Not long ago I tumbled into one of those disputes that seem so hard for some of us ministers to avoid (or is it resist?). In an email to my counterpart I emphasized a couple of relevant Ellen White quotes that I believed would contribute to our warming debate. Knowing him a little, I assumed that he would take these quotes seriously. However, his response to my citations went this way: "Regarding Ellen White statements, let me just say that I am a Biblical scholar and not a denominational apologist. As you well know Ellen White was not an exegete. She never comes to grips with the grammatical, textual, and contextual problems of Bible texts."
It is important for me to say that I deeply value the emphasis of my friend on being "a Biblical scholar." I must also say that at first I appreciated the fact that he had drawn an interesting distinction. He did not say as others have, "Yes, but Ellen White was not a theologian." Instead he said that she was not an "exegete." Yet when I thought again, I wondered about the objective accuracy of his assessment of much of Mrs. White's work. It is simply untrue to say that Mrs. White never grappled with the textual and contextual problems in the text of the Bible. True, she did not do it using the academic tools of the trade, but she nonetheless by all means did it.
As I thought about these things, I ended up feeling compelled to maintain that, bottom line, on the basis of functional definition Mrs. White was both an exegete and a theologian in her own right.
Perhaps that which is most persuasive to me in this was the thought that if one applies either the definition of my friend of what an "exegete" is, or anyone's definition of what a "theologian" is, so that people such as Ellen White are excluded, one would, by the force of such definition have to exclude people like Simon Peter, Jeremiah, Matthew and Haggai.
The point is, what has one gained, or what light has been shed on a given situation when one makes judgments that exclude persons such as Mrs. White from the ranks of exegetes or theologians? Are we not reducing or depriving exegesis and especially theology if we restrict them to the extent implied by my friend? As much as I appreciate how crucial is the responsible use and application of academically disciplined theology, the definitive task of theology must not end up being confined only to what is done by an elite, important as the role of that elite is.
Along with many others I have felt the significant weight and implications of all that has been said during the last twenty-five years or so within and without the Adventist Church about Mrs. White and her work; particularly about her use of sources and secretaries and her theological and doctrinal authority or lack of it when it comes to settling debated issues. In all of this, I am constrained to maintain my deep respect and admiration for Mrs. White as a theologian.
When, for example, I see what she has to say about subjects such as "the nature of Christ" or the "law in Galatians," I am filled with a sense of esteem and deference for her scholar ship, nonacademic as it may have been. As I read her coverage of such themes and observe the level of refinement in her thought, including her recognition of theological and textual nuance, I know that such precise and elegant writing presupposes careful, broad reading and study, even if that study omitted academic exegesis and classic theological discipline. It seems to me that an objective observer, unburdened by baggage from hither or yon, would be compelled to accord E.G. White the title, "theologian."
Clearly, one could come up with definitions of theology or of what a theologian is that would exclude persons such as Ellen White. Yet undoubtedly most thoughtful, independent and even academically oriented definitions of theology would embrace Mrs. White as a theologian, even if the far-reaching question of her inspiration was excluded (as we are purposely doing here), along with its role and influence on her as she did her work.
I'd like to come back to my friend and where it seems his view of Ellen White as a nonexegete or nontheologian, seems to lead him. Taking what seems to me like a rather extreme position, has caused him to discount the essential theological thrust of what a thoughtful, leading, divinely placed person has said about an issue in which she has been deeply involved. My friend has thus come to discount and essentially ignore crucial theological insights about important subjects. This has, I think, impoverished his own life and theology and potentially that of the Church.
Mrs. White was a person to whom the community of faith has consistently looked for thoughtful, biblical, and most certainly theological reflection on many issues. While I hope I would be among the first to disallow Mrs. White's writings any ultimately definitive or formative doctrinal role in the overall scheme of things (this role, by her own declaration is reserved for the Bible and the Bible alone) I hope I would be among the last to reduce, discount, or demean the massively valuable gift that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been given when it comes to the theological work of Ellen G. White.
