Circumstances Change the Relations of Things

Thursday afternoon at the Unity Conference Rolf Pohler, theological advisor to the North German Union Conference, Germany, examined Ellen White’s attitudes to theological continuity and change in the light of the Adventist church’s contemporary struggles with unity. With a variety of sometimes seemingly contradictory quotations, Pohler made it clear that a close look at Ellen White’s responses to issues of church authority, policy, and structure yields no simple answer to today’s church challenges. Most writers’ attempts to derive lessons from Ellen White’s attitudes are subjective - ‘more like a look in the mirror than an accurate lesson about history,’ he said. Secondly, we need to recognize the enormous differences between Ellen White’s world and ours. As the prophet herself said: “Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relations of things.”[1] But despite our subjectivity and removal in time, a look at Ellen White’s attitudes to many of the issues we face, offers insights into our own situation.

On the vital issue of ‘present truth,’ Ellen White was ready to change. In the context of the Minneapolis conference of 1888 she wrote: “What would not have been truth twenty years ago, may well be present truth now.”[2] When people called on her to resolve doctrinal controversies, she consistently urged people to remain open to new interpretations of Bible texts, additional doctrinal insights, and possible revisions of erroneous views.[3] She even urged openness to ideas from outside the church as a means of advancing truth.[4]

In the development of Adventist theology in her own time, Ellen White’s role may be described as "formative, not normative."[5] While she contributed significantly to the development, acceptance, preser­vation, and revision of doctrines, she did not want to be regarded as the final criterion and arbiter of truth. Changes in her own personal theological development have been well-documented by various scholars. She ascribed her own experience of change to divine inspiration. "For sixty years I have beenin communication with heavenly messengers, and I have been constantly learning in reference to divine things."[6]

Ellen White’s twofold approach to the issue of doctrinal development moved between a view of divine truth as ‘eternal, changeless and immovable’ and what sometimes seems like the opposite – truth as ‘inexhaustible, capable of unlimited expansion.’ This movement in her understanding encouraged her to constant exploration of traditional doctrines alongside an openness to ‘new light’ which must be examined, investigated, tested and constantly reviewed.

"While we must hold fast to the truths which we have already received, we must not look with suspicion upon any new light that God may send."[7]

Though Ellen White's statements on doctrinal continuity and change appear somewhat contradictory, Pohler suggested when they are examined in the historical contexts in which they were given, they can be seen as actually complementary and part of the crucial spiritual maturing process of the church.

“Much has been lost because our ministers and people have concluded that we have had all the truth essential for us as a people; but such a conclusion is erroneous and in harmony with the deceptions of Satan, for truth will be constantly unfolding.”[8]

Pohler went on to examine Ellen White’s view on the actual process of theological development. Once again she sought balance in the process of change between ‘old truths’ being rediscovered and restored to the church with many more to be expected. The balance was rooted in the teaching of Christ whose work Ellen White saw as correcting misinterpretations of the Bible and revealing new facets of divine revelation.

“Some things must be torn down. Some things must be built up. The old treasures must be reset in the framework of truth … Jesus will reveal to us precious old truths in a new light, if we are ready to receive them.”[9]

“Seventh-day Adventists,” said Pohler, “may do well to emulate the example of their prophet who served both as a strong factor of doctrinal continuity and a constant catalyst of doctrinal change.”

The second half of Pohler’s paper explored the implications of Ellen White’s views of theological continuity and change for church leadership, authority, organization, structure, and policy. He identified three aspects of her teaching that have a direct bearing on the ongoing struggle about “unity in mission” in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Since human understanding of truth is subject to development, church teaching, policy and practice must follow suit. Foundational truths must remain and be distinguished from peripheral views which depend on circumstances. On various occasions, Ellen White suggested that organizational structures and policies should serve the church, not vice versa.

Once again: “Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relations of things.”[10]

When people acted independently of the church or relied too much on individual leaders, she emphasized the importance of the collective will of the church as expressed by the General Conference in session. But when the leadership of the church abused their authority by acting in a dominant manner, White would stand up against them, calling them to refrain from exercising dictatorial power. Her statements, made in a particular setting, would become misleading or even wrong when applied indiscriminately to other situations.[11] She advocated what Dr. Pohler called ‘conscientious nonconformity’ – sometimes being willing to accept humbly decisions made by church majorities even though one might disagree while at the same time, questioning tradition, being ready to stand up for sound Biblical interpretation, the rights of individual conscience and “standing for the right though the heavens fall.”[12] In her own practice, Ellen White exemplified this tension when as the habitual supporter of tithing she withheld her own tithe to alleviate suffering and injustice. It was a practice that Pohler described as “conscientious nonconformity,” grounded not in disloyalty or rebellion but in conformity with the core teachings and principles of the word of God. “

For Ellen White, change in divine messengers, individual members and dedicated leaders was not a sign of spiritual weakness, but rather an evidence of personal and spiritual growth.

“Some things must be torn down. Some things must be built up.”[13]

Helen Pearson is a counselor, psychotherapist, writer, and trainer based at Newbold College in England and a longtime elder of Newbold Church. She is a member of the Spectrum reporting team at the London Unity Conference.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

Notes & References:

[1]Ellen G. White, Report of an Interview / Counsel on Age of School Entrance (St. Helena, CA, 1904), Manuscript 7, 1904, EGWE; White, Selected Messages, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 217; idem, Manuscript Releases, 21 vols. (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981, 1987, 1990, 1993), 6:354.

[2]Manuscript 15, 1888, EGWRC, AU, Berrien Springs, MI.

[3]The debate on the law in Galatians and on “the daily” are illustrations of this.

[4]"When the resolution was urged upon the conference that nothing should be taught in the college contrary to that which has been taught, I felt deeply, for I knew whoever framed that resolution was not aware of what he was doing" (Ellen White, Manuscript 16, 1889, EGWRC, AU, Berrien Springs, MI). "Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto. Away with these restrictions. There is a God to give the message His people shall speak. Let not any minister feel under bonds or be gauged by men's measurements. The gospel must be fulfilled in accordance with the messages God sends. That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message for this time" (Manuscript 8a, 1888, EGWRC, AU, Berrien Springs, MI). In 1896, White wrote: "The God of heaven sometimes commissions men to teach that which is regarded as contrary to the established doctrines" (Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923/1962], 69).

[5]Richard Hammill, "Spiritual Gifts in the Church Today," Ministry, July 1982, 17.

[6]Ellen G. White, This Day with God (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1979), 76. Cf. idem, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 686.

[8]Ellen White, "Candid Investigation Necessary to an Understanding of the Truth," Signs of the Times, 26 May 1890, 305-306.

[9]Ellen G. White, "Minneapolis Talks," 88-89; see also Selected Messages, 1:355, 409.

[10]Ellen G. White, Report of an Interview / Counsel on Age of School Entrance (St. Helena, CA, 1904), Manuscript 7, 1904, EGWE; idem, Selected Messages, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 217; idem, Manuscript Releases, 21 vols. (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981, 1987, 1990, 1993), 6:354.

[11]While written with regard to health reform, James White's description of the difficulty his wife was facing in leading the church to a balanced position may apply here: "She makes strong appeals to the people, which a few feel deeply, and take strong positions, and go to extremes … What she may say to urge the tardy, is taken by the prompt to urge them over the mark. And what she may say to caution the prompt, zealous, incautious ones, is taken by the tardy as an excuse to remain too far behind" ("To a Brother at Monroe, Wisc.," Review and Herald, 17 March 1868, 220).

[12]Education (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1903/1942), 57.

[13]Ellen G. White, "Minneapolis Talks," 88-89; see also Selected Messages, 1:355, 409.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at
1 Like

Right on Rolf and Helen!

“Some things need to be torn down. Some things need to be built up! The old treasures must be reset in the framework of truth … Jesus will reveal old truths in a new light, if we are ready to receive them.”

Jan Barna and Bertil Wiklander have done a great service for all of us in resetting the old treasure of ‘ordination’ in a renewed framework of truth. This framework involves retelling the ‘mission of God’ as portrayed throughout the Scripure as a 7 stage story. God through his call to every believer invites each of us to join him in this mission of God, and thus to continue the ministry of Christ to fellow believers and to the world. The call of God to every believer is enfolded in the spiritual gifts the Spirit imparts to each of us. Those with leadership gifts should lead as Paul tells us in Romans. Thus our leaders of both genders should be publicly appointed, blessed and commissioned for their leadership roles.

Such a theology may be mined from Scripture using a hermaneutic that sees Scripture as a unified document telling the story of the mission of God. Ellen White summarized such a hermaneutic in the beginning pages of Education. Consistent application of Ellen White’s hermaneutic indeed helps us to tear down the medieval ‘ordination’ paradigm and in its place built a paradigm of appointment and commissioning of our Adventist leaders. We must build our theology of ministry and our theology of ‘ordination’ on a truly Scriptural conception of the laos. Bertil Wiklander has built this new paradigm very comprehensively.

I’m thrilled to see that in D Lowell Cooper’s conclusion he recommends something broadly similar.

We must also redouble our efforts to educate Adventist believers globally and thus produce a growing consensus in support of this renewed ‘ordination’ paradigm. Educate, educate, educate. Adventists have dropped the ball since TOSC! We will find reliable dialogue partners in all Divisions. It beats policy compulsion and coersion!


George! The education process I refer to could properly occur, once wide spread agreement had be reached on a common biblical and theological approach has been reached on what has commonly been known as ordination. This has already happened in the TOSC Consensus Statement. There was near unanimous agreement with this statement. This could be expanded a little.

Why did San Antonio walk away from this newly achieved consensus?

1 Like

“Sigh” again,

Now isn’t this a description of the WO side to a T? Aren’t WO advocates working independently of the church in GC session? The collective will has been expressed on several occasions. What is the problem? Yet they go on ordaining as if there was no vote at all.

Where has this happened? Did TW stand up and say, “This is what needs to happen!”? I don’t recall that, but instead, I believe he actually left the deliberations to others, and there was a whole day of discussion and hours spent by the TOSC. TW did not force his will on the church. He has an opinion, and a right to express it. He said he would go along with the vote. WO was voted down in a legitimate session, with all sides taking part. What more could have been done?


Throw in a couple extra saints, like St. Ignatius for example, and more of Ellen G. White points would be hard to refute.

It’s unfortunate one of the few Church’s that is native to the United States doesn’t have a couple more saints during the time of Ellen G. White

People who call Ellen G. White a false prophet and compare her to David Koresh not only don’t understand the context in which she was a prophet in, they make terrible SDA’s and are faithless outsiders. And to those people a little wisdom from St. Ignatius regarding how they should/shouldn’t view Ellen G. White.

“Occupy yourself in beholding and bewailing your own imperfections rather than contemplating the imperfections of others.”

You gotta have some respect for Ellen G. White. She started a rather big franchise and one of the few successful religions native to the Americas.

David Koresh was fornicating with 70 year-old women when he was in his early 20’s. He was basically a psychopathic white trash liar who got people killed. What a legacy.

If given the chance to attend this meeting, the big banner at the speaker’s platform should have been:
With apologies to Nike Corp. why can’t we as a church just do the right thing? Helen Pearson is correct in encouraging us to see and learn how circumstances impact changes. Christopher McCandless said:
So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservation, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality, nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit.

1 Like

The Mormons would say the same about Joseph Smith.


I am not sure if the verb educate as used here can be in fairness understood as indoctrinate based on its clearly personal bias and intent. For the last few years I have followed the WO issue in our church with a ho hum attitude as I had never been personally inclined one way or another and felt that we, as a church, have much more important issues to consider.

In all honesty, I dont think too many “objective” people would argue that the WO ordination issue is much more a cultural development than a theological conundrum that has been forced down our throats by those with a personal interest or opinion.

Afer breaking up with our church for more than 20 years in my early 20’s using existentialist views on subjectivity and objectivity, I developed a somewhat naive opinion that education could help solve most gaps between them if one is intellectually honest. After seeing our own church intellectuals argue against themselves in a public forum, as Allen pointed out earlier @ajshep, it would seem to me it is a battle of opinions and personal wills, not one of education. I feel that the last TOSC and the GC have done all they can in an intellectually and spiritually honest manner.

With about 7000 waking minutes in a week and most SDA spending at the most 200 of them (LESS THAN 3%) at church and/or devotional time…what do you expect ???

I’ve not been able to verify the following quote as referenced :“What would not have been truth twenty years ago, may well be present truth now." EGW in Manuscript 15, 1888
Can anyone help me out? I don’t see it in Manuscript 15.

I think the only explanation for this continued harping on what happened at San Antonio 2 years (2 YEARS!) ago, is sour grapes. The will of the body was clear. The “progressives” don’t like it and won’t accept it, so they continue to attack the most visible object at hand; in this case the GC president.

It’s sort of like what’s happening on the national scene with the daily attacks on the US president. Even Jimmy Carter says that it’s unprecedented.

1 Like