Case #1. W. C. Wales
Statements taken out of context:
“Mother has received during the last twenty years many letters making inquiry regarding the matters about which you write, and she has many times written in reply that that she had no advice to give different from that of the apostle Paul. Recently she has refused to deal with letters of this character, and tells us not to bring them to her attention.”
MR448, pg. 20
“I do not think any such letters as that ought to be placed before me. I do not think it is my work to deal with any such thing, unless the case has been plainly opened before me. There should be brethren in the church who have wisdom, who can speak decidedly regarding this case. I cannot understand such things.”
MR 448, pg. 21
“The case is such that I have had no particular light in regard to his case, therefore I dare not speak positively in regard to it.”
MR448, pg. 21
These statements are often presented as evidence that Ellen White was uncertain or confused about divorce and remarriage in general. But the “his” in the last statement refers to one W. C. Wales, to whose case all three statements pertain, and the context is enlightening.
Aged 33, married, Wales was working as a Bible worker (with ministerial credentials) during the years 1890, 1891. During this time he became infatuated with one Ms. Myrtle Stebbins, whom he married in 1892 after leaving his first wife. He left his second wife Mrs. Stebbins for a time and, because of his conduct, his credentials were withdrawn. He became involved with a new convert who confessed to a relationship with Wales, involving the violation of the seventh commandment. Source: MR448 pg. 25
In 1911, elder McVagh at the request of the Alabama Conference Committee wrote to W. C. White for advice from Sr. White concerning Wales. He stated that Wales was doing a good work developing interests, holding meetings, selling books and Bibles, taking care of the interests, and preaching wherever he went. He said that despite his good work and presently straight life, there were some questions being raised. Source: MR448 pg. 26
His second wife, Mrs. Stebbins, was a nervous wreck and if Wales became popular and mingled with the people, she was prone to becoming jealous and would talk openly about the past, bringing scandal to the church. Wales’ past was so chequered and so widely known that they feared to advise him to labour in the ministry. As well as the scandal of his affair during his second marriage, Wales was getting $8 a week to help his efforts in the ministry. He thought that the interest demanded his full time effort. He was hoping for the restoration of his ministerial credentials. McVagh questioned the Whites, “Shall we advise him to quit preaching, or shall the conference accept his labour and pay him for it…and what about his credentials?” Source: MR448 pg. 26
W. C. White conveyed his mother’s advice:
“Do not cut them off from fellowship, do not forbid their working for Christ in a humble capacity, but do not elevate them to positions of responsibility. This is a question which should be submitted to those who have had to deal with his case in the past.”
MR448 pg. 27
Two years later in 1913, Elder Miller, on behalf of the Birmingham church in Alabama – the largest church in the conference – wrote again to Sister White soliciting her advice on whether or not to make Wales an elder of the church and act as its pastor or leader. Source: MR448 pg. 28
Wales also wrote a letter on the circumstances of his case and this, as well as Elder Miller’s letter were placed before Sr. White to which she made the following statements:
“I do not think any such letters as that ought to be placed before me. I do not think it is my work to deal with any such thing, unless the case has been plainly opened before me. There should be brethren in the church who have wisdom, who can speak decidedly regarding this case. I cannot understand such things…The case is such that I have had no particular light in regard to his case, therefore I dare not speak positively in regard to it…It is not wise for me to take the responsibility of this case. I cannot take the least responsibility. Those who see his actions day by day, should know whether he has proved himself, whether God accepts him.”
MR448, pg. 29,30
It is apparent that when sister White wrote things like “I cannot understand such things,” and “I have had no particular light,” she is not referring to a simple case of divorce and remarriage for the cause of adultery, but a complex situation involving an ex minister who had divorced and remarried unlawfully, was involved in an adulterous affair with a third party during his second marriage, and was now desiring credentials and payment for his service in the ministry. To this, Ellen White responded that those who had close dealings with his case should decide it, not her. Ellen White was not confused, neither lacked understanding when it came to divorce and remarriage in general. She wrote at length on this topic and was emphatic in her instruction when the circumstances were obvious. It was difficult, nuanced, and private cases that she, at times, refused to give instruction on.
W. C. White himself later explained his mother’s position clearly:
“It was sister White’s intention that there should not go forth from her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule in dealing with the questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery. She felt that the different cases where the devil had led men into serious entanglement were so varied and so serious, that should she write anything that could be considered as a rule for settling such cases, it would be misunderstood and misused.”
MR 448, pg. 208
Ellen White was not confused about biblical principles. She refused to provide a one-size-fits-all formula that could be mechanically applied to complex situations requiring pastoral judgment and intimate knowledge of circumstances.
Case #2. Walter Harper
Statements taken out of context:
“You asked me if I thought, if your wife [Laura] left you, that you should marry again. I would say if one understanding all the circumstances should choose to marry you, if you had not been married, I see no objections. But I am not fully prepared to give any judgment, whether in a Bible point of view you could marry again. My mind is so fully occupied that it is not possible for me to consider this vexed question of marriage and divorces.”
Lt. 40, 1888
“Do you not see that in separating Walter and your daughter, you would create two evils instead of curing one?”
Lt. 50, 1895
Why would this question about divorce and remarriage, in the first statement, be vexing for Sr. White in 1888? She wrote many times on the circumstances that made divorce (and the subsequent remarriage) lawful. The problem here was the hypothetical divorce was not based on the grounds of adultery. Harper didn’t commit adultery, and, at that stage, neither had his wife. Seven years later, however, Ellen White makes a very different statement:
“I see nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord.”
Letter 50, 1895
Surely Sister White was aware of the texts forbidding unlawful divorce and remarriage being enacted on causes other than adultery. In 1888 she specifically wrote giving the only reason for lawful divorce, and in doing so, condemned illegal proceedings:
“Nothing but the violation of the marriage bed can either break or annul the marriage vow.”
Letter 8, 1888.
What was it about Walter Harper’s case between 1888 and 1895, that changed Sr. White’s view from one of doubt towards his remarriage, to one of approval? Some will argue she wasn’t sure at all, but as we will read later, this case was presented to her by the Lord, and her writing “I see nothing in the Scriptures” isn’t a statement of doubtful indecision, but a declaration of exoneration that there is nothing to condemn his course.
“Walter loved Laura far too well, for she was not worthy of his regard. He did all in his power to help her, and sought in every possible way to retain her as his wife…Walter Harper did not put his wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another man.”
Lt. 50, 1895”
“He did not leave her, [Laura] she left him. He did not marry again until she had obtained a divorce. When Laura divorced herself from Walter, he suffered most keenly, and it was not until Laura had married another man, that Walter married again.”
Letter 50, 1895
Laura’s divorce and remarriage constituted adultery according to Scripture. Adultery being the only condition for lawful divorce, meant Walter was now free from the law of his wife. A divorce based on the circumstances, with the approval of the church who knew the situation well, and established before the state, was entirely lawful and permitted the subsequent marriage. Ellen White recognised this and not only approved the second marriage, but emphatically spoke against dissolving it:
“It is a serious matter to part a man and his wife. There is no Scriptural ground upon which to take such a step in this case.”
Lt. 50, 1895
“Your daughter has married Walter, and there is no reason why she should be separated from him.”
Lt. 50, 1895
This brings us to the second statement pulled from context. “Do you not see that in separating Walter and your daughter, you would create two evils instead of curing one?” Lt. 50, 1895
It is alleged that the first evil is Harper’s marriage to his second wife. This is not supported from the passage. Nowhere does Ellen White condemn Harper’s marriage. On the contrary, her statements imply that separating the two would be the second evil. So what was the first evil? Reading the whole passage, it is the mother-in-law that is trying to separate Harper and her daughter. She is doing this because she feels Harper should have supplied the means for her son to have a second chance at college after he failed his first:
“You must not be surprised that Walter does not feel free to help your son. If your son has not appreciated the opportunities and privileges he has had, if he has misapplied his own powers, and wasted his God-given talents, the question is, Will he do better upon a second trial?”
10LtMs, Lt 50, 1895.
The first evil was the son’s failure and waste of opportunity. Separating Walter and her daughter would not cure the problem her son is in. It would create the evil of an unscriptural divorce, while not helping her son to attend college after he failed once already. The cure that Ellen White prescribed for the problem was not to destroy her daughter’s marriage, or force Harper to provide the money for her son’s education. The cure was for her son to work his way through college:
“If Walter had given you the money you asked for, would it not have been something like trying to buy your favor? Would it not be much more fitting for your son to go to work and secure money for himself, and educate himself, rather than to be dependent upon anybody for such a favor?…Educate your son to be diligent, able to sustain himself, and to help others.”
10LtMs, Lt 50, 1895
Case #3. Walter Caldwell and Fannie Bolton
Statements taken out of context:
“You [Caldwell] are a married man, father of two children. If your wife has obtained a divorce from you, that does not leave you free to marry again, as I read my bible.”
Letter 19, 1896.
“He had not physical ability.”
MR926, pg. 52
Why did Ellen White approve of Harper’s remarriage, but not Caldwell’s? Ellen White herself explained the difference in a revealing statement to Fannie Bolton, who was considering marrying Caldwell:
“When I put the case of Walter Harper in your [Fannie Bolton’s] hand to copy, but felt as if an arm was stretched between you and me, I did not understand what it meant, but I do now. Harper’s case is not a parallel. Both cases have been presented to me at different times. Harper felt love, deep love, for his wife, and he has done everything a mortal man could do to save a divorce, for said he, “She will lose her soul.” There was nothing like lust in the case, for he had not physical ability, so it was not in any way a comparison with your case, or with Caldwell’s.”
MR926, pg. 52
The difference between the cases was that Harper’s case was an example of the innocent party, divorced by the one he loved, and whom he sought to retain. Caldwell’s case was one driven by lust. The idea that because Harper had castrated himself, that it somehow meant his second marriage was not consummated and therefore not an adulterous relationship is a complete distortion of what diligent study should conclude. The castration aspect is relevant only because it shows that Harper was not motivated by lust in his dealings with his wife, unlike Caldwell.
We read both Caldwell’s and Harper’s cases were presented to Ellen White under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so the judgment she gave was not her own, but that which was given her:
“He [Caldwell] has no moral right to marry you. He left his wife after giving her great provocation. He left her whom he had vowed before God to love and cherish while both should live. Before ever she obtained her divorce, when she was his lawful wife, he left her for three years, and then left her in heart, and expressed his love to you. The matter has been negotiated largely between you and a married man, while he was legally bound to the wife he married, who has had two children by him. I see not a particle of leniency in the Scriptures given either of you to contract marriage, although his wife is divorced. From the provocation he has given her, it was largely his own course of action that has brought this result, and I cannot see in any more favourable light his having a legal right to link his interest with yours or you to link your interest with his. One thing is settled. I could not connect with either of you if this step is taken, for I see this matter in a light that the Scriptures would condemn your connection.”
Lt. 14, 1895
Both cases are situations that required careful judgment. On the surface the circumstances look similar but on investigation they turn out to be very different. Both divorces were initiated by the wives, one was followed by an adulterous marriage on the part of the wife, the other instigated by the adulterous actions of the husband. This shows that the church must make deliberation whether or not a divorce or remarriage is lawful in the eyes of God. While God does allow for remarriage following lawful divorce, there are circumstances where the divorcee has no right to remarry, as his adulterous actions were the cause of the divorce.
Conclusion
The idea that Ellen White was confused about divorce and remarriage is a preposterous claim. She clearly and emphatically stated, throughout her ministry, what made a divorce or remarriage lawful or unlawful.
“In the sermon on the mount, Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie, except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow.”
MB 63
“The marriage vow is binding and could not release its claims upon any of the parties who entered into it, save from the cause of adultery, the violation of the marriage bed.”
Ms22 1888
“There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God”
17MR 156
“If she or any other woman should obtain a divorce legally on the ground that her husband was guilty of adultery, then she is free to be married to whom she chooses.”
17MR 156
The Holy Spirit does not give plain instruction, and then walk it back. To extract statements in specific, nuanced cases, then twist and misconstrue them to apply as a general rule does great violence to the text. Unfortunately, often these misinterpretations are taken to be factual and true without verification or even mild scrutiny and are passed around until their influence has permeated from the highest levels of the church to the lowest. As the saying goes,
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
An investigation into all the individual claims in one Bible study can take a lot of time, effort and painstaking perseverance, but we cannot do without it. We must study for ourselves and not let the mind of another fashion the Word of God or colour the writings of His prophets, while balancing this with humility and teachability. We cannot afford to proudly dismiss any new ideas we are confronted with, but we are to remember that man is fallible and prone to err. Practically speaking, this means humbly entertaining the thoughts and perspectives of others while studying for ourselves, seeking earnestly and prayerfully for the truth, always being careful to study the full context surrounding passages used to support ideas. The cases examined in this article demonstrate what happens when this approach is violated.
May God continue to cause light to out shine the darkness, that we may see the truth. For the sake of the innocent and our own souls.