In the preface to this revised and enlarged edition of Prophetess of Health, Ronald Numbers claims, "I have tried to be as objective as possible. Thus I have refrained from using divine inspiration as a historical explanation."
But can one who does not consider the supernatural claims of the subject of his study be objective in his research of that subject? The thesis of the original book—that Ellen White copied ideas on health from her contemporaries—has been critiqued ad nauseam. But this re vised volume adds a psychological pro file of White, which deserves comment.
The psychological study of Ellen White, given so many schools of thought, remains at best speculation even for the humanist. (What would they do with David in the Psalms?) Walter Martin and even secular feminists have been kinder and gentler with White's psyche. But if evidence indicates from her own records that in her early years she suffered emotional and/or physical stress, we can only praise God. That means God can use any of us—from the mentally retarded or severely depressed to those of us nursing our own little garden variety neuroses. We can all relate! Maybe we can thank Numbers for showing us that!
The phenomena of Ronald Numbers causes the church to ask itself questions unrelated to the book's content. The book contends that some have attempted negative psychological profiles of the author, but on what basis? His father is proud of him, and rightly so. Numbers has gone far as a scholar, yet away from his heritage. What makes one person who studies in a secular community keep his or her original faith and others not? Is one more open, or is he or she more suggestible? Did Numbers unconsciously use his church as a stepping-stone to fame in a secular university? Quaint religious claims make good sociological treatises that serve as steps up the stairs of the ivory tower.
None of us can judge Numbers' motives. But we do have a hint of the mind set from which he approaches his subject. In his book The Creationists, the Evolution of Scientific Creationism, the author tells us poignantly about being labeled an "agnostic." "The tag still feels foreign and uncomfortable, but it accurately reflects my theological uncertainty. ... I no longer believe in creationism of any kind."
No believer in the inspiration of Ellen White could easily do an objective re view of Numbers' book. But one can take issue with his perception of honest scholarship and the objectivity of secular education. Is sound scholarship at variance with basic faith? Can Christians immerse themselves in secular thought without losing their faith commitment? Is not constant prayer and study of the Word essential to keep such a commitment alive?
