Seventh-day Adventist Historiography 9783631855027, 9783631855034, 9783631855041, 9783631855058, 3631855028

Citation preview

Seventh-day Adventist Historiography

Gabriel Masfa

Seventh-day Adventist Historiography An Introduction

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-3-631-85502-7 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-85503-4 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-85504-1 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-85505-8 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/b18429

© Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2021 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Remove not the ancient landmark, which your fathers have set (Proverb 22:28)

Dedicated to My Dad, Jean Masfa, who adviced me to continuously ask open-​ended questions to my teachers.

Recommendations Gabriel Masfa has described the various threads of Seventh-​day Adventist approaches to history. His book is a masterful treatment of a wide variety of approaches. It is an indispensable introduction to a fascinating historical topic. Edward Allen, President of the Association of Adventist Historians. Professor of Religion, Union College, Nebraska, United States While Seventh-​day Adventist history and Adventist Studies have come to be researched and written increasingly often, and to higher and higher professional standards, there are still many major lacunae in Adventist historiography. One is, ironically, historiography itself. Dr. Masfa’s monograph is to be welcomed as the first critical historiographical analysis of Adventist Studies and the first substantive history of Seventh-​day Adventist historiography. It is a step forward in the maturing and professionalisation of scholarship on Seventh-​day Adventism. David Trim, Ph.D., F.R. Hist. S. Director of Archives, Statistics, and Research General Conference of Seventh-​day Adventists Masfa’s survey of Seventh-​day Adventist historiography does a favour to all students of religious history, particularly of Seventh-​day Adventist history, in tracing the various paths that Adventist historians have trod. Masfa is faithful in recording the conflicts, triumphs and failures of these historians, and his analysis of the various schools of thought will enrich an understanding of the Adventist wrestle to come to grips with their past. Professor Daniel Reynaud (Avondole College, Australia) The history of the Seventh-​day Adventist church spans over a century. The global nature of the church has created a need to reflect on historiography. Dr. Gabriel Masfa breaks new ground with his dissertation followed by this introductory book on Seventh-​ day Adventist historiography. This introductory volume exposes gaps and provides up-​coming historians with a useful guide.

8

Recommendations

Sokupa, Michael, Ph.D., DTh Associate Director, Ellen G. White Estate, General Conference of Seventh-​ day Adventists Dr. Masfa presents concise and timely historiography of the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church, which is beneficial to students of Adventist Church history and theology. The author presents a historical framework for understanding Adventist history and beliefs. Adventist beliefs are cast from a historical perspective to help the reader understand the relationship between beliefs and identity. This is a “history of the history” of the Adventist Church from the eye of other Adventist historians. The author presents Adventists as people of history whose beliefs system and reason for existence have been shaped and substantiated by history. The reader will appreciate Adventist theology, eschatology, faith commitments, and apologetics from a historical perspective which give credence to what we believe as a Church. Prof. Osei-​Bonsu, Ph.D., MED, AUA, Theological Seminary, Acting Dean Dr Gabriel Masfa’s book on Seventh-​day Adventist (SDA) historiography is a welcome addition to this genre of academic literature. It fits well into the emphasis and linkage between history and prophecy by the church. Dr Masfa, in simple and lucid language has succeeded in interrogating various themes in the historiography of the SDA church. Given our linear view of history as a projection culminating in the second coming of our Lord Jesus, this text becomes a compelling read for lovers of church history, historiography, prophecy and interpretation of eschatological events within and outside the SDA denomination. Abiodun A. Adesegun, PhD, Professor of History, Dean, School of Education & Humanities, Babcock University, Ilisan-​Remo, Nigeria. This work will remain the benchmark standard for Adventist historiography for some time to come, and for this, the author must be commended. Michael W. Campbell, Ph.D, Professor of Religion at Southwestern Adventist University, Texas, United States

Acknowledgements I want to extend my sincere appreciation to a number of individuals whose significant help has made this book possible. My teachers, friends anf family members played important roles. This book is the product of my revised PhD dissertation. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Michael W. Campbell, my advisor, and the committee members: Dr. Remwill R. Tornalejo, Prof. Edward Allen, and the external examiner Prof. Jerry Moon. They all provided valuable assistance. Dr. David J. B. Trim also provided important insights. Dr. Ricardo A. González, the Seminary dean at AIIAS, was also supportive. Sheri Joy Namanya and Ellen Compuesto provided editorial assistance. I am thankful for the financial generosity of Mr. Wolfgang Thieme and his wife as well as Mr. Guido Schmidt and his wife. It was with their help that I undertook my PhD program. I also received financial support from the AIIAS Seminary, the Korean community at AIIAS, the Chan Shun scholarship program, and several unknown donors. My prayer team at AIIAS and the AIIAS African Student Association gave me considerable help. I owe a lot to a circle of friends, former teachers, and colleagues from all over the world including Prof. Rolf J. Pöhler, Prof. Stefan Höschele, Prof. Kyung Ho Song, Dr. Myline Decilos Asumbrado, Dr. Shadeed L. Stkesworth, Mr. S. Leonidas Rutaganzwa, Dr. Melak A. Tsegaw, Dr. David Odhiambo, Mr. Sanned Lubani, Dr. Innocent Gwizo, Dr. Adventor Trye Jr., Dr. Clifford Sibanda, Mr. R. Wame Sausau, Dr. Oswell Dzvairo, Dr. Watson Mbiriri, Mr. Chigemezi W. Nnadozie, Mr. Aurelio V. Paulino, Dr. Dan Namanya, Dr. Adrian Petre, Dr. Iheanyichukwu S. Nwogu, Dr. Christian E. Ekoto, Mr. Sung H. Yoon, Dr. Aneury Vargas, Mr. Michael Schambacher, Dr. Elisha Marfo, Dr. Koberson A. Langhu, Dr. Michael Sokupa and many others. I also want to thank my colleagues from the Department of Religious Studies at Babcock University, Nigeria, for their love and constant encouragements. The HOD for this Department, Prof. Ikechi Ekpendu was very supportive for the publication of this work. Prof. Michael O. Akpa, Dr. Theodore U. Dickson and Prof. Efe M. Ehioghae created a peaceful environment within which I was able to finalize the publication of this book. Dr. Ühlein Hermann and Mr. Suresh Selvamani, the editors for Peter Lang, were very supportive. My parents, siblings and wife gave me timely and needed support from family members. To God, I owe my existence.

Foreword In ancient times, the Greeks realized it was not enough to merely tell a story. All stories have significance. The Christian message itself was deeply historical with an important message to tell. All of the gospels are historical accounts, as is the book of Acts with the record of the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire. The work of interpreting the life of Christ, the message of the gospels, was in its essence historical work. It therefore comes as no surprise that historical consciousness was deeply polemical for early Christians. The founders of what became the Seventh-​day Adventist Church were part of a broad milieu of reform. They were at heart Restorationists who believed they could restore, or attempt to return, to the primitive purity of the early Christian Church. As such, they saw their keeping of the seventh-​day Sabbath and other core beliefs as deeply historical work. They placed themselves with the larger flow of prophetic history that built upon the historical fulfillment of prophecies on into the future to the final, literal eschaton. For early Seventh-​day Adventists, history was all encompassing. The past, present, and future were part of a Great Controversy metanarrative. In this way, all of human history was seen through the lens of this cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan. As a consequence, the early Seventh-​day Adventist pioneers wrote history within this larger framework. With the passing of time, as the earliest Sabbatarian Adventist pioneers morphed from sect to denomination, the pursuit of respectability meant a new historical self-​consciousness. This book is the first time that a Seventh-​day Adventist historian, Gabriel Masfa, has analyzed the development of this historical consciousness. This is an important contribution to Adventist Studies that has never been done to this depth of scrutiny. As such Masfa fills a glaring lacuna in Adventist Studies. Adventist historians in particular can chronicle with much greater precision the development from the earliest theological and apologetic history from the 19th-​century up through the rise of critically trained historians in the 20th-​century. One should note that this saga has not been without challenges, controversies, and at times, even casualties. Like any movement, there is a human tendency to place the founders on a pedestal. With the passing of time it becomes possible to see more clearly just how influenced these same pioneers were by their culture, making them far less exceptional than they might seem. In this respect, Adventist historiography parallels many other religious traditions such as the Methodists or Mormons. Along the way, those who call the attention of church

12

Foreword

leaders to such shortcomings are vulnerable to the wrath of church leaders. Adventist historians experienced two major purges in the 20th-​century, one in the 1920s and one in the 1970s, which Masfa chronicles in detail. Yet such individuals paved the way for others to critically reflect upon the Adventist past recognizing this struggle is far from over. The touchstone of Adventist historiography ultimately centers upon the prophetic founding voice of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, the life and writings of Ellen G. White (1827–​1915). After Ellen White’s death, a number of myths developed—​such as the idea that Ellen White was a 100 years ahead of her time—​ which historians would later demythologize and humanize her as someone who was very much part of her time. This tension between the real and idealized Ellen White is a tension at the very heart of all Adventist historiographical debate. As Masfa poignantly observes, Ronald L. Numbers ushered in a watershed event with the publication of his book, Prophetess of Health. This book was a defining moment in Adventist historiography. While Numbers would effectively be forced out of church employment, the issues raised in his book didn’t go away. These issues made it possible for the revisionist, George R. Knight, to address these issues thereby ushering in a new era of Adventist historiography. While such historiographical contours are complex, this was probably the most important historiographical moment for Adventist Studies comparable to Richard Lyman Bushman for Mormon historiography. One important observation is that during the 1920s the Seventh-​day Adventist Church shifted outside of North America with a diverse and larger membership outside of North America. This shift in many ways anticipated larger shifts within global Christianity into the Global South. Today the North American Division (encompassing the United States, Canada, and Bermuda) make up only 6% of the world church’s membership. The Seventh-​day Adventist Church of the future belongs to those Adventists living in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (already encompassing 90% of the world church’s membership). It is no accident that the author of this important work comes from Cameroon. He currently teaches at Babcock University in Nigeria, one of the largest centers of higher education in a network of Adventist colleges and universities spanning the globe. Masfa pursued his doctoral studies at the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies where he collaborated with students from over 80 countries—​some indication of the global scope and future of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Moving forward I believe that some of the best and most creative historiography—​as well as scholarship—​within the Seventh-​day Adventist Church belongs to a new era of Adventism made up of scholars from the Global South. This book is the harbinger of much more scholarship that is to come.

Foreword

13

For those who are not familiar with Adventist historiography, this is an excellent place to find a general introduction and overview. This work will remain the benchmark standard for Adventist historiography for some time to come, and for this, the author must be commended. Michael W. Campbell, Ph.D. Burleson, Texas February 14, 2021

Table of Contents Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17 Chapter 1 Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches to History ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  31

Classical and Secular Approaches to History �������������������������������  32 Classical Historiography �����������������������������������������������������������������  33 Modern Secular History ������������������������������������������������������������������  37 Postmodern History ������������������������������������������������������������������������  42



Christian Approaches to History ���������������������������������������������������  44 Traditional Christian History ���������������������������������������������������������  44 20th Century Christian History �����������������������������������������������������  52



Summary and Conclusion ��������������������������������������������������������������  58

Chapter 2 History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach to Adventist Historical Hermeneutics ��������  61

Earliest Attempts at Writing Theological History ������������������������  62



Ellen G. White’s Approach to Theological History ����������������������  68 The Bible as Sacred History ������������������������������������������������������������  69 Prophecy and History ����������������������������������������������������������������������  70 The Great Controversy Theme �������������������������������������������������������  72



The Crowning Piece of Theological History Writing ������������������  77



Summary and Conclusion ��������������������������������������������������������������  80

Chapter 3 Christian History as Apologetics: A Survey of Adventist Approaches ��������������������������������������������������������������  83

Individual Historical Narratives ����������������������������������������������������  84



The Ellen G. White Estate �������������������������������������������������������������  107

16

Table of Contents



Early Denominational History Textbooks ����������������������������������  114



Summary and Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������  123

Chapter 4 The Development of Critical Approaches to Adventist History and Various Responses to Them �  127

Critical Historiography �����������������������������������������������������������������  130 Open Critical History ��������������������������������������������������������������������  131 The Closed Secular Confessional History �����������������������������������  144



Mediating Positions and New Explorations �������������������������������  160 Critical Conservative History �������������������������������������������������������  160 Critical Apologetic History �����������������������������������������������������������  162 Revisionist Realistic History ���������������������������������������������������������  166



Summary and Conclusion ������������������������������������������������������������  177

Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusion ���������������������������������������������������  181

Summary �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  181



Conclusion ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  184

Table A �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  187 Table B ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  189 Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  191 Index ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  235

Introduction History does not concern only the past, but the present and the future as well. Life is the sum of experiences drawn from the past, but also from the present, with possible consequences for the future. The concepts of the past and the future are both important, because they are the controlling images around which the identity of a group of people is built. History, in general, is at the heart of life experiences associated with activities leading to substantial changes, readjustments and continuity of events. Religious history, specifically, provides a historical framework for understanding human beliefs about God.1 In this way, religious history “not only helps us understand both God and humanity; it also helps us better to understand the historical institution in which they most closely meet—​the church.”2 Peter Lake provides a useful definition of religious history, taking as relevant for the religious historian “any set of actions or beliefs which either their author or other contemporaries subjected to a religious interpretation,” which he further defines as “any reading which involved either the honour and worship of God or the attainment of salvation by men.”3 Religious history accounts for the historical study of religious beliefs and provides an explanation for human values, cultural practices, and religious identity. Closely related to religious history is the discipline of church or ecclesiastical history. The latter refers to the various accounts

1 John Fea, Why Study History: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 1–​15. John Fea focuses on the importance of historical study. Generally, scholars reflect on the significance of history from various angles. Hendrikus Berkhof, Christ the Meaning of History (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1966), 17. Hendrikus Berkhof defines history as “the study of man’s actions and decisions.” Ibid. Pardon E. Tillinghast, The Specious Past: Historians and Others (Reading, MA: Addison-​Wesley, 1972), 10. Pardon E. Tillinghast argues that “history is often called the study of the past. It is not really any such thing: the past is not subject to our inspection, since it no longer exists. History is rather the analysis of the observations, ideas, and prejudices of millions of people, most of whom were not historians at all, about carefully selected parts of their won past or that of others.” Ibid. 2 Michael Bauman, “Introduction,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 4. 3 Peter Lake, “Contribution to ‘What Is Religious History?’ ” History Today, August 1985, 47.

18

Introduction

of the development of the Christian church written from a Christian perspective. The fact that Christianity is a historical religion means that the Christian historian comprehends religious history through a faith approach. Edward Norman argues that ecclesiastical history “was intended to demonstrate religious truth by disclosing the divine guidance supposedly evident in the development of the institutions of Christianity.”4 By studying and understanding church history within the framework of the broader structure of religious history, it is possible to better appreciate the connection between religious beliefs and the identity of believers at large. A church historian also examines this connection. The extent to which historical research connects to identity is also proportionate to the need to study and understand historiography. The term “historiography” is defined as the “history of history” or “knowledge about knowledge.”5 Central to the study of historiography is the need to recognize how historians shape the past. A wide variety of factors can influence the writing of history whether it concerns sources, methodology, or the manner in which such history is written. Historiography serves a useful purpose by examining how historians study and write history. A central concern of such historiography is how the historian describes the past. Closely connected to this idea is the notion that a philosophy of history guides how historians write history. While historiography and a philosophy of history partly overlap, they are not the same thing. Historiography is more descriptive and less abstract than a philosophy of history.6 This book concentrates on historiography with implications for the philosophy of history.

4 Edward Norman, “What Is Religious History?” History Today, August 1985, 44. 5 Eric R. Frykenberg, History & Belief: The Foundations of Historical Understanding (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 6. 6 The philosophy of history is foundational for historical scholarship. This discipline generally has two components: speculative philosophy and analytic philosophy. These two reflect on the meaning and analysis of historical events. The philosophy of history took root from a theological concept of world events. This is a belief that an invisible hand is in all events. For more insight on the philosophy of history, see M. C. Lemon, Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students (London, UK: Routledge, 2003), 5–​14, 279–​ 290. Other important works of this nature include Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View (New York, NY: Ballantine, 1991); David W. Bebbington, Patterns in History: A Christian View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990); Leonard Krieger, Time’s Reasons: Philosophies of History, Old and New (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989); Bruce Mazlish, The Riddle of History: The Great Speculators From Vico to Freud (New York, NY: Harper

Introduction

19

Students of historiography usually ask questions such as: how have historians written and interpreted historical facts? How have their methods differed and changed over time? What theoretical approaches have been adopted? How have these approaches affected their understanding of the past? These and related questions help shape historical writing. Such questions are at the heart of any study aiming at understanding how Christian denominations approach their past. This book focuses on the historiography of the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church. A helpful starting point for examining Seventh-​day Adventist historiography is to study the various ways Adventist historians have approached history.7 This reveals much about their presuppositions, biases, and sometimes, even their longings. In this way, the writing of history reveals basic philosophical assumptions about life, beliefs, and culture.8 The Seventh-​day Adventist Church has a deep sense of history. This historical consciousness developed from the earliest beginnings of the Millerite revival during the 1830s and 1840s, which included an emphasis on the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in relationship to historical events.9 After the Great Disappointment (an expression that refers to the grief experienced by the Milerites when Jesus did & Row, 1966); and Robin G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, ed. T. M. Knox (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1946). 7 This study recognizes a variety of ways to describe “Seventh-​day Adventists.” Before the organization of the church in 1863, the term “Sabbatarian” or “Millerite” is used. In a generic sense it is referred to as “Adventist,” recognizing there are other related Advent denominations. 8 Nicholas P. Miller, “Naked in the Garden of the Past: Is There a Seventh-​ day Adventist Philosophy of History?” paper presented for Adventism and Adventist History: Sesquicentennial Reflections, Silver Spring, MD, 2014, 1–​2. Nicholas P. Miller argues for the impossibility of objectivity in historical research. In a sense, historians interpret facts that reflect their assumptions or worldviews. See William Katerberg, “The ‘Objectivity Question,’ and the Historians’ Vocation,” in Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, ed. John Fea, Jay Green, and Eric Miller (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 101–​127; Donald L. Denton, Historiography and Hermeneutics in Jesus Studies: An Examination of the Work of John Dominic Crossan and Ben F. Meyer (London, UK: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 157. 9 Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2005), 269–​293; George R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the Rise of Adventism (Boise, ID: Pacific, 2010), 251–​276; Gary Land, “Introduction,” in Second Advent History, by Isaac Wellcome (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2008), v–​xxxvi; Francis D. Nichol, The Midnight Cry: A Defense of William Miller and the Millerites (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1944), 454–​469. For further readings

20

Introduction

come on October 22, 1844), as various groups of Adventists evolved, Sabbatarian Adventists argued that they were the true heirs of the Millerite revival. They republished original documents by key Millerite leaders about their faith in the Second Advent. This publication, The Advent Review, was soon combined with the Present Truth into a single journal. Together, they show how, at a conceptual level, the (re)interpretation of historical events (i.e., the Millerite revival and the Great Disappointment) was at the very genesis of the formation of the group that eventually became the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. In this way, history has always been central to Adventist identity within a broad stream of the historicist interpretation, in particular, for Seventh-​day Adventism. This includes a very specific way of reading the Bible, including historical events from Bible times up to the present, linking the past with the present. Seventh-​day Adventists used the Scottish Common Sense approach to the Bible and history, which took simple historical facts in order to interpret Bible prophecy.10 They used this as a framework both to interpret and apply the Bible as part of their worldview. Seventh-​day Adventists saw themselves as literally fulfilling Bible prophecy.11 In the aftermath of the Great Disappointment in 1844, they interpreted the parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25) as a description of their Christian experience.12

about Millerism, see David L. Rowe, God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008). 10 George R. Knight, A Brief History of Seventh-​day Adventists, 2nd ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2012), 13–​27. 11 Ellen G. White, Early Writings of Ellen G. White (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1882), 13–​14; Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 486; Joseph Bates, Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, Or a Connected View, of the Fulfilment of Prophecy, by God’s Peculiar People, From the Year 1840 to 1847 (New Bedford, MA: Benjamin Lindsay, 1847), 80, 84. Joseph Bates articulates the foundation of historical thinking for Seventh-​day Adventism. He describes Seventh-​day Adventism as a prophetic movement. In the same vein, see James White, A Word to the ‘Little Flock’ (Brunswick, Maine: Author, 1847), 1–​6; John N. Loughborough, Rise and Progress of the Seventh-​day Adventists: With Tokens of God’s Hand in the Movement and Brief Sketch of the Advent Cause From 1831 to 1844 (Battle Creek, MI: General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventists, 1892), 15–​24. See also Knight, A Brief History, 28–​50. 12 Harry W. Lowe, “The Ten Virgins,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, March 1958, 11; Ellen G. White, Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen G. White (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1922), 132; Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1900), 406; Ellen G. White, Christ in His Sanctuary (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1969), 104; James White, Life Incidents: In Connection With

Introduction

21

Later on, Sabbatarian Adventists saw their religious experience described in Rev 10.13 In this passage, an angel gave a book to the seer, which they believed was the book of Daniel. John, the Revelator, ate the book. At the end of the prophecy, there is an admonition to go and share a message once again. Seventh-​day Adventists saw this passage as a description of their own religious experience. The message of the second Advent movement was at first sweet as honey, then it became bitter. In this way, Seventh-​day Adventists not only viewed Bible prophecy in a historicist manner, they also saw the Great Disappointment as a fulfillment of prophecy. This reinforced their belief that they were literally fulfilling Bible prophecy. Their very existence was foretold. The Seventh-​day Adventist Church was not simply another denomination. It was specifically called by God into existence. This study highlights major historical works related to Adventist history. The book focuses on select historians, who produced works in English language, and whose publications cover important issues for Seventh-​day Adventist history. Such historians are recognized for their contributions, both published and unpublished, that were foundational to Adventist history and historiography. While it is not possible to describe every historian who has written about every facet of Adventist history (such as a history of a local church or specific region), this book tries to focus on broad descriptive histories of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Historians who have followed in the wake of Knight have not been included because such work is difficult to do since the distance in time has not clearly illuminated all of the most recent historiographical issues. This book analyzes basic historical facts as used in the writing of Seventh-​ day Adventist history. It is analytical in nature by using documentary sources including relevant books, articles, and other research materials. The book utilizes both primary published and unpublished sources and relevant secondary sources. It does not claim to be exhaustive. It departs from using a strict chronological approach. Instead, it focuses on major themes from Adventist history that illustrate Adventist historiography. This study uses seven major overlapping categories: theology as history, history as apologetics, open critical history, closed secular history, critical conservative history, critical apologetic approach, and revisionist realist school.14 The open critical and closed secular approaches the Great Advent Movement, as Illustrated by the Three Angels of Revelation XIV (Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1868), 166. 13 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 80, 84; E. G. White, Early Writings, 13–​14; J. White, Life Incidents, 210; and Knight, A Brief History, 28–​34. 14 These categories in this study are defined as follow: Theological history: The study of history which uses theology to understand historical facts; Apologetic history: The

22

Introduction

are categorized as anti-​apologetic history. The critical conservative, critical apologetic, and revisionist approaches are classified as mediating approaches. These seven categories are classified under three major divisions: history as faith commitment (theological-​fideist approach), history as apologetics, and history as a search for objective historical analysis (critical conservative history, closed secular history, and revisionist realist history). These categories indicate the complexity of Adventist historiography. A number of scholars provided significant materials that helped me write this book. The study of Adventist historiography took on special significance during the 1960s. Up until that time, there was not a significant concern about how history was written by denominational historians. The report of the “Quadrennial College History Teachers’ Council” at Pacific Union College held on August 6–​10, 1962, brought an awareness about the need for more historical consciousness, particularly with regard to the study of Adventist history. This was particularly evident in the presentation of Gary Land (1944–​2014) “From Apologetics to History: The Professionalization of Adventist Historians.”15 The published version of this article provides the earliest critical reflection about Adventist historiography. Land traced the development of Adventist historiography from 1892 to 1980. He described major developmental shifts as a move from chronicles and apologetic books to real professional history.16 Land further noted that “in the traditional [apologetic providential] approach, several significant works of apologetics came from denominational presses.”17 writing of history that seeks to provide reasons to validate Christian truths; Open critical history. The writing of history which pledges allegiance to academic standards over the commitment to religious beliefs but remains open to the possibility of supernatural causation of historical facts; Closed secular confessional history: the writing of history which rejects invoking supernatural beliefs to understanding historical events; Critical conservative: the writing of history that builds largely upon apologetic history but also seeks to evaluate and refute anti-​apologetic approaches used by those of a more critical persuasion in their approach to history; Critical apologetic: the writing of history that accepts the overall purpose of apologetic history by trying to create a believer’s history yet this approach showcases a methodology that is engaging and analytical in investigating the past; Revisionist realist history: The writing of history which analyzes historical events within the boundary of a search for a usable past. For a better appreciation of categories here referred to, see N. P. Miller, “Naked in the Garden,” 9–​24. See also a chart of Adventist historiography on page 174 of this book. 15 Gary Land, “From Apologetics to History: The Professionalization of Adventist Historians,” Spectrum: Journal of the Association of Adventists Forum 10 (1980): 89–​100. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., 89.

Introduction

23

Land provided an Adventist response to Christian and secular historical hermeneutics. He was an intellectual historian who graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1973. With his training, he both thought critically and incorporated elements of philosophy of history into the way he described the past. He wrote a number of significant works on Adventist history.18 Benjamin McArthur later eulogized him as the one “who stood at the center of the Adventist historical community for over 40 years.”19 His studies highlighted “Anglo-​American cultural and intellectual history, which examined the interrelationships of British and American cultural and intellectual life.”20 In 1970, he joined the faculty of Andrews University where he taught until 2010 when he retired.21 Throughout his lifetime, he became a dominant voice in Adventist history and significantly helped shape Adventist historiography. He was notable for being able “to question his own ideas.”22 Students remembered him as “the model of diffidence.”23 He explained “the history of ideas, styles, and sensibilities.”24 18 Benjamin McArthur, “Remembering Gary Land,” Spectrum 42 (2014): 8. A number of his publications include Gary Land, ed., Adventism in America: A History (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986); Gary Land, “An Adventist Conception of History,” Journal of Adventist Education 36 (1973): 19–​22; Gary Land, “Coming to Terms With the Millerites,” in Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, ed. Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014), 89–​99; Land, “From Apologetics to History,” 89–​ 100; Gary Land, Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-​day Adventists, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015); Gary Land, “Integrating Faith and History,” Journal of Adventist Education 56 (1993–​1994): 41–​45; Gary Land, “Providence and Earthly Affairs: The Christian and the Study of History,” Spectrum 7 (1976): 2–​6; Gary Land, Pathways of the Pioneers [Sound Recording CD]: Stories of the Men and Women Who Founded the Adventist Church (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998); Gary Land, Teaching History: A Seventh-​day Adventist Approach (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000); Land, Uriah Smith; Gary Land, ed., The World of Ellen G. White (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1987). 19 McArthur, “Remembering Gary Land,” 8. 20 Gary Land, “Vitae,” para. 1, accessed June 11, 2017, https://​www.andrews.edu/​~land/​ vitae.htm. 21 Brian Strayer and John R. Nay, “Gary Gene Land: August 22, 1944–​April 26, 2014,” accessed June 26, 2018, http://​www.sdahistorians.org/​uploads/​1/​2/​3/​6/​12365223/​land_​ gary_​legacy.pdf. 22 McArthur, “Remembering Gary Land,” 8. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid.

24

Introduction

Land described Adventist history as part of a broader social, cultural, and historical milieu. His use of critical historical methods helped him to rethink traditional narratives of Millerism and early Seventh-​day Adventism to reveal many of the broader connections between the rise of Adventism and the world of the pioneers.25 He employed a new method that became common during the 1980s among Christian historians. Such claims lessened dependence upon divine inspiration and showed how many early Adventist pioneers, including E. G. White, were influenced by thoughts and ideas prevalent during their lifetime. For church leaders who merely saw the role of a historian to chronicle God’s providential leading, such methods could be disconcerting, which resulted in concerns by some people in the White Estate (an organization created by the testament of Ellen G. White to act as an agent in the custody of her writings) and General Conference (the coordinating hub of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church) about his loyalty to the denomination and his impact upon his students.26 Land, apparently, was able to avoid being terminated, unlike others such as Jonathan M. Butler and Ronald L. Numbers, by showing that he remained personally committed to the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. He seemed to have argued that his employment of critical historical method was protected under academic freedom. As a widely published historian, he wrote on many other historical topics. In fact, it was proverbial as a result of the treatment by church leaders that it was much safer to write about anything besides Adventist history. This tension between church leaders and a new wave of young historians was exacerbated by others like Ronald D. Graybill and Numbers. As demonstrated later in this chapter, these historians used critical methods to raise new questions as well as fresh interpretations of the past that at times raised thorny issues or a less than idealistic version of Adventist history. The way Land intellectually resolved this tension for himself between faith and scholarship was that he proposed a distinction between a theology of history and the broad study of history. For him, Adventists focused on the theology of history. He noted, “Interpretations of God’s presence and action in history are of a different nature and have a different source from historical interpretation.”27 25 Gary Land, “Ideas and Society,” in The World of Ellen G. White, ed. Gary Land (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1987), 209–​225. This book broadly reflected on the world in which Adventist pioneers lived and highlighted “tensions between races,” “Michigan and the Civil War,” “the rise of urban-​industrial America,” “Sunday law movement,” “health and health care,” among other important topics related to the historical setting of Seventh-​day Adventism. 26 Land, “Providence and Earthly Affairs,” 2. 27 Ibid.

Introduction

25

Therefore, as a consequence, “the historian interprets the actions of man in terms of what the documentary evidence reveals through application of the critical method, but does not merely invalidate theological statements about man’s actions.”28 Land suggested instead that the interpretation of historical facts rests not on identifying God’s hand in history (which could at times seem presumptuous to always know the mind of God) but on how the beliefs of a historian inform and affect his interpretations. He affirmed, “One does not have to invoke the hand of God to understand how the movement of empires in the Mediterranean world created the conditions which surrounded the life of Christ.”29 He acknowledged that providence was in itself a biblical theme. He argued, “Once we move beyond New Testament times, the Bible gives little specific information regarding God’s intervention in history.”30 He noted that not all historical facts can be accounted for by divine providence. Land proposed that Adventist historians should instead incorporate into their history of theology a recognition of many broad factors that contributed to the development of Adventist ideas and, in particular, the way Adventist historians approached their own historiography. Such complexity left open both the possibility of divine agency while incorporating into its narrative human agency and broad social and cultural factors. Land was nothing short of a prolific historian. He was especially active in the Conference on Faith and History, an association for Christian historians. Most significant of all was a small book he published, the first and only book of its kind so far, in which he outlined a Seventh-​day Adventist philosophy of history. The book, titled Teaching History: A Seventh-​day Adventist Approach, argues that historical thinking is very much a part of the formation of knowledge (epistemology) for Seventh-​day Adventists.31 He notes how the development of the concept of faith and learning should be used in the Adventist classroom. Historians, he argues, face a dilemma in the classroom when they study God’s divine intervention while also being informed about accuracy in how they tell the story of the church. The best way to educate Adventist young people, he proposed, was by helping them understand their worldview. Even the “conditions [of] the questions we ask, the relative importance we give to evidence and facts, and the judgments we make”32 help students to understand their worldview. 2 8 Ibid., 4. 29 Ibid., 2. 30 Land, Teaching History, 40. 31 Ibid., 53–​66. 32 Ibid., 34.

26

Introduction

Historians must write history by being self-​conscious about their own perspective. They must acknowledge their limitations and that historical accounts are at best limited by historical evidence. “The Bible gives us the framework within which we work, but our interpretations are no better than the evidence—​which in some subjects includes the Bible itself—​upon which they rest and the skill and honesty with which we use that evidence.”33 Thus, Land attempted a critical synthesis of the past, particularly as applied to Adventist history, that utilized the best of critical methods of history and by also incorporating into such historiography a recognition of worldview and the development of ideas. Land provided a new historical interpretative synthesis that he used to challenge traditional narratives of the past while at the same time not being so controversial that he was able to retain denominational employment. He was careful to note his commitment to a life of Christian scholarship, which meant that all of his intellectual abilities were subject to building up the church.34 George R. Knight Knight argued that he was loyal to his church till the day he died.35 His friend and student, McArthur, argued that Land labored “in the service of his driving vision: a church, a Christianity informed by historical reflection.”36 At the same time, he believed that Adventist history should be subject to careful scrutiny—​a standard he was not afraid to employ upon his own viewpoints.37 Land showed the denomination that it was possible to be both a careful historian engaging in the best critical methods without seriously threatening or undermining the denomination.38 He did this in a way that both won the admiration of other historians while making a lifelong contribution in the history department at Andrews University. His voluminous writings would do more than any other Adventist historian from the 1970s up through the 1990s to help shape Adventist historiography. Beyond the actual historians who interpreted the past, this book argues that Adventist history does have a deeper meaning connected to its identity. The

3 3 Ibid. 34 Land’s articles that cover diverse aspects of Seventh-​day Adventist theology appear in the Journal of Adventist Education, Spectrum, Adventist Heritage, Andrews University Seminary Studies, among others. A list of his publications in the Seventh-​day Adventist Periodical Index highlights over 800 articles in Adventist publications. 35 George R. Knight, Emeritus Professor of Church History at Andrews University, interview by the author, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, November 14, 2015. 36 McArthur, “Remembering Gary Land,” 9. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid.

Introduction

27

search for meaning seems to require honest dialogue between critical scholarship and apologetic history. This is vital for Adventist evangelism in order to ensure credibility for its message. Even though such credibility is important, Adventism can be at other times resistant to such critical methods, particularly when it undermines established narratives of the past. Thus, history carries with it the danger of perpetually questioning historical narratives. By way of reflecting about the ultimate meaning of Adventist history, Adventist historians may both analyze historical facts by expressing clear engagement as a quest for the truth even though this might impinge upon cherished aspects of Adventist interpretation about the past. Adventist history, having gone through several complex developmental stages of historiography, must always be ready to face critical examination in the quest for historical truth. A distinct way to viewing the past is thus found in Christian historiography. Christian historians have acknowledged the importance of God’s hand, although they have disagreed about what is the best methodology to describe historical facts. Christian approach to history has not excluded the probability of God’s hand in history. Other thinkers reflected about the rise of professional historians. Such participants included Jerome L. Clark, a history teacher at Southern Missionary College (now Southern Adventist University), and C. M. Maxwell who earned a PhD in history from the University of Chicago and who later taught denominational history at the Seventh-​day Adventist Theological Seminary.39 Land noted how the rise of Spectrum facilitated the rise of professional historians. Additional scholars cited included William S. Peterson, Herold Weiss, Roy Branson, Jonathan M. Butler, Vern Carner, and Donald McAdams who together committed to critically investigate denominational history.40 Land opined that the denomination had pushed them away for their unloving historical criticism.41 Another young historian at this time who followed in Land’s footsteps was Benjamin McArthur. He wrote an important article in 1979 titled “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?”42 McArthur observed that the book Prophetess of Health by Numbers was extremely influential upon Adventist historiography by revolutionizing earlier historical methods on Adventist history.43 “Instead of 3 9 Land, “From Apologetics to History,” 93–​95. 40 Ibid. 41 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 3rd ed., xviii. 42 Benjamin McArthur, “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?” Spectrum 10, no. 3 (1979): 9–​14. 43 Ibid., 9.

28

Introduction

being guardians of tradition, he viewed historians as social critics.”44 The rise, at that time, of a new generation of graduate school students in history meant that there was a “revolution in Adventist historiography.”45 Trained historians who used historical categories were vastly different from earlier historians who were trapped in an unabashed and uncritical providentialism. They investigated sources within their historical context. Another Adventist scholar who reflected on historical hermeneutics, is Roland Blaich. Just like Land, Blaich examined the importance of historical writing and the role of the Christian historian in writing history. He noted that “the study of history is a form of vicarious experience. It offers us the chance to augment our own wisdom with the experience of past generations.”46 Blaich sees history as “the key to identity.” He understood the importance of history and historical knowledge as essential to identity. He suggested that students of history should develop historical mindedness which he defined as the “habit of seeing everything in historical perspective. Everything is tied to a historical context from which it derives its meaning and significance.”47 Pertaining to the role of historian, Blaich notes: “The first task of the historian is the quest for historical truth. This is accomplished through research, publication, and dialogue.” He subscribed to a presentation of facts that appeals to historical context as a way to “bringing history to life.” He therefore argued that “Good history is never abstract.”48 History plays a significant role to “help us to see ourselves as we really are. As individual Christians and also as a corporate body, we do well to pause periodically, look at ourselves in the mirror, and ask: How did we do?”49 The historian helps to preserve the truth without being a prisoner of tradition. David Trim, Director of the General Conference Archives of the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church, reflected on what one can term the “methodological atheism”—​determinism, to understand historical facts. It is a theory which seeks to “stress on finding appropriate causes, rather than viewing all events as contingent,” which, he thinks, “is a helpful corrective to postmodernist extremes and one that can be reconciled with Christianity.” Furthers, he argues that this 4 4 Ibid. 45 Ibid., 10. 46 Roland Blaich, “Teacher of the Church: The Adventist Historian,” Journal of Adventist Education 62:4 (2000): 16. 47 Ibid., 16, 17. 48 Ibid., 18. 49 Ibid.

Introduction

29

theory “helps also solve the problem of God’s intervention in history. I believe that He does, but as an historian, I find it difficult to identify when and where He has done so and precisely how His actions changed history.”50 Trim has used his understanding of religious truths to reflect upon secular historical theories. He has emphasized the writing of history which takes into account “a Christ-​ centered worldview.”51 Christian history stands in contrast to postmodern ideals of historical thinking. At a recent conference held in 2014, Miller and Reynaud raised similar arguments raised earlier by Adventist historians from the 1970s. The conference, titled “Adventism and Adventist History: Sesquicentennial Reflections,” held in Silver Spring, Maryland, on January 6, 2014, reflected on the changing aspects of Adventist historiography. Afterward, Reynaud published his paper: “Understanding History: Seventh-​day Adventists and Their Perspectives.”52 His article describes approaches by 19th century idealists (Smith, E. G. White, Andrews, and Alonzo T. Jones). He compared them with early mid-​20th century professional historians (Benson, Albertsworth, Dick) followed by confessional historians (Olsen, Spalding, Froom, and Nichol). He examined the methodologies of 20th century historians (McAdams, McArthur, Land, Knight, and Arthur N. Patrick). Although a brief article, Reynaud noticed the complexity and relevance of Adventist historiography. It remains to this day one of the most cogent surveys about Adventist historiography. Another paper by N. P. Miller, “Naked in the Garden of the Past: Is There a Seventh-​day Adventist Philosophy of History?” questioned the different approaches to Adventist history.53 This article broadens the understanding of historiography. This book uses Miller’s helpful chart as a meaningful way to categorize Adventist historians (see Appendix A). He appeals for the need to contextualize Adventist history in light of broader philosophical influences. Finally, one of the most provocative analyses of Adventist historiography appears by Jonathan M. Butler in the introduction to the third edition of Prophetess of Health. Butler provides a context for the events surrounding the publication of Prophetess of Health.54 “Spectrum provided the most important public forum within 50 David J. B. Trim, ‘Christ and the Christian in History: Teaching Historical Philosophy and Methodology in a Christian Environment’, Journal of Adventist Education, 64:4 (April–​May 2002), 21. 51 Ibid., 22. 52 Daniel Reynaud, “Understanding History: Seventh-​ day Adventists and Their Perspectives,” TEACH Journal of Christian Education 10 (2016): 55. 53 Miller, “Naked in the Garden,” 11. 54 Butler, “Introduction,” 1–​41.

newgenprepdf

30

Introduction

the church for evaluating the published book.”55 He argues that this book brought about a revolution in Adventist historiography. He believes it was a significant catalyst for change, thus marking a decisive turning point in Adventist historiography. In March 2018, Butler published a significant essay on Adventist historiography titled “Seventh-​day Adventist Historiography: A Work in Progress.”56 He reviews the progress in Adventist historical consciousness. He describes Seventh-​ day Adventism as one of “America’s original religions.”57 He argues that there was a change in Adventist historiography from the 1970s. He noticed that before this period, “Seventh-​day Adventist ‘history’ belonged in quotation marks. For about a century, Adventists told their story to themselves without the constraints of mundane cause and effect; history to them meant magical thinking.”58 From the 1970s, there was a drastic shift in Adventist historiography with Numbers who adopted a naturalistic method to E. G. White’s writings. From his entrance in Adventist scholarship, Numbers, recently joined by Gilbert Valentine, Morgan Douglas, and others have been writing history to present the denomination to a non-​Adventist audience. This book recognizes both the importance as well as problematic aspects that brought about significant changes in Adventist historiography as a result of the publication of Numbers’ book. For a comprehensive approach to the study of Adventist historiography, Chapter 1 provides a reflection on general secular and Christian approaches as a background to Adventist history. Chapter 2 examines the early approach to Adventist history termed as theological history. This approach focuses on the understanding of historical events through the lens of theology. Chapter 3 examines the development of Seventh-​day Adventist apologetic historiography from the time period after John N. Loughborough. This approach followed the tradition of the early approach by emphasizing Adventist beliefs. This chapter identifies Adventist historians whose apologetic works influenced the thinking of the church, especially as related to emphasising the Adventist faith in historical study. Careful attention is given to their methodological principles and major contributions. Chapter 4 reflects on critical history and its various responses. Chapter 5 provides the summary as well as stimulating reflections on the future of Adventist historiography. Insights gleaned from this study can serve as guidelines for future projects in Adventist historiography. 5 5 Ibid., 26. 56 Jonathan M. Butler, “Seventh-​day Adventist Historiography: A Work in Progress,” Church History 87, no. 1 (2018): 149–​166. 57 Ibid., 150. 58 Ibid.

Chapter 1 Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches to History Approaches to the study of history center on key factors such as the investigation of sources and authenticity of facts. Each of these factors contributes to historical writing. Historians use different techniques and guidelines described as historical methods which guide them to grasp complex historical writing including underlying questions and assumptions. Historical method thus demarcates how historians view the past and how history is written. Historians use such methods as part of their craft beginning in the ancient world. Some of the earliest documented attempts at writing down history were manifested by the Greeks.59 They viewed history as cyclical.60 For them, history was a recurring pattern of events without meaning. They pledged allegiance to deities, which they believed controlled their lives. The Jews, by contrast, viewed history in a more linear way because they saw God’s direct and purposeful leading.61 Divine providence became the most important way to interpret history. The early Christians, like the Jews, continued this linear and providentialist framework. They trusted in God’s leading and His self-​revelation through Christ and Scriptures throughout history. The recognition of divine intervention was so obvious that it was often assumed at times. From antiquity, it is possible to see two very basic approaches to history. Each emphasized the importance of writing down history for the sake of posterity. Ancient classical approaches viewed the gods as capricious or random. Humans were generally left to their own devising.62 Jews and Christians, in contrast, emphasized God’s direct involvement in history. They saw God as a loving God working out His ways to reveal a plan of redemption. Both Jews and Christians

59 John W. Burrow, A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries From Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century (New York, NY: Vintage, 2007), 3. 60 Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York, NY: Princeton University Press, 1954), 123. 61 Scot McKnight and Matthew C. Williams, “Luke,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 39–​57. 62 Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 123.

32

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

shared a worldview that recognized the supernatural, which was very much a part of their everyday life and worldview.63 The assumption about the existence of the divine came under increasing scrutiny during the early modern period. Reason became the chief vehicle for historical explanation.64 Voltaire (1724–​1778) believed that human beings were the driving factors in history. This eliminated any sense of divine intervention. Historians must scientifically study history based upon discernible evidence, which for him excluded any supernatural involvement.65 Historian Leopold Von Ranke (1795–​1886) benefited from Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire by applying scientific principles to history. He used various theoretical hypotheses and scientific laws for which he accounted causation as revealed by the earliest primary source.66 By the time of Ranke’s death, it became normative for historians to describe just the facts without any supernatural explanation. This chapter provides a selection of some of the most basic approaches to history. It does not profess to be exhaustive or even comprehensive but does seek to be illustrative of major historiographical approaches. Of particular note are the different approaches used by Christian historians, particularly as related to God’s involvement in human history and how this can illuminate Adventist historiography.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History This section overviews a variety of approaches to history beginning with the early Greeks and continuing up to the present. Such a survey naturally includes the modern and postmodern approaches. The origins of reflecting upon this history showcase the transition from history being merely a recognition of the gods and human affairs to the modern scientific study of history. A survey of these 63 Yoseph H. Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1996), 5. 64 Voltaire, Essai Sur Les Mœurs et Esprit des Nations (Paris, France: n.p., 1771), 13–​ 39. See also Milan Zafirovski, The Enlightenment and Its Effects on Modern Society (New York, NY: Springer-​ Verlag, 2010); Jeremy Black, “Ancient Regime and Enlightenment: Some Recent Writing on Seventeenth-​and Eighteenth-​Century Europe,” European History Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1992): 247–​255; Annelien De Dijn, “The Politics of Enlightenment: From Peter Gay to Jonathan Israel,” Historical Journal 55, no. 3 (2012): 785–​805. 65 Voltaire, Essai Sur Les Mœurs, 13–​39. 66 Leonard Krieger, Ranke: The Meaning in History (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), 109.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History

33

diverse approaches to history is helpful to understand and establish some basic principles of historiography.

Classical Historiography Greek historiography had its basis in identifying reliable sources about the ancient world.67 The very term history comes from the Greek word historiê, which means historical inquiry. The Greeks were the first to share their valuation for historical consciousness through historical writing. Such historical writing began in Greece between 450 and 430 BC.68 Claims about the intentional writing of history are attributed to these ancient classical historians. Prominent examples include Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus. They wrote about historical events and reflected upon their meaning within this understanding of cyclical history.69 The most influential Greek historian was Herodotus.70 His writing set a pattern for later historians who built upon or modified a methodology based upon a careful review of source materials. Herodotus, a contemporary of Socrates, was born in Halicarnassus during the 5th century BC.71 He broke from Homeric tradition, which elevated history as the domain of the gods.72 His historical writing reveals how he thought and analyzed the past more critically—​something not characteristic of the Greeks up until this time. Herodotus wrote truly revolutionary history.73 His Histories, his only extant work, describes historical happenings as serious objects of investigation. He collected the material and organized it systematically as part of a methodological process for writing history. Herodotus focused on the origins of the Greco-​Persian wars. His Histories reference records from past events while at the same time mentioning contemporary

6 7 T. James Luc, The Greek Historians, 2nd ed. (London, UK: Routledge, 2002), 11–​42. 68 Burrow, A History of Histories, 3. 69 Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 123. 70 John L. Myres, Herodotus: Father of History (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1953), 20–​31. 71 Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 123. 72 Norman Austin, “Greek Historiography,” in The Greek Historians: Introduction and Selected Readings; Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Plutarch, ed. Norman Austin (New York, NY: Van Nostrand, 1969), 7. 73 John W. Montgomery, The Shape of the Past: A Christian Response to Secular Philosophies of History (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 38. John W. Montgomery argues that Herodotus’s “greatest weakness is his credulity; but on the positive side his work is characterized by intelligent curiosity, structural unity, and a consummate mastery of literary style and of the art of story-​telling.” Ibid.

34

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

happenings. He attempted to describe each occurrence accurately. His research had a purpose. History was written “in order that the memory of the past may not be blotted out from among men by time, and that great and marvelous deeds done by Greeks and foreigners and especially the reason why they warred against each other may not lack renown.”74 In order to accomplish this, he sought eyewitness accounts.75 In this way, he became aware of the need to accurately document each event. Together, these events had collective significance as part of how Greeks told their origins and therefore related directly to their national identity. As a consequence, Herodotus serves as one of the most reliable sources to document the Greek world. As the earliest Greek historian, he wrote what became the first reliable work about Greek history. After Herodotus, the best known historian to build upon this model of historiography was Thucydides (460–​395 BC).76 He checked facts like Herodotus but went further by prioritizing eyewitnesses accounts. His History of the Peloponnesian War documented a battle between Athens and Sparta during the 5th century. He noted facts as “the observations of an intelligence which sees events from the inside rather than from the outside.”77 In other words, he not only described historical events but tried to discern larger patterns within these historical facts. He went beyond the simple description of facts to recognize how these facts provide meaning.78 Thucydides recognized just how difficult writing history can be. In the first paragraph of his History, he shares how he based his work on “evidence” especially reliable “inquiries.”79 He noticed that “what is now called Hellas was not of 74 Herodotus, Herodotus, trans. A. D. Godley (London, UK: Harvard University Press, 1920), 1:3. 75 Austin, “Greek Historiography,” 29. Additional studies include Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, 13–​15; Elizabeth Irwin and Emily Greenwood, eds., Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Carolyn Dewald and John Marincola, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Nino Luraghi, ed., The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007); Rosalind Thomas, Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 76 Burrow, A History of Histories, 32. 77 Austin, “Greek Historiography,” 46. 78 Ibid. 79 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Charles F. Smith (Cambridge, UK: Havard University Press, 1919), 1:3.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History

35

old settled with fixed habitations, but that migrations were frequent in former times, each tribe readily leaving its own land whenever they were forced to do so by any people that was more numerous.”80 Thucydides cautioned about the simple collection of data. He insisted that the historian must evaluate facts for accuracy. When he wrote his History, he believed that he described true events. This book recorded “the history of the war waged by the Peloponnesians and the Athenians against one another.”81 He restricted the scope of his research to events within his own lifetime. He paid attention to seemingly minor historical details such as migration, navigation, and the fertility of the land.82 Thucydides used such naturalistic explanation in order to reject supernatural claims by describing just historical facts. Polybius (200–​118 BC), a Roman, followed the historiographical pattern of Thucydides. He went into even greater detail about verifying sources. He was known as “a Romanized Greek of the highest class.”83 His most famous work was The Histories. He narrated the story of the Roman Republic (from approximately 264–​164 BC).84 As an eyewitness, he did not rely just on contemporary testimony.85 He traveled widely to gather data. In addition to his own experience, he critically evaluated sources for their authenticity.86 As a cautious historian, he discovered causes behind events. He admitted how the Romans conquered because of their superior equipment and training. He rarely attributed happenings to supernatural causes. He affirmed,

8 0 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Burrow, A History of Histories, 34. Helpful studies include: Giovanni Armeggiani, ed., Between Thucydides and Polybius: The Golden Age of Greek Historiography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014); Darien Shanske, Thucydides and the Philosophical Origins of History (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Antonios Rengakos and Antonis Tsakmakis, eds., Brill’s Companion to Thucydides (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2006); James V. Morrison, Reading Thucydides (Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press, 2006); Perez Zagorin, Thucydides: An Introduction for the Common Reader (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). 83 Burrow, A History of Histories, 65. For more insights on Polybius as a historian, see also Frank W. Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 178–​192. 84 Burrow, A History of Histories, 65. 85 Peter Burke, “A Survey of the Popularity of Ancient Historians, 1450–​1700,” History and Theory 5, no. 2 (1966): 135–​152; Brian C. McGing, Polybius’ Histories (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 51–​120. 86 John B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York, NY: Dover, 1908), 199.

36

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches The special province of history is, first, to ascertain what the actual words used were; and secondly, to learn why it was that a particular policy or argument failed or succeeded. For a bare statement of an occurrence is interesting indeed, but not instructive; but when this is supplemented by a statement of cause, the study of history becomes fruitful. For it is by applying analogies to our own circumstances that we get the means and basis for calculating the future; and for learning from the past when to act with caution, and when with greater boldness, in the present. The historian therefore who omits the words actually used, as well as all statements of the determining circumstances, and gives us instead conjectures and mere fancy compositions, destroys the special use of history.87

Polybius, like Thucydides, sought meaning behind historical causes. When he did not know why an event happened, he admitted that a superhuman “Tyche” or “Fortune,” was responsible.88 Polybius critically analyzed documents. He followed the same methodology as Thucydides by analyzing sources and writing history. Tacitus (ca. 54–​ca. 116 AD), also a Roman, applied the historiographical method with greater depth than Polybius. He was the first historian to develop a critical study of the Roman state. He was “the greatest name in Roman historiography, comparable to Thucydides in Greek historiography.”89 Only two of his major works are extant: the Annals and Histories. Each describes the history of Roman emperors from Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and those who reigned in the 1st century AD. His smaller works include Germania and Agricola. The first is a treatise which systematically describes the German tribes. This work was “a sort of ethnologic Bible for the Germans and is studied in modern Germany more than any other ancient book.”90 The second work focuses on the life of his father-​in-​law, a Roman general. Both works use historical and ethnographical materials. They show how Tacitus built on the historiography of earlier Greek historians, especially Herodotus, by critically examining sources. Each of the Greek historians mentioned above demonstrates how the earliest written form of history began with the critical examination of sources. Greek historians saw the importance of recording and investigating historical events. 87 Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, translated from the text of F. Hultsch, ed. and trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 2:102. 88 Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians, 202, 203. For further researches, see Arthur M. Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995). 89 James W. Thompson, A History of Historical Writing (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1942), 1:84–​85. 90 Moses Hadas, “Editor’s Note,” in The Annals & Histories: Tacitus, ed. Moses Hadas, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Random, 2003), xxii.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History

37

They used a recognizable methodology for writing history. The scope of their writings focused on diplomatic and military history. Modern historiography builds upon this classical historical methodology by using recognizable methods to evaluate sources.

Modern Secular History Modern approaches to history center upon the study of human experience—​the study of human activity. History, therefore, occupies a prominent role in human reflection. From the early 18th through the 19th centuries, rationalist thinkers reflected upon history. They adopted methods that distanced themselves from any supernatural explanation. Instead, they preferred philosophical approaches to guide human reason.91 Rationalist historians from this period admired “the achievements of the classical world.”92 They critically investigated facts by rejecting superficial explanations. Their view of history was built upon Enlightenment history. The foremost example of Enlightenment history is manifest in the work of a French, François-​Marie Arouet, commonly known as Voltaire. He expressed skepticism about the contemporary historical methods, especially those that upheld divine providence.93 Voltaire distanced himself from what he perceived as the hagiography so popular in his day. “He proposed and produced a secular and naturalistic history, which would depict the life and spirit of peoples, their art, science and politics.”94 His philosophical approach became the ideal for historical scholarship. Voltaire distinguished between historical events and myth. The history of China, for example, was superior to the Bible. The fact that Chinese historians wrote such comprehensive history, free from fable, was an example of how historians can write history void of supernaturalism.95 In contrast, the Jews were an example of how to write history by adhering to miracles and prophecies. 91 George P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Paternoster, 1913), 8. 92 Ibid. 93 Alfred O. Aldridge, Voltaire and the Century of Light (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 34, 132, 143. See also Will Durant and Ariel Durant, The Age of Voltaire: The Story of Civilization (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1965). 94 Fritz Stern, “Introduction,” in The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present, ed. Fritz Stern (New York, NY: Vintage, 1973), 35. 95 Voltaire, Essai Sur Les Mœurs, 13–​ 39. See also Jonathan Spence, “Western Perceptions of China From the Late Sixteenth Century to the Present,” in Heritage of China: Contemporary Perspectives on Chinese Civilization, ed. Paul S. Ropp (Bekerley, CA: University of California Press, 1990), 1–​14.

38

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

Voltaire used reason as the ultimate judge to evaluate all historical happenings. He saw religion (and belief in providence) as obstacles to science. Voltaire rejected any involvement of the divine in history. As a deist, he believed “God has retired from the rule of history.”96 Voltaire championed a new era of historical thinking. Enlightenment philosophy followed this methodology. “The glory of the Enlightenment is inseparable from the ideology, the wit, and the humanity of Voltaire.”97 History at its best should be completely secular. The most influential Enlightenment historian was Edward Gibbon who continued the trajectory set by Voltaire. Gibbon, a British, emphasized that providential history was merely a primitive way to explain historical events.98 The Christianity instead shall really be studied as secular history. His magnum opus, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–​1788), used philosophy of history to interpret historical events. He attributed the fall of Rome to a series of natural causes. Writing history was a serious examination of facts. “It would be surely unreasonable to expect that the historian should peruse enormous volumes, with the uncertain hope of extracting a few interesting lines, or that he should sacrifice whole days to the momentary amusements of his reader.”99 He upheld the ideal of impartiality as the defining historiographical principle. His critical examination of religious documents convinced him that religion and its associated beliefs were patently false.100

96 Karl Löwith, Meaning in History (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1949), 107. 97 Aldridge, Voltaire, 412. 98 Charlotte Roberts, Edward Gibbon and the Shape of History (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 1–​12, 170–​174. 99 Edward Gibbon and John H. Sheffield, The Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon: With Memoirs of His Life and Writings Composed by Himself Illustrated From His Letters, With Occasional Notes and Narrative by John L. Sheffield (London, UK: Steven & Pardon, 1837), 748. Significant studies include: Peter Cosgrove, Impartial Stranger: History and Intertextuality in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Newark, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1999); Patricia B. Craddock, The English Essays of Edward Gibbon (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1972); Roy Porter, Gibbon: Making History (New York, NY: St. Martin, 1989); Henry E. Davis, An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: In Which His View of . . . the Misrepresentation of the Authors He Cites (London, UK: Dodsley, 1778); John W. Burrow, Gibbon (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1985) 100 Zoe Lowery, ed., Historiography: The Britannica Guide to Social Science (New York, NY: Britannica, 2016), 45.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History

39

After Gibbon, the most significant historian of the late 18th and early 19th centuries was Leopold von Ranke (German). He rejected all theories about historiography that did not scrupulously examine sources.101 He favored firsthand accounts by eyewitnesses, official documents, memoirs/​diaries, and diplomatic documents.102 Ranke’s main goal was to reconstruct the study of the past through original sources. Most historians credit him with founding the historical method known as historicism. Ranke attempted to remove any “germs” from the present that could influence the past. Historians should write history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist (“as what actually happened”).103 Ranke emphasized serious investigation of facts as the best way to write history. A leading advocate of this Enlightenment historicist approach was Lord Acton (a British). Foundational for Acton was the concept of “methodological naturalism.”104 He traced the source of his methodology to Ranke but he went much farther than him. In an illustrative anecdote, Acton during his “Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History” (1895) stated that the modern historian celebrated the “declaration of independence in the forests of Germany.”105 What Acton referred to was the Rankian break from the traditional historical methodology, which even then continued to value providence. Afterward, Acton knew that “the main thing to learn is not the art of accumulating material, but the sublimer art of investigating it, of discerning truth from falsehood and certainty from doubt. It is by solidity of criticism more than by the plenitude of erudition, that the study of history strengthens, and straightens, and extends the mind.”106 101 Felix Gilbert, “Leopold von Ranke and the American Philosophical Society,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 130, no. 3 (1986): 362. 102 Krieger, Ranke, 109. Krieger’s work is the classical work on Ranke. See also James M. Powell, “The Confusing and Ambiguous Legacy of Leopold von Ranke,” Syracuse Scholar 9 (1988): 5–​10. 103 Leopold von Ranke, Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514 (Leipzig, Germany: Duncker & Humblot, 1885), vii. 104 Methodological naturalism is an expression of modern time. It designates the desire to investigate historical accounts on the basis of scientific principles. Barbara Forrest, “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection,” Philo 3 (2000): 7–​29. 105 Lord Acton, “Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History, 1895,” 3, accessed June 23, 2017, http://​lfoll.s3.amazonaws.com/​titles/​2533/​Acton_​StudyHistory1895.pdf. For a better appreciation of the impact of Acton on modern history, see John E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History, ed. John N. Figgis and Reginald V. Laurence (London, UK: Macmillan, 1906). 106 Acton, “Inaugural Lecture,” 11.

40

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

The most important thing for the Enlightenment historian is to examine sources critically and to reject the belief in God’s hand in history. The way a historian begins is to question his sources. Acton noted that the historian examines sources by suspecting them. In the process, “he remains in suspense until he has subjected his authority to three operations” which he listed as follows: “first, he asks whether he has read the passage as the author wrote it.”107 After the historian understands the passage, the next point is to “question where the writer got his information. If from a previous writer, it can be ascertained, and the inquiry has to be repeated. If from unpublished papers, they must be traced, and when the fountain–​head is reached, or the track disappears, the question of veracity arises.”108 He tries to ascertain the motives of the author. Third, the historian pledges “impartiality” to share his or her findings.109 The idea of emphasizing human agency and the impartial examination of facts as ultimate factors for historical interpretation create distance between a Christian historian and his secular counterpart. Acton told a story about when a Christian historian met Ranke and hailed him as a comrade. Ranke, moving away from his colleague, rejected this advance. Despite the merits of Acton’s view of history, as rooted in Ranke, such ideas about historiography came under attack in the 20th century.110 Another branch of Enlightenment history was the scientific study of history developed by Geoffrey R. Elton (1921–​1994).111 A specialist in Tudor England, he believed that politics was the key to understanding the past.112 He rejected Marxist interpretations of history. Instead, the historian was a scientist 107 Ibid. The historian is concerned with detailed investigations. He or she asks whether “the transcriber, and the editor, and the official or officious censor on the top of the editor, have played strange tricks, and have much to answer for. And if they are not to blame, it may turn out that the author wrote his book twice over, that you can discover the first jet, the progressive variations, things added, and things struck out.” Ibid. 108 Acton, “Inaugural Lecture,” 11. 109 Ibid. 110 Gerhard L. Weinberg, “The End of Ranke’s History?,” Syracuse Scholar 9 (1988): 51–​60. 111 Study on Elton includes Christopher Coleman and David Starkey, eds., Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Government & Administration (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986); DeLloyd Guth and John W. McKenna, eds., Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G. R. Elton From His American Friends (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Keith Jenkins, On What Is History? From Carr to Elton to Rorty and White (London, UK: Routledge, 1995). 112 Arthur Slavin, “Telling the Story: G. R. Elton and the Tudor Age,” Sixteenth Century Journal 21 (1990): 151–​169.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History

41

who gathered evidence.113 He argued that “history is a search for the objective truth about the past.”114 His Practice of History was a direct response to Edward H. Carr’s 1961 What Is History?115 Carr departed from Ranke by differentiating between a mere historical process that must be cleansed from present germs, or simply present politics.116 The early 20th century benefited from Carr’s ideas by accommodating cultural knowledge in historical discussion. Prominent French thinkers believed that the study of history should take into account cultural knowledge. They rejected any emphasis on politics as the driving factor behind historical events. Historians such as Lucien Lefebvre (1878–​1958), Marc Bloch (1886–​1944), Ferdinand Braudel (1902–​1985), and Ernst Labrousse (1895–​1988) insisted on insights gleaned from anthropology, geography, psychology, sociology, and economics for understanding history. They produced seminal works that advanced their thesis. Lefebvre wrote La Terre et l’Evolution Humaine known in English as A Geographical Introduction to History, 1925. He argues against determinism in historical facts. Bloch described the Medieval time with a pioneering work on Les Caractères Originaux de l’Histoire Rurale Française, 1931 (a sort of an in-​ depth description of the traits of French rural history). Bloch described history through the lens of culture. Finally, Braudel wrote on The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, 1949. This was the earliest study on the Mediterranean. Historians considered in this section would remain influential in the writing of not only secular history but also Christian history. They inform historians in how to approach history as a complex discipline. For example, the views of Voltaire, Gibbon, Ranke, Acton, and even of the French historians of the 20th century would remain significant in shaping historical writings in general. Adventist historians such as Numbers and several open critical thinkers such as McArthur and Butler benefited from such critical historical thinking to build their own approach to religious and Adventist history. 113 Geoffrey R. Elton, The Practice of History, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002). Elton’s other books, which broadly reflected on the practice of history, include Geoffrey R. Elton, Political History: Principles and Practice (New York, NY: Basic, 1970); Geoffrey R. Elton, Return to Essentials: Some Reflections on the Present State of Historical Study (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991). 114 Richard J. Evans, In Defense of History (New York, NY: Norton, 1997), 2. 115 Edward H. Carr, What Is History? (New York, NY: Vintage, 1967). 116 Richard J. Evans, “Afterword,” in The Practice of History, by Geoffrey R. Elton, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 170.

42

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

Because 20th century historians sought the meaning of historical events within the context of an interdisciplinary approach, they would be highly respected by the later generation of historians. They emphasized the role of social sciences in the study of history. Altogether, modern secular historians reconstructed the writing of history as a record of human activities. They jettisoned supernatural explanations in interpreting history. The ability of historians to question historical causation further gave way to the advanced and often critical method of appreciating historical accounts.

Postmodern History A radical rejection of modern approaches characteristic of the mid-​20th to late 20th century era is postmodernism. Assumptions of the accessibility of knowledge through historical investigation are rejected. A postmodern sees little value in studying the past.117 He or she thinks that even the most basic historical facts are inaccessible.118 Michel Foucault argues, I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say, however, that truth is therefore absent. It seems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in truth, for a fictional discourse to induce effects of truth, and for bringing it about that a true discourse engenders or ‘manufactures’ something that does not as yet exist, that is, ‘fictions’ it. One ‘fictions’ history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one ‘fictions’ a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth.119

In contrast to the Christian worldview that elevates history to the domain of God’s providence, radical postmodernists see no purpose in the study of history. Even the less radical postmodernists believe that history is what humans construct. Historians base their writings on their ideological ideas to perceive the past. Historical events find meaning only in the cultural contexts in which they were raised. In each historical era, there is a knowledge system to which historical events are intrinsically linked. Postmodern historians question the need to investigate historical facts.120 They believe that “the historical text is an object in itself, made entirely from language, 117 Andrea Mura, “The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity,” Language and Psychoanalysis 1, no. 1 (2012): 68–​87. 118 Michel Foucault, Power/​Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–​1977, ed. Colin Gordon (New York, NY: Pantheon, 1980), 193. 119 Ibid. 120 Hans Bertens, The Idea of the Postmodern: A History (New York, NY: Routledge, 1995), 79–​106.

Classical and Secular Approaches to History

43

and thus subject to the interrogations devised by the sciences of language use from ancient rhetoric to modern semiotics.”121 History is the product of linguistic constructs or of ideas detached from their occurrence through the invention of some past.122 Alun Munslow argues that “the past is not discovered or found. It is created and represented by the historian as a text which in turn is consumed by the reader.”123 History is what the writer constructs to persuade people. Historical descriptions are not necessarily what happened in the past but mere claims for powers.124 The idea of truth in history “is a nineteenth-​century modernist conception and it has no place in contemporary writing about the past.”125 In the footsteps of Munslow, Hans Kellner bemoaned, “Historians routinely behave as though their researches were into the past, as though their writings were about ‘it’, and as though ‘it’ were as real as the text which is the object of their labours.”126 Historical accounts have no link to the real past. The historian offers no interpretation of the past. He or she presents his or her views corresponding to his or her ideologies. Readers, in turn, are left to their own devising.127 They determine the meaning of historical texts. Historical realities in this regard are more of semantic constructions than epistemological principles.128 Truth is, therefore, relative and the historian does not offer the meaning of a historical text. The writing of history is a discourse of historical sources for a pluralistic interpretation. The postmodenist approach drastically diverges from the Christian worldview which sees history as the cradle of discovering the past for moral and spiritual purposes. Christians agree that the Bible contains divine truth. “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever” (Ps 119:160, ESV). Christian history acknowledges that the Bible is a reliable historical source. Its

121 Hans Kellner, “Introduction: Describing Re-​descriptions,” in A New Philosophy of History, ed. Frank Ankersmit and Hans Kellner (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 9. 122 Ibid. 123 Alun Munslow, Deconstructing History (London, UK: Routledge, 1997), 190. 124 Mark Poster, Foucault, Marxism and History: Mode of Production Versus Mode of Information (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1984), 73. 125 Munslow, Deconstructing History, 190. 126 Kellner, “Introduction,” 10. 127 Ibid. 128 Keith Jenkins, “Introduction: On Being Open About Our Closures,” in The Postmodern History Reader, ed. Keith Jenkins (New York, NY: Routledge, 1997), 1–​35.

44

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

accounts are true and reveal God’s hand in human affairs for truths provided in Scripture shape their worldviews. They believe that Christ taught significant truths which are eternal and guide human thinking.129

Christian Approaches to History A distinct way of viewing the past is found in Christian historiography. Christian historians have acknowledged the importance of God’s hand, although they have disagreed about the best methodology to describe historical facts. This section will describe the writing of Christian historians who shaped a traditional-​providential view of Christian history. Second, it will also focus on views of modern historians who reshaped the traditional understanding of history by noting the complexity of historical facts, particularly within the backdrop of North America.

Traditional Christian History Traditionally, Christian history acknowledges that the Bible is a reliable historical source. Its accounts are not only true but reveal God’s influence on human affairs. The writing of history is a synonym of indicating God’s direct involvement in human history. This foundational understanding illumined the Christian concept of history from the early and Medieval period, the Protestant Reformation, and the 17th to the 19th centuries. Early and Medieval history. The earliest Christian historian was Eusebius (b. ca. 260–​265).130 A Roman historian of Greek descent, he was famous for several historical works: Ecclesiastical History and Chronicle. These works provide a window into early Christian history. Eusebius described the first three centuries of the Christian era. As a Christian historian, he acknowledged God’s invisible hand across history. This philosophy permeates his writings. He pointed to the love of God for His church despite troubles and persecutions. The conversion of Constantine was a sign of God’s love and intervention. He saw “the empire under Constantine as an extension of the kingdom of God on earth and as the consummation of history.”131 For Eusebius, history had a vertical and horizontal axis.132 129 For a Christian response to postmodernist’s view of history, see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, 5th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), 214–​243. 130 Burrow, A History of Histories, 179. 131 Burrow, A History of Histories, 179. 132 Joel Fineman, “The History of the Anecdote: Fiction and Fiction,” in The New Historicism, ed. Harold H. Veeser (New York, NY: Routledge, 1989), 68. Helpful studies on Eusebius include: Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge,

Christian Approaches to History

45

He saw God’s providence as influencing history. The Roman Church was divinely appointed to ensure the prosperity and growth of Christianity. After Eusebius, the most influential Christian thinker was Augustine of Hippo (AD 260–​339). He did not describe himself as a historian but historical thought permeates his extensive writings. As a consequence, his thoughts on history have been extremely influential in the interpretation of Christian history. Scholars debate how his City of God espouses a philosophy of history versus a theology of history.133 A theology of history refers to a theological explanation of historical facts. A philosophy of history, in the same line, seeks for meaning behind human historical events. A philosophy of history is derived from a theology of history—​a Jewish legacy to the world. In this way, Augustine of Hippo’s City of God can be both a theology of history as well as a philosophy of history. Together, Augustine of Hippo provides the first meaningful attempt to a Christian interpretation of history.134 The fall of Rome was not due to its acceptance of Christianity.135 Instead, Augustine of Hippo argued that the pagan gods could not have saved Rome from destruction.136 He saw history as linear and being unfolded under a divine Supreme Being. Augustine of Hippo advanced a theological reading of history. After Augustine of Hippo, the next most prominent Christian historian was Bede (ca. 672–​735), an English monk. He credited history to providence.137 He authored Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which earned him the title “the Father of the English History.”138 Bede viewed himself as a scholar and MA: Harvard University Press, 1981); Aryeh Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000); Hugh J. Lawlor, Eusebiana: Essays on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1912); Lee I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1975); David S. Wallace-​Hadrill, Eusebius of Caesarea (Hellesdon Park, UK: Canterbury, 1961). 133 Victor Dias, “Augustine on the Structure and Meaning in History” (MA thesis, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada, 1996), viii-​xvi. 134 Alister E. McGrath, “Augustine of Hippo,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 89. 135 Ibid., 87. 136 Ibid. 137 For a profound account on the life of Bede, see George H. Brown, Bede, the Venerable (Boston, MA: Twayne, 1987). 138 Frank A. James III, “Venerable Bede,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 95–​97.

46

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

historian.139 Undergirding Ecclesiastical History was God’s hand in history. Bede attributed “the coming of Christianity to England” to divine providence “especially working through heroic saints and spectacular miracles.”140 The English were God’s “chosen people” to share the Christian message overseas.141 The methodology of Bede frequently included miraculous accounts.142 In fact, “the chief models and foundations for his work were, apart from the Bible, the works of Christian authors from the fourth century on.”143 Bede’s goal was “to do for the history of the church in England what Eusebius had done for the universal church.”144 Bede saw the English people as faithful servants of God who fulfilled His divine task to spread Christianity. This viewpoint is especially evident in his Ecclesiastical History where he accounts for the development of Christianity in England starting from the time of Augustine of Canterbury (d. 604) through 731. Bede concentrated “his attention on the sixth age . . . which was inaugurated by the birth of Christ.”145 Each age marked the beginning of some important events. The heart of all history was found in the 6th age, which shaped his apocalyptic viewpoint. Frank A. James III argues, “The final book of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History reflects the eschatological tone of John’s Apocalypse, with its strong sense of the imminent onset of eternity.”146 Bede developed an eschatological way to interpret history. This approach emphasized divine providence as much in the past as in the future. Protestant Reformation and history. The providential view flourished during the Protestant Reformation period. The Reformers saw God operating in human affairs. Their worldview did not allow for mere natural causation. Historical writing indicated the hand of God working in human affairs.147 139 Scott DeGregoria, “Introduction: The New Bede,” in Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede, ed. Scott DeGregoria (Morgantown, WV: The West Virginia University Press, 2006), 6. 140 Ibid., 110. 141 Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, trans. L. Sherley-​Prince and R. E. Latham (London, UK: Penguin, 1990), 1:22. 142 For more insights, see Robert W. Hanning, The Vision of History in Early Britain (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1966), 63–​90. 143 James, “Venerable Bede,” 99. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid., 100. 146 Ibid., 101. 147 Mark Thompson, “Luther on God and History,” in The Oxford Handbook of Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 139. Several studies on Luther and Calvin provide insights

Christian Approaches to History

47

Although historical writers did not ignore the importance of serious and critical investigation of sources, they emphasized the role of God in shaping historical events. They interpreted historical facts in light of their theology. Martin Luther and John Calvin saw God’s sovereignty as the main factor in historical explanations. God was behind all historical events.148 The Protestant Reformers interpreted history through the lens of their Christian beliefs. They put faith in each “invisible background of historical space.”149 They viewed history beyond storytelling, sermon illustration, and ammunition against opponents. History was rich in meaning as “the lessons of Scripture are played out as lessons of history.”150 Outside the Christian faith, there is “no reasonable explanation for the enigma of history.”151 The Reformers saw faith as a central element for identifying God’s hand in all historical events. Undergirding the Reformers’ view of history was their view of eschatology. They had an apocalyptic engagement with world events. They interpreted historical events in light of the imminent return of Christ. They believed that the end of the world was at hand.152 They saw the pope as antichrist and attributed his activities to end-​time events.153 They had a sense of living through prophetic interpretation of history. Luther, particularly, interpreted history in light of on the relationship between providence and history. On Luther, studies include Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Edinburgh, Scotland: Fortress, 1986), 194–​195; Hans H. Pflanz, Geschichte und Eschatology bei Martin Luther (Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer, 1989); Heinrich BornKamm, Luther’s World of Thought, trans. Martin H. Bertam (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1958); John M. Headley, Luther’s View of Church History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963). Important materials on Calvin include David A. Hohne, “The Secret Agent of Natural Causes: Providence, Contingency, and the Perfecting Work of the Spirit,” in Engaging With Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s Legacy for Today, ed. Mark D. Thompson (Leceister, UK: InterVarsity, 2009), 158–​ 178; Charles B. Partee, “Calvin on Universal and Particular Providence,” in Reading in Calvin’s Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 69–​88; Charles B. Partee, “Calvin on Universal and Particular Providence,” in Reading in Calvin’s Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 69–​88. 148 M. Thompson, “Luther on God and History,” 139. 149 Bornkamm, Luther’s World of Thought, 202. 150 M. Thompson, “Luther on God and History,” 139. 151 Ibid. 152 Jane E. Strohl, “Luther’s Eschatology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 355. 153 Ibid.

48

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches a cosmic battle between the gospel of Christ and the lies of the Devil, between Christ’s people and the Antichrist. The public revelation of the papacy’s opposition to the gospel, the Edict of Worms, the rise of heretics, anarchy and revolt, and the advance of the Turk into central Europe all confirmed this assessment in Luther’s mind. Yet it was betrayal and false teaching in the church which stood out as most significant.154

The Reformers saw meaning in history. They believed in a “push-​view of history” which means that “God is pushing history towards its destiny, like the great stone in Daniel cut from the mountain by no human hand, rolling down and crushing the kingdoms of the world until finally there stands the sovereign kingdom of God which will never be destroyed.”155 Their theological presuppositions enlightened their historical interpretations. 17th to 19th centuries history. The 17th and 19th centuries saw a variety of Christian historians who continued to promulgate God’s sovereignty in historical causation. Jacques-​Benigne Bossuet (1627–​1704) was the most popular Roman Catholic historian whose view of history received wide acclaim after the Reformation period. He was a court preacher to Louis XIV and a political figure who fought for the independence of the French church from the papacy.156 In 1681, he was elected bishop of Meaux. This same year, he wrote Discours sur L’Histoire Universelle, a book written in the style of Augustine of Hippo’s City of God. Bossuet reacted against the freethinkers of the 17th century, Baruch Spinoza and Richard Simon, who defended a rational interpretation of historical facts and the expression of the freedom of will.157 The most captivating manifestation of providence in the Discourse on Universal History is the identification of the French people as a chosen people of God, continuing the stream of faithful servants of God in human history.158 Bossuet strengthened the cultural hegemony of the French people. He was highly esteemed for his views, even though 1 54 M. Thompson, “Luther on God and History,” 137. 155 David E. Holwerda, “Eschatology and History,” in Articles on Calvin and Calvinism: A Fourteen-​Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles, ed. Richard C. Gamble (New York, NY: Garland, 1992), 9:132. 156 Thomas Worcester, “Gallican Articles,” in An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies, ed. Orlando O. Espín and James B. Nickoloff (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2007), 480. 157 For a rational approach to knowledge, see Richard Simon, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament depuis le commencement du Christianisme jusques à notre temps: Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Testament (Paris, France: n.p., 1695). 158 Jacques-​Benigne Bossuet, Discourse on Universal History, ed. Orest Ranum, trans. Elborg Forster (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 375.

Christian Approaches to History

49

Voltaire and later scientific writers in France attacked his political histories and his providential view of history. The most significant historian to uphold a refined view of the providential historiographical ideal was Jean H. Merle d’Aubigné (1794–​1872).159 He authored Histoire de la Réformation au XVIème Siècle (1835–​1853).160 This became popular in English circles after its translation into English under the title History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (1846–​1853). These early volumes focused on the causes behind the Reformation in Germany. They were widely translated into European languages. Philip Schaff argued that d’Aubigné’s volume “had a wider circulation, at least in the English translations, than any other book on church history.”161 D’Aubigné provided an account of the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. D’Aubigné’s writing, just as other’s historians’ writings, should be read in its context. John Roney proposed that viewing d’Aubigné’s historiography within “the changing world of the nineteenth century” is helpful because “he was a historian intricately involved in two of the most important movements of the time, Romanticism and Evangelicalism.”162 These two factors shaped d’Aubigné’s view of history. “The significance of internal dimensions was based on his understanding of the task of divine providence in human history and human ability to transcend the natural world through individual conscience, and an attention to the spiritual dimensions of history.”163 D’Aubigné went beyond the typical account of restoring Christianity by describing events as the result of historical causation while also acknowledging God’s providential influence.164 Two important theological ideas permeate his writings: the divine element and the “soul” of history.165 Providence was “the direct activity of God.” The soul of history was “a record of how human being felt, thought, and responded to divine activity.”166

159 John B. Roney, The Inside of History: Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné and Romantic Historiography (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996), 3. 160 Jean H. Merle d’Aubigné, Histoire de la Réformation au XVIème Siècle, 5 vols., 2nd ed. (Paris, France: Meyrueis, 1860–​1862). 161 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York, NY: Scribner, 1903), 6:333. 162 Roney, The Inside of History, 4. 163 Ibid. 164 John Roney, “Jean Henri Merle D’ Aubigné,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 170. 165 Ibid., 171. 166 Ibid.

50

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

D’Aubigné argued that Christian historians should analyze events within a methodology that combines the idea of divine agency and human agency.167 As a thinker who studied in Berlin with August Neander (1789–​1850) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–​ 1834), D’Aubigné acknowledged the complexity of the historical investigation.168 He believed that the role of the historian “was not to predict divine action, nor was it to attribute all cause to divine will alone.”169 The historian should investigate the primary cause (divine agency) versus the secondary causes (human agency). D’Aubigné was not “a founder of a historical school” or a “pioneer of any particular historical method.”170 His writings, however, are significant “for his amalgamation of traditional Christian doctrines and beliefs with contemporary nineteenth-​century historical methods and demands of evidence.”171 He synthesized a providential view of history with rationalist approaches. One of the greatest thinkers to advance the writing of Christian history in the 19th century was Philip Schaff (1819–​1893). He was a well-​known Swiss-​born German-​educated Protestant and church historian who spent much of his career in America in the 19th century.172 He was famous for his work History of the Christian Church. He studied history in Berlin. He moved to America in 1844.173 Upon his arrival in America, he became a dozent in the German Reformed Theological Seminary of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. Stephen R. Graham argues that Schaff “is appropriately known as the founder of the discipline of church history in America.”174 There, he aptly adopted his mentor Neander’s “understanding of church history as a discipline involving both the intellect and the heart. He was impressed by Neander’s learning and solid research, but also by the spirit of faith and devotion that pervaded his works.”175 With this historiographical principle, he engaged in producing massive works in history: What Is

167 Jean H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York, NY: Robert Carter, 1853), 1:19. 168 Roney, The Inside of History, 5. 169 Roney, “Jean Henri Merle D’Aubigné,” 173. 170 Roney, The Inside of History, 5. 171 Ibid. 172 Stephen R. Graham, “Philip Schaff,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 273–​304. 173 Ibid., 275. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid.

Christian Approaches to History

51

Church History? (1846), The Life and Labors of St. Augustine (1854), History of the Christian Church (1858–​1890), The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes (1877). These works had a huge impact on American historiography by situating the Christian church in America on a solid historical foundation. Graham notes that the most important historiographical principle of Schaff was that he insisted that the church historian must be a faith-​professing Christian. He said, “A church historian without faith and piety can only set before us, at best, instead of the living body of Christ, a cold marble statue, without seeing eye or feeling heart.”176 He further noted that secular historians have an “entire want [lack] of faith, without which it is as impossible duly to understand Christianity, its inspired records, and its inward history, as to perceive light and colour without eyes.”177 Schaff called for the blending of faith and scholarship. Following the path of Schaff, George P. Fisher (1827–​1909) tried to make sense of his faith within the context of the historical writing of the late 19th century in America. At that time, America was engaged in debates which sought to accommodate a critical method to the study of church history. Fisher engaged in critical scholarship following the trend of German scholars. Michael Williams describes Fisher as a historian who “was very much the product of his New England modernist surroundings, and the product of his critical engagements with Christian history.”178 This blending of modernist thinking and engagement with Christian faith enlightened the scholarship of Fisher. As one of the most renowned church historians of the late 19th century in America, Fisher wrote important works which evidenced his commitment to historical discourses. His works included: The Beginnings of Christianity (1877), Outline of Universal History (1904), Brief History of the Nation (1890), Colonial History of the United States (1892), and History of the Christian Church (1893). In his works, Fisher “affirmed the modern historical method. While he confessed the living reality of God revealed in Jesus Christ, he also applied the same canons to church history and the Christian Scriptures that critical studies apply to any historical materials.”179 In the introduction to his Outlines of Universal History, Fisher argued that 176 Philip Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church With a General Introduction to Church History, trans. Edward D. Yeomans (New York, NY: Scribner, 1854), 101. 177 Ibid., 103. 178 Michael Williams, “George Park Fisher,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 305. 179 Ibid.

52

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches in writing this volume I have aimed to provide a text-​book suited to more advanced pupils. My idea of such a work was, that it should present the essential facts of history in due order, and in conformity to the best and latest researches; that I should point out clearly the connection of events and each successive era with one another; that through the interest awakened by the natural, unforced view gained of this unity of history.180

Following the historical method in vogue, Fisher sought to incorporate the Rankian approach to history. He rejected the deterministic theory in historical research. Williams summed up Fisher’s view of history in these terms: “While insisting on the supernatural origin of Christianity, Fisher’s individualism and organicist and progressivist tendencies led him toward a broad ecumenism that sidestepped the doctrinal debates of his day. He shared the evangelical hope of his more conservative brethren, but he departed from any emphasis on doctrine as the test of religious truth.”181 Thus, Fisher followed the trend of serious investigation of sources within the atmosphere of a self-​conscious Christian scholar. Traditional Christian approaches to history influenced denominational historiographies. Adventist traditional historians would largely adopt the methods showcased in the writing of Eusebius, Augustine of Hippo, Bede, and d’Aubigné, while the apologetic would seek to follow the line of Schaff and Fisher. These historians shaped, in one way or the other, Adventist historiography. All these traditional Christian approaches related divine providence to historical writing in different ways which would draw the interest of Adventist historians. The emphasis in their methods overall was upon how God’s hand is present in history. These historians understood the importance of writing history as a way to present the history of the Christian church. In the 20th century, a new group of Christian historians would expand in new ways how they viewed and accounted for historical writings.

20th Century Christian History Modern Christian approaches of the 20th century built upon and refined earlier Christian approaches to history. Historians from this era noted the complexity of historical happenings. Some even avoided directly attributing historical events to providence. They saw historical events as part of critical analysis of historical facts. Some significant Christian historians such as Kenneth S. Latourette and Sir Herbert Butterfield influenced modern Christian historiographical ideals.

1 80 George P. Fisher, Outlines of Universal History (New York, NY: American, 1885), v. 181 M. Williams, “George Park Fisher,” 324.

Christian Approaches to History

53

Today, George Marsden, Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and Jay D. Green are the most influential voices in Christian historical discussions. The prominent Christian historian to revolutionize the study of Christian history in the early 20th century was Kenneth S. Latourette (1884–​1968), a missionary in China for a couple of years before his 28 years as professor of Missions and World Christianity at Yale. He emphasized the importance of the Christian faith in writing history. He wrote numerous books on Christianity and China.182 His missionary experience shaped his life’s scholarship. Richard W. Pointer noted four qualities that shaped Latourette’s scholarship: he was a man of “evangelical piety, ecumenical vision, enlightened optimism, and enthusiastic missionary mindedness.”183 He wrote history as a way to determine the effect of Christianity upon human societies. His History of the Expansion of Christianity is a demonstration of the impact of Christianity upon its environment. Pointer argues that Latourette “saw being a historian as a Christian vocation and sought to think and act Christianly within it.”184 He summoned his academic peers to not jettison the “eyes of faith” in historical scholarship.185 Taking similar paths of Latourette’s career, Butterfield (1900–​1979) emphasized serious examination of facts within the context of a Christian faith.186 His views of history earned him popularity in the world of academia. As a historian and philosopher of history, Butterfield’s fame rests on his revulsion against the progressive aspects of the Whig approach to history. This approach “referred to the tendency of so many historians to write on the side of Protestant and Whigs, to praise revolutions provided they have been successful, to emphasize certain principles of progress in the past and to produce a story which is the ratification

182 Kenneth S. Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 5 vols. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1958–​1962); Kenneth S. Latourette, The Chinese: Their History and Culture (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1934); Kenneth S. Latourette, The Development of China (New York, NY: Houghton, 1917); Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China (New York, NY: McMillan, 1929); Kenneth S. Latourette, A Short History of the Far East (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1946). 183 Richard W. Pointer, “Kenneth S. LaTourette,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 414. 184 Ibid., 420. 185 Ibid., 421. 186 Butterfield wrote significant books, among which, the most significant was Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, UK: G. Bell, 1931).

54

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

if not the glorification of the present.”187 Butterfield stood against the teleological and progressive view of history which seemed to belittle and oversimplify the work of a historian. He approached the writing of history through three lenses: first, he emphasized the role of individuals in making history. Butterfield contended that the historian must understand historical events through the perspectives of those who lived through them. He argued that “men’s actions make history—​and men have free will—​they are responsible for the kind of history that they make.”188 Second, Butterfield reflected on the role of divine providence in shaping his views of Christian historiography. His devotion to Christian beliefs shaped his understanding of historical writing. He was a historian who saw divine providence as a key factor in understanding historical facts. Consequently, he rejected the premises of deism in explaining history. He argued that “of all the factors which have operated to the disadvantage of religion and the undermining of the religious sense in recent centuries, the most damaging has been the notion of an absentee God who might be supposed to have created the universe in the first place, but who is then assumed to have left it to run as a piece of clockwork.”189 Butterfield labored for the recovery of divine providence in history. He noted that “nothing is more important for the cause of religion at the present day than that we recover the sense and consciousness of the Providence of God—​a Providence that acts not merely by species of remote control but as a living thing, operating in all details of life—​working at every moment, visible in every event.”190 The concept of divine providence, in the view of Butterfield, provides a way to reconcile the human free will and the law of history operating in the world. “It is providence which puts us in a world where we run the risks that follow from human free will and responsibility,”191 he noted. “It is providence which puts us in a world that has its regularities and law,”192 he added. Butterfield’s religious views influenced his understanding of Christian historiography. He combined the Christian faith with a commitment to scholarship. 1 87 Ibid., 2. 188 Herbert Butterfield, “God in History,” in God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, ed. Carl T. McIntire (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977), 195. 189 Butterfield, “God in History,” 193. 190 Ibid. 191 Ibid. See also Michael Bentley, The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science, and God (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 320–​322. 192 Butterfield, “God in History,” 193.

Christian Approaches to History

55

From the late 20th century until this day, Marsden, Hatch, and Noll combined and refined Butterfield’s approaches to history. They have attempted to solve the tensions between Christian beliefs and the professional life of a historian.193 Burch suggests that “these men have emerged as leaders in the field of American Christianity while also making significant inroads in the discussion surrounding the purpose and mission of the modern university.”194 The methodological genius of these three historians is their proposal for a middle ground in the debate between conservative and progressive historians. These historians have sought to bind Evangelical historiography to a critical and rigorous scholarship for enhancing the Evangelical identity. Burch notes that these scholars “write primarily about the Protestant evangelical experience in America focusing their research upon the cultural and ideological factors that shaped this experience while addressing the biblical and theological traditions that define and inform the evangelical community as well.”195 Burch, admittedly, admires the scholarship of these historians who seek to combine “confessional commitment with rigorous scholarship.”196 She, therefore, examines their scholarship starting from 1977 as a way of determining the driving purpose behind their works. She remarks at the conclusion of her study that “George Marsden, Nathan Hatch, and Mark Noll are reformed evangelical historians with an academic and historical agenda. They view their role as historians as both as a profession and a calling. They take seriously the Dutch Reformed perspective that one’s profession is an opportunity to honor God with life and vocation.”197 These historians provide a way for future reflection on Christian history.198 Each of them has written history with a longing to harmonize the Christian faith with the university circles. The pioneering figure among the three historians is Marsden—​Noll and Hatch followed his footprints. He completed a PhD in American History and taught in several institutions in the United States including Notre Dame University, where he held the chair of Francis A. McAnaney, Professor of History. His education and pursuit of Evangelical faith shaped his scholarship. He pursued 1 93 Burch, The Evangelical Historians, 23–​48. 194 Ibid., vii. 195 Ibid. See also Darren Dochuk, Thomas S. Kidd, and Kurt W. Peterson, eds., American Evangelicalism: George Marsden and the State of American Religious History (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2014), 1–​30. 196 Burch, The Evangelical Historians, 121. 197 Ibid., 120. 198 Ibid., 121.

56

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

academic standards and sought to fit in the Christian faith. His religious commitment influenced his scholarship. He confessed in his preface to Reforming Fundamentalism that “I work from a particular Christian commitment.”199 Marsden has seriously taken his religious worldview into account.200 Noll has been writing history following Marsden. Through careful and delicate historical description and analysis of complex historical facts, he has been writing history with an obvious dedication to the Evangelical faith. He saw Marsden as a fitting model for the kind of scholarship he wanted to produce. Burch notes that Noll “accepts the general canons of historical thinking that require rigorous research and careful use of the evidence. . . . But, as a Christian historian, he believes that the study of Christianity and history can reveal some aspects of truth unaffected by the whims and fancies of human nature, but truth nonetheless.”201 Noll believes that a Christian historian is able to examine theological issues from an honest historical perspective. He has contributed immensely to the understanding of evangelical history more than any other historians alive.202 Hatch, along with Marsden and Noll, contributed to the Evangelical investigation of historical facts. He has written history with a commitment to confessional beliefs.203 Just like his colleagues Marsden and Noll, “Hatch’s historical perspective

199 George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), xi. 200 Marsden’s books have been written in the light of his confessional commitments and rigorous scholarship. See Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture; George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991); George M. Marsden, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994); Marsden, The Outrageous Idea; George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). 201 Burch, The Evangelical Historians, 29. 202 Ibid. Significant books by Mark A. Noll include Mark A. Noll, One Nation Under God: Christian Faith and Political Action in America (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988); Mark A. Noll, Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989); Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992); Mark A. Noll, The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001); Mark A. Noll, The Princeton Theology 1812–​1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method From Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001). 203 Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989); Nathan O. Hatch, The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican

Christian Approaches to History

57

was influenced by his Christian worldview, but also by his reading of progressive historians like Carl Becker and Charles Beard. Both of these American historians of the early twentieth century rejected the idea of history as objective, ‘value-​free’ science.”204 Hatch has adopted a broad perspective for writing and studying history within a crafted narrative of the Christian worldview. Marsden, Noll, and Hatch have initiated a new line of a historical methodology consistent with the canons of history and that of an honest dedication to the cause of Christ. With the constant reverberation of emotional discourses between the conservatives and progressive scholars, there is probably less chance for a definitive consensus on this new methodology. Recently, Steven J. Keillor argues for divine judgment as an interpretative factor for historical events. He uses a practical example of the civil war as a direct judgment of God against the practice of slavery.205 Noll, in a very cautious foreword, argues that Keillor is “an engaged and wise Christian historian” and that the book made him “think, and think hard.”206 Keillor’s book resurrected the old tensions between conservative and progressive historians. So far, nothing indicates that a new trend has appeared to settle the thorny issue between the two groups. Recently, Jay D. Green evaluated the ways Christian history is being written. He offered an evaluation of the five rival versions of Christian historiography. The first two approaches, “Historical Study as Search for God” and “Historical Study Through the Lens of Christian Faith Commitments,”207 discuss the attempts of integrating Christian beliefs in the writing of history. The three last models: “Historical Study That Takes Religion Seriously,” “Historical Study as Applied Christian Ethics,” and “Historical Study as Christian Apologetic”208 reemphasize the construction of Christian historiography from the perspective of moral inquiry, affirmation of Christian truth, and the belief that God owns history and directs historical facts. The author has not produced a “Christian Philosophy of history.”209 Instead, he has offered a survey of “various ways that Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary New England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977). 204 Burch, The Evangelical Historians, 39. 205 Steven J. Keillor, God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 135–​153. 206 Mark A. Noll, “Foreword,” in God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, by Steven J. Keillor (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 7, 10. 207 Jay D. Green, Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 2. 208 Ibid. 209 Ibid.

58

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

formal and informal Christian historiography might be considered Christian.”210 With these approaches, Green proposes a model of historiography that focuses on religion. He attempts to study the past through the lens of religious dynamics. Green advocates the study of history from the perspective of Christian vocation. He admits the possibility of God’s hand in history. As such, Green endows the study of history with meaning. Modern Christian approaches to history showcased in the writing of Marsden, Noll, Hatch, and Green and before them Latourette, Butterfield, and others would be influential in shaping not only Evangelical historiography but also various denominational Christian historiographies. Adventist historians such as Knight and his trained students benefited from insights within these Evangelical approaches to create a sort of synthesis in Adventist historiography. Although these historians interacted immensely with non-​Evangelical historians, something that Knight refrained from doing, their commitment to historical investigation remains largely similar. Therefore, an awareness of how these Evangelical historians approached historical accounts proves very helpful in understanding Adventist historiography.

Summary and Conclusion This chapter has surveyed foundational approaches at the core of historical writing. Classical historians emphasized a cyclical view of history. Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus wrote history to record Greek influence on history. Christian approaches to history emphasized a linear view of history. God is the sovereign locomotor of historical events. Eusebius, Augustine of Hippo, Bede, and Bossuet are key historians who affirmed the importance of history as a record of God’s dealings with humans. They affirmed divine providence as a largely assumed factor to explain historical discourse. They studied and wrote history to align God’s sovereignty with historical events. The Protestant Reformers, Luther and Calvin, also emphasized the role of divine providence in the interpretation of history. Enlightenment thinkers rejected earlier accounts by Classical as well as Christian historians who connected history to the realm of the supernatural. Voltaire rejected a metaphysical view of history. This secular approach to history denied the supernatural in the study of history. Ranke set a lasting precedent

210 Ibid.

Summary and Conclusion

59

within historiography. He claimed to investigate the facts “as actually they happened.” French historians and American historians proposed new ways of examining historical facts. They insisted upon the importance of interdisciplinary studies as the best way to understand the past. The 20th century witnessed a new generation. Christian historians Marsden, Noll, Hatch, and Green influenced historical discourse both among Christian and secular academy. They adopted and refined historical methodologies already present in the historiography of Schaff, Fisher, and Butterfield. They combined a commitment to Christian faith with a dedication to historical method. They set a precedent for excellence in scholarship that brought admiration for their work by secular counterparts in the academy. The various Christian approaches to history are informative and showcase broad trends. They also offer helpful techniques for analysis in order to interpret historical writings. The historians examined in this chapter were each influential in developing both historical content and later patterns for historical writing. How historians identified facts was as important as how they described history. Eusebius, Augustine of Hippo, and Bossuet each emphasized Hebraic motifs for history that emphasized God’s active role in human affairs. This methodology was taken up by the 19th century historian d’Aubigné which informed the writings of early Adventist writers of history. Christian historians continue to debate about how to account for the role of God in history. Some Christian historians prefer to leave out any credit to the supernatural, recognizing that God may, in fact, be passively at work. They merely describe what they can from verifiable evidence. Other historians argue that divine providence is the best way to account for historical events. The third school of Christian historians, epitomized by Marsden, Noll, and Hatch articulates a more nuanced historiography. They exemplify the best historical methodology without finding it to be a threat to their faith leaving the interpretation of such events as a matter of faith. These American Christian historians would largely influence Adventist historians. Their commitment to scholarship without jeopardizing their Christian devotion would be showcased in the writing of George R. Knight, and even the students that he would train such as Merlin D. Burt, Michael W. Campbell, and Theodore N. Levterov. This chapter has noted the complexity of historical writing. It has attempted to bring answers to questions such as how the selected historians have written and interpreted historical facts. How have their methods differed? How have their approaches affected their understanding of the past? Historians’ method and approaches differ for various reasons: the purpose for which they write their histories, ideological presuppositions behind

60

Historical Hermeneutic: A Survey of Approaches

their writings, importance they attach to evidence, and context in which they interpret this evidence. In order words, historians’ training and socio-​cultural background, individual values, time period, and availability of sources shape the structure of their historical interpretations. Historians interpret historical facts in light of the changing society in which they live. Subsequently, historical writing changes over time. In this way, approaches and theories of history have differed over the years. Different approaches reflected different religious, social, cultural, and political influences upon historians. History is a skillful reconstruction of the past in consideration of the historian’s assumptions. All the historians here examined have interpreted historical writing according to values underpinning their thoughts about historical events. They remain, in one way or the other, influential for understanding Adventist historiography.

Chapter 2 History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach to Adventist Historical Hermeneutics The writing of history is a vital aspect of Seventh-​day Adventism from its early beginnings.211 In 1847, Joseph Bates published Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, Or a Connected View, of the Fulfilment of Prophecy, by God’s Peculiar People, From the Year 1840 to 1847. It provided the earliest Sabbatarian Adventist understanding of history both in terms of prophetic interpretation and dependence upon God as part of the fulfillment of prophecy.212 Later writers continued this combination of history and prophecy. Loughborough later declared, “It has ever been the design of God that his people should remember the manifestations of his providence and power in their behalf.”213 This created a strong belief that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church was, in fact, a literal fulfillment of Bible prophecy. E. G. White, in May 25, 1905, affirmed, God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it?—​He has said that the dead are to speak. How?—​Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced.214

211 Adventist historians preserve the legacy of the early pioneers. According to McArthur, such historians “are the guardian of tradition. They record the words of its wise men and the great deeds of its heroes; they carefully select and edit the material that will compose the society’s view of its past, and by extension, define the meaning of its present.” McArthur, “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?,” 10. See also Jerry Moon, “C. Mervyn Maxwell: An Academic Life Sketch,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 2. 212 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 1–​100. 213 John N. Loughborough, Rise and Progress of the Seventh-​day Adventists: With Tokens of God’s Hand in the Movement and Brief Sketch of the Advent Cause From 1831 to 18449 (Battle Creek, MI: General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventists, 1892), 9. 214 Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1946), 28. Emphasis mine. Cf., Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, May 25, 1905, par. 21.

62

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

The urge to remember the past is characteristic of human experience. The ability to remember how and why the earliest historical writers compiled or recorded certain facts is an important aspect of Adventist historiography. Such writers provide the foundation for Adventist historical identity because they express a view of history that is shaped by earlier Adventist generations. Historical reflection becomes more meaningful as historians examine the past in the footsteps of their pioneers. The earliest Seventh-​day Adventist historical writings use a theological approach to history. This approach focuses on the understanding of historical events through the lens of theology. Theology is the medium of history—​it interprets history and, at times, even transcends it. This approach focuses on the narrative of history through the lens of theology. Proponents of this approach used theology to emphasize their commitment to confessional beliefs and also championed the providential hand of God in history. They particularly valued faith as superior at understanding historical events. They used traditional conventional historical methods and urged primarily reliance on faith for understanding history. They followed traditional patterns of writing history showcased in the writings of Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo.215 Just like these early Christian historians, early Adventist historical thinkers acknowledged God’s invisible hand across history. They differed from these early historians by emphasizing prophetic interpretation of historical events.

Earliest Attempts at Writing Theological History Several Seventh-​day Adventist thinkers wrote theological history from the perspective of theology. This chapter selects specific individuals who were particularly influential by writing important works in the field. They used theology to understand historical facts. Theology saturated their historical writing as they viewed history by tracing God’s intervention in history. The earliest Sabbatarian Adventist to reflect on the meaning of Adventist history was Joseph Bates. His influence can hardly be overestimated as one of the co-​founders of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. While not an academically trained historian, Bates reflected upon the meaning of history. He did not consciously espouse a specific methodology. For him and for many others of 215 Alister E. McGrath, “Augustine of Hippo,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 89; Burrow, A History of Histories, 179.

Earliest Attempts at Writing Theological History

63

his time, history served a useful purpose by showing how Bible prophecy was fulfilled. The way Bates wrote about history also reveals his understanding of the meaning of history. “Bates never quite separated history and theology in his mind,”216 observed Knight. “Rather they were two aspects of the same topic.”217 The titles of his books reveal this close relationship.218 They show the close connection between history and theology. His writings should, therefore, be categorized as a “theology of history.”219 Each book shows how historical knowledge relates to prophecy. The Seventh-​day Sabbath anchored the doctrine of the Sabbath as part of Bible prophecy. In the The Opening Heavens, written two years after the Great Disappointment, he encouraged Adventists to study evidences about the nearness of Christ’s second coming. Bates states, “I feel constrained to throw out my views in this public manner for the benefit of all who feel an interest in the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to set up, and establish ‘his everlasting kingdom.’ ”220 It is clear how Bates used history to explain why the Great Disappointment happened. He hoped to strengthen and encourage the honest hearted, humble people of God, that have been, and still are, willing to keep the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus, to hold on to their past experience, in the connected chain of wonderful events and fulfilment of prophecy, which have been developed during the last seven years.221

Such writing sought to revive the faith of Adventists in keeping God’s commandments after the Great Disappointment. Knight argued, “For Bates Sabbatarian Adventism was a movement and a message anchored in history. More than that

216 George R. Knight, Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh-​ day Adventism (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2004), x. 217 Ibid., 135. 218 The Seventh-​day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign, From the Beginning to the Entering Into the Gates of the Holy City, According to the Commandment (1846); The Opening Heavens, or a Connected View of the Testimony of the Prophets and Apostles Concerning the Opening Heavens, Compared With Astronomical Observations, and of the Present and Future Location of the New Jerusalem, the Paradise of God (1846); Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, Or a Connected View, of the Fulfilment of the Prophecy, by God’s Peculiar People, From 1840 to 1847; and A Seal of the Living God: A Hundred Forty-​Four Thousand of the Servants of God Being Sealed (1849). 219 Knight, Joseph Bates, 135. 220 Bates, The Opening Heavens, 4. 221 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 43.

64

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

he equated the flow of history with his prophecy both fulfilled and being fulfilled.”222 His methodology connected prophecy to history. A key text for Bates was Jer 31:21. It was placed as the epigraph of the first section of Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps: “Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities” (Jer 31:21). Bates used this text to explain how the prophetic interpretation was the foundation for understanding the meaning of history. Bates saw Sabbatarian Adventism as parallel to ancient Israel. Both movements were under divine guidance. He retraced in biblical symbols, which he identified as way marks, the history of the Adventist people in the 1840s.223 The most important way mark was October 22, 1844. After this point, Sabbatarian Adventists were called to preach the three angels’ messages of Rev 14:6–​12. In that text, John described how he saw three angels following each other: the first preaching the everlasting Gospel (the Second Advent doctrine); the second angel announcing the fall of Babylon; and the third angel calling God’s people out of Babylon. Bates saw the Great Disappointment as an integral part of Sabbatarian Adventists’ identity. The discovery of the transition in the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, explaining why their expectation of the literal coming of Christ on Earth did not materialize, became a hallmark of their theology. He framed an understanding of history that illumined his followers. James White (1821–​1881) combined history and prophecy in ways similar to Bates. He was another co-​founder of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church and husband of the prophetess Ellen G. White. He served as church president (1865–​ 1867; 1868–​1871; 1874–​1880) and was well-​known for his publishing endeavors. He started The Present Truth (1849) and The Advent Review (1850). These and other publications analyze historical facts related to the Great Disappointment in the light of Bible prophecy. He noticed, No people can read history to better advantage than Seventh-​day Adventists. As Adventists, one important part of our work is to compare prophecy with history, and show the comparative nearness of the end. And, as observers of the ancient, and only, weekly Sabbath of Jehovah, we should become acquainted with its history, especially the means by which men have changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.224

2 22 Knight, Joseph Bates, 135. 223 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 49–​73. 224 James White, “Two Hundred Men Wanted,” Review and Herald, September 20, 1870, 7.

Earliest Attempts at Writing Theological History

65

Such publications were apologetic of the correlation between Bible prophecy and history. In November 1850, he combined The Present Truth and The Advent Review into Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. These periodicals were an integral part of how Adventists shaped their doctrines and beliefs. As a student of history and Bible prophecy, White wrote books to illustrate how Bible prophecy and history correlated. Some of the most significant include: The Signs of Times (1853) and The Second Coming of Christ, Matthew 24 (1876). They described how the Great Disappointment could be explained through Bible prophecy. The purpose of the Sabbatarians (between 1847 and 1850) was to “cheer and refresh the true believer, by showing the fulfillment of prophecy in the past wonderful work of God, in calling out, and separating from the world and nominal church, a people who are looking for the second advent of the dear Saviour.”225 White contextualized the reading of prophecy in the setting of the Millerite bitter experience after October 22, 1844. In the preface of The Signs of the Times, White affirmed, “our object in presenting this work is to set before you a condensed view of the most important signs which show that the second coming of Christ is very near.”226 He described how the Bible records events that point to the nearness of Christ, dating from the OT period to the NT era. He also described how the OT prophecy was fulfilled in the NT as to confirm the accuracy of Biblical prophecy. He noted that the birth of Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament (Num 24:17; Isa 7:14; Jer 31:15) and was fulfilled in the NT (Matt 2:1, 16–​18).227 White noted the authenticity of prophetic fulfillment and sought to revive the faith of Sabbatarian Adventists. The most extensive study of Bible prophecy and its correlation with history is The Signs of the Times, Showing That the Second Coming of Christ Is at the Doors: Spirit Manifestations, a Foretold Sign That the Day of God’s Wrath Hasteth Greatly. It is a description and interpretation of facts in relation to Matt 24. He described world events as a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He identified how teachers such as Mohammed, Caziba, Rabbi Lemlem, Ismael Sophus, and Rabbi Salomo Malcho were false in light of Bible prophecy.228 White, with much care, compared world events with Bible prophecy. He showed how prophecy 2 25 James White, “Call to Remember the Former Days,” Advent Review, August 1850, 11. 226 James White, The Signs of the Times, Showing That the Second Coming of Christ Is at the Doors: Spirit Manifestations, a Foretold Sign That the Day of God’s Wrath Hasteth Greatly (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald, 1853), 2. 227 Ibid., 4. 228 James White, His Glorious Appearing: An Exposition of Matthew Twenty-​Four; Revised and Illustrated (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1910), 6–​10.

66

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

enlightens the study of world history. He sought historical truth by diligently searching the Bible and historical sources, similar to the Protestant Reformers, Luther and Calvin, who sought to connect prophecy to the understanding of historical events.229 Another influential figure within early Sabbatarian Adventism to describe history in theological terms was John N. Andrews (1829–​1883).230 His most important work on history was History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week (1859).231 This work grounded seventh-​day Sabbath observance in its origins and historical development. Andrews focused his study of the Sabbath on history and prophecy. He argued that history belonged to the Lord of the Sabbath. The Scriptures were a testimony to the work of a divine hand who protected Sabbath keepers. “The future is given to us in the prophetic Scriptures. . . . Over this glorified inheritance, the second Adam, the Lord of the Sabbath, shall bear rule, and under his gracious protection the nations of them which are saved shall inherit the land forever.”232 His research anchored the validity of the seventh-​day Sabbath as having historical continuity with the present. He repeatedly showed how, through the centuries, there had always been those who preserved and perpetuated the seventh-​day Sabbath. Both White and Andrews sought the truth by searching the Bible and historical sources in a scholarly way. While not trained historians, they knew scholarship, respected it, and sought to emulate it. Their approach to history is one that was common for their age. Perhaps, the most influential historical writer who used prophecy as a way to understand history was Uriah Smith. He was the longest-​serving editor of the Review and Herald. He extensively wrote about history and Bible prophecy. “The prophetic perspective shaped his outlook.”233 His main interest was to study history to show how Bible prophecy was fulfilled. He was qualified to write about Adventist theology and prophetic interpretation.234 His most important work in 229 See the section Protestant Reformation and history of chapter one of this book. P. 32–​33. 230 Jean R. Zurcher, “Missionary to Europe,” in J. N. Andrews: The Man and the Mission, ed. Harry Leonard (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1985), 202–​203. 231 John N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week (Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1859). Later enlarged and published under the same title in 1873. 232 Ibid., 511. 233 Gary Land, Uriah Smith: Apologist and Bible Commentator (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014), 143. 234 George R. Knight, “Introduction,” in Uriah Smith: Apologist and Bible Commentator, by Gary Land (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014), 7.

Earliest Attempts at Writing Theological History

67

historical scholarship was The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (1897). It was extremely influential as a masterpiece about how to connect historical events to show the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.235 The book of Genesis shows how “the voice of prophecy began to be heard through human lips. . . . This sublime and earliest prophecy reaches to the end of time. And through all the intervening ages, other prophecies have covered all the more important events in the great drama of history.”236 He especially focused on the books of Daniel and Revelation. They called attention to “important prophetico-​ historical lessons.”237 Smith explained his readers “how accurately the prophecies, some of them depending upon the developments of the then far-​distant future, and upon conditions the most minute and complicated, have been fulfilled.”238 Prophecy was the reason why history was understandable and meaningful. His penchant for a prophetic understanding of history took precedence over the desire for historical accuracy. Therefore, he made history fit his preconceived prophetic ideas. A second major work was The United States in the Light of Prophecy: An Exposition of Rev. 13, 11 (1872). Here, he focused on the role of the United States of America in Bible prophecy. Smith argued, “For it must seem reasonable and probable that a nation which has arisen so suddenly as ours, made such unparalleled progress, and attained to such a pinnacle of greatness and power, must be a subject of divine prophecy, or at least of divine providence.”239 America was the beast that came out of the earth which John saw in vision. “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon” (Rev 13:11). He claimed that “the United States [must] have arisen in the exact manner in which John saw the two-​horned beast coming up.”240 U. Smith applied Bible prophecy to show how the United States would continue to play an important role in eschatology. He stated, “If we believe that there is a God who rules in the kingdoms of men (Dan 5:21), we must look for his providential hand in human history, in the rise, career, and fall of the nations and

235 Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation: The Response of History to the Voice of Prophecy (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1897). 236 Ibid., 3. Emphasis mine. 237 Ibid. 238 Ibid. 239 Uriah Smith, The United States in the Light of Prophecy: An Exposition of Rev. 13, 11 (Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1872), 6. This was later published under the title Uriah Smith, Our Country, the Marvel of Nations: Its Past, Present, and Future, and What the Scriptures Say of It (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald, 1886). 240 U. Smith, The United States, 53.

68

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

peoples of the world.”241 Thus, for Smith, even future events, including America’s destiny to fulfill Bible prophecy, would someday be validated as historically verifiable: “One was history anticipated, the other was prophecy fulfilled.”242 He argued that prophecy is history anticipated and that history shows prophecy fulfilled. He provided a strong connection between history and prophecy. Early Adventist writers of history interpreted historical facts through the lens of the Bible—​the Bible assumes the Sovereignty of God over history. They connected the understanding of historical events to biblical prophecy. They saw the cross of Christ as a landmark in historical fulfilments of prophetic interpretation. Their descriptions of events revolved around the historical Jesus, His birth, mission, death, resurrection, and Second Coming. They did not hide their penchant to mold history to prophetic ideas. Their view of prophecy not only informed their historical methodology but clearly took precedence over their desire for historical investigation. They fitted their description of history within the sphere of Bible prophecy. The prophetic interpretation of Bates, Andrews, White, and Smith determined their use of history because they were primarily prophetic expositors, not historians. Thus, their theological take on history left them vulnerable to the error of using history inappropriately by cherry-​picking evidences to support their preconceived ideas, just as Miller had done with his interpretation of the sanctuary as the earth. In summary, these four writers—​Bates, White, Andrews, and Smith—​used history to validate prophecy. History showed how Bible prophecy is true. The fact that God providentially intervened in history was what gave history its constant meaning and significance. Their writings acknowledged the importance of history. Perhaps, Ellen G. White benefited from these early reflections to develop her understanding of history.

Ellen G. White’s Approach to Theological History Among the early Adventist pioneers, the approach of Ellen G. White is significant because she shared similar views of theological history with Bates, Smith, and Andrews. Her influential role as a prophetic messenger means that her views deserve separate treatment. She wrote systematically and extensively about history even though she never claimed to be a historian.243 2 41 U. Smith, Our Country, 5. 242 Reynaud, “Understanding History,” 55. 243 William C. White said that her mother never wished her readers should consider her writings “as authority regarding the details of history or historical dates. . . . When ‘Controversy’ was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as

Ellen G. White’s Approach to Theological History

69

In her approach to history, White did not separate history from theology. Her concept of history was different from that of academic historians. She viewed biblical history as sacred. The formal study of history tends to view history through the prism of laws of causalities and reason.244 Instead, White relied primarily on Bible prophecy to interpret and understand the past. Arthur L. White, her grandson, argued, “As Moses watched history in advance so did Ellen G. White in vision watched history develop, both past and future, and she was commissioned ‘to trace this history.’ ”245 White adhered to a providential view of history. In order to grasp White’s view of history, it is essential to move beyond her selection of sources. This is crucial for the Seventh-​day Adventist Church because history is closely tied to a search for identity. Three theological concepts frame White’s view of history: the Bible as sacred history, prophecy and history, and the cosmic conflict and history. These concepts are interrelated. The concept of the Bible as sacred history provides insight for understanding the relationship between prophecy and the cosmic conflict in history.

The Bible as Sacred History The starting point of White’s view of history was the Bible as sacred history. The events presented in the Bible really happened. The Bible was the true account of the past. She acknowledged, The Bible is the most comprehensive and the most instructive history which men possess. It came fresh from the fountain of eternal truth, and a Divine hand has preserved its purity through all the ages. Its bright rays shine into the far distant, past, where human research seeks vainly to penetrate. In God’s word alone we find an authentic account of creation. Here we behold the power that laid the foundation of the earth, and

authority on historical dates or use it to settle controversy regarding details of history, and she does not now feel that it should be used in that way. Mother regards with great respect the work of those faithful historians who have devoted years of time to the study of God’s great plan as presented in the prophecy, and the outworking of that plan as recorded in history.” quoted in Ellen G. White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 3 (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1980), 447. 244 Thomas Gil, “Leopold von Ranke,” in A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography, ed. Avierzer Tucker (Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2011), 383–​392. 245 Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1973), 126. The chapter “Ellen G. White as a Historian” was a paper by the same title presented at the Quadrennial Council on Higher Education at Andrews University, August 1968.

70

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach that stretched out the heavens. Here only, can we find a history of our race, unsullied by human prejudice or human pride.246

The Bible was a fully reliable and sacred document: Creation took six literal days, Jonah lived inside a whale for three days, Noah’s ark floated over the water with eight human beings for 150 days, the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, Joshua stopped the sun for a period, and the earth is now 6,000 years old. The Bible is true in its entirety and contains revealed truth. “I take the Bible just as it is, as the Inspired Word. I believe its utterances in an entire Bible,”247 she said. Furthermore, she admonished, “Brethren, let not a mind or hand be engaged in criticizing the Bible. It is a work that Satan delights to have any of you do, but it is not a work the Lord has pointed out for you to do.”248 White challenged the reading of the Bible as simply a literary book, along with critical historical reflection. The Christian life includes the devotio. One should believe the biblical, historical account that recognizes the supernatural. The Bible is different from any other books. As a consequence, the attempt to approach the sacred account in a meaningful way must start with faith. White modelled faith as the means of finding meaning in history.249 Faith sustains the conviction in historical events beyond one’s understanding. The Bible is a sacred history and faith must be the key to approaching it. White did not doubt the authenticity, accuracy, and importance of the Bible. She believed every single biblical, historical account.

Prophecy and History Closely related to the role of the Bible in history was White’s emphasis on the role of prophecy in history. For White, the fulfillment of prophecy was the most important reason for studying history. She wrote, “We are to see in history the fulfilment of prophecy.”250 Prophecy was and is the key to unlock the significance of the past, present, and future. Prophecy locates each generation within their immediate context. White affirmed, “By a thorough investigation of the

246 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1890), 596. 247 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 1 (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958), 17. 248 Ibid. 249 Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1903), 47. 250 Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905), 441.

Ellen G. White’s Approach to Theological History

71

prophecies we understand where we are in this world’s history.”251 She urged Christians to study Bible prophecy.252 White believed that her writing about Bible prophecy was why her book The Great Controversy was important. It is “above all silver and gold.”253 She desired “that it shall come before the people.”254 She said, “While writing the manuscript of Great Controversy, I was often conscious of the presence of the angels of God. And many times the scenes about which I was writing were presented to me anew in visions of the night, so that they were fresh and vivid in my mind.”255 She recognized the place of divine revelation and inspiration in both receiving and writing what she knew about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. White made the books of Daniel and Revelation the special focus of her Bible study.256 “As we near the close of this world’s history,” she said, “the prophecies relating to the last days especially demand our study.”257 Together, these two books explain history from God’s perspective. Such study has enormous advantages for Christians. “They will be given such glimpses of the open gates of heaven that heart and mind will be impressed with the character that all must develop in order to realize the blessedness which is to be the reward of the pure in heart.”258 White devoted much thought to prophecy and its relationship to history. It was through prophecy that White endeavoured to unravel the mysteries of the future. She viewed prophecy as a means of understanding the meaning of history. It is through prophecy that “we know for a certainty that the Second Coming of Christ is near.”259 According to her, prophecy appears to be a light in the highway of history. It was through prophecy that White found a connection 251 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1881), 4:592. 252 E. G., White Christ’s Object Lessons, 133. 253 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 3 (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958), 123. 254 Ibid. 255 Ibid. 256 White’s early Millerite’s experience led her to dedicate much study to prophetic books. Her conversion included listening to Wm. Miller preach about the Second Coming. See, E. G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 133; E. G. White, Early Writings, 137; Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923), 116; Ellen G. White, Lift Him Up (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1988), 378. 257 E. G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 137. 258 Ibid. 259 E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 592.

72

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

between history and the Great Controversy whose end marks the culmination of prophecy. Thus Ellen G. White’s approach to history was more or less similar to that of Bates’, J. White’s, Andrews’, and Smith’s. The only difference between her and them is that Ellen G. White claimed a direct prophetic revelation for her exposition of historical facts, something that the others did not do.

The Great Controversy Theme The Great Controversy theme is the most important integrating and unifying theme in the writings of Ellen G. White.260 She describes “two principles that are contending for supremacy.”261 Every student “should learn to trace their working through the records of history and prophecy, to the great consummation.”262 The Bible presents the purpose of God to counteract evil forces. This conflict is universal in scope. The battle for supremacy is played out in earth’s history but it is a battle which originated literally in heaven. Humans find themselves as participants in this saga. This controversy describes the cosmic battle between Christ and Satan in past ages, and especially in the present, and the future.263 It is a battle “between truth and error,” which seeks to reveal “the wiles of Satan, and the means by which he may be successfully resisted; to present a satisfactory solution of the great problem of evil.”264 This theme elaborates White’s understanding of history. It is mapped out in a series of five books covering all of world history: Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, The Desires of Ages, The Acts of Apostles, and The Great Controversy. This series was initially compiled (NO—​ this book is no “compilation”!) in a single volume known as Spiritual Gifts: The Controversy Between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels (1858). This theme gives an encyclopaedic view of history and its meaning for Seventh-​day Adventists. It presents the biblical view of historical happenings.265 Through its lens, the drama of world history and even the entire universe became understandable. This theme significantly provides answers to the origin of sin, the reason of human suffering, death in human history, the rise and fall of earthly

260 Bates was the first to frame the doctrine of the Great Controversy. See Knight, Joseph Bates, 115. In this study, I use the terms “great controversy” and “cosmic conflict” interchangeably. 261 E. G. White, Education, 190. 262 Ibid. 263 E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 13. 264 Ibid., 14. 265 E. G. White, “Early Counsels on Medical Work,” Review & Herald, June 18, 1914, 7.

Ellen G. White’s Approach to Theological History

73

powers, the spread of the Gospel, last day events, and the implications of this battle for the entire universe.266 The suffering of John Huss takes on new meaning, Luther’s protest had far-​reaching significance, the weeping of the Anabaptists was a sign that God’s deliverance was nigh, and, the Puritans’ migration to New England at the outbreak of their persecution in the 17th century mirrored the historical story of Exodus in the OT.267 The Great Controversy as understood in Seventh-​day Adventism demonstrates the unchanging love of God for the whole universe.268 It reveals the meaning and necessity of the Cross of Christ. “The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe 266 Gary Land, “Philosophy of History,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 870–​872. 267 A further resource on the great controversy theme is Joseph J. Battistone’s, “Ellen G. White’s Central Theme,” accessed July 31, 2018, https://​www.ministrymagazine. org/​archive/​1975/​10/​eilen-​g.-​whites-​central-​theme. 268 The concept of the great controversy itself was no creation of Seventh-​day Adventism. Earlier Christian writers discussed the concept, though from a different perspective. N. P. Miller argued well that “to see the importance of this central Adventist doctrine [the Great Controversy], we must understand its roots, and we must embrace the paradox that knowing about others and their contributions to our identity will help us to appreciate our own identity fully.” N. P. Miller, The Reformation and the Remnant: The Reformers Speak to Today’s Church (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2016), 36. N. P. Miller found an amazing connection between the idea of E. G. White and that of Albert Barnes. The two figures were “connected by their commitment to the powerful idea that God runs a moral government and that He is willing for His created beings to evaluate the fairness of that government.” Ibid. According to N. P. Miller, E. G. White “developed and refined her ideas of the theme of the great controversy between Christ and Satan” basically “within the framework of God’s moral government.” Ibid. As E. G. White cherished the works of Barnes, there was a possibility she got influenced by his views. There is no doubt that the awareness of a conflict between the forces of good and evil has deep historical root. Some Christian writers in their own perceptions assumed the existence of an invisible conflict throughout history. This awareness of the teaching of the great controversy in Christianity should not belittle Seventh-​day Adventism’s own perception of the great controversy theme. Other scholars show that the concept of a cosmic conflict was present in the study of John Milton and that of Horace L. Hastings. Horace L. Hastings authored a book titled The Great Controversy Between God and Man (Rochester, NY: Author, 1858). Although it is not ascertained that E. G. White borrowed from Milton, she was given a copy of Paradise Lost after she completed her own book on Christ. Heidi O. Campbell and Michael W. Campbell, “John Milton,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 984–​986.

74

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan.”269 Following the historical and prophetic place of Christ in history, the historian participates in the vindication of God’s character through his pen and his own voice. White pointedly stated, “By pen and voice we are to sound the proclamation, showing their [three angels’ messages] order. . . . These messages we are to give to the world in publications, in discourses, showing in the line of prophetic history the things that have been, and the things that will be.”270 According to White, the Adventist historian should recognize that his or her place in historical scholarship is to advance the understanding that history, prophecy, and identity are inseparable. Through this theme, the past becomes understandable. In itself, the theme does not present new truths. Instead, it reveals how human struggle finds ultimate meaning. Thus, “records of the past are seen to have a new significance.”271 The theme unlocks God’s purpose for humanity. E. G. White valued history because she studied history with a view of hope for a glorious future. It is important to note that Ellen G. White was not just concerned about historical facts but rather saw their theological significance. She did not write academic or scholarly history. She did, however, recognize that historical events are important and that their ultimate meaning can only be found by studying the Bible. Her historical reflections were based upon divine revelation starting with the Bible. It was this understanding of history that contributed to the unique identity of Seventh-​day Adventism. White provided a dossier of insights about how to interpret history. Historians generally describe historical events as originating from their immediate natural circumstances. They are not concerned about a divine agency in connection to historical events. White interpreted these same events from a broad religious framework because she saw God’s involvement in history. Thus, for her, theology and history were integrally connected. The history that mattered for her was those events within the framework of God’s action that extends throughout history. Ellen G. White was influenced by historians of the Christian Church who produced famous histories in the 19th century. Two of these historians had a visible impact on her description of historical facts. The first historian was Jean Henry Merle D’Aubigné. As noted earlier in Chapter 1, Merle was one of the

2 69 E. G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 69. 270 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 2 (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958), 104. 271 E. G. White, The Great Controversy, xii.

Ellen G. White’s Approach to Theological History

75

most popular historians of the 19th century. His books on Christian history had a widespread circulation across the globe. He wrote in French and his writings were translated into English and received a great appreciation in England and in America. Philip Schaff noted that Merle’s writings “had a wider circulation, at least in the English translations, than any other book on church history.”272 He was “the most important historian of the Reformation for the nineteenth-​century Evangelical Protestants.”273 As highlighted in Chapter 1, one of the most important aspects in d’Aubigné’s historiography is the intervention of God in human affairs. He saw God as being the primary cause in the world. Human actions were viewed as secondary causes. Such understanding of history prioritizes theological interpretation over historical method rooted in scientific interpretation of facts. Merlin was not trained as a historian but as historical theologian. His official title was “Docteur en Théologie.”274 If he was referred to as a historian, he was one with an orientation in theology. Later Christian historians refined this methodology to be more sophisticated and complex. Christian historians such as Schaff and Fisher not only sought commitment to Christian faith, but also demonstrated a clear engagement with solid historical scholarship. The Open critical thinkers in Adventist historiography would benefit from Schaff and Fisher’s stylish approach to write Adventist history. Without doubt, Ellen G. White was conversant with the writings of D’Aubigné. She quoted him at least 43 times in her 1911 edition of The Great Controversy. She praised him for his providential approach to the history of the European Protestant Reformation. She also relied on him to substantiate her descriptions of the history of the Protestant Reformation.275 The second historian who may have had an influence on Ellen G. White’s view of history was Philip Schaff, another popular historian of the 19th century. At least seven times she referred to the works of Schaff as a way to document the activities of the papacy and its doctrinal teachings.276 The fact that Ellen G. White quoted and acknowledged the works of these two historians, D’Aubigné and Schaff, showed that she was familiar with their writings and historical methods. D’Aubigné’s and Schaff ’s commitment to Protestant and Evangelical faith created an irresistible appreciation of Ellen 272 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scriber’s Son, 1903), 6:333. 273 Roney, “Jean Henry Merle d’Aubigné,” 167. 274 Ibid., 170. 275 White, The Great Controversy, 63, 234, 246, 278. 276 Ibid., 686, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 686.

76

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

G. White. Her descriptions of historical facts that integrates theology as part of history, was derived not only from her prophetic mantle, but also from her reading of the 19th century historians. Other Adventist writers of history of the 19th century (Bates, James White, Andrews, and Smith, and Loughborough) who produced theological works were also influenced by D’Aubigné and Schaff. These Adventist historians sought to describe historical facts by considering the divine cause as the primary factor in historical explanation. Thus, D’Aubigné and Schaff ’s theological tone was taken up not only by Ellen G. White, but also by Bates, James White, Andrews, and Smith, and Loughborough. Also, the Adventist writers of history were influenced by their Millerite peers.277 They studied history through the lens of theology because their understanding and interpretation of history were shaped by the belief in the urgency of the Second Coming of Christ. Ernest Sandeen argues that “America in the early nineteenth century,” he noticed, “was drunk on the millennium.”278 Several past historical events heightened this proclamation of the soon-​coming of the Kingdom of God. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 and the French Revolution in 1789, coupled with political tensions of the early 19th century, led the Millerites to study history from the angle of Bible prophecy. The eyes of the Millerites and Christian historians of the 19th century were turned to the study of biblical prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation.279 A special regard was on the interpretation of events which led to the arrest of Pope Pius VI. In February 1798, Napoleon’s general Berthier captured and dethroned the Pope. For many Sabbatarian Adventists, the capture of the Pope was the “deadly wound” inflicted to the papal system as described in Daniel 7:25, Revelation 12:6, 14; 13:4.280 Thus, early Adventist writers of history approached history from the context of their time. This approach did not include critical understanding and reflection because that way of doing history was a product of a later time and historical context. The subsequent Adventist historical writers, especially those writing 277 Rowe, God’s Strange Work. This book describes Wm. Miller’s methods as an expositor of Bible prophecy and history. 278 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millernarianism, 1800–​1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 42. 279 J. F. C. Harrison, The Second Coming: Popular Millenarianism1780–​ 1850 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979), 5, 57; Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism, 6,7. 280 LeRoy E. Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C: .Review and Herald, 1946–​1954), See particularly, vol. 2., 753–​759.

The Crowning Piece of Theological History Writing

77

apologetic histories in the footsteps of their predecessors, adopted with plausible endorsement this theological method for their historical inquiries. They reflected upon history to cement the Adventist faith with the legacy and testimonies of their forerunners.

The Crowning Piece of Theological History Writing The most acknowledged individual who synthesized previous historical writings into a real attempt at writing history was John N. Loughborough. He wrote the first extensive book about the history of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, stressing its confessional purpose.281 His Rise and Progress of the Seventh-​day Adventists: With Tokens of God’s Hand in the Movement and Brief Sketch of the Advent Cause From 1831 to 1844, later updated and republished as The Great Second Advent Movement: Its Rise and Progress became foundational to Seventh-​ day Adventist historiography. Loughborough provides the first attempt to elaborate a framework for explaining the origins of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. He wrote his books with a historian’s approach. His contemporaries, J. White and E. G. White, among others, frequently acknowledged him as the historian of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church.282 He was an eyewitness for most of the stories and anecdotes he told with unwavering passion. His narrative was mostly from his diary. He also relied on what he heard. “I esteem it a pleasure,” he said, “to ‘speak the things which I have seen and heard.’ ”283 He chronicled events that happened in the life of the young denomination. Rise and Progress stressed the providential hand of God in Adventist history. Loughborough identified the evidence of God’s blessings upon the church. “In and through all the story, the hand of God is seen overruling and leading,”284 noticed William A. Spicer. The collection of facts in the book supports Loughborough’s supernatural approach to history. He reported about miracles and supernatural 281 Loughborough published in 1892 the first meaningful and comprehensive book on the history of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. The book Rise and Progress provided considerable facts for the knowledge of early Adventist history. The term “rise and progress” encapsulated the whole philosophy of mission for which the young denomination stood. The church, following the instruction of the prophet Isaiah (“Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you” Isa 60:1, NIV) had to rise and progress in the preaching of the Gospel. 282 Strayer, J. N. Loughborough, 327. 283 Loughborough, Rise and Progress, iii. 284 William A. Spicer, review of The Rise and Progress, by J. N. Loughborough, Home Missionary IV (1892): 219.

78

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach

facts pertaining to the Second Advent movement. He believed the visions of E. G. White and was willing to share their importance and meaning for the young denomination.”285 Loughborough saw E. G. White in visions not less than 50 times.286 Therefore, he used history as a way to popularize the gift of prophecy manifest in the writings of E. G. White. At a time of unbelief and doubt in her prophetic ministry, E. G. White urged, “do not fasten Loughborough in a corner anywhere; do not bind him down to any one special conference. . . . What we need now is to cherish Elder Loughborough to make as far as possible his experience serve the cause of God in a wider sphere.”287 The prophet supported the historian to preach through history. E. G. White wrote that “Elder Loughborough has stood firmly for the testimonies, and should not he who dares to be true be especially cared for? Why should he be required to occupy a position in Nebraska?”288 E. G. White gave her full support to Loughborough for sharing his convictions contained in the Rise and Progress. Rise and Progress was the product of a group effort. Loughborough credited E. G. White with providing him the title. Several people gave testimonies which were included in the book. Exciting accounts in The Signs of the Times, Midnight Cry (1843–​1844), Present Truth (1849), other Adventist periodicals, and E. G. White’s writings shaped and influenced Loughborough’s mind. In a letter to Loughborough, E. G. White wrote, “I sent you these articles to read and put in the book you talk of getting out.”289 Loughborough uncritically compiled and chronicled facts from various individuals. Brian E. Strayer examined Loughborough’s method by noting that although he “possessed a sharp memory for details and often went to great lengths to verify the facts in his books, his historical interpretations . . . sometimes fell short of complete accuracy, especially when the facts clashed with his optimistic view of ‘the rise and progress’ of the great ‘Second Advent Movement.’ ”290 He did not always check his sources 285 For example, Loughborough confirmed that “Mrs. White was praying in a whisper, when the power of God came down in a most wonderful manner, manifestly affecting all who were present, and in a moment she was lost to all that was transpiring around her—​she was in vision.” Loughborough, Rise and Progress, 92. 286 Ibid., 93. 287 Ellen G. White to Albert O. Olsen, October 7, 1890, Letter 20, 1890, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. 288 Ibid. 289 Ellen G. White to John N. Loughborough, August 19, 1890, Letter 103, 1890, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. 290 Strayer, John N. Loughborough, 16.

The Crowning Piece of Theological History Writing

79

carefully. He followed his predecessors who cherry-​picked the evidence to support their pet ideas. Loughborough was not open to a broader and more complex understanding of the truth. Like Bede who attributed the coming of Christianity to England to divine providence, Loughborough was much satisfied with a providential view of history. He was not much concerned about producing historically reliable and verifiable works. Loughborough’s book received wide acclaim in the denomination. The church’s leadership encouraged people to read it and distributed it widely. E. G. White noted that “Elder Loughborough’s book should receive attention. Our leading men should see what can be done for the circulation of this book.”291 Spicer asserted, “Every Seventh-​day Adventist should be interested, not only to read it himself, but to give it as wide a circulation as possible.”292 He then added, “It would seem impossible for anyone . . . to read this book without feeling the conviction that God is indeed in this work.”293 William Ings reaffirmed that “if you are old in the faith, you need it. If you are young in the faith, you surely ought to read it. If you need encouragement, this book will give it to you.”294 The book received popular acceptance. The republished version of Rise and Progress which appeared under the title The Great Second Advent Movement: Its Rise and Progress, was a mature study. Loughborough reviewed his methodology by interviewing E. G. White and several other people. Although this updated version does not have a bibliography, it has some occasional footnotes. In these, the quotations from the Bible and the writings of E. G. White are dominant. Loughborough uncritically wrote about Seventh-​day Adventism. He basically chronicled the events that took place in favoring the growth of Seventh-​ day Adventism. He wrote history, not to interpret the facts but because it was “a fascinating narrative.”295 Historical events were the results of God’s intervention in Adventist history. He just pointed out how God favored the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church among many Christian denominations to be the bearer of His seal. Loughborough confessed the living reality of God in his writing just as d’Aubigné. He did also refer to him in his description of Adventist history. D’Aubigné’s imprint is visible in Loughborough’s methodology. He did notice that D’Aubigné through his study of the History of the Reformation, presents

2 91 E. G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, 145. 292 Spicer, review of The Rise and Progress, 219. 293 Ibid. 294 William Ings, “Rise and Progress,” Review and Herald, February 21, 1893, 219. 295 Strayer, John N. Loughborough, 16.

80

History as Faith Commitment: Theological Approach one of the indubitable proof of God’s hand in the work, the fact that men, in different countries, with no knowledge of one another, were moved upon to investigate, and came before their respective countrymen to herald, the doctrine of pardon and salvation through Christ without the imposed penance and absolution of the Catholic Church.296

Loughborough followed D’ Aubigné’s approach that put emphasis on the divine cause in the interpretation of history. In sum, Loughborough was the first historian who sought to chronicle historical events about the development of Seventh-​day Adventism. It is worth noting that “for half a century his book The Great Second Advent Movement served as a textbook on church history at Adventist academies and colleges.”297 It is even more impressive to note that “Missionary Volunteers from 1908 into the 1950s studied that book to pass exams in denominational history and thus receive the coveted Standard of Attainment Award.”298 Loughborough chronicled the positive side of Seventh-​day Adventism. Although he, just like Andrews, was primarily writing history, he was not careful about his sources as a modern historian would be. They both departed in some ways from Bates, J. White, and Smith’s approach to history because they viewed themselves somehow as church historians. Loughborough would especially provide a frame of historiography that would be emulated by later historical writers.

Summary and Conclusion This chapter examined a major approach that dominated the early attempts at reflecting on historical facts: theological history. Bates, J. White, Andrews, and Smith made use of history to affirm their understanding of prophetic interpretation and historical accounts. They saw Bible prophecy as the main category of historical investigation. They also saw God’s providence as advancing the course of world events towards a goal. These historical writers grasped a teleological understanding of history. Most particularly, E. G. White systematized the early Adventist reflection on linking prophecy to historical narrative. With three theological concepts (the Bible as sacred history, prophecy and history, and the great controversy and history), E. G. White framed her view of history. With these interconnected theological themes, she saw God’s superintendence above and throughout all human history. She viewed history from God’s perspective. She was primarily interested in connecting key historical events to their biblical 2 96 Loughborough, Rise and Progress, 15. 297 Strayer, John N. Loughborough, 19. 298 Ibid., 18.

Summary and Conclusion

81

framework. The great controversy theme was connected to this biblical framework. Subsequent historical writers followed in the steps of Bates and other early historical writers by emphasizing faith as the ultimate means to explain history. They championed the providential view of history as they trusted in the testimonies of the pioneers. Lougborough, just as his predecessors, chronicled facts about Adventist history in a way to convince people of the peculiarity of his denomination. He intentionally used history as a means of evangelism. Early Adventist history writers, following their Millerite peers, sought to provide authoritative proof to affirm God’s leading in the life of the church. For this reason, they provided a reading of historical events from the perspective of how God influenced the course of the Adventist Church. They reflected upon history to glue the Adventist faith with the testimonies of the early Sabbatarians. They incorporated theological categories to describe the Adventist past. Prophecy, eschatology, and the commitment to their faith system characterized their approach. They found comfort in God’s hand as the most significant factor in influencing Adventist history. Apologetic historians refined the Fideistapproach of providential leading by paying close attention to the importance of traditional beliefs. 299

299 Fideist approach is the writing of history adopted by some trained and untrained historians and writers of history which professes commitment to churchly beliefs and avoids engagement with secular historical method to write history.

Chapter 3 Christian History as Apologetics: A Survey of Adventist Approaches Apologetics is an integral part of Christian historiography.300 Apologetic Christian historians provide reasons to validate Christian truths. They look for logical arguments to refute objections against Christianity. Three basic functions exist for Christian apologetics. First, they defend Christian beliefs.301 Such arguments often depend upon historical documentation. As they develop their arguments, they aim to affirm Christian convictions. Arguments drawn from history reinforce a distinct religious perspective. Second, some historians adopt apologetic methods in order to refute other Christian groups.302 The purpose of such apologetics is to distinguish their identity from those of others. Third, apologists persuade others to encourage them to accept Christianity. Whichever method or combination thereof, ultimately an apologist seeks to explain Christian beliefs to those who either misunderstand or perhaps are confused about what exactly is Christian identity. Historians serve a useful purpose in this process by providing historical documentation that can validate and reinforce such apologetic claims. This chapter surveys the development of Seventh-​day Adventist apologetic historiography from the time period after Loughborough. Loughborough represents the culmination of the first stage of Adventist historiography that resulted in an apologetic chronicling of Adventist history. A second formative stage of Adventist historiography built upon the work of Loughborough that exhibited these various aspects of apologetic history (sometimes overlapping or combining all two purposes). This chapter further studies these apologetic Adventist historians in the time period after Loughborough that lasted through much of the 20th century up through the early 1960s. The 1960s and

300 See Glenn B. Siniscalchi, Retrieving Apologetics (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016); Yosseff Schwartz and Volhard Krech, eds., Religious Apologetics: Philosophical Argumentation (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Avery C. Dulles, A History of Apologetics (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2005). 301 Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 4–​7. 302 Francis R. Beattie, The Rational Vindication of Christianity (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1903), 1:56.

84

Christian History as Apologetics

1970s witnessed a third significant stage in Adventist historiography covered in Chapter 4. Three major areas of Adventist apologetic historiography constitute the focus of this chapter. First, the chapter highlights significant persons who contributed substantial works of Adventist history during this time period. While it is not possible to include every single author, some noteworthy personalities include Mahlon E. Olsen, William A. Spicer, Arthur W. Spalding, Francis D. Nichol, LeRoy Froom, and Albert V. Olson. A second area focuses on textbooks used to teach Adventist history. A third focus of this chapter analyzes the work of the Ellen G. White Estate from the time of its formation after the death of E. G. White in 1915 up through the 1960s. This range of work includes the work of E. G. White’s son, W. C. White, who was the first person to lead the White Estate, as well as the early leadership of A. L. White. It also highlights important works by staff members as well as the board chairman of the White Estate who contributed important works related to E. G. White’s life and ministry, which became a major focus of Adventist historiography during this time period. In surveying the development of Adventist apologetics during this second phase of Adventist historiography, it is important to recognize the wide range of apologetic purposes that at times can even overlap or show multiple purposes. This chapter seeks to understand why apologetic history flourished within Adventism.

Individual Historical Narratives A central aspect of writing apologetic history is the need to affirm theological beliefs. Such a positive assertion of beliefs generally comes with a strong pronouncement about how God has led providentially in the past, particularly in the early time period when church pioneers identified core beliefs. While this method can certainly be seen in Chapter 2 with persons such as E. G. White and Loughborough, this same trend continued in the 20th century by a number of imitators. Some of the most significant for the purpose of this study include Olsen, Spicer, Spalding, Nichol, Froom, and A. V. Olson. Each historian is examined in roughly chronological order following when they produced their most significant work of Adventist apologetics. The major difference between the earliest historical writers and the apologetics historians is that the latter is the first generation of historians who were not eye-​witnesses anymore. They had to write history in way from archival materials and interviews of those who survived the pioneers. This first generation of Adventist historians saw the writings of Adventist pioneers as directly guided by the Holy Spirit. They had no concern of

Individual Historical Narratives

85

critically examining the writings of their predecessors. To do so, would had been, in some ways, a heresy. The earliest apologist among Adventist historians was Mahlon E. Olsen (1873–​1952).303 He was the first to publish a book about Adventist history after the death of Loughborough and the first to write about Adventist history who had an earned doctorate. This was one of the major reasons why he viewed himself as a church historian. This could explain the difference between him and Loughborough. John W. Taylor suggests that Olsen’s book started out as a collaborative effort with chapters by many writers.304 W. C. White and Arthur G. Daniells provided helpful criticism. The project started in 1909 and came to fruition in 1925. His style in this book was directed at a popular audience and narrative in style.305 He clearly admired Loughborough. In his own narrative, he emphasized the importance of the Millerite experience culminating in 1844, the development of core beliefs including the seventh-​day Sabbath, the three angels’ messages, the cleansing of the sanctuary doctrine, and how key lifestyle components such as health and temperance came about.306 He defended the origin of Adventist beliefs as the providential work of God in the development of the denomination; he followed in the line of his predecessors, Bates, Andrews, J. White, and Loughborough. While his style and methodology largely resemble Loughborough’s, he is somewhat different in that he relied upon documentary sources in contrast to Loughborough who was an eyewitness of important events at the beginning of the denomination.307 Seventh-​day Adventist history found its most legitimate basis in the continuity between the founders of the denomination with other great movements in Christian history. By linking the writings of Adventist pioneers to Luther and John Calvin, Olsen followed in the steps of Ellen G. White who admired these reformers in her book the Great Controversy. The family background of Olsen could explain his appreciation for Protestant Reformation. The father of Olsen was from a Lutheran family in Norway. In 1850, the whole family moved to the 303 John W. Taylor, “Mahlon Ellsworth Olsen: Health Reformer, Educator, and Historian,” paper presented at the Association of SDA Historians, Oakwood University, Huntsville, AL, 2007, 3. See Mahlon E. Olsen, Much‐Loved Books (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1952), 55. 304 Taylor, “Mahlon Ellsworth Olsen,” 15–​16. 305 Ibid., 14. 306 Mahlon E. Olsen, A History of the Origin and Progress of Seventh-​day Adventists, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1925), 143–​198, 255–​272. 307 Ibid., 21–​195.

86

Christian History as Apologetics

United States where they accepted the Adventist faith. In America, they met J. White and E. G. White and became family friends. The Whites were instrumental in introducing the Olsen family to the seventh-​day Sabbath and other Seventh-​day Adventist beliefs. Whereas Olsen viewed the Protestant Reformation as providing historical context to his historical reflections he was actually following a similar methodology used by many other Christian historians such as Jean Merle D’Aubigné and Philip Schaff as referred to in Chapter 1. He did not explicitly refer to D’Aubigné, but he adopted largely his style and methodology. Olsen lived during the time the works of Schaff and Fisher left an influence on American Christian historiography; he could be aware of their historical methods that combined piety and scholarship. By trying to show that Adventism as a reform movement had a direct claim to orthodoxy based upon its doctrinal purity, he stretched the foundation of Adventism. Therefore, he spends a great deal of time connecting Adventist history to Luther, the Anabaptists, and Puritanism.308 Luther was significant for his emphasis on Sola Scriptura, which he believed was the fundamental principle for Adventist theology. Similarly, the Anabaptists, who adhered to a literal reading of Scripture that caused them to reject practices such as infant baptism, were correspondingly important. It was this same kind of logic of interpretation that had caused Adventist pioneers to accept the seventh-​day Sabbath. The Puritans were important because the Seventh-​day Adventist Church embraced their ideals of rejecting the religious practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Another important area of context was the history of prophetic interpretation. Many other earlier expositors had used the day-​year principle and there was a long line of individuals who interpreted Bible prophecy in the same way. Thus, according to Olsen, Adventist theology had a rich continuity with the past. Another area that was important for Olsen to document was God’s providential leading in the founding of the church. In Olsen’s most significant work, A History of the Origin and Progress of Seventh-​day Adventists (1925), the very title of the book is illuminating.309 Olsen saw himself in direct continuity with Loughborough. Olsen’s book resembles Loughborough’s book’s title Rise and Progress of the Seventh-​day Adventists: With Tokens of God’s Hand in the Movement and Brief Sketch of the Advent Cause From 1831 to 1844 (1892). Both works offer an account about the growth of the denomination as something small and obscure that becomes a much larger denomination spreading around

3 08 Ibid., 33–​72. 309 Ibid., 9.

Individual Historical Narratives

87

the globe. This emphasis upon church growth becomes a compelling justification and affirmation for them about God’s providence, particularly when contrasted with other Adventist denominations after the Millerite movement who remained relatively obscure or who even disappeared. While the two titles are similar, Olsen differed from Loughborough in some important ways including style and progression of ideas. His style is more professional with diligent choice of words, sentence structure, and paragraph structure. He conveys his message more effectively. He also has a logical progression of ideas. This was a reflection of his academic training, something that Loughborough did not have. Where Loughborough saw justification for Adventism as an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation, Olsen traced the origins of Adventism back even further by making the case that Adventist origins can be traced back to the apostolic church.310 While Loughborough claimed this because the Reformation was an attempt at returning to apostolic purity by affirming to the authority of Scripture alone, it was important for Olsen to trace this lineage back to the apostolic church. The rich history of prophetic interpretation was another important way that Olsen connected the past with the present. The context of prophetic interpretation included studying other expositors of Bible prophecy during the 19th century, the Great Awakening in the United States of America, and the Great Disappointment.311 For Olsen, these three factors provided the context through which the birth of the church could be explained. Olsen worked from the same model of providential history even though, in terms of his methods, he had to work with documentary evidence. Olsen demonstrates a primary focus on persuasion. He did not delve into refuting or defending the denomination from key critics of his lifetime such as Albion F. Ballenger, the Rowenites, and John H. Kellogg and did not even discuss the 1888 crisis at Minneapolis. He did mention Kellogg312 but did not intend to refute his views or the conflicts that the denomination went through because of Kellogg. He only referred to him when he was listing a few individuals who were present at a schoolboard that sought to reinforce the idea of Adventist philosophy of education at the creation of Battle Creek College. He did also mention the 1888 general conference session, but he did not intend to discuss it. While he knew the Minneapolis session “marked a crisis in the spiritual development,”

310 Ibid., 11–​61. For a parallel approach, see William A. Spicer, Beacon Lights of Prophecy (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1935), 8–​20. 311 Olsen, Origin and Progress, 73–​166. 312 Olsen, Origin and Progress, 22.

88

Christian History as Apologetics

of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, he also remarked that “The issues seemed on the surface to center about certain men and their theological views.”313 He stopped there and did not want to investigate why the young men E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones confronted the views of old men: George I. Butler and Uriah Smith. At Minneapolis, through the efforts of Jones and Waggoner, Seventh-​day Adventism had reinforce its position of uplifting Christ and encourage a Christ-​ Centered approach to evangelism. Why Olsen, a trained historian, avoided to discuss critical issues is difficult to understand. His appreciation of Butler and Smith could be a major reason why he did not discuss the 1888 session. Perhaps, he did not want to be critical of the leadership of Seventh-​day Adventism. Thus, his purpose for writing Adventist history was primarily to persuade people about God’s providential leading in the unfolding of the denomination’s history. Olsen embraced the narrative style. He never moved into critical analysis about what occurred. He did not spend any significant time analyzing complex issues. Instead, his methodology was to investigate documentary sources. He did this by first gathering data from official records and publications.314 Next, he described those events. Third, when possible he tried to interview key persons still alive for more information.315 These three steps emphasized documentary evidence. His main interest appears to be that of persuasion and his writing style flows very well and is easy to read. His main historical interest was to document the most important historical events that showed God’s providential leading in the past. In this way, Olsen established a pattern for apologetic history that used documentary research to emphasize certain key events in Adventist history that validated God’s providential leading. This emphasis upon documentary evidence almost certainly seems to stem from Olsen’s graduate training in English. While it is difficult to classify him as a historian in the truest sense of the word, he was much more conscientious about making sure to document his claims to a wide variety of sources.316 Later apologetic historians would continue in this trajectory.

3 13 Ibid., 625. 314 John A. Waller, “Adventist English Teachers: Some Roots,” Spectrum 10 (1979): 37–​46. 315 Individuals such as Spicer, Edwin R. Palmer, Francis M. Wilcox, Warren E. Howell, Charles W. Irwin, and Frederick Griggs provided significant feedback. Loughborough as an experienced writer was the most important individual Olsen interviewed. Olsen, Origin and Progress, 9. 316 Olsen provided a wide variety of sources ranging from letters, books, diaries, and interviews. He also provided a partial bibliography and an index. Ibid., 21–​1295.

Individual Historical Narratives

89

Another influential apologetic historian was William A. Spicer (1865–​ 1952).317 He was a minister and missionary who became responsible for leading the Foreign Mission Board and in 1922 became General Conference president (1922–​1930). He wrote several books on Adventist history. Some of the most significant ones include The Hand of God in History: Notes on Important Eras of Fulfilling Prophecy (1913), Our Day in the Light of Prophecy (1918), Providences of the Great War (1923), The Spirit of Prophecy in the Advent Movement: A Gift That Builds Up (1937), Certainties of the Advent Movement (1929), and Beacon Lights of Prophecy (1935). Each of these books describes the history of Seventh-​ day Adventism as a result of a providential leading. Spicer pointed out how God intervened in the history of his denomination. He saw history as an arena of the manifestation of God’s will. He wrote, “We are not left to human foresight and conjecture in our effort to understand the lessons of the past, or to read aright the signs of our times.”318 He further wrote, “There is scarcely an event of first magnitude or a condition characteristic of the world’s political, social, industrial, and religious life, that is not dealt with by the great interpreter for all times and for all mankind, of every race and tongue—​the sure word of Holy Scripture.”319 He did not delve into hard research to validate his arguments. Instead, he relied upon the belief in God’s hand in leading human history. He was not systematic in his methodology. He mostly “collected ideas by reading widely on an extensive range of subjects.”320 He even demonstrated his desire for partial treatment of historical facts. He “especially watched for experiences that related to his convictions regarding the guidance of God in the affairs of men and nations.”321 Spicer wrote history to celebrate God’s hand in history. Spicer built on theological history from early pioneers by emphasizing the providence of God in Adventist history. Just like his predecessors, he saw Bible prophecy as an interpretive lens of historical facts. Prophecy is “like a great searchlight shining across the centuries, the sure Word of Prophecy focuses its bright beams upon our day. In this light, we see clearly the trend of events, and may understand what comes next in the program of history fulfilling prophecy.”322 317 Godfrey T. Anderson, Spicer: Leader With Common Touch (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1983), 7–​124. 318 Spicer, Beacon Lights of Prophecy, 8. 319 Ibid. 320 G. Anderson, Spicer, 96. 321 Ibid. 322 William A. Spicer, Our Day in the Light of Prophecy (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1918), 11.

90

Christian History as Apologetics

Spicer used prophecy to interpret historical facts. Spicer fully acknowledged the role of providence and prophecy in shaping earthly events. As he told the story of the Advent movement, he believed that God was behind it. Spicer “was always interested in events that suggested the intervention of God in the activities of individuals and of nations.”323 He had thus no interest in looking for human parts in historical happenings. He attributed all events to God. Godfrey T. Anderson remarked that Spicer delineated four principles of historiography. The first was “writers and editors should ‘avoid overdevelopment of the critical spirit.’ ”324 The second, which stresses the first, stated, “writing should hold to plainness and simplicity of style and avoid the heavy literary style of long ago.”325 The third focused on how to improve writing through study and serious planning. The fourth concluded that the writer should “avoid prosy introductions, endeavor to say something in the first sentences that will catch the reader’s attention.”326 These principles express the desire to write history to inspire people to greater devotion to denominational beliefs. This approach was also exposed in Lougborough’s. Spicer also saw E. G. White’s ministry as a manifestation of a divine hand in Seventh-​day Adventism. He highlights the prophetic role that she played in the building up of the Seventh-​day Adventism. Spicer demonstrated that the growth of Seventh-​day Adventism from 1844 to 1915 was the result of prophetic guidance manifested in the role of E. G. White.327 His book, Pioneer Days of the Advent Movement: With Notes on Pioneer Workers and Early Experiences, highlights the importance of Bible prophecy in the formation of Seventh-​day Adventism. It also focuses on the work of Adventist pioneers and their early experiences.328 Spicer wrote history to persuade believers about how God used people to advance the mission of Seventh-​ day Adventism. He also sought to affirm Adventist faith through the writing of history. The problem with Spicer’s view of prophecy and history was the same as that of the earlier Adventists. He cherry-​picked evidences and emphasized the priority of prophetic interpretation over historical accuracy. Spicer’s book, 3 23 G. Anderson, Spicer, 97. 324 Ibid., 102. 325 Ibid., 96. 326 Ibid. 327 William A. Spicer, After One Hundred Years, 1844–​1944: How the Work of Seventh-​ day Adventists Has Spread to the Ends of the Earth (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1944). 328 William A. Spicer, Pioneer Days of the Advent Movement: With Notes on Pioneer Workers and Early Experiences (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1941), 113–​256.

Individual Historical Narratives

91

Certainties of the Advent Movement, tends toward triumphalism, another danger of apologetic history.329 While recognizing the danger of self-​confidence, Spicer still argues that the Advent Movement is still going through as marked by the sure word of prophecy.330 Evil may need to be shaken out but the church goes through. The next significant apologetic historian to write about Adventist history was Arthur W. Spalding (1877–​1953).331 He was a school administrator. He did not earn a Bachelor degree but completed at least two years in college in “English, botany, and ‘the science of education.’ ”332 He was raised as an Adventist and wrote extensively about Adventist history during his lifetime. He introduced new church members to “the beginnings and the progress of the cause.”333 His prolific writings meant that during the first half of the 20th century, he wrote more about Adventist history than any other individual (it would not be until the 1980s when Knight would outpace this record). Some of his most important works include Footprints of the Pioneers (1947), There Shines a Light: The Life and Work of Ellen G. White (1953), Captains of the Host: A History of the Seventh-​ day Adventists Covering the Years 1845–​1900 (1949), and Christ’s Last Legion: A History of the Seventh-​day Adventists Covering the Years 1901–​1948 (1949). These volumes were retitled by the Review and Herald after the death of Spalding in 1953 as Origin and History of the Seventh-​day Adventists: A Revision of the Books Captains of the Host and Christ’s Last Legion (1961–​1962), which became his magnum opus. In the same way as Olsen, Spalding, primarily tried to persuade his readers that God had led Adventist history and that God’s leading showed the true spirit of Adventism.334 He continuously pointed to God’s hand intervening within Adventist history. At other times, he defended and refuted critics. Thus,

329 William A. Spicer, Certainties of the Advent Movement (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1929), 267–​268. 330 Ibid., 268. 331 Arthur W. Spalding was born on January 24, 1877 in Jackson, Michigan. Allan William Freed, “Arthur Whitefield Spalding: A Study of His Life and Contributions to Family-​ Life Education in the Seventh-​day Adventist Church” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995), 49. 332 Ibid., 52. 333 Arthur W. Spalding, Origin and History of the Seventh-​day Adventists: A Revision of the Books Captains of the Host and Christ’s Last Legion (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1961), 1:5. 334 Ibid., 1:6.

92

Christian History as Apologetics

his primary role, like Olsen’s, was to show just how unique Adventism was—​ in this way he spent a great deal of time defending the prophetic ministry of E. G. White, whom he believed was God’s prophetic messenger. His approach was generally very apologetic. Spalding devotes much more space in his writing to refuting and defending against key areas where critics during the 1930s and 1940s had attacked the denomination. For example, he spends significant time engaging with the criticism largely popularized by Dudley M. Canright about the “shut door controversy.”335 Spalding argued that the Sabbatarian Adventists gave up the idea of the “shut door” because God never showed E. G. White in vision that the door of mercy was closed to those who did not accept the Millerites’ teachings of 1844.336 Spalding, just like Olsen, affirmed a sense of God’s providential leading in the story of the church. Once again, he is narrative in his approach. He was clear about his apologetic approach and did not see a need for critical investigation of facts beyond proving what he set out to prove. He wrote, This history is written by one who is an Adventist, who believes in the message and mission of Adventists, and who would have everyone to be an Adventist. To the degree that he has been successful in portraying the inward fire and the environmental fuel of this movement, he serves the interests and ambitions of his people, and, please God, the purposes of heaven.337

Spalding viewed himself as primarily affirming the faith of believers. In his book Captains of the Hosts, he focuses his narrative on important pioneers who founded the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. As these early pioneers passed away (something that had occurred largely by the 1920s, at the latest, with the passing away of people like Loughborough and others), Spalding felt the need to educate church members about the lives of these pioneers. The pioneers appear as spiritual superheroes who exhibited significant devotion to the cause and the testimony of their lives should inspire others to do the same. The pioneers “warmed our souls, [and] provided inspiration for which the cold chronicles of the day are a poor substitute; and such of their fire as may be preserved in an account of their adventures and their ponderings is a necessity.”338 Spalding emphasized the spiritual growth of each of these important persons. God’s providential leading was so obvious and important that even the very places where they lived and

3 35 336 337 338

Ibid, 1:5. Ibid., 1:162. Ibid., 1:6. Ibid., 1:6.

Individual Historical Narratives

93

worked, where significant events took place, took on significance. He was the first person to publish an actual guidebook about how to find significant historical sites and what their meaning was for spiritual descendants who wished to walk in their footprints (the book was aptly named Footprints of the Pioneers).339 Persons could find spiritual significance and value by making a family vacation or pilgrimage—​something that became popular in America during the early 20th century—​to see one or more of these important historical sites. Spalding recognized that visiting the actual sites themselves could help make the experiences of the pioneers a way to enhance their faith in Christ.340 Whereas Spalding focused on significant individuals, the one pioneer he felt showed God’s providential leading the most was E. G. White. It was through her prophetic ministry that God’s leading and intervention could be seen more than through anyone else. The importance of her life and writings can be seen throughout his writings although he did devote two books to her prophetic ministry. In the first, There Shines a Light: The Life and Work of Ellen G. White, he argued that her prophetic ministry was a divine blessing for Adventism because she played a significant role in the formation and ecclesiology of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. The second book, Sister White: A Life of Ellen G. White (1950), popularizes the ministry of E. G. White to children. She was divinely appointed by God to strengthen the faith of Seventh-​day Adventists. The wide scope of her writings covered “evangelism, publishing, production and distribution of literature, health, and medical work, education, as well as the more personal yet contributory fields of marriage, parenthood, and homemaking”341 that for him largely shaped the development of Seventh-​day Adventism. Spalding saw God’s direct leading through the writings of E. G. White as she provided counsels during the 1888 General Conference session as well as the Kellogg crisis. She was after all the most influential figure in Seventh-​day Adventist history.342

339 Arthur W. Spalding, Footprints of the Pioneers (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1947), 7. 340 The last chapter of Footprints of the Pioneers focuses on Jesus Christ as the historical figure through which the experience of the pioneers became meaningful and understandable. For a meaningful examination of philosophy of historical sites, see Erick Carter, “The Adventist Pilgrim: A Construct for Theological Reflection,” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 28 (2017): 45–​60. 341 Arthur W. Spalding, There Shines a Light: The Life and Work of Ellen G. White (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1953), 69. 342 Spalding, Origin and History, 1:281–​304.

94

Christian History as Apologetics

One major issue in Spalding’s writings is race relations. His unpublished manuscript “Lights and Shades in the Black Belt” contains “the story of the Southern Missionary Society, Oakwood School, and the Hillcrest School.”343 Each of these institutions was formed in the southern United States to help downtrodden blacks during the Reconstruction period.344 The manuscript does not show much sympathy for the suffering of African Americans in the years following the American Civil War. He unfavourably described their living conditions: The vast majority of these nine millions are sinking in degradation and vice. While their economic condition is on the whole improving, their dissipation is not only offsetting that material advantage, but rapidly and immeasurably depleting their moral and physical capital. Disease is making fearful inroads: tuberculosis, syphilis, and insanity, the last two of which were almost unknown among them half a century ago, are now yearly taking greater and greater tolls.345

This writing portrays Spalding’s belief in the superiority of whites. This belief results in a clear discrimination of black Americans in his narrative. He carries popular prejudices of his time towards the blacks. He categorizes their innate capacities as inferior to the whites.346 He gave a paternalistic approach to black American history.347 At times, he uses words that would be offensive to modern sensibilities including “his grotesque ideas,” “niggar,” “negro” and related words belaying the racial prejudices of the times which he imbibed.348 He even struggled with unfavourable accounts about people from the African continent. While Spalding wrote about providential history, he still wrestled with race relations in his own day.349 His writings were stained by a biased description of facts among the blacks in the American South, and an unfavourable account of truths regarding the African continent. He wrote that Africa is the “haunt of some of the crudest barbarism,” a land “once occupied by tribes savage and warlike,” and “with only the barest rudiments of civilization.”350 Such descriptions

343 Arthur W. Spalding, “Lights and Shades in the Black Belt,” p. 1, accessed May 10, 2018, http://​documents.adventistarchives.org/​Books/​LSBB.pdf. 344 Ibid., 356. 345 Ibid. 346 Ibid., 1–​13. For further insights on white paternalism, see William D. Green, The Children of Lincoln: White Paternalism and the Limits of Black Opportunity in Minnesota, 1860–​1876 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2018). 347 Spalding, “Lights and Shades,” 1–​13. 348 Ibid., 1, 357–​369. 349 Ibid. 350 Spalding, Origin and History, 4:7.

Individual Historical Narratives

95

are characteristic of his racial worldview and the practice of considering himself superior to black people. Spalding was a child of his time. His writings reveal a bias that affected the rest of his writings. His understanding of providential history faulted his impartial treatment of facts. He viewed whites as providentially superior to blacks. Spalding, similarly to his predecessors (Loughborough and Olsen) wrote apologetic history with the primary purpose of finding meaning through historical events that showed God’s providential leading. He embraced the first three purposes of apologetic history (persuasion, refutation, and defense) but never went on to critically evaluate sources preventing him from becoming a critical constructionist historian. At the same time, he reflected cultural biases of his time including racial prejudices, which shows his inability to reach this fourth stage of critical apologetics. Francis D. Nichol (1897–​1966) was another significant historian who wrote apologetic history.351 He was a gifted preacher, editor, historian, and chaired The Ellen G. White Estate Board of Trustees (1963–​1966).352 He graduated from Pacific Union College with a Bachelor Degree in Theology in 1920. Nichol is primarily recognized for his writings both as a prolific author and editor. He edited The General Conference Bulletin in 1922. Five years later, he joined the editorial staff of the Review and Herald. In 1934, he became editor of Life and Health. Then in 1952, he became general editor of The Seventh-​day Adventist Bible Commentary, the first SDA scholarly attempt at a complete commentary of the entire Bible.353 Perhaps he is best remembered for his role as editor of the flagship denominational periodical, The Review and Herald (1945–​1966). In 3 51 Merrill E. Gaddis, “The Midnight Cry,” Church History 14, no. 3 (1945): 223. 352 For popular description of F. D. Nichol’s life, see Miriam Wood and Kenneth Wood, His Initials Were F. D. N.: A Life Story of Elder F. D. Nichol, for Twenty-​One Years Editor of the Review and Herald (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1967). 353 For more exploration on Nichol’s career and achievements, see ibid., 93–​103. Nichol was a key figure who shaped the production of this Bible commentary. Nichol believed that the commentary was to present a fair interpretation of the Bible in consideration of Adventist theology. The commentary was to be in accordance with the writings of E. G. White. Nichol insisted that the commentary was to respect the standard of original scholarship. It was to be consistent with original Bible languages and also archaeological research for historical context. See Raymond Cottrell, “The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary,” Spectrum 16, no. 3 (1985): 35–​51. The work provided interpretation that persuaded readers about Adventist doctrines. This Bible commentary compared alternate interpretations of texts, for example, and gave lots of historical and biblical contexts including archaeological discoveries. Ibid.

96

Christian History as Apologetics

addition to his editorial work, he also wrote extensively in both denominational as well as academic publications. The extensive nature of his writing and editorial work naturally made him one of the most visible persons in the denomination from the 1930s up until his death in 1966. Whereas the wide range of Nichol’s publications means that his contributions were extremely wide and varied, he did play a significant role through a number of publications that relate to apologetic history. Nichol built upon the work done by Olsen, Spicer, and Spalding by explaining Adventist beliefs in a narrative style, but he focused more of his attention on the defense of Adventist beliefs and history and, in particular, refuting objections raised by critics. Some relevant publications that fit within this genre of apologetics include Why I Am a Seventh-​day Adventist? (1943), The Midnight Cry: A Defense of William Miller and the Millerites (1944), Reasons for Our Faith: A Discussion of Questions Vital to the Proper Understanding and Effective Presentation of Certain Seventh-​day Adventist Teachings (1947), Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White (1951), Answers to Objections: An Examination of the Major Objections Raised Against the Teachings of Seventh-​day Adventists (1952), and Why I Believe in Mrs. E. G. White: Some Reasons Why Seventh-​day Adventists Believe That Ellen G. White Possessed Gift of the “Spirit of Prophecy” (1964). Each volume demonstrates a stalwart commitment to Adventist beliefs and especially E. G. White’s prophetic ministry. Similar to Loughborough, Olsen, and Spalding, he viewed Adventist history in a triumphalist manner. He emphasized how God chose Seventh-​day Adventists to be a special people to preach a distinctive message to prepare God’s people for the Second Advent. He also affirmed the Adventist method of prophetic interpretation linking distinct historical events to various Bible prophecies. The very existence of the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. In the booklet, Why I Am a Seventh-​day Adventists?, he shared three reasons why he became an Adventist.354 Each reason centered upon a distinctive Adventist belief. He later expanded this into Reasons for Our Faith: A Discussion of Questions Vital to the Proper Understanding and Effective Presentation of Certain Seventh-​day Adventist 354 Francis D. Nichol, Why I Am a Seventh-​day Adventist? (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1943), 7–​41, 44–​62. These three reasons are the following: (a) “I am a Seventh-​ day Adventist is [sic] because of the gospel,” (b) “I am a Seventh-​day Adventist is [sic] because of our view of the nature of mankind in death,” and (c) “I am a Seventh-​day Adventist is [sic] because the Bible clearly teaches that the seventh day is [sic] the Sabbath of God.” Ibid., 228–​234.

Individual Historical Narratives

97

Teaching, which continued to emphasize the history of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church within the setting of Bible prophecy.355 For Nichol, the best defense of Adventism was its prophetic heritage. Nichol made his greatest contribution to Adventist historiography through his detailed study of Millerism titled The Midnight Cry: A Defense of William Miller and the Millerites. Nichol argued against critics who generally viewed Millerites as fanatics.356 Since Seventh-​day Adventists traced their origins to the Millerite revival, it therefore became necessary to defend the validity of the Millerite movement, particularly from claims of fanaticism or that they were duped into believing some fanciful theories. He did not claim to write formal history. In the introduction, he admitted that his volume departed from the “canons of history writing.”357 While he did not define what precisely this is, he presumably saw this as more of an apologetic work in its purpose. Nichol attributed divine guidance to the origins of the Millerite movement. Although this movement resulted in several Adventist denominations, he explained that Seventh-​day Adventists held a special “spiritual kinship with the Millerites.”358 He was intentional to outline and summarize criticisms used to discredit the Millerite Movement. Seeking to address claims of fanaticism within Millerism, Nichol describes how they were accused of “hysterically emotional meetings, accompanied by the most incredible physical manifestations; of clothing themselves in ghostly white ascension robes to wander over hill and vale and though graveyards; of filling the asylums with deluded creatures made mad by their preaching; of promoting fantastic, new beliefs.”359 After examining the evidence, Nichol concluded that such accusations were at best merely rumors without any foundation. He admitted, “There were abnormal, fanatical incidents to be found along the course of Millerism,” yet these behaviors were generally manifested among the “lunatic fringe”360 and did not represent the main movement. This book contains extensive documentation of primary sources. It became a benchmark

355 Francis D. Nichol, Reasons for Our Faith: A Discussion of Questions Vital to the Proper Understanding and Effective Presentation of Certain Seventh-​day Adventist Teachings (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1947), 43–​64. 356 Nichol, The Midnight Cry, 9. For detailed arguments about the ascension robes, see Nichol’s article: Nichol, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 21, no. 4 (1952): 296–​313. 357 Nichol, The Midnight Cry, 9. 358 Ibid., 10. 359 Ibid., 321. 360 Ibid.

98

Christian History as Apologetics

work in Millerite studies going through at least three major printings during his lifetime. His book continues to be widely cited by scholars and, thanks to his careful research, allegations of Millerites wearing white ascension robes faded away.361 Another focus of apologetics for Nichol was defending the prophetic ministry of E. G. White. His most extensive defense of E. G. White was Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White and Why I Believe in Ellen G. White: Some Reasons Why Seventh-​day Adventists Believe That Ellen G. White Possessed Gift of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” At the time, the denomination was confronted by a number of critics who alleged that E. G. White’s writings were plagiarized. As a result, the denomination established the Defense Literature Committee on July 8, 1946, which commissioned Nichol to write his first apologetic book on E. G. White.362 Nichol worked with 17 individuals on this committee who approved the book before it was published.363 The bulk of the criticisms came from Dudley M. Canright. This book defended E. G. White against critics who rejected her prophetic ministry. After her death in 1915, many questions were lingering about her prophetic authority.364 The publication of this book brought an increased awareness of the continued importance of E. G. White’s writings as it sought to vindicate her as a true prophet. Nichol argued that E. G. White’s visions were not the results of nervous disorders, that her writings were not “another Bible,” that she did not make false prophecies, that she did not teach strange doctrines such as “amalgamation of man and beast,” and that she did not borrow from others but was

361 David L. Rowe, God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 105; Russell L. Staples, “The Theological Identity of North American Holiness Movement,” in The Variety of American Evangelicalism, ed. Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1991), 57–​71; Gary Land, “The Historians and the Millerites: A Historiographical Essay,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 32 (1994): 227–​246. 362 Nichol, The Midnight Cry, 4. 363 Ibid., 6. The list of members includes Milton E. Kern, chairman; Dores E. Robinson, secretary; Melvin K. Eckenroth, LeRoy E. Froom, Francis D. Nichol, Denton E. Rebok, A. L. White, and F. H. Yost. 364 B. L. McElhany, “Foreword,” in Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White, by Francis D. Nichol, (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1951), 13.

Individual Historical Narratives

99

inspired by God.365 Today, her plagiarism is widely acknowledged and indisputable.366 Nichol sought to affirm the relevance of E. G. White’s prophetic ministry. He believed that God used her for proclaiming an end-​time message to Seventh-​ day Adventists.367 He gave E. G. White a prominent place in the history of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. He affirmed, “No matter where you turn back through the pages of Seventh-​day Adventist church history, you repeatedly come face to face with the name of Mrs. White. No other name is so frequently found, and no other’s words are so frequently quoted.”368 E. G. White was a historical figure who shaped the history of the church. “It is no exaggeration to say that her words, her counsels, are the mortar that holds together the bricks of the substantial and rapidly growing edifice known as Seventh-​day Adventism.”369 Nichol tried to “resist and overthrow” those who sought “to tear down the cause of God.”370 He identified two kinds of charges used by critics against E. G. White: doctrinal and personal attacks.371 Nichol stated, I have examined all the major criticisms of Mrs. White that I could find in any book or pamphlet, checking back on all the alleged historical declarations. . . . I end this work fully and irrevocably persuaded in my mind and heart that Mrs. White was what she claimed to be, a humble handmaiden of God, to whom He gave revelations, authoritative and unique, to guide and direct the Advent people in these last days.372

In the end, Nichol defended church beliefs and persuaded members about the teachings of Seventh-​day Adventism. Nichol believed that it was necessary to write history in order to defend Adventist beliefs. He also viewed the role of the historian as being a response to critics. Nichol modeled apologetic historical writing that he believed would build confidence in church beliefs and the prophetic ministry of E. G. White. He made no apologies about his biased belief that Adventism was correct. At

365 Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White, by Francis D. Nichol (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1951), 25–​112, 306–​323, 403–​486. 366 See c­ hapter 4 of this book. 367 Francis D. Nichol, Why I Believe in Mrs. E. G. White: Some Reasons Why Seventh-​day Adventists Believe That Ellen G. White Possessed the Gift of the “Spirit of Prophecy” (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1964), 7. 368 Ibid., 8. 369 Ibid. 370 McElhany, “Foreword,” 14. 371 Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, 15, 16. 372 Ibid., 127–​128.

100

Christian History as Apologetics

times, this could make him biased so that he focused on proving the divine origins and ultimate triumph of Seventh-​day Adventism. Wherever he could, he tried to build confidence in the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. His greatest contributions were in the areas showing a more respectable historical framework for the Millerite Movement and providing the most extensive defense of E. G. White since the criticisms made by Canright decades earlier. Nichol represents the most extensive apologetic response to the criticisms of Canright. His defense of E. G. White was an integral part of his overall apologetic defense of Adventism. LeRoy E. Froom (1890–​1974) was another apologetic historian who was quite prolific during his career. He had a BA in Theology from Pacific Union College. He saw himself not only as a minister and editor but even more as an endorsed historian responsible for telling the official history of the denomination. He was one of the most visible and respected leaders of 20th century Seventh-​day Adventism.373 Early in his ministry, he was tasked by A. G. Daniells to tell the history of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. His official title was as a “field secretary of the General Conference assigned to research and writing,”374 a post created for him so that he could research and write about Adventist history. Froom wrote a wide range of books. Some of his significant works include Finding the Lost Prophetic Witnesses (1946), the four volumes of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation (PFOF) (1946–​1950), The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man (1966), and Movement of Destiny (1971). These works provided the church with a wealth of historical-​theological analysis. He argued that prophetic interpretation was overlooked in Christian scholarship.375 The most important tradition for Adventists, according to him, was to recognize that Seventh-​day Adventists came from a rich legacy of prophetic interpreters. The way they interpreted Bible prophecy was not really that unique and many others from the early Christian church all the way up to the present formed a chain of truth about how to correctly interpret the Bible and the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. A closely related theme was how he saw the rise of the Millerite Movement as well as many other Bible expositors in other parts of the world, all during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

3 73 Conrad C. Weiss, “Two Leading Workers Die,” Review and Herald, March 1974, 31. 374 Ibid. 375 Froom, PFOF: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, vol. I, Early Church Exposition, Subsequent Deflections, and Medieval Revival (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1950), 9.

Individual Historical Narratives

101

Specifically, the Millerite revival in North America was one such movement that took Bible prophecy seriously and laid a foundation for the rise of the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church.376 This link between Seventh-​day Adventism and other interpreters of Bible prophecy was how he tried to show that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church had credibility and a certain sense of respectability that for him helped to validate Adventism. Thus, he saw himself called to help educate both church members as well as those outside Adventism about these prophetic movements as well as to introduce the Seventh-​day Adventist Church as having an authentic claim to this respectable heritage. His writing was a sort of “defense of Seventh-​day Adventist doctrines as the apostolic truth passed down through centuries without interruption or depletion.”377 Froom saw prophecy as the most reliable key for humans to understand their future. Froom developed a historical methodology where he looked through history with his mind already made up about the results. Since he was sure to be correct in his assessment of the history of Adventist prophetic interpretation, he literally searched around the world—​in major archives—​to find evidence. He traveled all around the world and urged libraries to yield their treasures for supporting, explaining, and demystifying the link between prophecy and history. Three times he traveled to Europe.378 Oftentimes, he found valuable evidence but at other times he failed in his attempt to find validation and he went too far. For example, with Daniel Wilson in India, it is difficult to say (based upon the one pamphlet that he cites) that he was truly an adherent to the form of prophetic interpretation that he presents. Even if Froom did not always get the evidence correctly, or misjudged a source, he meticulously documented his sources. His books set a new standard in Adventist historiography in the literally thousands of footnotes that document where he located his material. This definitely caught the attention of non-​Adventist scholars looking for more information about Adventism.379

376 LeRoy E. Froom, PFOF, vol. IV, New World Rediscovery and Consummation of Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1946), 429–​1204. 377 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism; 1800–​1930 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970), 288. 378 L. A. Skinner, “Long-​Awaited Volume Ready,” Review and Herald, March 1948, 24. 379 Elmore H. Harbison, review of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy E. Froom, Church History 17, no. 3 (1948): 257; Rudolf A. Renfer, review of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Leroy E. Froom, Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (1953): 366–​367; Allen Cabaniss, review of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy E. Froom, The Journal of Religion 33 (1953): 80.

102

Christian History as Apologetics

While a number of individuals have appreciated the contributions of Froom, critiqued his ability to be objective with evidence. Some individuals at times were critical of some of his interpretations of Adventist history. One scholar most critical of Froom’s scholarship is historian Ernest R. Sandeen, who wrote, Froom has no concern with anything but history of dogma, and even dogma is narrowly constructed. The result is that the work is useful as a reference work, astonishingly accurate in its references to particular men and events, but virtually without historical merit when Froom lifts his eyes above the level of the catalog of the British Museum.380

In essence, Froom felt free to gather material in an unprecedented way but he tended only to use evidence that he felt validated his narrative of history and often did not engage with others who disagreed with him or with evidence that contradicted his interpretation of the past. His loyalty was to the church and its beliefs which, from the perspective of history, took precedence over his ability to be objective in gathering and interpreting historical materials.381 Perhaps, the best example of this as directly related to Adventist history was his final narrative of Adventist history titled Movement of Destiny (1971), again with a triumphalist tone as seen in its very title. This book again linked Adventist history with a rich heritage of prophetic interpretation giving it a certain respectability.382 In this sense, the tone of the book is very much the same as his earlier books, especially his four volumes of PFOF. According to Ingemar Lindén, Froom “sets forth the Seventh-​day Adventist Church as heaven’s prophetically predicted movement.”383 Froom argued that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church was more than a historical movement but the direct result of divine providence. In this way, he continued the narratives of earlier Adventist apologetic historians. Similar to Olsen, Spicer, and Spalding, he linked the heritage of the church directly back in continuity with ancient Israel.384 The book primarily focuses on the story of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. It was touted as the official history of the denomination. It was widely circulated and even became a textbook in some parts of the world church. Neal C. Wilson 3 80 Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 288. 381 Even conservative SDA historians criticized Froom for bending evidence to support his conclusions. C. Mervyn Maxwell, review of Movement of Destiny, by LeRoy E. Froom, Andrews Seminary Studies 10, no. 1 (1972): 121. 382 Hugh J. Forquer, “Forty Years of Research Yield Monumental Work,” Review and Herald, January 7, 1971, 32. 383 Ingemar Lindén, review of Movement of Destiny, by LeRoy E. Froom, Spectrum 3 (1971): 89. 384 Froom, Movement of Destiny, 591.

Individual Historical Narratives

103

declared, “It is reassuring to know that events in our world, and in the program of the Advent message, have not been the result of chance. In crisis after crisis, when failure seemed imminent, there invariably appeared the guiding and overruling hand of a watchful providence.”385 While the book represented a lifetime of research and writing, it was biased in his descriptions of facts. For example, Froom rejected the notion that the teaching of righteousness by faith had been opposed by Uriah Smith and George I. Butler, the leaders of the General Conference. He argued, “The charge, still sometimes made, that the teaching of Righteousness by Faith was rejected in 1888 by the denomination, or at least by its leadership, is . . . refuted by the personal participants at the Conference, and is an unwarranted and unsupported assumption. It simply is not true historically.”386 He denied clear evidence of the leaders’ rejection of the 1888 message.387 Another Adventist apologetic historian covered in this chapter is A. V. Olson (1884–​1963). He was a Seventh-​day Adventist minister. His most significant work was Through Crisis to Victory, 1888–​1901: From the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference (1966). The book is a detailed history of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church from the 1888 Minneapolis meeting to the reorganization of the General Conference in 1901. This was a sensitive period in Adventist history, so the fact that it was treated in a single book showed just how important it was to interpret the past. Many critics of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church—​ranging from offshoot groups such as the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement in the 1920s up through Robert Brinsmead—​had used the circumstances surrounding the debacle of 1888 to justify their own reform movements. The most important reason for A. V. Olson writing the book was to refute objections raised that Seventh-​day Adventists were legalists or by implication the church at that time was merely a legalistic continuation of all that was bad when church leaders opposed the teachings of Ellet J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. Olsen reacted against “misleading conclusions that some 385 Neal C. Wilson, “Preface,” in Movement of Destiny, by LeRoy E. Froom (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1971), 15. 386 Froom, Movement of Destiny, 266, 357. For more insights on Froom’s denial of the rejection of 1888 message, see Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short, 1888 Re-​ examined: 1888–​1988, the Story of a Century of Confrontation Between God and His People (Leominster, MA: Eusey, 1987). 387 Movement of Destiny makes no mention of charismatic experiences experienced during the early years of Seventh-​day Adventism. This looks like an attempt to cover up such experiences.

104

Christian History as Apologetics

Seventh-​day Adventists had reached relative to the General Conference held in Minneapolis.”388 This book intended to challenge “opinions based on fragmentary bits of information, and also that at times other major issues of the 13 years following 1888 were mistakenly confused with the problems of that meeting.”389 He acknowledged that the years following this controversial session were “the most progressive years of the Advent Movement.”390 He argued that church leadership should not be seen in continuity with 1888 but instead with the victorious triumph accomplished when the church reorganized in 1901.391 Thus, the denomination moved from a legalistic view of the Gospel to a much more Christ-​centered approach. Such a transition was “fraught with conflict and clashes over organizational ideas and theological views.”392 Out of this difficulty, the church formed a new identity A. V. Olson was aware of the importance of historical narrative, and he used it to his strategic advantage. He took an event often used by critics and turned it around, emphasizing instead the great changes that resulted in conjunction with the 1901 General Conference session and the resulting re-​organization of the world church. A. V. Olson served for a time as the chairman of the E. G. White Estate Board of Trustees (1952–​1963), so he often emphasized the prophetic ministry of E. G. White during this crisis. The Ellen G. White Estate would serve a significant apologetic role as discussed later on in section two of this chapter. Olson wrote in a very simple narrative style. He seldom used any historical context and instead copiously quoted E. G. White throughout his narrative to lend credibility to it. In a few instances, he indicates where he interviewed people but his primary documentation came from published sources available in denominational archives (primarily the Ellen G. White Estate). The last apologetic historian considered in this chapter is Emmet K. Vande Vere (1904–​1989). He described and analyzed facts to support an apologetic interpretation of history. He used evidences made available by the Ellen G. White

3 88 Ibid., 266, 357. 389 Froom, Movement of Destiny, 266, 357. 390 Ibid. 391 It is reported that the initial title for the book Through Crisis to Victory was not A. V. Olson’s idea but the publisher’s who was more triumphalistic than the author. His original title was the one attached to the reprinted edition: Thirteen Crisis Years. Edward Allen, personal communication to the author, July 26, 2018. 392 Arthur L. White, “Foreword,” in Through Crisis to Victory, 1888–​1901: From the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference, by Albert V. Olson (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1966), 7.

Individual Historical Narratives

105

Estate: documents, unpublished letters which he unraveled. As a trained historian, he collected materials in his style to present vivid historical descriptions of events.393 In this perspective, he approached sources with much care.394 He deciphered facts with diligence as he processed them in his private library and office as the head of the Department of History at Andrews University. Evident in his historiography are his books about Adventist history: The Wisdom Seekers: The Intriguing Story of the Men and Women Who Made the First Institution for Higher Learning Among Seventh-​day Adventists (1972), Windows: Selected Readings in Seventh-​day Adventist Church History 1844–​1922 (1975), and Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Butler (1979).395 These books reveal a conscious historian who used documentary approach to validate his Adventist beliefs. Vande Vere’s writings exemplified his skills as a trained historian. The Wisdom Seekers sought to describe the lives of individuals who labored for the establishment and advancement of higher education in the Seventh-​day Adventist Church from Battle Creek (1874) and Emmanuel Missionary College (1901) to Andrews University (1959).396 Windows sought to analytically compile important readings in the Seventh-​day Adventist Church as a way to emphasize God’s leading hand. Vande Vere described salvation history which included stories of the Great Disappointment experienced by pioneers such as J. White, E. G. White, and Bates.397 These compilations attest of a mind with a dedication to the Adventist faith. The most significant book that demonstrates Vande Vere’s historical method is his biography of G. I. Butler. In it, he describes G. I. Butler as a devoted person to the cause of Adventism. He narrates with sufficient documentation the life and the world of G. I. Butler. He provides the context in which the character and behaviors of G. I. Butler become more understandable.398 Perhaps the most 393 Emmett K. Vande Vere, Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Butler (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1979), 9–​17. 394 There are sufficient footnotes in Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Butler, covering materials such as letters and diaries. Vande Vere spent numerous hours researching for sources to write a relevant and reliable book. 395 Emmett K. Vande Vere, The Wisdom Seekers: The Intriguing Story of the Men and Women Who Made the First Institution for Higher Learning Among Seventh-​day Adventists (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1972); Emmett K. Vande Vere, Windows: Selected Readings in Seventh-​day Adventist Church History 1844–​1922 (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1975). 396 Vande Vere, The Wisdom Seekers, 11–​91, 95–​239, 243–​280. 397 Vande Vere, Windows, 7–​320. 398 Vande Vere, Rugged Heart, 9–​13.

106

Christian History as Apologetics

important trait of Vande Vere’s historiography was that he succeeded to let his subject speak for himself. He saw G. I. Butler as a man who faced problems and who knew how to solve them.399 His biography brings back to life a person who dedicated his life to the cause of Adventism. Through this perspective, he grants his readers the opportunity to better appreciate and understand the bigger picture of Adventism, especially in relation to the 1888 General Conference Session during which G. I. Butler requested the church to abide by its traditional landmarks.400 Through the study of the life of G. I. Butler, Seventh-​day Adventists gain better picture of crises the church went through.401 As an individual who occupied the post of presidency of the General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, G .I. Butler had to deal with a number of crises that his denomination faced such as the question of inspiration and pantheism.402 Vande Vere was a diligent researcher who described historical events as part of God’s providential leading in Adventist history even though he was careful to examine sources as basis for his arguments. This section has reviewed a number of individuals who wrote narratives about Adventist history. Such narratives were largely triumphalist in nature and served an apologetic purpose. All of them fulfilled the primary criteria of trying to explain Adventism. What was new in comparison to early Adventist historiography showcased in the writings of Andrews J. Whites, and Lougbororough was that Froom began to be more intentional at explaining Adventism to non-​ Adventists. Others, especially Nichols and Froom, were very good but not always correct or even honest at giving detailed defenses of Adventist beliefs and, at times, explicitly refuting critics. Spicer and Nichol seemed to be especially concerned about refuting the criticism of Canright whose material continued to be circulated even though he had passed away in 1919. Altogether, Olsen, Spicer, Spalding, Nichol, Froom, Olson, and VandeVere represented a significant step forward by writing apologetic history. All of them were college graduates with the exception that Olsen and Vande Vere had some graduate training. They represented a new generation as none of them were alive when the church was formed. They had to rely primarily upon documentary evidence to describe the past. Some, such as Froom, set new precedents by copiously documenting his books with a rich array of references.

3 99 400 401 402

Ibid., 82–​112. Ibid., 90–​97. Ibid., 82–​89. See also Vande Vere, Windows, 7–​320. Vande Vere, Rugged Heart, 113–​120.

The Ellen G. White Estate

107

A consistent theme throughout their writings is that the history of the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church showed God’s providential leading of the denomination. While they built upon the theological history laid during the 19th century that culminated in the chronicling of Loughborough, they did acknowledge the complexity of historical descriptions. Such history at times fell short of being consistently objective but it did affirm an apologetic rational that Adventist theology and history must be based upon reliable evidence. One question that one must answer is this: Were there major influences that impacted the writing of Mahlon E. Olsen, William A. Spicer, Arthur W. Spalding, Francis D. Nichol, LeRoy Froom, and Albert V. Olson, Adventist apologists? The answers must be found in looking at American popular historiography of the time. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, American Christian historiography was dominated by at least three popular Christian historians whose ideas were emulated by other Christian historians who wrote denominational histories. D’Aubigné, Schaff and Fisher were at the heart of widespread Christian historiography. The first two were familiar to Ellen G. White as noted in Chapter 2. The last, even though Ellen G. White did not quote him in her The Great Controversy, he was popular among trained historians.

The Ellen G. White Estate The Ellen G. White Estate has been the cradle of Adventist apologetic historical writing. The organization was created in 1933 to act as the custodian of E. G. White’s writings, tasked to preserve and circulate these writings including their translation and to develop resource materials that aid in the understanding of the prophetic ministry of E. G. White. In her last will of February 9, 1912, she named five individuals to serve as the board of trustees.403 From the time of its organization up through the present, the Ellen G. White Estate has been extremely influential in telling Adventist history and thus has significantly shaped Adventist historiography. It continues to be a major center within the denomination that continues to produce apologetic material that affirms God’s providential leading in the founding of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. The organization continues to focus on both her life and writings as well as, in general, affirming God’s leading in Adventist history.

403 The first five church administrators appointed for life in the will of E. G. White to serve as members of the Estate were A. G. Daniells, W. C. White, Clarence C. Crisler, Charles H. Jones, and F. M. Wilcox.

108

Christian History as Apologetics

E. G. White’s death on July 16, 1915 created the need for the Ellen G. White Estate board to begin to function.404 At first, this was a bit awkward as W. C. White and other church leaders tried to understand the terms arranged by E. G. White to both dispose off her assets and to ensure the future publication of her writings. The initial board of five trustees was established to make sure that her wishes were fulfilled. The most important task was to take possession of the copyright for her books. Second, the trustees were to prepare manuscripts for publication, which included translations into other languages. Third, the trustees were to supervise the custody of all the manuscripts and correspondence. Finally, they were to make sure that church members would become acquainted with her writings. She herself believed that they would “constantly speak”405 until Jesus Christ returned. All of these functions related to a more general overall purpose for the Ellen G. White Estate that was to function in an official capacity as apologists maintaining the authenticity, credibility, and authority of her writings for the denomination. In this sense, the Ellen G. White Estate would fulfill all three purposes of apologetic history: it would seek to persuade, defend, and refute critics as time went on. All three purposes would ultimately establish the fact that she was a genuine prophetic messenger sent by God with a special message and mission for the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. It cannot be emphasized enough how much of the material produced by the White Estate from the time of its inception up through the early 1970s (the time period covered in this chapter) was focused upon apologetic history. The most visible form was the creation of new compilations to address special issues within the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Ten posthumous compilations from E. G. White’s writings were produced. Another significant task was helping to facilitate an 865-​page Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White (1926) which, in an age before computers, made it much easier for church members to find references to significant topics in her vast published writings. This volume would later be expanded into a much more extensive three-​volume edition in 1962 (a fourth volume would be added in 1992). The White Estate tried to persuade church members by educating them, which, to a large extent, meant facilitating access to her published writings. The most important function of the Ellen G. White Estate was to refute critics. From the earliest beginnings of her ministry, she had significant detractors. This

404 Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2000), 348–​363. 405 Ellen G. White, Ye Shall Receive Power (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1995), 251.

The Ellen G. White Estate

109

barrage of criticism continued through much of her life. By the time of her death, by far the most important critic to attack E. G. White’s prophetic ministry was Canright. His writings continued to be circulated through the 20th century and were a major factor in shaping the White Estate’s apologetic response. Some of the trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate produced significant works that defended E. G. White’s writings from the attacks of Canright. At times, this meant producing specific works meant to refute specific criticisms. The most significant work published after her death was William H. Branson’s Reply to Canright: The Truth About Seventh-​day Adventists (1933), which included an affirmation of God’s providential leading as well as the validity of her prophetic ministry. Others followed suit, including A. G. Daniells, D. E. Rebok, Walter E. Read, T. Housel Jemison, and D. E. Robinson. They published significant material that sought to fulfill traditional functions of apologetic history writing. They defended, refuted, and persuaded people about Adventist belief in the prophetic message of E. G. White. Daniells who served as the chairman of the White Estate board of trustees (1915–​1935) published his own affirmation of her prophetic ministry, The Abiding Gift of Prophecy (1936). D. E. Robinson wrote The Story of Our Health Message (1943, 1955, 1965) which stressed the affirmation of E. G. White’s prophetic ministry outlined by Daniells. Read wrote The Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the Church (1952), which also reflected on the foundation of prophetic gifts in history. Jemison wrote A Prophet Among You (1952). This book followed the apologetic style of Daniells, Robinson, and Read. Finally, Rebok wrote Believe His Prophets (1956), and Divine Guidance in the Remnant of God’s Church (1955). These books reaffirmed claims of divine origins of E. G. White’s writings. These writers described E. G. White’s prophetic ministry as divine in nature. They gave biblical foundation to her ministry.406 They surveyed the history of prophetic ministry including the patriarchal period, Mosaic era, apostolic times, and the Christian era.407 These writers consider the Seventh-​day Adventist Church as a church which “restores the fullness of apostolic faith and practice, and which, significantly enough, is to have as one of its distinguishing characteristics the manifestation of the promised gifts of the Spirit.”408 E. G. White was 406 Walter E. Read, The Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the Church (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1952), 78–​113; Denton E. Rebok, Believe His Prophets (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1956), 9–​183; Arthur G. Daniells, The Abiding Gift of Prophecy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936), 9–​378. 407 Daniells, The Abiding Gift, 378. 408 LeRoy E. Froom, “Introduction,” in The Abiding Gift of Prophecy, by Arthur G. Daniells (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936), 9.

110

Christian History as Apologetics

presented as a prophet whom God used for manifesting the gift of spirit (the testimony of Jesus), in the denomination.409 Such descriptions of prophetic ministry gave foundation to apologetic arguments in favor of E. G. White’s writings. These writings were reactions against critics who sought to discourage believers from accepting her writings. “Deceptive counterfeits have appeared to stimulate and harass the true bestowals, thus to bring the whole divine provision into doubt and disrepute.”410 Several individuals claimed to have received the prophetic gift and claimed to be E. G. White’s prophetic successors. While a number of individuals made this claim, none was as notorious as Margaret Rowen.411 From the 1910s up through the 1920s, her views led to the establishment of the Rowenite Movement. It largely dissipated when Christ did not return in 1925 as predicted. Rowen disappeared after she was arrested for trying to kill one of her key followers. After the person tragically died, Rowen escaped on bail. Despite this tragedy, there continued to be a small group of adherents who believed that she had the true prophetic gift. Such claims heightened the concerns of the White Estate to carefully evaluate prophetic claims in contrast to E. G. White’s prophetic ministry. The person who contributed the most to shaping the early history of the White Estate was none other than her own son, W. C. White (1854–​1937).412 While he did not write any major books himself, he played a significant role during the later years of his mother’s life and worked closely with her to manage the production of her writings. As someone closely connected to her, he was in the best position to explain what she meant and to continue to promulgate her writings. He served effectively as the day-​to-​day manager of her literary estate from the time of her death up until his own death in 1937.413 He served as the secretary to

4 09 Read, The Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, 78–​113. 410 Froom, “Introduction,” 9. 411 Michael W. Campbell, “Margaret Matilda (Wright) Rowen,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 503–​504; See also Arthur L. White, “False Prophets I Have Known” (Unpublished manuscript, n.d.); Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 618–​619. 412 For a significant study on the relationship between E. G. White and her son W. C. White, see Jerry Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White: The Relationship Between the Prophet and Her Son (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993). 413 For a brief history of the White Estate, see James R. Nix, “The History and Work of the Ellen G. White Estate,” in Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History, ed. Merlin D. Burt (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015), 213–​227.

The Ellen G. White Estate

111

the board of trustees, which effectively meant that he was tasked with the day-​to-​ day work of the White Estate as the chief custodian of her writings. W. C. White was the driving force behind the first index (1926) and, while he was not necessarily involved in all of the compilations, at least served as a liaison to make sure that they were as accurate as possible. One of the earliest compilations, Messages to Young People (1930), was initially put together by the Missionary Volunteer Department (MV) but unfortunately, after the book was printed, it was discovered that the director and his secretary were having an affair. This led to the removal of names from all subsequent E. G. White compilations, a practice that has continued up to the present. It also meant that future compilations that were published would be more closely supervised by the staff of the White Estate. The next most significant person in the history of the White Estate covered is A. L. White (1907–​1993) who replaced his father as the secretary of the board of trustees after his death in 1937. Church leaders were reluctant to have a family member continue in this capacity and at one point offered him the presidency of a conference to entice him to leave this post but he felt that this was his responsibility to continue this tradition of apologetic history. He initially supervised the transfer of E. G. White’s writings from Elmshaven in California to the General Conference headquarters in Takoma Park, Maryland. He worked closely in developing new resources to educate the church about her life and writings. A. L. White also supervised a number of significant new publications including Evangelism (1946), The Adventist Home (1964), and the three volumes of Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White (1958). He also supervised the production of a much more extensive three-​volume index to her writings (1962). Up through the mid-​1970s, he produced two short books: Ellen G. White: The Human Interest Story (1972) and The Ellen G. White’s Writings (1973). Both of these volumes articulate A. L. White’s desire to introduce people to his grandmother.414 The focus of his early writings was to affirm E. G. White’s continued prophetic authority for the denomination.415 Overall, he affirmed again and again how she was truly God’s prophetic messenger.416 He refuted charges by critics who alleged that people influenced the production of her writings. In his focus on refuting criticisms (the writings of Canright continued to be a major

414 A. L. White, Ellen G. White: The Human Interest Story (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1972), 7–​85. 415 Ibid., 85–​93; A. L. White, The Ellen G. White’s Writings, 49–​106. 416 A. L. White, The Ellen G. White’s Writings, 79–​107.

112

Christian History as Apologetics

source of contention), he emphasized how it could only be through God’s guidance and providential leading that she could have written so authoritatively on many subjects during her lifetime. He rejected claims that E. G. White’s early visions were the result of “natural causes, mesmerism, Spiritism, or physical injury.”417 Truly, she was someone who was divinely inspired, Ellen G. White in her early years was given historical insights by revelation. These insights she related as need arose in discourses and writings, bringing out the highlights of the great scenes of the conflict from its inception to its close. It was but natural that she and her husband, James White, should be stirred to a deep interest in the reading of historical writings covering certain eras of the past, which has been presented to her in vision, especially the history of the reformation.418

In the way A. L. White described her visions, he provides the immediate context as to how the vision took place within the Seventh-​day Adventist. Overall, though, he provides extremely little information about the larger historical context of her life and writings. The only times he referred to the wider historical context was when there was a direct link to affirm the uniqueness and authenticity of her prophetic ministry. This can be seen in reference to the rise of modern spiritualism (which E. G. White warned against) or the American Civil War (which she was shown as taking place in advance in a vision). Clearly, he believed in the divine inspiration of her life and writings. Even her reading of the Bible and secular books was possible in that she gleaned from them minor details that she was divinely guided to write in her writings. This strong emphasis upon the uniqueness of her prophetic ministry came at the expense of minimizing the historical context including various influences and other sources that she used during her lifetime. The methodology of A. L. White was to list specific facts, such as dates and interesting titbits of information, which ultimately created the impression of an infallible prophet messenger immune from any historical influences. Thus, the most significant individual to write about E. G. White as an apologetic historian was A. L. White. He embarked on an ambitious project of his own to write what he hoped would become the “definitive biography of Ellen White.”419 Such a narrative of her life was incredibly detailed, offering minutia about her life but avoided any historical, political, or social context. He dubbed his approach as “to present in the narrative, in a natural way, confidence-​confirming features.”420 4 17 Ibid., 79. 418 Ibid., 110. 419 Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Years (1827–​1862) (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985), 1:9. 420 Ibid., 1:9–​10.

The Ellen G. White Estate

113

He promised “to keep constantly before the reader the major role the visions played in almost every phase of the experiences comprising the narrative.”421 He offered a version of Adventist historiography that made it seem that E. G. White developed her ideas in isolation from the world in which she lived. Such a narrative reinforced earlier stereotypes about Adventist historiography that presented the past more as hagiography. Since A. White was so intimately involved in the response to Prophetess of Health, one way to interpret his massive six-​volume biography project is a direct response to Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White and the critical approach to Adventist historiography. If A. L. White found such critical scholarship to be a threat, then one way he could respond was to emphasize in glowing detail just how unique her life and teachings actually were, especially those teachings on health reform. At each successive stage of her life, he described her as “the Lord’s messenger.”422 Any historical problems or evidence that undermined this central thesis, he buttressed with apologetic counterarguments. One example of this is his treatment of the “shut door theory.”423 In many ways, A. L. White seemed heavily preoccupied with the criticism that E. G. White was a plagiarist, without explicitly saying so.424 A. L. White was at his best writing apologetic, narrative history in an attempt to return to a time before Numbers had opened the Pandora’s box of a more critical approach to the past. A. L. White’s lack of any critical analysis on the past along with his convenient avoiding of any historians or sources that might contradict his view of the past undermined the credibility of his work despite the monumental size of his project. A. L. White wrote history in order to justify the claim that E. G. White was inspired. He continued his apologetic historiography in which E. G. White functioned more as a saint who did not make mistakes and thus providentially led in the formation of the denomination. W. C. White and A. L. White laid the foundation for a rich tradition of apologetic history coming from the Ellen G. White Estate through much of the 20th century. W. C. White’s approach emphasized the supernatural aspects of her 4 21 A. L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, 5:10–​11. 422 Ibid., 5:10–​11, 278–​287, 291–​293, 423, 471. 423 Ibid. 424 Arthur L. White, Charismatic Experiences in Early Seventh-​day Adventist History (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1973); Arthur L. White, “Bible Study Versus Ecstatic Experiences,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 150 (1973): 6–​8; Arthur L. White, “Ellen G. White and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 150 (1973): 8–​10; Arthur L. White, “Face to Face With the Spurious,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 150 (1973): 9–​11.

114

Christian History as Apologetics

life along with pertinent details about her as an individual but they also tended to minimize the wider historical context of what was going on during her lifetime or the human aspects that were very much a part of her life and writings. Church leaders, as early as at the 1919 Bible Conference, expressed concern that by emphasizing this too much that it could lead to an unbalanced way of interpreting her writings. As the Seventh-​day Adventist Church became increasingly fundamentalist during the 1920s and 1930s, this period corresponded with more materials from the Ellen G. White Estate that emphasized the supernatural, divine inspiration and authority of her writings.425 The Ellen G. White Estate has been producing apologetic materials for the defense of Adventist beliefs. Second, it focuses on the refutation of criticism against E. G. White’s prophetic ministry. Finally, it also seeks to persuade believers about the authenticity and authority of her writings. The White Estate fulfills these basic functions from its start up to this day. It has been extremely influential in shaping the historiography of Seventh-​day Adventist Church, especially with regards to E. G. White’s writings. Early denominational history textbooks concomitantly adopted the kind of apologetic approach showcased by the White Estate.

Early Denominational History Textbooks During the 20th century, the Seventh-​day Adventist Church began to produce denominational history textbooks. This development corresponded with the development of a distinctive philosophy of Adventist education, which included a distinctive curriculum (that became particularly evident after the 1892 Harbor Springs Convention). Early narratives including those written by Loughborough, Olsen, and Spalding were at times used as textbooks in Adventist schools in the 1890s through 1920. By that date, there was a recognition that a specific textbook devoted to Adventist history was needed as part of the Adventist educational curriculum. Such a textbook would serve an apologetic purpose by explaining Adventist history to young people as a way to nurture Adventist faith. The very first Adventist history textbook specifically written for this purpose was Story of the Advent Message (1926) authored by Matilda E. Andross.426 She 425 Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923); Ellen G. White, Messages to Young People (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1930); Ellen G. White, Medical Ministry (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1932). 426 Matilda E. Andross, Story of the Advent Message (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1926).

Early Denominational History Textbooks

115

was commissioned by the Young People’s Missionary Volunteers Department of the General Conference. The second was The Great Advent Movement (1935, 1941, 1947, 1951, and 1957) written by Emma H. Cooper. She was also commissioned by the Young People’s Department of Missionary Volunteers of the General Conference.427 The third was Lessons in Denominational History: For Use in the Secondary Schools of the Church (1942).428 This time, the textbook was written under the generic aegis of the Department of Education of the General Conference. The fourth, and by far most extensive and significant, was titled simply The Story of Our Church (1956 and 1960). Once again, it was prepared and published by the General Conference Department of Education.429 Each of these textbooks provided a systematic analysis of historical materials related to denominational beliefs. Each textbook serves a useful purpose by explaining important beliefs, sharing historical memory and identity, and instilling those beliefs and values to a new generation. They are apologetic in the sense that they present coherent arguments to persuade students about the raison d’être of the church.430 Thus, these textbooks seek to inspire students to embrace its mission to tell the world about Christ’s soon return and to be ready when He comes. A core theme in each of these textbooks is to connect Seventh-​day Adventist students to their prophetic roots originating with the Millerite Movement. Each of the textbooks examined from this time period highlights this prophetic legacy.431 They connect Adventist history as part of historical memory.432 A clear understanding of Adventist memory and history, intertwined with church identity, provides a better way for reconciling present realities with collective memory.433 As time progressed, individual authors were replaced by committees 427 Emma H. Cooper, The Great Advent Movement (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1935). 428 The Department of Education of the General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, Lessons in Denominational History: For Use in the Secondary Schools of the Church (Washington, DC: Department of Education, 1942). 429 The Department of Education of the General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, The Story of Our Church (Washington, DC: Department of Education, 1960). 430 Andross, Story of the Advent Message, 4. 431 The Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 26–​31; Andross, Story of the Advent Message, 19–​48; The Department of Education, Lessons in Denominational History, 88–​98; Cooper, The Great Advent Movement, 26–​38. 432 I use the terms “historical memory” and “collective memory” interchangeably in this study. 433 A study which attempted an examination of Adventist collective memory has been Seeking a Sanctuary. Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart describe sufficiently the social

116

Christian History as Apologetics

who wrote these textbooks. It is significant to note the official nature of these productions as each textbook was commissioned by the General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. This official narrative took into account underlying historical facts that enhance Adventist identity. They sought to educate Seventh-​day Adventist students about the reason for their faith and why such beliefs remain valid. Denominational history textbooks demonstrate an official historiographical narrative that seeks to establish the relevance of Adventists beliefs for a new generation. A significant aspect is to highlight the expansion of Adventist missions. The importance of such history is related to beliefs.434 It becomes vital to write about the sacrifices of the Adventist pioneers, including their accomplishments and afflictions along the way.435 These books are “a sort of reception hall,” where believers “meet some of the heroes of the cross in the advent movement.”436 Such historical writing takes on a sense of collective memory. As students study history, they connect their present realities (individual memories) to past collective experiences (collective memory) shaped by the lives of the heroes of the Adventist faith. One textbook stated that it was “to tell enough of the thrilling experiences to clothe the bare facts and join them together into the story of one great movement reaching out farther and farther as it envelops the earth.”437 This textbook highlights how past collective memories frame the identity of the denomination along the years. This textbook seeks to frame a collective character of Seventh-​day Adventists.438 These early denominational textbooks tried to convince Adventist students to abide by core morals and virtues that are evident from Adventist history. A specific textbook, The Story of Our Church, warns against wolves in sheep’s’ clothing. In this way, this textbook serves another apologetic role by warning against critics. These wolves include both figures in the past as well as the present. For

memory of Seventh-​day Adventists. The study is a sociological description of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church and that of its adherents. Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-​day Adventism and the American Dream (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007), 245–​255. 434 Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 136–​214; Cooper, The Great Advent Movement, 12–​38; Department of Education, Lessons, 58–​185. 435 Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 194–​214; Department of Education, Lessons, 78–​87. 436 Andross, Story of the Advent Message, 6. 437 Ibid. 438 Department of Education, Lessons, 5.

Early Denominational History Textbooks

117

example, Ann Lee came from England and taught that she was the “second incarnation of Christ.” She developed strange views such as celibacy. She and her followers lived “in little communities with no private property, the men and women living in separate quarters.”439 Another set of wolves were the Fox sisters “who began to hear strange rapping noises in their room. They responded by talking to the unknown source of the sounds and found that they could communicate. One of the girls developed unusual skill in this spirit exercise. News of the happening spread rapidly, and there were many imitators, some genuine and some false.”440 The Fox sisters were credited with the rise of modern spiritualism, which E. G. White and others have repeatedly noted were a direct threat to Adventism and a sign of the end.441 At other times, these wolves were heresies or threats highlighted from within Adventism. One of them was the Holy Flesh Movement that taught that Jesus received holy flesh in Gethsemane and his last-​day followers will also go through a crisis moment when they will receive holy flesh that will be translated into heaven.442 Another significant deviation was pan(en)theism as taught by John Harvey Kellogg. Kellogg believed that God was “in the things of nature.”443 His infamous book The Living Temple (1902) argued that God was a force present in everything. Another significant heresy was the Rowenite Movement.444 Finally, the most recent heretical group was the Shepherd’s Rod. Founded by Victor T. Houteff in 1934, they were a “reformed group” who believed they would constitute the actual 144,000. When Houteff refused to accept counsel from church leaders, he renounced the denomination.445 This group became known as “Davidian Seventh-​day Adventists.”446 All of these “wolves” or deviant groups or teachings served as important reminders warning Adventist young people to guard themselves. Each of the books emphasized the importance of E. G. White’s prophetic ministry and how continued vigilance, by paying attention to her inspired counsel, served a vital purpose by protecting Adventist young people

4 39 Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 236. 440 Ibid. 441 Ibid. 442 Ibid., 239. 443 Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years 1900–​1905 (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985), 5:289. 444 I have referred to Rowenite Movement on page 98 in the section on the White Estate. 445 Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 240–​241. 446 Ibid., 241.

118

Christian History as Apologetics

from such heresies. E. G. White actively helped provide counsels against such heresies. She rebuked Kellogg for his pantheistic views of God.447 These textbooks also served another useful purpose by bridging the disparity between actual memory and collective conscience.448 The ability to remember history is the bridge the historian builds from the past to the present and even into the future. Historians should not aim to change or manipulate such memory deliberately. The present, however, can be improved by remembering this collective past, and the future depends upon the collective participatory efforts based upon historical memory. Each of these textbooks attempts to connect individual memories to collective memories. They recreate the past in the present as a way to impact the lives of students. They lead students to respect traditions as central to Adventism’s collective character.449 Memory connects to history when the future finds meaning in the past. The present, therefore, becomes understandable as it builds its existence upon the past and thereby builds toward the future. All four textbooks examined in this section reflect a sense of Adventist apologetics. The denomination started from a small band of believers who were providentially led to create an ever-​expanding denomination replete with a system of organization, wide array of institutions, coherent system of finance, and system for evangelism and missionary service.450 This kind of Adventist history was triumphalist. This is not surprising in that the purpose was to affirm the faith of young people in Adventist schools, beginning with a high view of Scripture that saw Adventism itself as a fulfillment of prophecy. Each of these textbooks also highlighted the prophetic life and ministry of E. G. White. These textbooks showcase how her inspired counsels helped to shape the denomination in numerous ways.451 Most important of all, these textbooks show how Adventists during this second apologetic phase of Adventist historiography sought to find ways for continuity between memory and history. From this, at least three basic principles are observable from these textbook narratives. First of all, they emphasize the importance of denominational beliefs as part of Adventist history. Second, the stories help to emphasize Adventist identity as part of a common historical narrative. Finally, they seek to inspire Adventist young people to have a sense 4 47 Ibid., 236; Cooper, The Great Advent Movement, 114–​115. 448 Cooper, The Great Advent Movement, 136. 449 Ibid., 5, 9. 450 Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 215–​512. 451 Cooper, The Great Advent Movement, 108–​115; Department of Education, The Story of Our Church, 194–​200, 398–​426; Department of Education, Lessons, 150–​159, 262–​266.

Early Denominational History Textbooks

119

of mission for which the church was born (Rev 12:17; 14:6–​12). In sum, early Adventist historical textbooks were apologetic history as they linked the past to the present. Those who contributed to such a historiography emphasized Adventist beliefs and used them as proof that God had both providentially led and would continue to lead the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. From the pages reflected upon in this chapter, it appears clearly that there is in the mind of Adventist apologists a subconscious admiration of apologetic history that deserves explanation. Seventh-​day Adventists view themselves as a prophetic church with roots dating to the Millerite movement as part of a rich tradition of prophetic interpretation.452 Although some pertinent studies highlight the implications of this prophetic legacy, more effort needs to be made to connect Adventist history to its historical memory.453 A clearer understanding of Adventist memory and history, intertwined to church identity, will provide a better way forward for understanding Adventist traditional approach to history.454 This section explores the relationship between Adventist memory and its consequences for historical writing. The author’s concern here is the relation of Adventists to their inherited past and the place of the apologetic historians within this relationship. How does an apologetic Adventist historian find his or her place in relation to the dynamic of Adventist memory? This relationship determines how one writes Adventist history, and by extension, shapes identity. Yosef H. Yerushalmi argues that collective memory ought to define the meaning of Jewish historical scholarship. Yerushalmi contrasts his approach with the modern view of history which is, as Pierre Nora recognizes, “perpetually suspicious of [collective] memory, and its true mission is to suppress and destroy it.”455 I base my reflections on memory and history following Yerushalmi 452 George R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the Rise of Adventism (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2010), 295–​325. In his devotional book, Lest We Forget: Daily Devotionals (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2008), Knight points to the prophetic corners stones of the roots of Seventh-​day Adventism. 453 I use the terms “historical memory,” and “collective memory,” interchangeably in this study. 454 A study which attempted an examination of Adventist collective memory has been Seeking Sanctuary. Bull and Lockhart describe sufficiently the social memory of Seventh-​day Adventists. The study is a sociological description of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church and that of its adherents. Bull and Lockhart, Seeking Sanctuary, 245–​255. 455 Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire,” Represnations 26, (1989), 9.Among his other works on memory include: “Entre Mémoire et Histoire,” in Les lieux de mémoire, 3: 23–​43, edited by Pierre Nora (Paris: Gallimard, 1997),

120

Christian History as Apologetics

by using the Hebrew word Zakhor as an emblematic term for structuring the writing of history. This word goes beyond a simple remembering and includes a direct command in relation to identity. It appears that most apologists builds on this theme as a useful way to bridge the past, present, and future for Adventist historiography. Writing about the importance of memory and history, Philip R. Davies asked a very pertinent question: “What is more important about the past than facts?” He soon answered: “The answer is memory, because memory, whether personal or collective, belongs to us. It is our history. Nor is it a disinterested recollection, but something basic to our identity and our future.”456 Memory and history have been traditionally inseparable.457 The reason is this: “identity is created by memory through interpreting the past as a coherent narrative, or set of narratives.”458 Memory provides a sense of ultimate identity. Jan Assmann argues that “Memory is knowledge with an identity-​index. It is knowledge about oneself, that is, one’s own diachronic identity, whether as an individual or . . . religious tradition.”459 In his pioneering work on collective memory, Maurice Halbwachs argues that individual memory is first rooted in the collective memory.460 This work, which remains a significant study in the sociology of knowledge, enlightens the role of collective memory in shaping society. Seventh-​day Adventism‘s identity, just as that of any other institution, individual or moral person, is linked to its memory. How the Adventist historian

“The Era of Commemoration,” in Realms of Memory, Vol. 3, edited by Lawrence D. Kritzman and translated by Arthur Goldhammer, 609–​37 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), “General Introduction: Between Memory and History,” in Realms of Memory, Vol. 1, Under the direction of Pierre Nora, Translated by Arthur Goldhammer, 1–​20 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). 456 Davies, Memories of Ancient Israel, 106. 457 Jacques Le Goff in his History and Memory, trans. by Steven Rendall (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), x-​xxiii, argues for the separation of memory and history. He affirmed in the preface of his book that “A the outset, I had to examine the relations between history and memory. Recent, naïve trends seem virtually to identify history with memory, and even to give preference in some sense to memory, on the ground that it is more authentic, ‘truer’ than history, which is presumed to be artificial and, above all, manipulative of memory.” Ibid., xi. 458 Davies, Memories of Ancient Israel, 106. 459 Jan Assmann, “Memory and Culture,” in Memory: A History, edited by Dmitri Nikulin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 328. 460 Maurice Halbwachs, La Mémoire Collective, edited by Gérard Namer (Paris : Albin Michel, 1997), 51–​96.

Early Denominational History Textbooks

121

captures and retraces the memory, fundamental to the identity of Seventh-​day Adventism, determines a view of Adventist history and eliciting loyalty to the Church’s ideals. This is arguably true, because memory represents “the intellectual form in which a society renders account to itself of its past.”461 Memory and identity abide by the link of what Assmann calls “autonetic function of memory.”462 This link conditions the awareness of oneself in time. Adventism draws insights from biblical history. This latter perpetually appeals for the link between memory and history. The term Zakhor is illustrative of the Bible as history. Yerushalmi seems to have captured its meaning in his groundbreaking work Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. He said that the word is derived from the verb Zakhar which is better understood when “complemented by its obverse—​forgetting. As Israel is enjoined to remember, so is it adjured not to forget.”463 Zakhor, thus, is a term which gives meaning to the history of the Israelites and their relationship to the God of their fathers (Ex 3:16). Following Biblical history, the way Adventist apologists relate to their common past, and exercise their skills within the common understanding of Adventist history affects the nature of their historical writings. But what are Adventists to remember? How the remembrance of the Adventist waymarks is related to the writing of Adventist history? Adventist apologists wrote intensively as seen in this chapter on the importance of Adventist historical beginning. In this regard, the remembrance of Seventh-​day Adventists’ common roots helps articulate their identity. The precept of not forgetting the past lies at the heart of Adventist identity. It was not without reason that Ellen White said: In reviewing our past history, having traveled over every step of advance to our present standing, I can say, Praise God! As I see what the Lord has wrought, I am filled with astonishment, and with confidence in Christ as Leader. We have nothing to fear for the future except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.464

Remembrance encapsulates the meaning of Adventist history. Familiarity with prophetic concepts characteristic of Adventist history, for instance, defines the peculiarity of Adventists in Christian history. The date such as 1844 in Adventism

4 61 Assmann, “Memory and Culture,” 328. 462 Ibid., 329. 463 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 5. 464 White, E. G. Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen G. White (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1922), 204.

122

Christian History as Apologetics

bears significant insights for defining Adventist identity. The historian who sees the dynamic of Adventist past attempts to depict a history coherent to the collective conscience. Adventist apologetic historians pledged to retrace the continuity between historical memory and collective conscience of Seventh-​day Adventists. These historians viewed the writing of history as the bridge they intentionally sought to build from the present to the past, and from the past to the future. The aim is not to change the memory which is built on the collective past. The past cannot change. The present can be improved by the remembrance of collective past. And the future demands collective participatory efforts based on the collective historical memory. As an observer of Adventist history, it appears that Adventist apologetic historians adopted a framework of history that is faithful to Adventist memory. The prophetic inheritance is buried in Adventist collective memory. Twenty-​four years ago Knight made a striking observation. “Modern Seventh-​day Adventists prefer to ignore it, but their movement began in the midst of a segment of Adventism up to its armpits in fanaticism by early 1845.”465 In the perplexity of prophetic interpretation, however, a bright light announced the rise of a historical denomination.466 Thus, Adventism was in part a creature of Millerism. In the 19th century, the Millerite movement advanced a great revival of Bible prophecy. Millerites called on their fellow brethren to study the Bible and get ready for the soon appearance of Christ. Millerites’ leaders taught that the world was coming to an end around 1844. This movement emphasized the excitement of spiritual conversion. In this spiritual glamour, history was, as traditionally, subordinated to theology for prophetic insights and for supporting the vitality of the movement. Adventist apologetic historians viewed Adventist historiography within the realm of continuity of memory and history. An appreciation of collective memory transpires from their minds. These historians depict history that links Seventh-​day Adventists to their common roots. In their endeavours they sought to be in harmony with their beliefs and expression of their loyalty to the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. And finally, they wrote history that enhances the sense of mission for which the church was born (Rev 14:6–​12) in the light of metanarrative historical discourses (Rev 12:17).

4 65 Knight, Millennial Fever, 295. 466 Ellen G. White, Life Sketches of Ellen G. White (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1915), 64.

Summary and Conclusion

123

Summary and Conclusion This chapter examined the development of the second stage of Adventist historiography that focused on apologetic history. It focused on three major areas where Adventist apologetics became very important from the time of Loughborough through the 1960s. Areas reviewed included individual contributions by historians, the work of the White Estate, and history textbooks. These three areas share a common understanding about the need to uphold denominational beliefs. Individual narratives (Olsen, Spicer, Spalding, Nichol, Froom, and Olson) do not mention any contradictions between theocentric approaches to history and the formal writing of history. They overlook the complexities of historical developments. They often ignore political, socio-​economic, and racial factors that influenced Adventist history. They wrote history to affirm the legacy of their predecessors. The Ellen G. White Estate has been a center of apologetic materials for the defense of the Adventist faith. The focus of this organization has been to refute criticism against E. G. White’s ministry. This organization also seeks to persuade believers about the importance of E. G. White’s writings. Denominational history textbooks present known historical facts. They built upon an apologetic tradition, which consisted of evaluating historical facts without being critical. This approach identified ways to engage historical investigation for the affirmation of the Adventist faith. These textbooks did not depart from individual approaches in the sense that they were defensive of Adventist beliefs. They usually sought to communicate ways through which the church might connect to its historical memory. This approach seemed to have produced a dogmatic interpretation of facts. Just like the early pioneers, Adventist apologetic historians interpret historical facts through the lens of the Bible. The Bible states that God is the ultimate sovereign in history. Christianity which traces its roots to biblical times embraces the Hebraic view of history. Christian history revolves around the historical Jesus, His birth, mission, death, resurrection, and second coming. This history is teleological. It has a beginning and an end. Its beginning marks the entrance of God into human affairs in time. This history is not only about mankind, it is also about God working His providence for a sovereign purpose. Christian history has a meaning. Every historical event happens for a purpose. There is no accident in time. This view ignores the explanations of facts through cultural lenses or secular approaches. The Bible states that

124

Christian History as Apologetics

God is the Lord of history. He works out events in time as He wills (Eph 1:5). This approach is not illegitimate. Its basic purpose is to serve “an important function in acquainting a new generation of believers with the historical roots of their faith and creates an appreciation of the multi-​faceted heritage bequeathed to them by their spiritual progenitors.”467 Rolf J. Pöhler argues, however, that if stretched to the limits, this approach distorts the meaning of historical investigation.468 The historian should accept the value of providential and apologetic history for their particular purposes and times, show their weaknesses, and ultimately advocate for the kind of scholarly and critical but supportive history that is honest and sincere based on evidence. The questions which demand reflection are, What did apologetic historians make of their use of sources? Did they force sources to suit their agenda? Did they impose dogma instead of providing reliable historical accounts? Adventist apologists had their limitations in understanding the complexity of historical facts. Can their defects be a stumbling block for a modern historian? Adventist apologists believed that the main role of a Christian historian is to further the cause of Christ. They wrote history with a missiological principle evident in their writings. While the historian must analyze historical and social contexts in which one writes, one should admit one’s biases and expose them as a way to present one’s facts. The goal should be to understand the meaning of historical events within a framework of biblical narrative. Adventist apologetic approaches strengthened denominational beliefs through their approaches that emphasized faith, providence, and the commitment to investigate historical facts for preserving ecclesiastical memory. They emulated the works of the pioneers whose counsels and testimonies they sought to preserve. Thus, apologetic historiography overall affirms Christian beliefs. Apologetic historians combine Christian theology with historical methods as a

467 Rolf Pöhler, “The Adventist Historian: Between Criticism and Faith,” in Glaube und Zukunftsgestaltung: Festschrift zum hundertjährigen Bestehen der Theologischen Hochschule Friedensau, ed. Bernhard Oestreich, Horst Rolly, and Wolfgang Kabus (Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 1999), 203. The danger with apologetic history appears when “theology is used to suit historical and political agenda.” Ibid. 468 “This underlying apologetic motivation, however, carries with it the ever-​present temptation of drawing a somewhat one-​sided and even distorted picture of the past by focusing on those occurrences that tend to build confidence in the church and strengthen faith in its teachings, while at the same time passing over the darker side of history. In some cases, this may lead to a gross misinterpretation or even manipulation of the primary sources.” Ibid.

Summary and Conclusion

125

distinct methodology within a denominational bubble that consciously ignored secular critical scholarship. The Seventh-​day Adventist apologetic historians described in this chapter connected history to the roots of Seventh-​ day Adventism. Later historians examined in the next chapter built upon or reacted against such apologetics.

Chapter 4 The Development of Critical Approaches to Adventist History and Various Responses to Them In the late 1960s, there was a strong drive towards a much more professional approach to Seventh-​day Adventist history. This drive towards a more critical approach to Adventist historiography certainly had some historical antecedents (pioneered by trained historians) but by the 1960s had grown into a much larger movement with a number of professionally trained historians. These historians set out to more objectively study the past using a much more critical approach and applied such methods to Adventist history.469 Such historians utilized a variety of approaches and methods—​scientific, social science, political, economic, and even new variations of apologetics—​to help them better define the Adventist past.470 Such research was claimed to be rooted in verifiable claims based upon solid evidence. Simplistic explanations of the past were simply not enough and, at times, were less than satisfactory when apologetic claims led to hagiography especially in some instances when answering claims by critics. Often, events traditionally attributed to providence had a much more reasonable explanation or were the result of various cultural and historical influences.471 While this approach did not necessarily always eliminate providence, it could at times temper such explanations or show a much more human element in describing past events, particularly when the pioneers did not always live up to an idealized version of the past. These new critical historians invoked the role of human agency and material causations that frequently offered an alternative naturalistic explanation for many aspects of Adventist history. “Without question, a new Adventist historical consciousness had dawned. Historians went ‘where angels fear to tread’ within the Adventist past and, most significantly, in

469 Butler, “Seventh-​day Adventist Historiography,” 149–​166. For apologetic historians before the 1970s, history “meant magical thinking. The prophet, E. G. White, occupied an even more revered place in Adventism’s sacred past, a kind of ‘holy of holies.’ ” Ibid., 150. 470 These approaches were the result of professional training received by historians. It was also in a large part a reaction to apologetic history that dominated Adventist historiography during the early 20th century. 471 McArthur, “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?,” 9–​14.

128

The Development of Critical Approaches

the life of Ellen White herself.”472 They also reflected upon human choices with the way decisions were made as creating other historical effects. In their reconstruction of the past, they often used various historical sources from a wide range of archives including, much more often, public archives and other sources not always readily available at Adventist institutions. The 1960s also witnessed an intellectual awakening among a young cadre of Adventist intellectuals. Some of these scholars included a number of historians who contributed to the creation of a new journal in 1969 titled Spectrum.473 This new publication provided a venue for scholars to share their findings and, at times, express questions about Adventism. Within this journal were a number of early articles published by a new generation of historians who began to ask more critical questions about the past. Adventist historians developed a school of thought that emphasized functionalism—​the idea that religious, political, social, and cultural factors are plausible explanations behind historical events. New primary source documents surfaced that indicated that descriptions of the early Adventist pioneers typical of Adventist apologetic historians might actually be more of a glorified hagiographical vision of the past. Major critical reactions surfaced during the 1960s through the 1980s that became particularly important for undermining such hagiography. First was the discovery of the transcripts of the 1919 Bible Conference which, during the post-​conference discussion with history and Bible teachers, showed that an earlier generation of historians had in fact expressed concerns about how the church taught matters

4 72 Butler, “Seventh-​day Adventist Historiography,” 151. 473 On October 6, 1967, there was an important meeting about the formation of Spectrum. The General Conference met with a group of students who wished to form a new an independent journal. Some of those participants included Branson, David Claridge, Alvin Kwiram, Numbers, and Tom Walter who together requested General Conference leaders for such a periodical. Church leadership represented, among others names, by Walton J. Brown, Kenneth H. Wood, and N. C. Wilson, supported such a publication because it was a “journal that could provide a kind of ‘loyal’ opposition in which sophisticated, informed analysis and evaluation could be provided.” Richard C. Osborn, “The Establishment of the Adventist Forum,” Spectrum 10 (1980): 43. Despite some resistance, church leaders could not stop the initial publication of Spectrum on October 25, 1967. These Adventist intellectuals vowed to bring intellectual respectability within the denomination. It is important to note that Neal C. Wilson, at that time, North American Division president and who later became a General Conference president, initially was a strong supporter of this periodical when it first began.

The Development of Critical Approaches

129

related to the authority and inspiration of E. G. White’s writings.474 This new generation of historians, particularly during the 1970s, took solace in knowing that an earlier generation had asked similar questions. Second type of documents surfaced that showed that many of the early pioneers were much more charismatic in their worship. This was particularly evident during the Millerite revival and during the earliest formative years among Sabbatarian Adventists. Some apologetic historians, most notably Froom, seemingly tried to suppress such evidence.475 Still, others questioned the use of sources used by E. G. White, particularly in conjunction with the French Revolution and writings about health reform.476 Altogether, this new generation of Adventist historians offered some fresh and new critical interpretations of the past. Such revisionist interpretations of Adventist history were also due in part as a reaction to the hagiographical apologetics that dominated Adventist historiography up to that time. The critical examination of the past also contributed to tensions between historians and denominational administrators. The very fact that these historians asked such critical questions, and at times offered naturalistic explanations or pointed out shortcomings, meant that some church administrators questioned their loyalty and even the merit of studying the past in such a critical way. Most notably, Neal C. Wilson (1920–​2010), president of the General Conference from 1979 to 1990, initially supported the creation of the journal Spectrum but subsequently withdrew his support.477 Richard C. Osborn observed, “In fact, without

474 In 1975, Yost who was then working on setting up the General Conference Archives followed up on a request from Don Mansell from the Ellen G. White Estate. Yost discovered the transcripts, which were eventually leaked to Spectrum. These transcripts helped scholars recognize that the questions that were then being asked about the nature and authority of E. G. White’s writings had been asked by a much earlier generation of church leaders only four years after her death. 475 George R. Knight, personal communication to Dr. Michael W. Campbell, June 11, 2018. Both Campbell and Knight base their information upon conversations they had with L. E. Froom’s son, Fenton Froom, who said that he was requested, when his father was on his deathbed, to destroy a number of early Adventist documents, particularly those related to charismatic experiences in early Adventism. Paul McGraw, Professor of History at Pacific Union College, disputes this story. Paul McGraw argues that the papers were merely duplicates and that L. E. Froom did not destroy anything of historical value. Edward Allen, personal communication to the author, August 28, 2018. 476 William S. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen G. White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum 2, no. 4 (1970): 57–​69; John W. Wood, “The Bible and the French Revolution: An Answer,” Spectrum 3, no. 4 (1971): 55–​72. 477 Osborn, “The Establishment of the Adventist Forum,” 43.

130

The Development of Critical Approaches

Wilson’s support there would have been no association [Spectrum].”478 Other church leaders joined Wilson in expressing significant concerns about Spectrum and the rise of this more critical scholarship. At this point, a revolution (there had been no “old” revolution) in Adventist historiography was under way. This included, as already mentioned, the discovery of primary source documents that led to further questions about how to interpret Adventist history. It also generated a wide range of responses including some attempts to synthesize these new critical interpretations with a more positive and constructive approach to Adventist history. Still, others simply dismissed such scholarship and retrenched into an even stronger version of apologetic history. Those more critical historians, or even those who sought a mediating ground, remained under an aura of suspicion. This new critical wave of Adventist historiography both revolutionized, yet at the same time also polarized the way Adventist historians interpreted the past.

Critical Historiography During the 19th century, theological history dominated early Adventism, which morphed into a much more intentional apologetic form during the 20th century. Such confessional and apologetic approaches attributed the development of the church to divine providence. They argued that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church was chosen by God to tell the world about Christ’s soon return. They also believed that E. G. White was a sign of God’s faithfulness, showing that this was indeed His end-​time prophetic movement. Her writings were attributed as having divine authority and therefore would continue to speak until the Second Advent of Christ. Largely in response to such apologetic history (as described in Chapter 3), a number of critical historians sought to limit the sometimes grandiose and hagiographical claims of the apologetic historians. They did this by emphasizing the need for impartial research. Instead of defending the validity of Adventism or the legitimacy of E. G. White, they sought to better understand Adventist history in terms of its larger context. This could at times lead to discounting, and even rejecting claims of providence in order to explain the general narrative of Adventist history. Some employed a secular historical methodology that discounted supernatural explanations. As a response, two groups of historians reacted to apologetic approach of the past. In the first category were open critical thinkers. They maintained the possibility of material causation without rejecting

478 Ibid., 44.

Critical Historiography

131

divine providence. In other words, they were looking for plausible and reasonable explanations based upon natural causation without necessarily excluding divine providence. In the second group were the closed secular historians. Ronald Numbers exemplified this approach. He rejected any supernatural explanation for the past. These two groups of scholars, at times, overlapped in that they shared a common goal to deconstruct the past. Yet, they departed from one another regarding their overall purpose. Whereas open critical historians wrote history while remaining committed Christians, those who embraced the closed secular confessional approach embraced assumptions that in general rejected a Christian approach to history altogether. Any claims to divine providence were out of bounds because they could not be rationally proven from historical evidence. Such an approach is naturally suspicious and seeks to always attribute some natural causation to the past.

Open Critical History As early as the late 1910s, a number of trained scholars expressed the need to examine sources in their original context. Two influential historians were Edwin F. Albertsworth, a history teacher at Washington Missionary College, and Clement L. Benson, dean and professor of history at Union College, who was known for his lectures on the historical method. Both individuals lamented the accepted poor historical scholarship within the denomination. They recognized the need for much more serious historical investigation of the past, which they believed would help to increase the credibility of the Adventist message—​ particularly for Adventist evangelists. These historians saw the possibility of what could happen if the denomination embraced historical scholarship. They clearly broke ranks with apologetic historians who, at this time, simply elevated history to the domain of divine providence and did not pay close attention to serious historical investigations.479 For example, Benson reflected upon how historical methodology could apply to biblical interpretation. He argued, “Higher criticism is a valuable science that has made clear to us our Bible.”480 These two men represented a much more moderate instead of extreme confessional or merely apologetic form of Seventh-​day Adventism. They saw a reasonable approach that

479 Clement L. Benson, “The Application of the Principles of Historic Method to Our Teaching Work,” Report of Bible Conference, Takoma Park, MD, 1919, 1274. See also Edwin F. Albertsworth, Historical Method.” Report of Bible Conference, Takoma Park, MD, 1919, 1281–​1303. 480 Benson, “The Application of the Principles,” 1275.

132

The Development of Critical Approaches

could both affirm faith while still embrace new forms of scholarship without it threatening their faith. In this sense, Benson and Albertsworth fall within a more progressive spectrum of Adventism. In essence, Albertsworth and Benson pioneered a historical methodology grounded in the comprehensive examination of sources. For the first time, some Seventh-​day Adventist Church intellectuals recognized the importance and complexity of historical writing. While they understood that pure objectivity with regard to historical scholarship is unattainable, they still acknowledged that it was essential to strive to objectively examine as much as possible original sources.481 Benson instructed, “You want to know where the book was written, when it was written, the critical ability of the writer, his ability to write in an impartial manner. . . . I just long for our denomination to do that. I believe it rests in a large way on the history and Bible teachers to do this sort of thing.”482 In addition to examining sources, the very reading of these texts demanded critical evaluation. Albertsworth and Benson could separate the explanation of an event from its metaphysical description.483 They were conversant with the great historical thinkers of the Classical era including Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius. These Greek historians wrote history based upon the serious examination of facts using the best available critical methodology to discriminate between hagiography and much more objective history. Albertsworth and Benson recognized the potential to start a revolution in Adventist historiography. Apparently, these two men were ahead of their time. Such progressive ideas led to their dismissal from denominational employment.484 Both men spent the rest of their careers working in public institutions where each had a productive career.485 Before they left denominational employment, Albertsworth and Benson made a series of significant presentations about historiography and historical methods at the 1919 Bible Conference. This was the first major discussion on E. G. White’s authority and the legacy of her life and writings within the Seventh-​day Adventist Church after her death in 1915. As church administrators, editors, and educators gathered together (the best-​trained group of Adventist scholars to meet up to that time), they began to discuss a number of theological and hermeneutical topics. 4 81 482 483 484

Albertsworth, “Historical Method,” 1282. Benson, “The Application of the Principles,” 1278. Emphasis added. Ibid., 1286. Michael W. Campbell, “ASDAH’s Founding Fathers: A Look at Adventist Historians in the 1910s and the Development of Adventist Historiography,” paper presented at the Association of SDA Historians, Oakwood University, Huntsville, AL, 2007, 1–​11. 485 Ibid., 3–​4.

Critical Historiography

133

As they did so, stormy debates ensued. Those who worked closely with E. G. White, such as church president Daniells, argued for a more flexible view of E. G. White’s inspiration. He recognized that E. G. White, although she was accepted as a prophet, was also a human being and that she, at times, even revised her writings to make them more accurate. At the same time, there were others who were pushing for a much more rigid approach to inspiration, especially E. G. White’s writings. Individuals such as Claude Holmes and J. S. Washburn did not see a difference between E. G. White’s writings and the Bible and equated them, considering them to have equal authority. They also uplifted E. G. White as an infallible saint. Such hagiography often went closely with a rigid view of inspiration that emphasized her infallibility. Although Washburn and Holmes were not present at the 1919 Bible Conference, they were in the area and obtained regular updates from other individuals who did participate in the meetings. They saw church leaders such as Daniells as undermining the very validity of the gift of prophecy. Yet as the denomination shifted toward fundamentalism during the 1920s, the transcripts of the Bible Conference were tucked away and those who embraced a much more open critical approach to history during this early period similarly left were dismissed from denominational employment as much more confessional and apologetic approaches became the mainstay of Adventist historiography. The lingering resistance to more open critical approaches can still be seen during the 1920s when Everett N. Dick wrote his doctoral dissertation. When he completed his study in 1930, the denomination refused to publish his research because it was felt that such historical research was at best dangerous.486 Dick was critical in his description of Adventist movement. Land suggests that “in the 1920s, a time when most Seventh-​day Adventists were skeptical of advanced education,”487 there was no hope to accept a study which could point

486 Everett N. Dick was a student at Union College who took history classes from Benson during the 1919–​1920 and 1922–​1923 school years. He took the class “Middle Ages” from Benson in 1919–​1920 and the class 19th-​Century History from Benson in 1922–​ 1923. He also took Geology from George McCready Price during the first year Price taught at that campus. Dick also took classes in American History from Kansas State Normal College and by correspondence from Kansas State Normal College. Copies of transcripts are available at the records office at Union College. Edward Allen, personal communication to the author, August 27, 2018. 487 Gary Land, “Foreword,” in William Miller and the Advent Crisis, by Everett N. Dick (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1994), vii. See also Jonathan M. Butler and Ronald L. Numbers, “Introduction,” in The Disappointed: Millerism

134

The Development of Critical Approaches

out deficiencies in a movement that was viewed as divinely guided. Adventist apologetic historians Nichol and Froom, after they examined the manuscript, labeled it as defeatist and instead wrote their own historical narratives about the Millerite Movement that ignored Dick’s research. In fact, they did not even acknowledge his dissertation in their rather extensive bibliographies when they wrote on the topic. With such treatment regarding his research on Adventist history, “Everett changed course, turning his attention to the history of the trans-​ Mississippi West.”488 The use of more critical historical methods was much safer when applied to historical research not focused on the Adventist past. He later became a recognized historian of the western frontier contributing influential works such as The Sod-​House Frontier and Vanguards of the Frontier. It was not until more than 60 years later (in 1994) that Dick’s research would finally be recognized when it was published by Andrews University Press with a historical introduction by Land. A major step between the work of Dick (as written in his dissertation in 1930) and the publication in 1994 was how a number of critical scholars fostered a much more nuanced understanding of the early beginnings of Seventh-​day Adventism. In addition to the creation of Spectrum during the late 1960s, there existed a group of young Adventist intellectuals including several historians. These individuals called for articles “that would lead to a shaking of the conservative Adventist movement—​one that has largely grown without a knowledge of the church prophet’s working methods, which were somewhat familiar to her contemporaries.”489 The autumn 1970 issue of Spectrum contained articles which called for a new quest to critically examine E. G. White’s life and writings. Roy Branson and Herold Weiss cast a vision for discovering “the real Ellen White.”490 Ironically, they believed that such critical examination of her life and writings would contribute toward a much “more vibrant,” “more believable,” and “more authoritative” prophet.491 They suggested three steps in order to evaluate her writings and their contribution: first, they needed to discover the nature of “Mrs.

and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Jonathan M. Butler and Ronald L. Numbers (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987), xvi. 488 Land, “Foreword,” viii. 489 Jim Walters, “Ronald L. Numbers and the New Quest for the Historical Ellen G. White,” Adventist Today, Summer 2014, 6. 490 Roy Branson and Herold D. Weiss, “Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholarship,” Spectrum 2 (1970): 33. 491 Ibid.

Critical Historiography

135

White’s relationship to other authors.”492 Second, they needed to “recover the social and intellectual milieu in which she lived and wrote.”493 Finally, they should give “close attention to the development of E. G. White’s writings within her own lifetime, and also to the development of the church.”494 These three concerns led to an overall question about whether the denomination would allow E. G. White to be subjected to critical historical study. Such questions led to more questions that were discussed in the next several issues in 1971. While ostensibly the original intention of these scholars was to embrace new historical methodologies, it appears that at least at first they did not have any intention of discounting divine providence. They merely sought to account for some aspects of E. G. White’s life and the early beginnings of Adventism that were very much a part of their historical context. Yet very quickly, as awareness of such critical scholarship grew, others joined in affirming the need to critically examine E. G. White’s writings. For the first time, the denomination had a number of scholars who raised significant questions about apologetic history and the historiography that had largely devolved into hagiography by the 1960s. One of the more influential articles published in Spectrum was written by William S. Peterson. He argued that E. G. White was, in fact, guilty of plagiarism.495 He asked, What historians did Ellen White regard most highly? Do they have in common any particular social or political bias? How careful was she in her use of historical evidence? Did she ever make copying errors in transcribing material from her sources? Is there any particular category of historical information which she consistently ignored? Did she make use of the best scholarship available in her day? What did the revisions and the successive editions of the Great Controversy reveal about her changing intentions?496

After he examined E. G. White’s chapter in The Great Controversy on the French Revolution, he concluded that E. G. White clearly used many sources and that she did so carelessly. He even claimed that she distorted these sources in an attempt to downplay the significance of the French Revolution. Such a significant claim about an infallible prophetess fell like a bombshell within the world of Adventist scholars.

4 92 Ibid. 493 Ibid. 494 Branson and Weiss, “Ellen White,” 31–​32. 495 Peterson, “A Textual and Historical,” 57–​68. 496 Ibid., 63.

136

The Development of Critical Approaches

McAdams followed the lead of Peterson in examining E. G. White’s literary practices. He surveyed the first part of ­chapter 6 in The Great Controversy on John Huss and Jerome. He claimed to have found more than parallels between E. G. White’s writings and James A. Wylie’s History of Protestantism. He argued that E. G. White “based almost entirely” her writings on Wylie’s research.497 Eric D. Anderson, in his turn, praised McAdams’s research: “For all its revisionism, McAdams’ work is not an attack on the ‘spirit of prophecy’ or denominational leadership. Far from being heresy, McAdams’ views are likely to become the new orthodoxy.”498 The work of Peterson and McAdams prompted new sophisticated approaches to E. G. White’s Writings.499 While Ronald Graybill followed the methodology of Peterson and McAdams, the resulting works were more supportive of E. G. White than were the results of Peterson and McAdam’s works. He wrote two books: E. G. White and Church Race Relations (1970) and Mission to Black America: The True Story of Edson

497 McAdams, Ellen G. White, 33–​36. See Donald McAdams, “Shifting Views of Inspiration: Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970s,” Spectrum 10 (1980): 27–​41. 498 Eric D. Anderson, “Ellen G. White and Reformation Historians,” Spectrum 9, no. 3 (1978): 24; Micheal G. Hasel proposes limits to McAdams’s position. Hasel offers instead a broad overview about E. G. White’s use of historians. See Michael G. Hasel, “Ellen G. White’s Use of Historians,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 867–​870. 499 Wood, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” 55–​72; Peterson, “Ellen White’s Literary Indebtedness,” 73–​84; Donald Casebolt, “Ellen White, the Waldenses, and Historical Interpretation,” Spectrum 11 (1981): 37–​43; Robert W. Olson, “Ellen G. White’s Use of Historical Sources in the Great Controversy,” Adventist Review, February 23, 1984, 3–​5; Jean R. Zurcher, “A Vindication of Ellen White as Historian,” Spectrum 16, no. 3 (1985): 21–​31; Leonard Brand and Don S. McMahon, The Prophet and Her Critics: A Striking New Analysis Refutes the Charges That Ellen G. White “Borrowed” the Health Message (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005); Jan Voerman, “Ellen White and the French Revolution,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 45, no. 2 (2007): 247–​259; Denis Fortin, “Plagiarism,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 1028–​1035; Jud Lake, “Ellen White Criticism and D. M. Canright,” in Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History, ed. Merlin D. Burt (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015), 133–​144; Jud Lake, “Ellen G. White’s Use of Extrabiblical Sources,” in The Gift of Prophecy in Scripture and History, ed. Alberto R. Timm and Dwain N. Esmond (Silver Spring, MD: Review & Herald, 2015), 316–​332; Timothy L. Poirier, “Ellen White and Sources: The Plagiarism Debate,” in Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History, ed. Merlin D. Burt (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015), 145–​165.

Critical Historiography

137

White and the Riverboat Morning Star (1971). These books showed how complex the issue of race relations was in Adventist history and highlighted some positive examples from Adventist history about race relations. He concluded his study of race relations by stating, Ellen G. White believed, basically, in the essential equality of the Negro and the Caucasian. Her counsels regarding separate church services were given, not on the basis of any belief in a ‘natural law’ forbidding such contact or on the basis of a belief in the supposed inherent inferiority of the Negro, but because of conditions in a country mired in the depths of its deepest pit of racism.500

In his second book, a biography of J. E. White, he reviewed his sacrificial missionary efforts during the tumultuous Reconstruction period. As a white man and a son of a prophet, he devoted a significant portion of his life to reaching out to and building up the lives of black Americans. He also showed how some of his efforts were at best frequently misunderstood, especially by church leaders during his lifetime.501 Such church leaders noticed how these two books by Graybill helped show how the early Adventist pioneers were progressive and active in combatting racism during their lifetime. Some of E. G. White’s statements about race relations were subject to misinterpretation.502 Together, these books presented a more nuanced look at the history of Adventist race relations that provided some positive examples of race relations from Adventist history, particularly after the tumultuous 1960s in the United States and as Adventism in North America split during the 1940s into separate regional conferences.503 Another area where Graybill made a significant contribution related more directly to E. G. White’s prophetic ministry. In 1972, he wrote the article “How Did Ellen G. White Choose and Use Historical Sources? The French Revolution Chapter of the Great Controversy.”504 In contrast to Peterson, Graybill argued that E. G. White did not rely on historians to write The Great Controversy. She instead

500 Ronald D. Graybill, E. G. White and Church Race Relations (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1970), 117. 501 Ronald D. Graybill, Mission to Black America: The True Story of Edson White and the Riverboat Morning Star (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1971), 10–​26. 502 Graybill, E. G. White Church Race Relations, 13–​16, 17–​36. 503 For insightful study on the topic, see Calvin Rock, Protest and Progress: Black Seventh-​ day Adventist Leadership and the Push for Parity (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018). 504 Ronald D. Graybill, “How Did Ellen G. White Choose and Use Historical Sources? The French Revolution Chapter of the Great Controversy,” Spectrum 4 (1972): 49–​53.

138

The Development of Critical Approaches

frequently quoted from Smith’s Thoughts on the Prophecies of Daniel.505 By doing so, he hoped to show there was a plausible historical explanation behind E. G. White’s use of sources. Such constructive historical research in light of increasing social pressure helped Graybill earn the respect of A. L. White, secretary of the White Estate, as a loyal church historian. In 1973, he joined the White Estate as an assistant director while simultaneously working toward a PhD degree in American Religious History at Johns Hopkins University. The focus of his dissertation was the social context and family life of E. G. White. As he pursued his studies, he discovered new materials that showed a much more human, and therefore fallible E. G. White, particularly as a wife and mother. At times, she went through some significant challenges in her marriage to J. White.506 These marital storms led to their living apart for some months during the 1870s.507 He used as a primary source some unpublished correspondence between E. G. White and her close friend and confidant, Lucinda (Abbey) Hall.508 She confided to Hall that J. White tried to control her.509 During an era when much of Adventist history was written from the perspective of Adventist apologetics, such information presented a much more real, and thus human, portrait of E. G. White. A key source for Graybill was a series of unpublished letters donated to the White Estate by a young person who discovered them in an attic.510 In one of these letters, E. G. White requested Hall to burn the letters, after she and James

5 05 Ibid. 506 Ronald D. Graybill, “The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century” (PhD diss., John Hopkins University, 1983), 38–​48. 507 Ibid. 508 For more information on Hall, see Tim Poirier, “Lucinda A. Hall,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 394–​395. 509 Graybill, “The Power of Prophecy,” 38–​48. 510 N. A., “Old Letters Surface in Battle Creek,” Lake Union Herald, August 1973, 10; Arthur L. White, “Ellen White Letters Discovered in Historical Collection,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 1973, 10–​11. For more information regarding Hall, see the following documents: Ellen G. White, “The Rochester Vision of 1853,” Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, August 1973, 9–​10; Paul A. Gordon and Graybill D. Ronald, “Letters to Lucinda: Excerpts From Ellen White Messages Found in the Newly Discovered Collection,” Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, August 1973, 4–​7; ; Ronald D. Graybill, “The Lucinda Abbey Hall Collection,” Adventist Heritage 2 (1975): 55–​57.

Critical Historiography

139

had reconciled.511 Most of the original correspondence went as a gift to the General Conference Archives but a portion of the letters related to E. G. White was entrusted to the White Estate. A. L. White found himself conflicted between the obvious request from his grandmother to destroy the letters and the need to preserve the past.512 So he placed them in a sort of limbo in which he kept the letters for safe-​keeping but did not place them with the other unpublished letters. He “put them in the back of certain drawers in the filing cabinets. . . . They would not be burned, but they would be put in the back of these drawers. Elder White would know where they were. Others in the office would know that, but people coming in to do research would never have access to them.”513 Because of his work at the Ellen G. White Estate, Graybill knew the sensitivity of the situation, but he also recognized what a valuable primary source this also was for his dissertation. He shared one draft that incorporated the correspondence with his dissertation committee and another modified draft with the staff of the White Estate.514 He added these “juicy” details by sharing “the whole story” from these “letters that described the tiffs between Ellen White and her husband.”515 The duplicity was discovered when Doug Hackleman, curious to learn about Graybill’s research, requested a copy of his dissertation. What Hackleman discovered from these

511 E. G. White in a private letter to Hall requested that her correspondence be burned. Ellen G. White to Lucinda Hall, May 17, 1876, Letter 67, 1876, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. This letter was later published in a posthumous compilation, Ellen G. White, Daughters of God: Messages Especially for Women (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998), 271–​272. In this letter she wrote, “I am sorry I wrote you the letters I have. Whatever may have been my feelings, I need not have troubled you with them. Burn all my letters, and I will relate no matters that perplex me to you. The [Sinbearer] is my refuge. He has invited me to come to Him for rest when weary and heavy laden. I will not be guilty of uttering a word again, whatever may be the circumstances. Silence in all things of a disagreeable or perplexing character has ever been a blessing to me. When I have departed from this, I have regretted it so much.” Ibid. 512 Robert W. Olson, Assistant Director of the Ellen G. White Estate, interview by Michael W. Campbell, Loma Linda University, CA, November 18, 2004. 513 Ibid. 514 The draft submitted to the Ellen G. White Estate is currently found in James White Library, Andrews University, MI, under the title “The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century.” It is a revised version of Graybill’s dissertation given to the White Estate Board in 1983. It is 220 pages in total compared to the original copy submitted to John Hopkins University which contains 224 pages total. See footnote 40, p. 187. 515 R. Olson, interview by M. W. Campbell.

140

The Development of Critical Approaches

excerpts in his dissertation about E. G. White’s marriage fell like a bombshell that he quickly made public.516 It appears that Graybill hoped that by the time his dissertation was published, he could secure appropriate permission through the Ellen G. White Estate. During a time when any excerpts requested from E. G. White’s unpublished writings went through a very careful and specific protocol, and in light of the sensitivity of these letters, the White Estate saw the quotation of these letters in his dissertation and his duplicity in creating two versions of his dissertation as effectively a betrayal. Soon afterward, the Adventist Review announced that Graybill had been reassigned from the White Estate.517 This incident heightened fears within the White Estate staff about critical scholarship and the potential impact such sensitive information could have if it was released in a careless manner. The Ellen G. White Estate would be far more careful after this incident about its use of unpublished writings—​a move that would not change for decades despite numerous requests to release all of E. G. White’s unpublished writings. Her unpublished writings would not be officially released until the centennial celebration of her death (2015). Another historian who utilized a more critical methodology to the Adventist past was J. Butler. While teaching at Loma Linda University, he wrote the essay “The World of Ellen G. White and the End of the World,” in which he argued that E. G. White’s “predictions of the future appeared as projections on a screen which only enlarged, dramatized and intensified the scenes of her contemporary world.”518 He stated, “What Seventh-​day Adventists must fully acknowledge . . . is the element of prophetic disconfirmation.”519 Butler argued that many of E. G. White’s predictions did not come true or conveniently changed. For example, the prophetess predicted “that Protestant America would end with the passage of Sunday legislation, the repudiation of constitutional government, the persecution of the Saturday-​keeping minority, resulting finally in the Second Coming.”520 Butler noted that “the waning of Protestant America . . . did not end American democracy, nor did it precipitate an Adventist pogrom. It clearly did not lead immediately to the Second Coming.”521 Butler published additional 5 16 Ibid. 517 Neal C. Wilson, “White Estate Staffer Reassigned,” Adventist Review, February 1984, 31. 518 Jonathan M. Butler, “The World of Ellen G. White and the End of the World,” Spectrum 10 (1979): 10. 519 Ibid. 520 Ibid. 521 Ibid.

Critical Historiography

141

articles that utilized critical historical methods that resulted in new revisionist insights about both E. G. White and Seventh-​day Adventism.522 Such critical new re-​interpretations of E. G. White were not appreciated. Eventually, Loma Linda University, a General Conference institution, terminated his teaching contract in 1979 not necessarily because of his teaching but, apparently, because of an ethical and a moral issue.523 A far gentler critical approach was employed by Benjamin McArthur who pursued a PhD in Theatre History at the University of Chicago. He noticed how historians who utilized critical methods were changing the denomination. In a provocatively titled article, he asked, “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?” In this article, he argued that the role of Adventist historians had shifted from one in which they were guardians of tradition and orthodoxy to one in which they could now tell Adventist history without being “divorced from its social matrix.”524 Such an approach avoided some immaculate conception for the origins of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. “The problem,” McArthur observed, was not “that the Adventist historian lacks faith in God’s providential leading, but that there is no way for them to include it in historical explanation.”525 As a result, critical historians helped make up for this deficiency by noting “her reliance on other historians, or on reformers, or on the prevailing social climate of her time.”526 Such admissions did not lessen the inspiration process for McArthur who noted a silver lining by stating that such history instead “could encourage a faith based not upon reflective consideration of what the Christian life demands [but] in the morally complex situations of the day-​to-​day life.”527 While obviously 522 Jonathan M. Butler, “Adventism and the American Experience,” in The Rise of Adventism: Religion and Society in Mid-​Nineteenth Century America, ed. Edwin S. Gaustad (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1974), 173–​206. See also the following works by the same author: Jonathan M. Butler, “The Making of a New Order: Millerism and the Origins of Seventh-​day Adventism,” in The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Jonathan M. Butler and Ronald L. Numbers (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987), 189–​208; Jonathan M. Butler, “A Portrait,” in Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, ed. Terrie D. Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald Numbers (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), 1–​29. 523 Edward Allen, personal communication to the author, August 28, 2018. 524 McArthur, “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?” 11. 525 Ibid. 526 Ibid. 527 Ibid. For clarification, see Benjamin McArthur, “Point of the Spear: Adventist Liberalism and the Study of Ellen White in the 1970s,” Spectrum 36 (2008): 45–​58.

142

The Development of Critical Approaches

this created an interpretative dilemma, he argued that one could employ these critical historical methods while remaining a loyal church member as well as an academic. McArthur opened the door for more mediating interpretations and re-​interpretations of Adventist history that are explored in detail throughout the rest of this chapter. Another historian who adopted a critical open approach to writing history in the footsteps of more critical Adventist historians was Ingemar Lindén, from Sweden. He argued that the Millerites preached that October 22 was the correct calculation of Daniel’s 2,300 day-​prophecy. This day meant for them that those who deliberately rejected the preaching of the coming of Christ on that day were rejected by God. The Millerites evangelists such as Joseph Turner, Apollos Hale, Samuel S. Snow, Enoch Jacobs, J.B. Cook, Eli Curtis, E.C. Clemons, G.W. Peavey, J.D. Pickands, C.H. Pearson, and many others, adhered to the shut door theory.528 Just like the other shut-​door Adventists, Lindén noted that “the Sabbatarian pioneers interpreted the October disappointment as a major point in the salvation-​history. Belief in shut-​door, therefore, became a conditio sine qua non for eternal bliss for this faction of ‘The Little Flock.’ ”529 He argued that prior to the official organization of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, the Adventist Sabbatarians, including James White and Ellen G White were called as “the Sabbath and shut Door” people. Lindén wrote: “By that time [James] White reflected [Joseph] Turner’s view that the atonement had ended on the fateful October day.”530 J. White believed that the “delayed Parousia would occur in October 22, 1845,” he believed “in the finished atonement, not upon the cross, but on October 22, 1844. Likewise he maintained that the day of ‘God’s vengeance’ begun in October 22, 1844.”531 Such critical interpretation of the Adventist past could only ignite more critical analysis of Adventist history. The historians mentioned in this chapter so far employed critical approaches in the way they studied the past in order to be more objective and accurate in their portrayal of Adventist history. They committed themselves to the highest academic standards and employed critical methods to evaluate sources. At times, they discovered new sources and interpretations that challenged the status quo, particularly as it related to E. G. White. Several historians, most notably

528 Ingemar Lindén, 1844 and the Shut Door Problem (Uppsala, Sweden: Upsala University, 1982), 22. 529 Ibid., 25. 530 Ibid. 531 Ibid.

Critical Historiography

143

Graybill and Butler, had difficulty maintaining employment as historians within the denomination due to the way they challenged traditional narratives of the past. For Graybill, it seems to have been more of an ethical issue about his use of unpublished sources that led to his dismissal. Yet cumulatively, all of these critical new methods had an impact. Church leaders became leery that some historians were looking for any critical information to undermine or cast a negative light upon the development of the denomination. Still, other historians found mediating pathways forward. It is important to note that while these critical historians often focused on natural causation, this did not mean that they necessarily disbelieved the power of the supernatural, even if it could not always be scientifically proven. Yet overall, as already mentioned, the effect was to discount apologetic narratives that focused on providential history. This included cherished images promoted by Adventist apologetic historians such as the idea that E. G. White was a prophet far ahead of her own time. In reality, these historians showed instead how her ideas in general reflected more about the trends and ideas prevalent within her lifetime. As they critically evaluated these traditional claims, these critical historians often presented a much more (1) naturalistic, and sometimes perceived as secular, explanation about Adventist history. Such a starting point did not always mean that every historical claim was suspect but it did represent a much more (2) scholarly way to interpret Adventist history that evaluated existing sources, discovered new ones, and thus provided new revisionist explanations regarding the history of Seventh-​day Adventism. Open critical historians sought to study the past with a new historical consciousness and reliable source. They saw the writings of history more of a discipline than the devotion to the Adventist faith. Having lived in an era of complex historical discourse, they did not want to follow their predecessors, the apologists, on the purpose of defending historical memory subordinated to theology. Their main work was to combine scientific method of historical research and the understanding of Adventist experience connected to historical events. These are trained historians, and therefore, they were not afraid of pointing out theological shortcomings in historical analysis. They were able to discern theological arguments from honest historical investigations. The method of these critical Adventist historians is not new as such, nor did they seek to pioneer a distinctive school to Adventist history. Although it is difficult to retrace external influences in their writings because they are silent about whose works they read to inform their methodology, it is nonetheless possible that the Evangelical historiography that jettisoned hagiographical and mere apologetic method was becoming dominant around the world. Marsden and Noll, and Hatch were now becoming more

144

The Development of Critical Approaches

popular. Their method of rigorous scholarship as Christian witnesses of the saving grace of Jesus was drawing admiration of Christian historians. Beside this Evangelical influence, Numbers, who made a name in American historiography, influenced the thinking of Adventist open critical thinkers. Numbers’ critical and radical interpretation of Adventist history demanded attention both from apologists, critical apologetic, open critical, and revisionist realist historians. Others influential historians whose scholarship Adventist critical historians may have appreciated should include the following: Martin Marty, Kenneth Scott Latourette, and Butterfield. Marty, whose works “fall into the category of interpretative religious essays,” was one of the “preeminent interpreters of American religion.” Latourette’s methodology blended “scientific history and a Christian worldview,” and Butterfield engagement with historical scholarship and its relation to Christian faith informed world Christian historiography in the 20th century. Following the examples of these preeminent evangelical protestant historians, Adventist open critical historians seek to mediate at least between two worlds. They are a bit closer to secular historian Numbers while they also do not want to exclude God from involvement in human affairs.

The Closed Secular Confessional History While there were a number of significant historians who began to challenge the apologetic version of Adventist history, the most significant historian to do so was Ronald Numbers whose work did more than any other historian to challenge the status quo of Adventist historiography up to that point. His work, described in this chapter as the “closed secular confessional” approach, remains the most significant for the development of a third critical stage of Adventist historiography. The approach must be understood against the background of Adventist historiography that prioritized apologetic narratives of the past and, at times, went too far by promoting Adventist hagiography. From the time of Bates to Loughborough (who explored theological dimensions to Adventist history) to the more apologetic historians during the first two-​thirds of the 20th century, Adventist historical discourse was dominated by a combination of theology and attempt to writing apologetic history. The apologetic historians were concerned with writing history in order to build up faith and explain Adventism in a respectable way for other Christians. While there were a number of significant precursors as already mentioned in this chapter, as historians engaged in evaluating sources, identifying new ones, and employing critical methods to evaluate such sources, Numbers permanently altered Adventist historiography. Whereas there were some who began to

Critical Historiography

145

introduce more critical methods, Numbers directly challenged historical hagiography by applying critical methods to the prophetic founder E. G. White. All Adventist historians after Numbers were left to wrestle with the work that he did, especially as it concerned the Adventist prophetess E. G. White, even if what all they did was to undermine his research or reject it outright. Numbers applied this critical methodology to E. G. White in his first book titled Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (1976). This approach brought controversy to the Adventist circle before its publication. When Numbers submitted his manuscript to the E. G. White Estate, Richard Schwarz, a historian who was teaching at Andrews University and Graybill went to Madison and met with Numbers to go through the whole manuscript.532 In some instances, Numbers implemented changes, especially when both Graybill and Schwarz urged changes. At one point, A. L. White became so alarmed that he arranged a meeting with the editors at Harper & Row to ask them not to publish the book.533 When it was published, it fell like a bombshell among Adventist scholars and administrators. Numbers stated, “God’s hand is invisible, and we must not accuse the historian or the scientist of impiety when he cannot discern it.”534 In doing so, he placed the development of Adventist ideas of health reform and specifically E. G. White’s unique approach fully in its broader historical context. While some precursors had done this before to other aspects of Adventist history—​most notably Dick in his description of the Millerite movement in his 1930 dissertation—​such attempts were few in the development of Adventist historiography. In Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White, Numbers brought attention to the fact that E. G. White, instead of being a person providentially ahead of her time, was very much a product of the many influences prevalent during her time. Thus, E. G. White was not original or unique in her claims about health reform teachings.535 Numbers did this by comparing E. G. White’s health reform

5 32 Ronald Graybill, personal communication to Dr. Michael W. Campbell, July 18, 2018. 533 Ibid. 534 Ronald L. Numbers, a review of God and Man in History, by George E. Shankel, Spectrum 1 (1969): 67. George E. Shankel, God and Man in History (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1967) is a book on philosophy of history written by an Adventist history teacher. This book came out in print nine years after Numbers’s Prophetess of Health. The book seems to deal with the same issues raised by Numbers about philosophical presuppositions with regard to history. George E. Shankel argues that God is in control of history and oversees history through His providence. 535 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 48–​76.

146

The Development of Critical Approaches

teachings with other contemporary health reformers. Of particular significance were copies of books by these health reformers, which apparently E. G. White at one point either owned or borrowed. In the lines of these books, by her own handwriting she made notations from the writings of other health reformers as she produced her personal writings on the subject.536 Numbers recognized that her health reform teachings were largely derived from these other health reformers, even after she claimed divine inspiration as the source for her writings in this area. He articulated four main arguments to support his central argument to help illustrate the extent of this plagiarism. First, Numbers postulated that E. G. White was dishonest in her use of health reform sources. Second, he argued that she was inconsistent in her health reform teachings. Third, she held aberrant views about sexuality. Finally, Numbers saw her own health problems (and that of her family) as foundational behind her need to promulgate and prescribe health reform within the early Seventh-​day Adventist Church. The most significant argument made by Numbers was that E. G. White was dishonest about where she came up with her ideas about health reform.537 He wrote, “Ellen G. White attributed most of her scientific and medical knowledge to divinely inspired ‘visions’ rather than to reading or research.”538 Instead, Numbers argued that E. G. White extensively copied from then-​contemporary health reformers including Larkin B. Coles (1803–​1856), Russell T. Trall (1812–​ 1877), and James C. Jackson (1811–​1895). Numbers made the case that before E. G. White claimed to receive divine revelations about health reform, she was already utilizing materials from these health reformers. The clincher for Numbers was an early diphtheria outbreak in which she utilized the writings of Jackson to

536 After Numbers compared E. G. White’s health reform teachings with those of health reformers like Sylvester Graham, Lectures on the Science of Human Life (New York, NY: Fowler & Wells, 1858); William A. Alcott, Lectures on Life and Health (Boston, MA: Philips, 1853); James C. Jackson, How to Treat the Sick Without Medicine (Dansville, NY: Austin, 1871); James C. Jackson, The Sexual Organism (Boston, MA: B. Leverett Emerson, 1862); Larkin B. Coles, Natural Principles of Health and Cure; Health and Cure Without Drugs, and the Moral Bearing of Erroneous Appetites (Boston, MA: Ticknor, 1851). Numbers argued that E. G. White extensively copied from these books. See Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 48–​76. 537 Ronald L. Numbers and Rennie B. Schoepflin, “Science and Medicine,” in Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, ed. Terrie D. Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald Numbers (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), 197. 538 Ibid.

Critical Historiography

147

employ natural remedies in order to save the life of her son, J. Edson White. He demonstrated in parallel columns the writings of E. G. White as compared to other health reformers such as Horace Mann (1848–​1853) and Coles. The fact that E. G. White had used these health reform writings, along with the extensive use she made of their writings in sharing her own views about health reform, undermined hagiographical claims that had by this time become popular among apologetic Adventist historians that she was 100 years ahead of her time. From the perspective of Numbers, such a denial by E. G. White could only mean that she was either at best forgetful or at worst dishonest.539 For Numbers, what made E. G. White significant was not so much that she was the originator of these health reform ideas but rather that she gave her imprimatur to an emphasis upon health reform that became very much a part of Seventh-​day Adventist identity. In this way, she was responsible for the strong health reform emphasis, including a large and notable system of Adventist hospitals around the world. Numbers was concerned that E. G. White was not consistent about how she taught and applied health reform. At times, she could be extremely fickle and inconsistent in how she applied these health reform teachings to others. For example, often she would tell people not to eat eggs but then, for others, she prescribed them. Another example concerned a vegetarian diet. While on the one hand she could tell people not to eat meat, she continued to eat meat.540 This was in spite of her personal struggle in which she wrote about giving up flesh foods. It was not until 1894 when concerns were raised about animal rights that she finally completely abandoned eating meat.541 Another area of inconsistency was dress reform. Numbers argued that E. G. White over a 10-​year period sought “to put the Adventist sisters into ‘short skirts and pants.’ ”542 When these sisters

5 39 Ibid. 540 Several articles in The Ellen White Encyclopedia address this point. See Stephen Bauer, “Animals Ethics,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 926–​927; Sylvia M. Fagal and Roger W. Coon, “Vegetarianism,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013), 1641–​1643; see also Roger W. Coon, Ellen White and Vegetarianism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1986); Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, 388, 389. In each of these sources, the authors note that E. G. White stopped eating meat by 1894, particularly after her encounter with a Roman Catholic woman who challenged her to abandon eating meat over the issue of animal cruelty. 541 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 155–​156. 542 Ibid., 129.

148

The Development of Critical Approaches

rejected her views of reform dress, she finally gave up trying to control how women dressed and abandoned the reform dress. It seemed obvious to Numbers that E. G. White was not consistent in how she applied health and dress reform and even in her own personal life did not always live up to the ideals she set forth for others. The third major argument used by Numbers in Prophetess of Health concerned her views about sexuality. Numbers argued that E. G. White held aberrant views about sexuality.543 In this respect, she reflected the views of sexuality prevalent among other health reformers. He believed that “Ellen G. White’s sexual attitudes, as even her publishers recognized, were far from unique. In fact, they rested squarely on the popular vitalistic physiology of Broussais that Sylvester Graham had been preaching since the early 1830s.”544 The “vital force”545 was a power that allowed humans to live. Numbers noticed that when E. G. White “adopted Cole’s electrical explanation of why masturbation deadened a person’s spiritual sensibilities”546 that this became a central issue to keep Adventists pure. She was especially concerned about how solitary vice—​a Victorian term for masturbation—​was infecting Adventist young people. It had the power to destroy “the human body.”547 Numbers, for instance, noted how E. G. White’s son Edson “displayed some disturbing behaviors: lack of interest in religion, a passion for reading storybooks, a fondness for girls, and irresponsibility—​all characteristics she, and many of the health reformers, associated with self-​abuse or masturbation.”548 In other words, E. G. White saw self-​abuse as the foundation for a life of misery and woe that led to far worse sins. As she noticed such abnormalities in her wayward son, she penned the booklet An Appeal to Mothers: The Great Cause of the Physical, Mental, and Moral Ruin of Many of the Children of Our Time (1864). Numbers noticed how this book closely resembled the thought of Mary Gove’s Solitary Vice: An Address to Parents (1839). E. G. White was “antipathetic toward sex,”549 although she never went quite so far as to advocate celibacy. Numbers claimed that E. G. White’s sexual mores were at best unscientific 543 Ibid., 215–​218. For an extensive study on the topic of sexuality in relation to the writing of E. G. White, see Numbers and Schoepflin, “Sex, Science, and Salvation,” 206–​226. 544 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 154. 545 Ibid. 546 Ibid., 156. 547 Numbers and Schoepflin; “Sex, Science, and Salvation,” 208. 548 Ibid. 549 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 159.

Critical Historiography

149

and at worst reflected destructive and primitive views about sexuality. “Ellen White never wrote a positive word about sex.”550 Numbers not only viewed E. G. White’s view of sexuality as derived from contemporary writers but went on to note that she found sex repugnant, taking away life force, and should be done primarily for procreation. A fourth core argument of Prophetess of Health, one that built upon the previous three arguments, was that E. G. White’s health reform teachings conveniently reflected her own personal health problems and those of her family. Instead of her health reform teachings originating from divine revelation, it appeared obvious to Numbers that her health teachings were really a pragmatic way to both solve her own health problems and to control the fledgling denomination.551 He claimed that “through the years of uncertainty and hardship one constant in E. G. White’s life was poor health. From childhood to middle age she enjoyed few periods without some physical or mental suffering.”552 According to Numbers, E. G. White wrestled with sickness from childhood until the day she died. He narrated the story of her life as constantly living in sickness and thus striving for health. He argued that E. G. White “began her public ministry in 1844 with shattered nerves and broken body. . . . Her lungs were racked with consumption, her throat so sore she could barely speak above a whisper. In her extended travels through New England, she frequently fainted and remained breathless for ‘several minutes.’ ”553 Even after her marriage to J. White, she continued living in sickness. Several individuals, J. White, Otis Nichols, and others, prayed for a miraculous healing.554 Through a supernatural healing, she was saved from a premature death. Her interest in health reform was viewed primarily as an attempt to solve her own health problems. While this chapter does not seek to examine every argument used by Numbers, it does, however, seek to understand these four primary arguments that were foundational behind his understanding of E. G. White that impacted Adventist historiography. Numbers made a significant contribution by showing from historical sources that E. G. White was far from unique in her understanding of health reform and derived her ideas from other health reformers. Thus, her claims to divine inspiration as the source for her health reform ideas

5 50 Numbers and Rennie B. Schoepflin, “Science and Medicine,” 203. 551 Ibid., 159. Numbers and Schoepflin, “Sex, Science, and Salvation,” 208. 552 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 31. 553 Ibid. 554 Ibid.

150

The Development of Critical Approaches

did not hold much credibility based upon the historical evidence. Regardless of the source of her visions, another plausible explanation was that she clearly knew about these health reform ideas before her pivotal 1863 health reform vision but chose not to write about them from between the time of this health reform vision and the writing out of this vision.555 Even though she claimed not to be influenced by these writings before this vision, in reality, the historical evidence showed that she was aware of and made use of these writings. Thus, Numbers, through careful historical research, argued that the majority of her ideas about health reform, in reality, came from other health reformers. After Numbers published these claims, a storm erupted among Seventh-​ day Adventist Church leaders. Some people noted with ironic surprise how Numbers, the grandson of the conservative W. H. Branson, General Conference president from 1950 to 1954, could write such a book. Church leaders at the highest level of the denomination, including the White Estate, recognized that the arguments made in this book threatened the traditional apologetic narrative about E. G. White. If they did not respond, they sensed that the arguments in this book could undermine both the claims of uniqueness of the Seventh-​day Adventist health message as well as E. G. White’s prophetic authority and legacy for the denomination. Altogether, this book had the potential to undermine the very identity of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, which contributed to a large and forceful reaction by both Adventist intellectuals and church leaders. The Seventh-​day Adventist Church dealt with this critical work by Numbers in at least three ways. First, church leaders issued a number of statements warning against the book. Second, the E. G. White Estate produced detailed critiques. Third, Numbers had to start his career over again outside the denomination. Despite the initial fallout, Numbers would go on to have a very distinguished career as a historian and would receive numerous academic awards.556 555 All of these arguments have plausible refutations. See Brand and McMahon, The Prophet and Her Critics, 42–​47, 80–​865. Leonard Brand and Don S. McMahon questioned altogether the methodology of Numbers. They argued that Numbers chose “a particular set of data on which to base his book.” Ibid., 43. Numbers used anecdotal evidence, which preferred selected data in a way that did not allow for objectivity and impartiality. For this purpose, he devoted “a significant part of his book to detailing some of Mrs. White’s human frailties.” Ibid., 44. 556 Numbers served as president of the American Society of Church History from 2000–​2001. For a detailed list of his professional accomplishment, see his detailed curriculum vitae. Ronald L. Numbers, “Ronald L. Numbers,” accessed July 4, 2018, http://​projectsow.org/​sites/​project-​sow.org/​files/​full_​cv_​r.numbers.pdf.

Critical Historiography

151

Of central importance for this chapter is how a number of Adventist scholars and administrators responded to Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White. This next section examines in detail each of these three major ways. The most obvious way the denomination responded was to conduct a closely scrutinized damage control that included a number of official statements that warned against both the author and the book.557 While primary sources from minutes were not made available for this study, an oral history with R. W. Olson (Director of the Ellen G. White Estate, 1978–​1990) indicates that the General Conference president requested someone from the White Estate to follow Numbers around at churches and to issue warnings to make sure that he was not allowed to speak publicly in church. Numbers similarly noted how church leaders sent other church leaders to visit his local church after he left denominational employment. Olson himself warned church members about the danger of getting too close to Numbers. Such unwanted attention meant that Numbers never returned again to this church.558 Ironically, despite their best efforts, General Conference leaders were never able to locate the local church that actually held his membership, and Numbers claims to remain in good standing as a member even though he has gone to become a self-​professed agnostic. There were limits even to the authority of the General Conference to curb such critical scholarship. The second way the denomination responded was by tasking the E. G. White Estate to respond to Numbers. As a result, the White Estate produced two detailed critiques of Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White. The first critique was titled A Discussion and Review of Prophetess of Health (1976) and was followed later that year by a more extensive A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health (1976). Both critiques rejected the idea that E. G. White merely borrowed her health reform ideas from other health reformers and that she was aware of these health reform writings prior to her influential 1863 health reform vision.

557 The unpublished minutes by the General Conference and the White Estate were unfortunately not available to me. Tim Poirier, vice-​director of the White Estate, responded to a request for material on June 26, 2017, by noting that any records pertaining “to living individuals (involving both Dr. Numbers and our own office staff) . . . are not yet archived for research purposes.” Tim Poirier, personal communication to the author, June 26, 2017. Similarly, Numbers declined to make any unpublished material available. 558 Ronald L. Numbers, Hilldale Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, University of Wisconsin, interview by Loren Seibold, Milton Freewater, OR, July 1, 2018.

152

The Development of Critical Approaches

Instead of dealing with this central argument, the E. G. White Estate took the approach of discrediting the book by pointing out typos, discrepancies, and other detail they could find wrong with the manuscript. As a consequence, Numbers afterwards thanked them for such a detailed critique of his book, which helped to make sure that all of his information was as accurate as possible. Yet the White Estate seemed unable to respond in any meaningful way to his core argumentation and evidence that he gave in his book. The third, the denomination responded to Numbers by tasking other Adventist historians to critique Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White. As already mentioned, Graybill and Schwarz had met with Numbers to critique the manuscript before it was published. After its publication, once again, church leaders tasked Schwarz, a professor of history at Andrews University, to generate an official response. Since he had already gone over many of the smaller details earlier with Numbers in a much smaller setting, he was left to ruminate upon larger concerns related to the process of writing history. His official response was titled “On Writing History and Reading History.”559 This time, he reflected upon more general concerns. In a way similar to the White Estate, he avoided dealing with any of the central arguments made in the book (such as plagiarism) and instead noted how historians, by emphasizing certain details in the past and how they interpret them, can come up with widely differing interpretations of the same historical events. In this sense, Schwarz recognized that the approach and methods used by Numbers in contrast to himself were vastly different.560 Schwarz was also a trained historian who recognized the importance of conducting careful historical research, the finding of original sources, and striving to study them as objectively as possible. At the same time, he also recognized that when Numbers applied this same level of historical scrutiny to E. G. White, it placed him at crosshairs with denominational leadership. Instead of dealing with any of the specific details of Numbers’s book, he simply invited readers of Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White to consider the possibility that there might be other ways to interpret the same historical facts. “Many ‘facts’ are facts only in the mind of the observer.”561 Instead, “Dr. Ronald Numbers and I, using essentially the same facts, can come up with different viewpoints on the

559 Richard Schwarz, a review of Prophetess of Health, by Ronald L. Numbers, Spectrum 8, no. 2 (1977): 16–​20. 560 Ibid., 17. 561 Ibid.

Critical Historiography

153

development of E. G. White as a health reformer.”562 Schwarz did not give any specific details on which historical details they disagreed over. What did concern Schwarz was how Numbers adopted, from his perspective, a naturalistic methodology that discounted divine inspiration. For Schwarz, this was the crux of the historiographical debate. In the rest of the document, Schwarz dwelt upon some minor historical details. What bothered him was that Numbers made E. G. White too human to the point where he denied any possibility of divine inspiration. Although the response by Schwarz was more sophisticated than that of the White Estate, he tried to undermine the book by looking for minor problems rather than to deal with the core arguments made by Numbers in Prophetess of Health. In this way, he followed an approach similar to the White Estate by trying to undermine the credibility of the book. Another area of concern for Schwarz was the attention given to some hyperbolic expressions or even overstatements made by E. G. White. Such strong statements needed to be examined in their context of her overall teachings. They could be easily taken out of context. Of specific concern was what he considered an overgeneralization by Numbers when he said that “the Millerite movement led to some cases of insanity” or that “Ellen G. White lived out her last years as a true health reformer, happily subsisting on a simple twice-​a-​day diet of vermicelli-​ tomato or thistle greens.”563 Schwarz believed that by making such statements, Numbers revealed a cynical side in which, for him, he had gone too far. He noted how cases of insanity were not any more prevalent among the Millerites than the general population and how E. G. White ate a robust vegetarian diet in which she was far more flexible in what she ate within certain guidelines rather than trying to be rigidly prescriptive. Schwarz felt that Numbers either missed, or mischaracterized, a perspective in which E. G. White did not profess to necessarily be perfect, and that he had missed the overall lifetime contribution and development of her ideas in the area of health reform. From the perspective of Schwarz, E. G. White could take health teachings and apply them in different ways depending upon the circumstances. If she was such a dishonest person about the source of her health reform teachings, as Numbers argued, then how could she share her health reform teachings in such a winsome way that they were widely adopted by many of her followers to the point that even those who lived around her were curious and some even converted to Seventh-​day Adventism? What Schwarz tried to do was to show that there

5 62 Ibid. 563 Ibid., 19. Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 117.

154

The Development of Critical Approaches

was a larger picture about her overall life and contribution, which indicated that regardless of the specific source, she had made a significant contribution that was far larger and longer-​lasting than any of her health reform peers. Thus, he felt that any candid observer had to admit that she was a remarkable Christian person who made a selfless contribution to the building up and mission of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. As part of this, her philosophy of health and healing helped her personally and empowered many others to become an important dimension of the outreach of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. The most detailed and insightful critique of Numbers did not come from any official denominational source. Fritz Guy, a religion scholar at La Sierra University, cogently argued from a theological perspective that the real problem for Numbers was not his use of historical facts but a far more fundamental issue in which he misunderstood the biblical role of a prophet, the nature of inspiration, and how these things worked out in the life of E. G. White. Guy instead proposed a theological synthesis rooted in the overall importance of the prophetic gift. For Guy, it was not so important if a prophet made a mistake. Biblical prophets did commit mistakes and used a variety of sources. Thus, E. G. White followed a biblical paradigm in which prophets at times used sources as they wrote and as fallible human beings were prone to making mistakes. “There is ample evidence of the human fallibility of Bible authors, and we would be naïve to suppose that there would not be any similar evidence in the life of Ellen White.”564 In other words, even if E. G. White had claimed too much about the originality of her health reform teachings, that was simply human error and should not be taken to mean that she did not receive divine revelations on this topic. Guy took issue with Numbers by arguing that he had oversimplified the facts and at times overlooked evidence that might undermine his arguments. Numbers used “evidence that supports” his thesis rather than the “interpretation of a situation.”565 He thus failed “adequate account of evidence that would support an alternative interpretation.”566 In contrast to other responses made by official channels, Guy argued instead that a historian must be more impartial in the treatment of facts. He took Numbers to task by noting how he overlooked E. G. White’s theology of health reform. While she took these health reform ideas from other health reformers,

564 Fritz Guy, “What Should We Expect From a Prophet?,” a review of Prophetess of Health, by Ronald L. Numbers, Spectrum 8, no. 2 (1977): 24. 565 Ibid. 566 Ibid.

Critical Historiography

155

her unique contribution was not the ideas of health reform themselves but rather the unique way that she shaped these ideas into a theology of health reform. Guy argued that “the incredibly detailed documentation we have of her daily activities supports belief in the genuineness and integrity of her religious dedication and gives impressive confirmation of her prophetic vocation.”567 The weakness of Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White, for Guy, was the lack of recognition that a true prophet can make mistakes. This, in turn, revealed a flawed understanding of the process of inspiration and divine revelation, which was an assumption and starting point for Numbers in his critique of E. G. White. Guy viewed Numbers as reacting against a more fundamentalist way of viewing E. G. White that saw her as more of an infallible prophet who did not make mistakes. In this sense, Guy provided one of the most cogent critiques of Numbers by noticing that he was reacting against a hagiographical view of her that reflected more of his upbringing than historical reality. Another important response came from one of his former colleagues at Loma Linda University, W. Frederick Norwood, a retired professor who specialized in the history of medicine. He had initially hired Numbers, so he may have felt some responsibility to respond to Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White. He recognized that there was a significant difference between the work of a theologian versus that of a historian. For Norwood, a historian interprets historical events on the basis of the documents available.568 He saw the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church as affirming theological concepts in order to defend its founder. While the response by Norwood was brief, he also recognized that some people could lose their jobs for association with Numbers, particularly at Loma Linda University. A careful examination of his style and tone suggest that he was trying to distance himself from Numbers while avoiding any real assessment of the book. He appears to have supported some of the underlying arguments made in the books while avoiding to say that she was a “pious fraud.”569 While Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White fell like a bombshell among church administrators, it was an important benchmark in Adventist historiography. All Adventist historians in the wake of this book were forced to deal with it. Even if they did not do so directly, they certainly were informed by the arguments. As a result, Adventist historiography in its wake changed. A new

5 67 Ibid. 568 W. Frederick Norwood, review of Prophetess of Health, by Ronald L. Numbers, Spectrum 8, no. 2 (1977): 2–​3. 569 Ibid., 2.

156

The Development of Critical Approaches

generation of Adventist historians would wrestle with many of the arguments and implications made in it. Even those who chose to ignore the book would work in significant ways to undermine its argument. While some historians embraced the book or sought mediating interpretations, others in the denomination would work even harder at reinforcing and promulgating an apologetic vision of the past. Thus, some of the new generation of Adventist historians would accept Numbers’s ideas that E. G. White was a product of her time, others would mediate, and still others would reject the fundamental approach to E. G. White and Adventist historiography offered in Prophetess of Health. Historians outside the denomination hailed the book as a breath of fresh air and a unique opportunity to understand the founder of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Even though church leaders sought their best to suppress, or to ignore, the book, it received wide acclaim by professional historians, many of whom knew little about the life of this forgotten prophetic voice of Adventism. Thus, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White would become the standard narrative of E. G. White’s life and, along with a wide number of biographical articles in academic reference works, would become the definitive work about her life and ministry, instead of the massive project undertaken by A. L. White.570 Numbers, who was extremely prolific, was able to help place E. G. White within the broader context of American religious life as well as demonstrate her importance as a prominent 19th century health reformer. He became “the Papa Hemingway of the new SDA scholarship.”571 Scholars who critically reviewed the book were effusive in their praise of Prophetess of Health as the first impartial scholarly work on her life, one which opened new doors and opportunities for awareness about her ideas in history. Numbers, who was not afraid to show the flaws of the prophetic founder, was perceived as being more objective since he “seeks neither to defend nor to damn but simply to understand.”572 Even the renowned Martin E. Marty incorporated E. G. White into his general narrative of American religious history. He praised Prophetess of Health as “the standard

570 Numbers’s Prophetess of Health provided him an entry into scholarship with an increased interest in E. G. White. From the beginning of his career until today, Numbers wrote extensively about her. 571 Butler, “Seventh-​day Adventist Historiography,” 153. The expression “Papa Hemingway of the new SDA scholarship,” simply means that Numbers became the most widely read historian about the Seventh-​day Adventist history. 572 Numbers, Prophetess of Health, 3rd ed., xxxii.

Critical Historiography

157

biography of Ellen White.”573 The significant impact of Numbers can especially be seen in the reviews of two historians who provided the two most detailed evaluations of the book by non-​Adventist historians. The first scholar was Fawn M. Brodie, who herself had run into trouble as a Mormon who wrote the first critical biography of Joseph Smith. She compared the work done by Numbers to her own experience in trying to write about J. Smith. Brodie expressed great appreciation for Prophetess of Health as a well-​ written work of history. She expressed “great respect for the Adventist movement and for the extraordinary lady who was responsible for its consolidation and expansion.”574 Brodie saw a connection between E. G. White’s conversion and the conversions of many others from that time period. She also believed E. White’s conversion was a part of the wider social phenomena. Her dedication to Millerism, for example, resulted from “the classic adolescent conversion patterns—​hours of praying resulting in vivid religious dreams—​but with special intensity.”575 Praising Numbers for drawing comparisons between E. G. White’s vision and those of Reverend Samuel E. Brown, William Foy, and Hazen Foss, Brodie claimed, “hers were not epileptic seizures, as some have suggested, which always result in amnesia. . . . They were clearly related to self-​hypnosis, a phenomenon far better understood today than in the mid-​nineteenth [century] when ‘mesmerism’ was a fad all over America.”576 Brodie attributed to E. G. White’s visions the influence of social struggle and disease. After examining her life, she found that her health reform teachings were certainly not original. Instead, they were “adapted, like her vegetarianism, from popular practices of her time.”577 Parallels could be seen between E. G. White and the Mormon Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science, and Charles Taze Russell of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She claimed to discover many similarities between White and Eddy. “Both were semi-​invalids as children; both found motherhood difficult and temporarily abandoned their own infants; both found extraordinary reserves of energy for speaking and for religious organization.”578 Brodie viewed the work of Numbers as a well-​written historical work which described E. G. White as 573 Martin E. Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America (Boston, MA: Little, 1984), 485. 574 Fawn M. Brodie, review of Prophetess of Health, by Ronald L. Numbers, Spectrum 8, no. 2 (1977): 14. 575 Ibid. 576 Ibid. Parallel analysis is seen with Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land, 485. 577 Brodie, review of Prophetess of Health, 15. 578 Ibid., 14.

158

The Development of Critical Approaches

one of the 19th century American religious leaders who exhibited strange and abnormal behaviors during their religious conversions. She also described her writings in health reform as reflecting the teachings of earliest American health reformers. The second religious historian who noticed Prophetess of Health was Ernest R. Sandeen. He described it as “a valuable work of social history.”579 In fact, “Ronald Numbers’ account conforms to the highest canons of historical craftsmanship, and his narrative seems free of special pleading or bias. His is a mature work of great value outside Adventist circles.”580 Sandeen argued that Numbers was right in his interpretation of E. G. White. He “does violence neither to Mrs. White nor to the general forces at work in the mid-​nineteenth century.”581 What was important, for Sandeen, was that the historian should be free from any religious feelings or beliefs as they described the past. Thus, historical writing becomes “an enterprise fraught with tension and, occasionally, agony”582 as the historian strives for objectivity. “It almost seems like a historiographical law that the best scholarship is produced by the skeptical believer.”583 Altogether, Sandeen welcomed the work of Numbers as a trustworthy work of history. He viewed Numbers as a historian who was willing to be honest about the sources he investigated. These two non-​Adventist historians who reviewed Prophetess of Health demonstrate how influential this book has become in American religious historiography. This book is included in hundreds of bibliographies. As a result, even though Prophetess of Health was deemed unorthodox and the author shunned within Adventism, Numbers has done more than any other single person to raise awareness about the significance of E G. White’s life and ministry, even if he did so in a way that was perceived as being critical. It seems that all sides, both within the church as well as professional historians outside, acknowledged the meticulous and careful work that Numbers had done. For non-​Adventist scholars, E. G. White was an important individual who had been overlooked in comparison with scholarships done on similar personalities who were responsible for founding major religious movements (most notably Smith and Eddy).

579 Ernest R. Sandeen, review of Prophetess of Health, by Ronald L. Numbers, Spectrum 8, no. 2 (1977): 15. 580 Ibid. Parallel view is evident in Brodie, review of Prophetess of Health, 15. 581 Sandeen, review of Prophetess of Health, 15. 582 Ibid. 583 Ibid., 16.

Critical Historiography

159

Thus, Numbers brought attention to E. G. White and the need to incorporate her life as part of the broader narrative of American religious history. At the core of Numbers’s historiography was the question of how to account for claims of supernatural influence. Some historians argued that they could not accept such claims and instead had to work with existing historical sources, which for Numbers proved that E. G. White simply took her ideas from those of other health reformers. Any claims to divine inspiration were at best seen as not credible, and he could show prior to when she received divine revelations how she had been influenced by such health reformers even when she claimed that she did not. Still others found other interpretive paths. For those academics observing from outside Adventism, the rejection Numbers experienced from denominational leaders validated his historiography. Thus, Numbers brought a dilemma to Adventist historiography. For Adventist historians and General Conference leaders to accept his findings about E. G. White being a product of her time was to tamper with Adventist apologetics, and particularly hagiography, and therefore seen as a threat to Adventist identity. At the same time, the rejection of his research was seen as intellectual dishonesty by critical historians. In an attempt to solve this dilemma, another historiographical approach would take note of the critical-​secular approach of Numbers but would allow for supernatural intervention. Such an approach would do responsible history by claiming to be neutral. Such historians would seek to find mediating paths that made the best use of historical scholarship while still providing a place for the role of faith in historical scholarship. Foundational to Numbers’s ideas, one can argue, was the concept of methodological naturalism. This concept is traced back to Leopold von Ranke, the father of modern history. Numbers sought to abide by the standards of historical investigations which require honest investigations of materials without reference to supernatural beings laid down by Ranke and his followers. This, most probably, was the reason why he interpreted Adventist history differently from the rest of the historians, especially other revisionists. The historian who writes within methodological naturalism accepts no authority but that of historical facts. Methodological naturalism rules out any providential influence. As a result, it is not open to another realm of causation. Its basic weakness is that it refuses to consider all possible facts, particularly those that point to a supernatural influence. Therefore, Numbers sees no harm in disrespecting Adventist traditional rules of historiography. He distances himself from traditional religious values. While he values history, he rejects explanation based on traditional principles of invoking divine hand in explaining history. Numbers was guided solely by human reason, which he saw as a driving engine for understanding human

160

The Development of Critical Approaches

history. He offered a purely secular explanation of the Adventist story. He was unwilling to consider even the possibility of spiritual or religious causes in his treatment of Adventist history.

Mediating Positions and New Explorations The rise of critical anti-​apologetic history led to reactions and new syntheses that ranged between critical conservative and revisionist realist historians. This section outlines two additional major groups (critical apologetic history and revisionist realist approach).

Critical Conservative History Before proceeding to critical apologetic history and revisionist realist school, however, it is necessary to note a major mediating position, the conservative critical historical approach championed by C. M. Maxwell (1925–​1999) and P. Gerard Damsteegt. These two historians wrote influential works that characterized this conservative approach to denominational history. While they sought to be analytical in their understanding of Adventist history by exhibiting a formal method to writing history, they remained faithful to the Adventist faith and rejected any approach that debunked hagiographical narrative. Over a span of 20 years (1968–​1988), C. M. Maxwell taught Adventist history in a way that affirmed the fundamental beliefs. He received his PhD from the University of Chicago, having done his dissertation on “Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews: An English Translation,” in 1966.584 His passion was to inspire a greater love for Adventism through the teaching of Adventist history. Much of his writing was intended for an Adventist audience or, at times, as an evangelistic tool to affirm faith in God’s providential leading.585 Adventist history was for him a providential movement that showed God’s direct intervention in history. A classic example of this theme can be found in his book Tell It to the World: The Story of Seventh-​day Adventists. In it, C. M. Maxwell wrote a Heilsgeschichte or simply a “believer’s history.”586 C. M. Maxwell wrote history in a conversational

584 C. Mervyn Maxwell, “Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews: An English Translation” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1966). 585 Don Schneider, “He Molded My Life Elder C. Mervyn Maxwell, My Teacher,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 15. 586 Jonathan M. Butler, review of Tell It to the World: The Story of Seventh-​day Adventists, by C. Mervyn Maxwell, Church History 48, no. 2 (1979): 217; Alice Gregg, review of

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

161

style.587 Each book he wrote was narrated in story form. He had a talent for mixing historical anecdotes with theological material.588 He affirmed the providential origins of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. His storytelling approach was similar to that of his father, Arthur S. Maxwell, who was famous for writing a set of Bible and bedtime stories.589 A colleague of Maxwell at the Seventh-​day Theological Seminary at Andrews University was P. Gerard Damsteegt. At Andrews, he met Maxwell who was extremely influential upon his thinking about Adventist history.590 Damsteegt wrote the book Foundations of the Seventh-​day Adventist Message and Mission.591 This book outlines the origins and formation of the “Seventh-​day Adventist theology of mission.”592 It traces circumstances that ushered in the Millerites. Damsteegt expanded his apologetic approach to Adventist history by highlighting the “soteriological-​missiological consequences of the Disappointment.”593 The Great Disappointment should be understood not simply as a part of Bible prophecy but within a larger historiographical pattern. Three significant theological motifs are behind his interpretation of history: the three angels’ messages, the sanctuary, and the seventh-​day Sabbath. These concepts were the foundation of Seventh-​day Adventist identity and its unique role in the end time as God’s remnant church. Damsteegt continued the apologetic approach showcased in the writings of Adventist apologists such as L. E. Froom and Nichol. His mediating approach centered on writing history from the angle of the Great Controversy which validates Adventist apologetic history while seeking interaction with critical scholars. He was aware of the critical method which he used to further his

Tell to the World, by C. Mervyn Maxwell, Adventist Heritage: Journal of Adventist History 4 (1971): 63. 587 Moon, “C. Mervyn Maxwell,” 10. 588 Ibid., 4. 589 Arthur S. Maxwell, The Bible Story Ten-​Volume Set, 23rd ed. (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1980), Arthur S. Maxwell, Bed Time Stories (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1976), Arthur S. Maxwell, Your Friends, the Adventists (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950). 590 Damsteegt, in his tribute to Maxwell, shared that he wished that he could have been one of his students. In addition to his deep praise for his writings, he revealed that he was guided by Maxwell’s methodological principles. 591 Damsteegt’s Foundations of the Seventh-​day Adventist Message and Mission was a published version of his dissertation completed at the Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands in 1977. 592 Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-​day Adventist Message, 298. 593 Ibid.

162

The Development of Critical Approaches

writing for an apologetic purpose. He did not seek to find faults in the testimonies of the pioneers. These two historians, despite their colleagues who tended toward more critical methods as applied to the interpretation of Adventist history, focused on a less impartial analysis of historical facts. Among those mediating positions, their approach was the most conservative. This approach was a retrenchment back to the earlier Adventist apologetics. Yet, each of these persons received training at major universities and Damsteegt went on to publish his dissertation as a book with a major Evangelical publisher.

Critical Apologetic History This next section examines critical apologetic historians who led the way toward a truly mediating position by taking the best of critical scholarship of Adventist history in order to provide a much more sophisticated way of studying the past. Two historians are examined here to illustrate this way of writing Adventist history: Richard Schwarz (1923–​2013) and Floyd Greenleaf (b. 1931). Each of these historians remained somewhat apologetic but their methods incorporated critical historical methods. They attributed a significant role to human agency while also recognizing that God influences historic events. In this respect, they fulfilled the fourth level of apologetic history as argued by Mark Noll as “critical apologetic.” Just like Jean Merle D’Aubigné and Philip Schaff, two historians whose works were widely read by American historians, including Adventist historians, Schwarz and Greenleaf adopted a methodology that combined a devotion to Christ and a spirit of impartial scholarship. Schwarz clearly benefited from the critical method of writing Adventist history. His most influential work was the denominational textbook Light Bearers to the Remnant (1979). Initially commissioned by the General Conference, the textbook was 20 years in production and included help by his research assistant Brian E. Strayer. The book was sent out to many reviewers and afterwards received widespread acclaim as the official and preferred textbook in Adventist colleges for courses on Adventist history. Historian Arthur Patrick noticed how, during the production of this book, it necessitated “some delicate negotiations during the writing phase.”594 As a scholar, Schwarz was the person church leaders went to as a trusted denominational historian who also had a reputation as a 594 Arthur N. Patrick, “Historians of Adventism: Their Agony, Ecstasy, and Potential,” accessed April 26, 2017, http://​www.sdanet.org/​atissue/​white/​patrick/​egw-​historians. htm.

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

163

serious scholar and historian to interact with Numbers after the publication of his book in 1976. His professional training included a PhD in History from the University of Michigan in 1964. He wrote his dissertation on Kellogg (published in 1968 under the title John Harvey Kellogg, MD). It is important to understand Schwarz’s approach to Adventist history, which can be determined by reviewing his research on John H. Kellogg. He expressed a desire for objectivity in the writing of history. This created a challenge as he tried to write a biographical work of research upon a person who often conflicted with E. G. White. As a Seventh-​day Adventist, this raised the question of whether he could be truly objective in his study of Kellogg (and of E. G. White). In accounting for the supernatural claims of E. G. White, he deferred to Kellogg himself who once wrote, “it needs more than human wisdom to rightly balance up and estimate justly the motives and influences which enter into one’s experience.”595 Since Kellogg, at least in his earlier life, affirmed the prophetic gift of E. G. White, Schwarz felt he could do the same while still studying Kellogg’s life. As a meticulous researcher, Schwarz mined numerous archives for unpublished materials. This drive for primary source research shows a careful and methodical approach to the past. His biography on Kellogg became the standard take on his life until more recently.596 Scholars today see Schwarz as far too sympathetic and apologetic in his review of Kellogg. He appears to have left out some of the most controversial aspects of Kellogg’s life in order to provide a highly selective and sanitized approach to Kellogg’s life that has been challenged by recent scholars.597 The most important denominational book of Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant, set a clear demarcation with the works of Loughborough, Nichol, and Froom. The latter opted to use history as a means to defend their faith. On the contrary, Schwarz did not write to defend Adventist beliefs but showed

5 95 Schwarz, “John Harvey Kellogg,” iv. 596 See Richard W. Schwarz, “John Harvey Kellogg, American Health Reformer” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1964), published under John Harvey Kellogg, MD (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1970), later republished under a new title John Harvey Kellogg, MD: Pioneering Health Reformer (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2006). This book provides a critical investigation of John Harvey Kellogg, a controversial medical pioneer in Seventh-​day Adventist history. 597 See Brian C. Wilson, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic Living (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2014); Howard Markel, The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek (New York, NY: Pantheon, 2017); Richard J. B. Willis, The Kellogg Imperative: John Harvey Kellogg’s Unique Contribution to Healthful Living (Grantham, UK: Stanborough, 2003).

164

The Development of Critical Approaches

fidelity to the principles of writing professional history—​impartiality governed his thinking. The author adopted a historical (diachronic) and systematic (synchronic) approach to Adventist history. He critically investigated facts and gave detailed descriptions of serious issues that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church faced during its formative years. Unlike his predecessors, Schwarz did not ignore historical events that led people to question the uniqueness of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. He distanced himself from the traditional historiographical principle which championed God’s hand without looking at human elements in historical happenings. He described how Kellogg’s opposition to the church could be explained by looking into his youth. “As a youth Kellogg was inclined to be headstrong and ambitious; in later years he became stubborn and domineering.”598 In a single volume well written and well articulated, Schwarz attempted a description of events that led to the rise and development of Seventh-​day Adventism. He sought to be analytical by exposing crises that shaped the identity of the church at the present. Schwarz took important steps to show that the Adventist past had not always been glorious. It is an illusion to describe the past as a land of glory. He showed how conflicts and crises had been an integral part of the remnant church. Surprisingly, it was during the most critical times in Adventist history that the church positively reshaped its identity. Schwarz did not argue that all historical happenings were the results of God’s hands. He was a historian who used facts to describe Adventist history. He explained how God’s hand triumphed over weaknesses that tempted to overshadow the mission of the church. He was critical as he used his mind to examine historical facts but he affirmed his belief that God was leading the Adventist Church.599 Floyd Greenleaf made a significant contribution to Adventist history by revising the official denominational history textbook written by Schwarz. Whereas the initial textbook was largely narrative-​driven and avoided some controversial aspects of Adventist history, Greenleaf attempted to bring up more challenges or alternative interpretations of the past. The denomination also had changed quite a lot from the time when Schwarz initially wrote the first edition of the textbook. As the church grew into an increasingly global denomination, it became necessary to write history from a more global perspective. This can be seen in the way Greenleaf approached Adventist missions. Instead of focusing on

5 98 Schwarz, Light Bearers, 282. 599 Ibid., 24.

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

165

how Adventism came to these countries, he developed in much greater detail the work of indigenous leaders. He gave detailed descriptions of how these leaders influenced the growth of the church in Africa, South America, Asia, and Europe. They not only worked hard but benefited from their deep knowledge of local culture to draw people to Christ by teaching them biblical truths in local dialects.600 Apart from his main contribution of updating and revising the denominational history textbook, Greenleaf wrote a two-​volume book while he was a missionary in South America.601 This book focuses on a regional development of the Seventh-​day Adventists. He was a missionary-​minded historian. Schwarz and Greenleaf wrote Adventist history in a mediating way because they showed how Adventist history could take on a much more sophisticated approach by benefiting from critical historical scholarship while still writing major official works about Adventist history. These scholars did not write Adventist history in a way to challenge major interpretations of the past. They wanted to write history in a way that showed that they were aware of critical research and apologetic one and preferred a more balanced approach. Their mediation centered on clarifying and validating Adventist truths by emphasizing their biblical foundation. They did this by rejecting any writing that jettisons the provision of a divine hand in history while refuting the extreme confessionalism that ignores the importance of historical objectivity. In other terms, they focused on highlighting the importance of Adventist beliefs in the tradition of Adventist apologetic history while they sought to integrate critical thinking in their scholarship. Unlike earlier historians who simply narrated the past, they were much more conscious about their historical approach. While they built upon an intellectual apologetic tradition, they also engaged in serious historical investigation. They departed from the anti-​critic historians in that they wrote history in a way that was not so defensive in tone. They accommodated critical methods in the way they wrote that showed that they were informed about various historiographical debates. In this way, they tried to be more self-​critical in the way that they examined Adventist history.

6 00 Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 272–​292. 601 Floyd Greenleaf, The Seventh-​day Adventist Church in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2 vols. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1992). He also authored Floyd Greenleaf, In Passion for the World: A History of Seventh-​day Adventist Education (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005). It is the most comprehensive work on establishing the history of Adventist education.

166

The Development of Critical Approaches

Revisionist Realistic History The revisionist realistic approach is another mediating approach to Adventist history that combines the best of the critical apologetic approach while showing awareness of the best scholarship from the critical study of the past and even incorporating it into their work. The most influential exponent of this approach is Knight. Initially trained in education, he transitioned from the School of Education to the Seventh-​day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University in 1985. As he shifted to studying Adventist history, he increasingly sought mediating positions in his interpretations of the past. In many ways, his entrance into historical scholarship paralleled the careers of other Evangelical historians who sought a middle ground in developing Evangelical historical scholarship with individuals such as Marsden, Noll, and Hatch.602 These men, however, thought it was important to interact with other non-​Evangelical historians in a way that met the highest standards of historical scrutiny. Knight, on the other hand, wrote history generally for Adventists and refrained from much interaction with non-​Adventist scholars, even though he clearly read works by these Evangelical historians. He engaged with those who disagreed with him and with evidence that contradicted his interpretation of Adventist history.603 He was conscious of the approach he adopted. It has been argued that Knight is the most influential historian in the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church alive today. Since he joined the seminary in 1985, he traveled widely and published a large number of books that are among the most widely circulated ones in the denomination. McArthur, a leading Adventist historian who pushed for more critical historical scholarship in Adventism, described him in 2014 as the current “face of Adventist history.”604 Under Jan Paulsen’s administration of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church, McArthur could observe that “[i]‌f prophets are generally without honor in their own home, George

602 These Evangelical scholars contributed to a revolution in Christian historiography. Burch, The Evangelical Historians, 1–​50. Their approach parallels the approach of Knight. 603 See a criticism in his biography of A. T. Jones, Dennis Hokama, “Knight’s Darkest Hour: Biography as Indictment,” Adventist Currents 3, no. 1 (1988): 37–​42; and Frederick Hoyt, “Knight on A. T. Jones: Biography Without Hagiography,” Spectrum 19, no. 3 (1989): 58–​60. 604 Benjamin McArthur, “Historian and Provocateur,” in Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, ed. Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II. (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014), 16.

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

167

Knight is a happy exception.”605 Most of his scholarship, with few exceptions, has been focused upon educating church members about their past. With over 30 books about Adventist history in print, he remains widely influential. By his own admission he “came through the ‘back door’ ”606 to Adventist history. He did not receive formal historical training but certainly did benefit from doctoral training that focused on the development of ideas. His doctorate in the history and philosophy of education shows his concern with synthesizing the past and showing how it developmentally changed over time.607 Knight applied this approach to how he wrote history. Knight’s approach remains highly attractive and continues to be widely promulgated. Even if he is critical of church leadership, his method is still significant as a mediating approach to the past. Knight’s work divides easily into three periods of time. In the first period, Knight wrote about Adventist education as well as issues related to problematic aspects of Christian perfection. His earliest book that put him on the spotlight was Myths in Adventism: Interpretive Study of Ellen G. White, Education, and Related Issues (1985). In this book, he discussed issues related to Adventist education and debunked them, particularly in relationship to E. G. White’s writings and how they are often misinterpreted. Later books developed themes related more specifically to righteousness by faith: From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones (1987) and Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith (1989). These two books explored the issue of the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference session and how Adventism had challenges that related to the interpretation of this significant historical event. Later, in Angry Saints, he covered problematic aspects of Christian perfection.

605 Ibid., 21. McArthur wrote this apparently unaware of mounting struggles in the denomination over women’s ordination that would place Knight at odds with General Conference president Ted N. C. Wilson. Wilson, upon his election as church president, has worked actively to curb the influence of Knight within the denomination. Knight has expressed concerns about the direction of church leaders. Most recently, he has published a book titled George R. Knight, Adventist Authority Wars, Ordination, and the Roman Catholic Temptation (Westlake Village, CA: Oak & Acorn, 2017). This book expresses concerns about authoritarian leadership practices within the denomination. 606 Brian E. Strayer, “George Knight as a Historian,” in Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, ed. Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II. (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014), 63. 607 Ibid.

168

The Development of Critical Approaches

During the second major phase, Knight focused upon the topics of the Millerite Movement, interpretation of E. G. White’s writings, and short historical overviews of Adventist history. After Knight’s successful debut with Myths in Adventism: Interpretive Study of Ellen G. White, Education, and Related Issues, which sought to demythologize E. G. White through conventional wisdom, he became increasingly well-​known in the denomination through his regular articles in denominational publications such as Adventist Review and Ministry.608 He also became highly influential for writing several books related to the Millerite movement, particularly around the time of the 150th anniversary of the Great Disappointment in 1994. Books such as Anticipating the Advent: A Brief History of Seventh-​day Adventism (1993) and Millennial Fever and the Rise of Adventism (1994, 2010) showed non-​ Adventist scholars that Adventist historiography had matured and grown. He was not afraid to criticize the denomination while gaining the support of his readers. For example, he opted to jettison the traditional hagiographical approach to Adventist history. He acknowledged that E. G. White copied from her contemporary writers. He wrote, “After all, it does appear that she fudged on the truth in her denial of the awareness of /​or use of certain documents in her early health reform writings.”609 He founded a new revisionist school grounded in an apologetic respectability. In the third phase of Knight’s career, he began to focus on developing major resources related to Adventist history. He began a major Adventist pioneer biography series that started with his own biography of Bates. Following the inspiration of Oxford’s American National Biography (1999), Knight motivated historians to write biographies. Knight qualifies such series as an important project on “the founders and shapers of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church.”610

608 Knight’s other books about E. G. White include George R. Knight, Meeting Ellen White: A Fresh Look at Her Life, Writings, and Major Themes (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1996); George R. Knight, Reading Ellen White: How to Understand and Apply Her Writings (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1997); George R. Knight, Ellen White’s World: A Fascinating Look at the Times in Which She Lived (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998); George R. Knight, Walking With Ellen White: Her Every Day Life as a Wife, Mother, and Friend (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1999). His other significant writings include Knight, Millennial Fever; George R. Knight, Myths in Adventism: Interpretive Study of Ellen White, Education, and Related Issues (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985); George R. Knight, A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2011). 609 Knight, “An Academic Mutt,” 247. 610 George R. Knight, “Foreword,” James White, xi.

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

169

Today, the series totals more than 11 volumes written by able scholars.611 These recent biographies present their subjects not as holy persons who lived on holy islands. Instead they shun a hagiographical tone and present their subjects as real and struggling human beings. Every page of these biographies signals the death of dazzling amateurism. Trained biographers, through sophisticated style and arguments, disfigure the findings of their predecessors who took pride in hagiographical descriptions.612 They seek to raise “the bar for denominationally published biographies,” and to present the Adventist pioneers as human beings rather than the holy traditional figures they were.613 Knight also began to develop a series of key works related to Adventist history published by Andrews University Press at the Adventist Classics Library. He also helped initiate a number of influential projects as historical resources about Adventist history, most significantly the Ellen G. White Encyclopaedia edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon). He mentored a number of younger historians, training them as doctoral students while a professor at the Seventh-​day Adventist 611 Gerald Wheeler (James White, 2003, and S. N. Haskell, 2017), Gilbert Valentine (W. W. Prescott, 2005), Richard Schwarz (John Harvey Kellogg, 2006), Woodrow Whidden (E. J. Waggoner, 2008), Douglas Morgan (Lewis C. Sheafe, 2010), Knight (Joseph Bates, 2011, and A. T. Jones, 2011), Brian Strayer (J. N. Loughborough, 2014, and John Byington, 2017), Gary Land (Uriah Smith, 2014), and, Benjamin McArthur (A. G. Daniells, 2015). 612 The earliest biographies in Adventist history have generally sought to praise their subjects for spiritual and moral insights. They investigated facts with regards to pioneers of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church for the purpose of emulating their lives. See Virgil Robinson, John Nevins Andrews: Flame for the Lord, J. N. Andrews (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1975), previously published under the title: Prince of Scholars (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1975), 122. Traditionally, biography is viewed as a road to a sound ethical living. Because biography attempts to unravel the ocean of past events, it appears attractive. Perhaps, in that vein that Frykenberg, one of the most famous Christian historians trained in America and Britain, noted that “History without biography, in short, is like an art gallery without portraits or like a symphony concert without musical sounds.” Frykenberg, History & Belief, 73. Biography is thus significant for understanding a particular history. George M. Marsden argued that biography has its virtues because, “Through looking at an individual, one has the possibility both of retaining the crucial ingredient of a good story and of finding a lens through which to focus understanding of the broader issues of the day.”George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalist: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 1. 613 Jim Walters, “Ronald L. Numbers and the New Quest for the Historical Ellen G. White.” Adventist Today, (Summer 2014): 9.

170

The Development of Critical Approaches

Theological Seminary. Knight credited his success in writing Adventist history to earlier historians like Numbers and other more critical historians who critically examined the past.614 In a way, such earlier critical approaches had made possible a much more thorough study of the past that exposed at times the shortcomings of the pioneers in a way that most church leaders found helpful. Similarly, Knight’s approach to Adventist theology was appreciated for his perceived balance as a self-​correction to perfectionism that was common in Adventism during the 1960s and 1970s. What made him so successful appears to be the way that he could write apologetic history while not avoiding or sugar coating the past. In this way, he remains largely apologetic in approach but his honesty about issues in the past gave him credibility within the denomination. Knight found plenty of room for critique of earlier critical as well as apologetic approaches to the past. For those who espoused the critical historical method, Knight exposed the moral flabbiness of critical historians by arguing for alternate explanations of the facts.615 While Knight saw the writing of history as a legitimate and urgent responsibility, he advocated for a constructive view of history. He could state that “the critical guys raised the questions, they came out with their own answers. I didn’t think that they were the only answers. I thought that there could be something constructive and not just only destructive in the new generation of historical explorations.”616 McArthur noticed how “he has served to domesticate the troubling historical findings of these earlier men, bringing into the Adventist mainstream something of the spirit (if not exactly the same conclusions) of their 1970s research.”617 McArthur and other historians found 614 Knight was informed of methodologies used by critical writers. Out of these, he constructed a developmental view of Adventist history. Knight explored the writings of his predecessors with the intention of constructing a usable past. “Because I was writing after the bombs have been dropped, that meant that somebody had to at least . . . write history with the awareness of all the new issues that have come up during the critical years particularly the many, many writers of Spectrum and other places as they challenged Ellen G. White’s abilities and quite other few topics.” He continued, “I was looking for a usable past. What is there that we can learn about Adventist history that will help guide us in the future? That is part of my philosophy of history. I love history just for history’s sake but I want to tell you, history has things to teach us and I think that some of those things can help guide the church as we look into the future. Those historians who wrote in the festschrift that I am seeking for a usable past were certainly right.” Knight, interview by the author. 615 Ibid. 616 Ibid. 617 McArthur, “Historian and Provocateur,” 19.

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

171

in Knight’s methodology a new and much more sophisticated form of Adventist apologetics since it responds to issues raised by earlier critical historians. In this way, Knight founded a new form of Adventist apologetics that even a critically trained historian such as McArthur could admire. His works could help the church respond to issues about how to interpret the past. For example, Knight’s philosophy of history has been to help the church understand its past by demythologizing the Adventist pioneers. He writes history by exposing the fallacies of the past while still seeking to learn from it. Though his peers engaged with him and at times criticized him, he continued writing history with optimistic zeal. There were times when both liberal and conservative historians claimed support from him. They wrote him beautiful letters of appreciation for his creative thinking which, at times, suited their agenda.618 Conversely, there were times when Knight found himself between gunshots for each of these groups sought to rebuke him.619 He stayed faithful to his 11th commandment which states, “Thou shall not do history against thy neighbor.”620 He states, “My real aim in the church was to be a mediator between the right and left wings of the Adventist world.”621 He was a mediating historian who largely sought to avoid conflicts with church administrators and yet remained very provocative through his style and tone.622 Knight’s historiography commanded the attention and respect from his peers and readers. His readers “bought his books in large numbers and persuaded publishers that here was a writer who could talk about serious topics and also ensure that his books would sell.”623 Knight is a gifted scholar who also knows how to engage his audience while he talks. For this purpose, Knight chose to be a moderate scholar. He says, “I have tried to define myself in the light of Jesus, who I see as a radical wine-​skin-​smashing conservative (not fundamentalist or traditionalist—​the labels we too often confuse with conservative).”624 He chose to be himself in the world of scholarship. Knight’s main role has been to enable Seventh-​day Adventists to see the link between their past and their present as they contemplate their future. He wrote, 6 18 Ibid. Knight, interview by the author. 619 McArthur, “Historian and Provocateur,” 19. 620 Ibid., 246. 621 Ibid. 622 Gilbert Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, eds., “Preface,” Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014), 6–​7. 623 Ibid. 624 Knight, “An Academic Mutt,” 243–​244.

172

The Development of Critical Approaches

“History is much more than something that happened a long time ago—​it is a current reality, and each of us is an actor in its ongoing flow. Daily we each cast a vote, act a part in a continuing drama.”625 It has been his desire to point out the line of continuity in Adventist history. He insisted that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church is a prophetic church.626 He affirmed, “Adventism has always been a movement of faith and hope, with a vision of infinite possibilities.”627 Knight enlightened his fellow Adventists with practical advice in understanding their history and place in universal history. Through his inspiring writings, biographies, and monographs, he aimed at giving moral and spiritual lessons to Seventh-​day Adventists. His faithfulness to his church is undisputable, although he has not chosen to be selective with the truth. He told Adventist history with all its filthy rags, snobberies, emotional entanglements, frustrations, and confusions. He followed the line of biblical history itself. Biblical history does not hide the “failures, defeats, and shame of Israel.”628 Knight mentored an influential generation of writers who follow his footsteps such as Gilbert Valentine, Alberto Timm, Merlin D. Burt, Micheal W. Campbell, and Theodore N. Levterov.629 Knight’s students’ dissertations mined the rich depth of Adventist history at their disposal. Outside guiding major biographical research as referred to in the previous pages, Knight inspired his students to focus their attention on thematic research which have sought to widen the scope of Adventist studies. In 1995, Alberto Timm wrote a dissertation on the “The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 1844–​1863: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-​day Adventist Doctrines.”630 A fascinating research which widened the historical and theological link between the Doctrines of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 and the Three Angels’ Message of Rev. 14:6–​12. Just a few months after the awarding of his doctorate degree, Timm published the first meaningful approach to the history of inspiration in Seventh-​day Adventism. The History of inspiration in the Seventh-​day Adventist Church (1844–​1994) published by Andrews University Press, was probably one of the first serious studies dealing 6 25 Knight, A Brief History, 155. 626 Ibid., 13, 35. 627 Knight, A Search for Identity, 61. 628 Shankel, God and Man in History, 136. 629 These historians have began writing useful historical pieces: 630 Alberto Timm wrote a dissertation on the “The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 1844–​1863: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-​day Adventist Doctrines,” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995).

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

173

with the concept of inspiration. Denis Kaiser’s recent dissertation (2016) “Trust and Doubt: Perceptions of Divine Inspiration in Seventh-​Day Adventist History (1880–​1930)”631 finds a connection with Timm’s research. Kaiser’s study illustrates sufficiently the complexity of inspiration and its progressive meaning in Adventist history. He adopted a philosophical approach to Adventist history as to follow the lead of Nicholas P. Miller. Merlin Burt, who is the Director of Center for Adventist Research at Andrews University, wrote a dissertation on “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism From 1844 to 1849.”632 Burt indicated that the purpose of his study was “to situate the interconnected development of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen White’s prophetic ministry within the ferment of Adventist ideas and events, showing the immediate theological climate, and giving a connected progression of the developing Sabbatarian Adventist movement from October 1844 to July 1849.”633 Juhyeuk Nam, in 2005 studied the “Reactions to the Seventh-​day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrines, 1955–​1971.” His studies highlight that both evangelical and Seventh-​day Adventists witnessed polarization over the evaluation of Questions on Doctrines.634 Nam argues that “Adventists … saw within their ranks an even greater division over Questions on Doctrine than there was among the evangelicals.”635 Because of this divide, four groups emerged on the evaluation of this historic publication. “(1) Pro-​ Adventist evangelicals; (2) anti-​ Adventist evangelicals; (3) proQuestions on Doctrine Adventists; and (4) anti-​Questions on Doctrine Adventists.”636 In short, Nam’s study provides a plausible history of the relationship between Evangelicals and Adventists.

631 Denis Kaiser, “Trust and Doubt: Perceptions of Divine Inspiration in Seventh-​Day Adventist History (1880–​1930),” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2017). 632 Merlin Burt, “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism From 1844 to 1849,” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2002). 633 Ibid., xi. 634 Seventh-​day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957). 635 Juhyeuk Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-​day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrines, 1955–​1971,” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005), x. 636 Ibid., 372.

174

The Development of Critical Approaches

Michael Campbell who taught for over five years in the Philippines has shaped students in serious investigations of Adventist history. His own dissertation on the 1919 Bible Conference remains a significant contribution to Adventist studies.637 In his research, Campbell examined the uneasy relationship between Adventists in the 1920s following the rise of fundamentalism and its attempts to counteract the influence of modernism. The 1919 Bible conference enjoined historical figures in this historic debate. A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott, Milton C. Wilcox, H. C. Lacey, and F. M. Wilcox were the most vocal at the conference. This conference was significant in that it helped shape the identity of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. In 2011, Theodore N. Levterov explored “The Development of Seventh-​ day Adventist Understanding of Ellen G. White’s Prophetic Gift, 1844–​1849.” His research explored how Adventists differed in their approach to the gift of prophecy from mainstream Protestantism. He declared that “Seventh-​ day Adventists … have affirmed that the Bible teaches the continuity of spiritual gifts from their beginning in the 1840s and have accepted Ellen G. White as a legitimate prophet of God.”638 His studies broaden the understanding of prophetic gifts in Adventist circles. Among the most vocal and influential thinkers trained by George R. Knight, Gilbert Valentine is included. Through his recent biography, J. N. Andrews: Mission Pioneer, Evangelist, and Thought Leader, he secured a name among critical revisionist historians of Adventism. Writing this biography from the perspective of a seasoned historian of Adventism, he was able to go through a mine of materials, letters, diaries, transcripts of meetings, and photographs to produce a work of 728 pages.639 The product is a critical and balanced study. One of the reasons why he engaged into the study is, he notes: “Adventist publishing houses are now more willing to publish the results of studies that tell the story of our

637 Michael Campbell, “The 1919 Bible Conference and Its Significance for Seventh-​day Adventist History and Theology,” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2008). The recent publications of Campbell include: 1919: The Untold Story of Adventism’s Struggle with Fundamentalism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2019), The Pocket Ellen G. White Dictionary (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018), Pocket Dictionary For Understanding Adventism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2010). 638 Theodore N. Levterov “The Development of Seventh-​day Adventist Understanding of Ellen G. White’s Prophetic Gift, 1844–​1849,” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2008), viii. 639 Gilbert Valentine, J. N. Andrews: Mission Pioneer, Evangelist, and Thought Leader (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018).

Mediating Positions and New Explorations

175

Church in full colour, and that correct and sometimes challenge traditional but sometimes incomplete understandings of the past.”640 Going through in-​depth archival materials, he is able to open broader perspectives on the complex life of J. N. Andrews; his struggles to establish Adventist mission in Europe, and the story of his rebaptism as an ordained minister. He also sheds a greater light on his relationships with Ellen G. White and James White. Truly, there is a greater clarity in the personality of J. N. Andrews. As Valentine puts it, “new sources help us fill in gaps, correct misinterpretations, open broader perspectives on the complexity of developments, and reveal our forebears in new ways.”641 He further argues that he found illuminating “to sense how keenly Andrews experienced the imminence of the Advent, how that sharply focused his sense of duty in everything he did, but also generated an abiding sense of guilt that he had never done enough.”642 This biography, added to the one on W. W. Prescott published 2015, open doors to valuable insights in the development of Adventism.643 Prescott’s life, for instance, is a window “onto the political conflicts, the personal quarrels, administrative struggles, and often-​intense theological and educational debates”644 of Adventism’s Second Generation. Valentine describes early Adventist pioneers as men and women who responded to God’s call despite their flaws. His studies filled significant gabs in Adventist scholarships. Thus, Knight has been a historian who has had a great impact on Adventist studies through the number of students he trained. Despite the criticisms he has faced, he has found happiness in his scholarship. Although he has never thought of shaping Adventist history through his views, his contribution to Adventist historiography is noteworthy. As a way to conclude this chapter, it is important to note that there is a new development in Adventist history, which one can term as new Seventh-​day Adventist history. Outside biographical studies that have taken a drastic stance on exploring Adventist history, there are other historians who seek to be honest with themselves and expose some of the dark histories of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Benjamin Baker, for instance, has been writing on Seventh-​day

640 Gilbert Valentine, Professor at La Sierra University, Riverside, California, Interview by Nathan Brown, Melbourne, Australia, November 10, 2019. 641 Ibid. 642 Ibid. 643 Gilbert Valentine, W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism’s Second Generation (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2005), 13. 644 Ibid., 13.

176

The Development of Critical Approaches

Adventist black history.645 He follows the footsteps of his father Delbert Baker.646 With reports of racial discrimination in increase in America, studies on race and Christianity will definitely be the shape of a scholarship in the present. Adventist historians should determine the role of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church in responding to this current and divisive issue on race relations. Another angle of new Adventist history is been pioneered by Nicholas P. Miller. In his article, “Alongside Foundationalism: Adventism’s Alternative Protestant Philosophical Path,” he suggested that the Seventh-​day Adventist Church should move beyond the liberals and fundamentalists labels to adopt a new line of theological and historical reflection rooted in what he calls “a neo-​ holistic realism.” This term encompasses “wholistic moral reasoning based on multiple sources subject to Scripture, and a concern for the moral government of God,” which he thinks, can help guide both our philosophical and theological thinking as we continue to deal with the challenges of modernity and postmodernity. The pathway ahead is not the same as the one behind, but we can continue to be guided by its way markers—​as a surveyor keeps one eye on his prior positioning stakes as he continues to move forward to his ultimate goal.647

An awareness of this new approach which draws insights from Scottish Common Sense Realism is certainly helpful. Thomas Reid, the prominent Scottish thinker emphasized man’s innate ability to understand his world. This philosophy influenced the works of Thomas Jefferson and the politics in America in the late 18th century.648

645 Benjamin Baker, Crucial Moments: Twelve Defining Events in Black Adventist History (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2005). 646 Delbert W. Baker wrote a book on SDA black history in America: The Unknown Prophet, rev. and updated (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987, 2013), tells the story of William E. Foy. He was a Black man who lived in Boston in the 1840s. He had visions just like Ellen G. White. Baker described facts and events as part of God’s providence leading to the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White. 647 Nicholas P. Miller, “Alongside Foundationalism: Adventism’s Alternative Protestant Philosophical Path,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53, no 1 (2015), 54. 648 For more insights on Scottish Common Sense Realism, see the following studies: George Boas, Dominant themes of modern philosophy: A History (New York: Ronald, 1957), Thomas Reid, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), and Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006).

Summary and Conclusion

177

In the new SDA history also, is the New Encyclopedia on Adventism. Through the endless efforts of its General editor David Trim, this monumental achievement will widen the door of a magnitude field of Adventist scholarship. As a global work, this encyclopedia with thousands of articles has been accessible online from July 1, 2020.649 Authors of various articles sought to be comprehensive and honest, representative of the diversity of Seventh-​day Adventism.

Summary and Conclusion This chapter examined the historical approaches used by five major groups of Adventist historians. The first group consists of the open critical thinkers (open to the possibility of supernatural causation of historical facts). The second approach consists of the closed secular method (closed to the possibility of supernatural explanation of historical facts). These first two approaches emphasize a rigorous understanding of historical writing within the context of time, culture, and faithfulness to historical sources. They reject any explanation of historical events based upon providential claims. Their writings contrast with the remaining three groups who also emphasize devotion to God and commitment to church ideals. The third group described as the critical conservative historians built upon confessional history but also sought to evaluate and refute anti-​ apologetic approaches used by those of a more critical persuasion in their approach to Adventist history. The fourth group of historians described here as the critical apologetic in general accepted the overall purpose of confessional history by trying to write a believer’s history using history toward an apologetic end. They did not separate the writing of history from the cause of Christ. They believed that religious beliefs remained vital in order to understand the past. The fifth and final approach was represented by Knight who inaugurated a new day in Adventist historiography. Along with his colleagues and students, Knight combined historical critical scholarship with an obvious commitment to Adventism. According to Knight, the secular critical approach is too radical?650 Thus, revisionists such as Knight and his students attempted to remain faithful to the message and mission of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. At the same time, they were able to use critical approaches that brought credibility and thus a much more sophisticated approach to the past.

649 Seventhday Adventist Church, “Encyclopedia of Seventh-​day Adventists,” https://​ encyclopedia.adventist.org/​, july 1, 2020. 650 Knight, interview by the author.

178

The Development of Critical Approaches

Numbers brought a dilemma in Adventist historiography. His arguments clearly undermined the prophetic ministry of E. G. White, which made it impossible for church leaders and those in official capacities to accept his interpretations. He also exposed how Adventist apologetics in some ways had shifted into Adventist hagiography by making claims that could not be backed up with historical evidence. At the same time, the rejection of his research was seen by many historians in the 1970s as a rejection of historical scholarship and was even perceived as a form of anti-​intellectualism. The fact that Numbers was terminated from church employment without anything more than cursory responses lent credibility to the impression, particularly among non-​Adventist scholars, that much of Adventist apologetic history was intellectually dishonest. Critical historians embraced a new historical method and consciousness that was inherently suspicious of Adventist traditions and hagiography as showcased by the approach of Numbers. They believed that traditional interpretations of the past were often grandiose and overly inflated the contributions and role of E. G. White. Instead, they proposed a much more realistic understanding of the past and insisted upon historical methods that could be historically verified. In this way, Adventist historians found a variety of ways to respond to such critical claims. Some of the most critical found no middle ground at all and came to believe that any attempt at reconciliation was impossible. Other revisionists attempted to relate critical claims in a more constructive way. In this way, the critical approach forced even the most apologetic historians within the denomination to become more careful about the claims they made. In one way or another, every notable Adventist historian, since Numbers, has been forced to deal with these critical approaches to the past. Some who choose to simply be informed by his work (and even without citing him) still showed that they knew about the issues he and others like him raised. It is clear from this chapter that all historians who embraced these new critical historical methods within Adventist historiography were in danger of falling under suspicion by denominational leaders. Except for those who retrenched into apologetics, Adventist historians increasingly recognized the importance of understanding the context of E. G. White’s writings and attempted to project a realistic and nuanced understanding of her life and writings that moved away from hagiographical projections. Such historians implemented the best methods used by critical historians. Adventist historians have come to emphasize historical context and the discovery of new sources that at times provide a naturalistic explanation behind the development of her ideas. Such methods undermined a view of E. G. White as someone who was far ahead of her time or that her views came directly from heaven down to earth. McArthur noted that such historical

Summary and Conclusion

179

methods emphasized a “strain of rationalism that runs deep in Adventist mentality.”651 He observed, “Our tradition has always stressed that the truth can stand the closest scrutiny, that our belief has nothing to fear from careful examination and should, in fact, be rigorously tested.”652 Thus, critical historians studying Adventist history carry this dictum to its “logical conclusion.”653 Such historians emphasize the pastoral nature of E. G. White’s writings. In this way, Adventist historians have found a variety of ways to respond to such critical claims. Whether revisionist, critical conservative, critical apologetic, or anti-​ apologetic, each approach contributed to the development of Adventist historiography. While anti-​apologetic historians depicted the apologetic approach as unhelpful or primitive, those historians who sought mediating positions utilized such critical methods to support the denomination. At times, the revisionists and anti-​apologetic groups challenged the claims toward providential history. Altogether, the key issue among Adventist historians continues to be the role of divine providence in relationship to the writing of Adventist history.

6 51 McArthur, “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?,” 13. 652 Ibid. 653 Ibid.

Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusion This chapter briefly summarizes this book and provides some reflections and recommendations for further investigations. Some key factors contributed to a clearer understanding of Seventh-​day Adventist historiography. It reviews highlights from each chapter.

Summary Chapter 1 has surveyed the foundational philosophical arguments behind the study of historiography. The Greek understanding of history involved cyclical interpretation of historical facts and thus is different from the Christian understanding which centered on a linear and teleological view of history. This difference is evident in the writings of Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo, key historians of early Christianity who championed the linear understanding of history. Each affirmed God’s role in history as the starting point for interpreting the past. They wrote about history in order to affirm God’s sovereignty. Such views dominated Medieval Christianity as showcased in the historiography of Bede, and Bossuet up until the birth of the scientific approach to history led by Voltaire and von Ranke who offered an alternative way of understanding the past. Von Ranke was particularly influential because he emphasized a scrupulous examination of original sources. The Enlightenment laid the foundation for the modern approaches to history. From this time, trained historians relied upon the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to understand the past. Even postmodern historians, who saw history as the product of creative processes often pre-​determined by an agenda, built upon this philosophical foundation. The 20th century also witnessed the rise of professional Christian historians who were trained in critical methods of history but who retained their Christian faith. Historians such as Marsden, Noll, Hatch, and Green probed new ways to present Christian scholarship in the secular academia. They adopted and refined the historical methods used by Schaff from the 19th century. They combined their commitment to the Christian faith with the use of critical historical approaches, which they did not see as a threat to how they studied the past. They received both strong affirmation as well as criticism for their work. Adventist experience built upon the evangelical protestant historiography at large. It takes faith into account and admits that the hand of God can influence the course of history even though this hand cannot be proven.

182

Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 2 examined some of the basic theological approaches to Adventist history. Theological history dominated the earliest attempts at reflecting upon the development of Adventism. J. Bates, J. White, J. N. Andrews, and U. Smith each used history to affirm their most basic understanding about prophetic interpretation. Their study of Bible prophecy provided the reason for their historical investigation. They also saw God’s providence as advancing throughout world history leading to an ultimate culmination when Jesus comes again. Such an approach reflected a teleological understanding of history. Specifically, E. G. White described such thinking as part of a wider historical narrative she called the Great Controversy, an epic battle between Christ and Satan. These three theological concepts (the Bible as sacred history, prophecy and history, and the Great Controversy) were foundational to a theological philosophy of history. E. G. White, for her part, framed all of history within this metanarrative. Based upon these theological convictions, she saw God as above and directing all human history to a triumphal conclusion. According to her, history must be viewed from God’s perspective. She was primarily interested in connecting key historical events to how they contributed to the unfolding of the Great Controversy from a theological point of view. Thus, the Great Controversy theme connected her ideas as part of this theological framework. Other early Adventist writers continued this way of writing theological history. One example of this was Loughborough who wrote the earliest chronicles about the birth of Adventism. Since he witnessed many of these events, he shared his memories, which, at times, were not always reliable. He was less concerned about historical accuracy than he was about interpreting the rise of Adventism in providential terms. It is important to note that these earliest persons to write about the rise of Adventism attempted to provide confirmation about God’s leading in the development of the church. They affirmed the importance of history in relationship to Bible prophecy and especially saw the rise of Adventism as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Chapter 3 focused on the rise of apologetic history. It was the second generation of Adventist historians who wrote history to defend Adventism. There were at least three major forms of apologetic history: individual historical narratives, the products of the E. G. White Estate, and textbooks used in schools. Each variation reflected a common understanding about the need to affirm denominational beliefs. The E. G. White Estate refuted criticisms of the writings of E. G. White and affirmed the importance of her prophetic ministry. The textbooks communicated diverse ways that helped the church to connect to its historical and collective memory. Individual historical narratives did not discuss any contradictions between a theocentric approach to history and complex historical

Summary

183

descriptions. They did not pay attention to the political, sociological, economic, or racial aspects surrounding the rise of Adventism. Instead, they wrote history in a way that was similar to earlier writers who emphasized theology through the lens of Bible prophecy. Some of the earliest historians included Olsen, Spalding, Spicer, Nichol, Froom, and Vande Vere. Olsen and Vande Vere were highly educated and had earned doctoral degrees but they did not differ in their methodology from the earlier apologetic ways of interpreting Adventist history. Chapter 4 examined the development of a more academic understanding of Adventist historiography. This chapter divides Adventist historians into five major groups: the anti-​apologetic (constituted of open critical thinkers and of closed secular historians), critical conservative, critical apologetic, and revisionist realist approach. The anti-​apologetic historians were those who embraced the most critical methods and contextual influences while rejecting the apologetic approaches that merely described Adventist history in solely providential terms. Critical conservative historians were mostly defensive and not open to critical historical methods that did threaten Adventist beliefs. Critical apologetic historians, in contrast, incorporated a more critical study of the past. These historians recognized the need to evaluate historical facts by standard historical criteria and by recognizing larger patterns in denominational historiography. Instead of a dogmatic interpretation of facts, they sought truths based on evidence. The final group of historians studied in this chapter is the revisionist realistic group championed by Knight. He exhibited a dedication to historical scholarship that affirmed Adventist identity. Knight benefited from the earlier, more critical approaches even as he felt that their approach was too harsh. He saw their work as paving the way for others who, like himself, incorporated such scholarship in their approach to the past. Such revisionist historians mediated between the critical and the apologetic approaches by offering a more credible way to view Adventist history which threatened neither church leadership nor Adventist beliefs. This book has described three major trends within the development of Seventh-​day Adventist historiography. First, the writing of history began as an extension of an interest in Bible prophecy and a conviction about God’s providential leading in the rise of Adventism (theological-​fideist history). Second, Adventist history remained important in order to do successful apologetics, affirm the faith of church members, and provide new resources such as textbooks and affirmations of the prophetic gift through the life and writings of E. G. White. Third, more critical methods were gradually incorporated that challenged traditional narratives of Adventist history. These methods incorporated new and more objective ways that considered natural causation in history. Historians

184

Summary and Conclusion

following this approach began to look for more credible evidence to support earlier claims about Adventist history. These new critical approaches generated a wide range of responses, all of which continue to be promulgated within Adventism up to the present day.

Conclusion Adventist historiography moved from an era of exclusive protectionism about how the past was told to becoming one that, over time, has become much more open about the shortcomings of the past. While historians vary in their approaches on how to expose this sacred history to those inside and outside their denominations, critical historians emphasize a demystification of the past through critical thinking that jettisons hagiography. Other historians, the apologists, in turn, emphasize a past that is distinctive and, in some ways, superior to the present in terms of its prophetic insights that frame the identity of the denomination. Adventist historiography from this perspective followed other general patterns evident in other Christian denominations. In a way, this was part of a normal maturation process within a denomination and should not therefore be surprising when reflecting upon Adventist historiography. The fact that the narrative of history is so closely intertwined with Adventist theology and, in particular, eschatology means that such approaches to the past are especially important to Adventist identity. Thus, a distinctive philosophy of history for Seventh-​day Adventism remains at the very heart and core of Adventist identity. Adventist historians have closely integrated the interpretation of historical facts with their collective memory and vision of the past. They affirm that the experiences that brought the rise and development of the denomination cannot be forgotten. As the church has matured and grown, it has been able to interact with approaches to the past that utilize more critical methods. Some works by Adventist historians came into conflict with Adventist identity. Initially, such attempts were met with hostility. Over time, however, church leaders discovered that a more critical approach led to intellectual honesty and a clearer understanding of the past. It also lent itself to greater credibility and actually contributed to building a mature denomination. Numbers’ work has done more than any other Adventist historian’s work to incorporate such critical methods and to usher in a new era of Adventist historiography. While not everyone agrees with his conclusions, this book shows that his research could not be ignored. Even the Ellen G. White Estate (which opposed Numbers) and Knight (who sought a conciliatory mediating approach) benefited from his research. Today, historians

Conclusion

185

produce creative work and critical research. They owe a great debt to many earlier historians who engaged in historiographical battles. Such clashes are not over but, certainly, these earlier historians have indeed illuminated the major issues on the historiographical arena. Adventist historians may want to ponder over these concerns. It may be, therefore, necessary to consider three important points: First, more work needs to be done on the connection between individual memory versus collective memory in the shaping of Adventist identity. Such studies should recognize the influence of postmodernism, particularly as it relates to religious identity, memory, and time. This work should make a difference between individual memory and collective or historical memory. Such methods have led to many new areas of study within historiography. Second, more work needs to be done on the methods and interpretations by more recent historians. Those who have followed in the wake of Knight need careful consideration but such work is difficult to do since the distance of time has not clearly illuminated all of the most recent historiographical confrontation. Recent tensions between Knight and current denominational leadership suggest that Adventist historiographical wars may not yet be over. With the passing of time, it may become easier to study, compare, and contrast these historiographical interpretations and to follow the direction of Seventh-​day Adventist historiography. Third, the historiography of regional and local Adventist history is also important for the understanding of the identity of the church at large. The challenge with this recommendation is that not every country has written, or carefully documented, how the Seventh-​day Adventist Church has developed in its realm.

Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life; Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln; Gregory, Salvation at Stake

Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen White; Brodie, No Man Knows My History: Joseph Smith Biography

a

Miller, “Naked in the Garden of the Past,” 11.

2. Open critical History

1. Closed secular confessional Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling; Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society; Nichol, Answers to Objections; Numbers, Land, Aamodt, Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet

3. Critical apologetic

Is There An Adventist Philosophy of History-​A Chart by Nicholas Millera

Table A

Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind; Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship; Adventist Classic Library Series; careful denomination-​nal history; and mission books

4. Critical Confessional

Butler, Lives of the Saints; conspiracy versions of history; Protestant and Catholic fantasy stories of Wartburg Castle; careless denominational history; and mission story books

5. Closed fideist confessional

newgenrtpdf

a

Mahlon. E. Olsen, Arthur W. Spalding, Francis. D. Nichol, LeRoy E. Froom, Albert V. Olson, Emmett K. Vande Vere, The Ellen G. White Estate, and early denomina-​ tionnnal history textbooks

Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith, John N. Andrews, Ellen G. White, William A. Spicer, and John N. Loughborough Richard Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf

George R. Knight

Ronald L. Numbers

Edwin F. Albertsworth, Clement L. Benson, Donald McAdams, William S. Peterson, Jonathan Butler, Ronald D. Graybill, Gary Land, Benjamin McArthur

Mervyn C. Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt

Closed Critical Critical Revisionist secular conservative apologetic realist confessional history historian history

Mediating history

Open critical history

Critical anti-​aplogetic history

History as a search for objective historical analysis: Critical anti-​apologetic & mediating approaches

This chart is from the author. It provides a summary of the various approaches of Adventist history as discussed in this book.

History as apologetics

History as faith commitment: Theological-​ fideist approach

A Chart of Adventist Historiographya

Table B

newgenrtpdf

Bibliography Aamodt, Terrie D., Gary Land, and Ronwald L. Numbers, eds. Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014. Acton, Lord. “Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History, 1895.” Accessed June 23, 2017. http://​lfoll.s3.amazonaws.com/​titles/​2533/​Acton_​StudyHistory1895. pdf. Albertsworth, Edwin F. “Historical Method.” Report of Bible Conference, Takoma Park, MD, 1919. Alcott, William A. Lectures on Life and Health. Boston, MA: Philips, 1853. Aldridge, Alfred O. Voltaire and the Century of Light. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975. Alfred, Lord Tennyson. “I Am Part of All I Have Met.” Accessed August 28, 2016. http://​overachievercoach.blogspot.com/​2007/​10/​i-​am-​part-​of-​all-​i-​have-​ met.html. Allen, Edward. “The Anti-​Ceedalism of Charles Beecher as a Source of Early Adventist Historiography.” Paper presented at the Association of SDA Historians, Oakwood University, Huntsville, AL, 2007. Allen, Sydney. One Week with a Modern Missionary. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1970. Alter, Robert. “Sacred History and Prose Fiction.” In The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text, edited by Richard E. Friedman, 7–​24. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981. Amadon, George W. “Thoughts on Immortality.” Review and Herald 21, no. 18 (1863): 187–​189. Amundsen, Wesley. The Advent Message in Inter-​America. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1947. Anderson, Eric D. “Ellen G. White and Reformation Historians.” Spectrum 9, no. 3 (1978): 23–​26. Anderson, Godfrey T. Spicer: Leader with the Common Touch. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1983. Andrews, John N. History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week. Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1859. Andrews University Staff. “A Retired A. U. Historian Gary Land Dies.” Adventist Review, May 1, 2014. Accessed June 11, 2017. http://​www.adventistreview. org/​churchn-​ews/​%E2%80%8Bretired-​a.u.-​historian-​gary-​land-​dies

192

Bibliography

Andross, Matilda E. Story of the Advent Message. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1926. Appleby, Joyce, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob. Telling the Truth About History. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1994. Armeggiani, Giovanni, ed. Between Thucydides and Polybius: The Golden Age of Greek Historiography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Aron, Raymond. Politics and History. 3rd ed. Translated by Miriam B. Conan. London, UK: Transaction, 2014. Ashworth, Warren S. “Edward Alexander Sutherland and Seventh-​day Adventist Educational Reform: The Denominational Years, 1890–​ 1904.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1986. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Assmann, Jan. “Memory and Culture.” In Memory: A History, edited by Dmitri Nikulin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. D’ Aubigné, Jean H. Merle. Histoire de la Réformation au XVIème Siècle. 5 vols. 2nd ed. Paris, France: Meyrueis, 1860–​1862. D’ Aubigné, Jean H. Histoire de la Réformation en Europe au Temps de Calvin. 8 vols. Paris, France: Michel, 1863–​1888. D’ Aubigné, Jean H. History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Robert Carter, 1853. Austin, Norman. “Greek Historiography.” In The Greek Historians: Introduction and Selected Readings; Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Plutarch, edited by Norman Austin, 1–​75. New York, NY: van Nostrand, 1969. Austin, Norman, ed. The Greek Historians: Introduction and Selected Readings. New York, NY: van Nostrand, 1969. Ball, B. W. The English Connection: The Puritan Roots of Seventh-​day Adventists Belief. Cambridge, MA: James, 1981. Ballis, Peter H. In and Out of the World: 7th Day Adventists in New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: Intl Specialized, 1986. Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Barret, Matthew. “The Crux of Genuine Reform.” In Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, edited by Matthew Barrett, 43–​ 66. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. Barth, Karl. “The Christian Belief in Providence.” In God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by C. T. McIntire, 205–​223. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Bibliography

193

Barzun, Jacques, and Henry F. Graff. The Modern Researcher. 5th ed. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1992. Bates, Joseph. Autobiography of Joseph Bates. Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1968. Reprint. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2014. Bates, Joseph. The Opening Heavens, or a Connected View of the Testimony of the Prophets and Apostles Concerning the Opening Heavens, Compared with Astronomical Observations, and of the Present and Future Location of the New Jerusalem, the Paradise of God. New Bedford, MA: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846. Bates, Joseph. A Seal of the Living God: A Hundred Forty-​Four Thousand of the Servants of God Being Sealed. New Bedford, CT: Benjamin Lindsey, 1849. Bates, Joseph. Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, or a Connected View, of the Fulfilment of Prophecy, by God’s Peculiar People, From the Year 1840 to 1847. New Bedford, MA: Benjamin Lindsay, 1847. Bates, Joseph. The Seventh-​day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign, From the Beginning to the Entering Into the Gates of the Holy City, According to the Commandment. New Bedford, MA: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846. Battistone, Joseph J. “Ellen G. White’s Central Theme.” Accessed July 31, 2018. https://​www.ministrymagazine.org/​archive/​1975/​10/​eilen-​g.-​whites-​ centraltheme Bauer, Stephen. “Animals Ethics.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. 926–​927. Bauman, Michael. “Introduction.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber, 1–​11. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Bauman, Micheal, and Martin I. Klauber, eds. Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Beard, Charles. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York, NY: McMillan, 1993. Beattie, Francis R. The Rational Vindication of Christianity. Vol. 1. Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee, 1903. Bebbington, David W. Patterns in History: A Christian View. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990. Beck, W. David, ed. Opening the American Mind: The Integration of Biblical Truth in the Curriculum of the University. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991. Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Vol. 1. Translated by L. Sherley-​ Prince and R. E. Latham. London, UK: Penguin, 1990.

194

Bibliography

Beecher, Edward. The Conflict of Ages. Boston, MA: Phillips, 1853. Beeke, Joel R. “William Cunningham.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 209–​226. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Bengesco, Georges. Voltaire: Bibliographie De Ses Œuvres. 4 vols. Paris, France: n.p., 1882–​1890. Benjamin, Jules R. A Student’s Guide to History. 7th ed. New York, NY: St. Martin, 1998. Benson, Clement L. “The Application of the Principles of Historic Method to Our Teaching Work.” Report of Bible Conference, Takoma Park, MD, 1919. Bentley, Michael. The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science, and God. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Berger, Stefan, Mark Donovan, and Kevin Passmore. Writing National Histories: Western Europe Since 1800. London, UK: Routledge, 1999. Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christ the Meaning of History. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1966. Berkofer, Robert F., Jr. Beyond the Great Story: History as Text and Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1995. Bertens, Hans. The Idea of the Postmodern: A History. New York, NY: Routledge, 1995. Black, Jeremy. “Ancient Regime and Enlightenment: Some Recent Writing on Seventeenth-​and Eighteenth-​Century Europe.” European History Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1992): 247–​255. Blaich, Roland. “Teacher of the Church: The Adventist Historian.” Journal of Adventist Education 62, no. 4 (2000): 15–​19. Bliss, Sylvester. Memoirs of William Miller. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2005. Boa, Kenneth D., and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Boas, George. Dominant Themes of Modern Philosophy: A History. New York, NY: Ronald, 1957. Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luther’s World of Thought. Translated by Martin H. Bertam. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1958. Bossuet, Jacques-​Benigne. Discourse on Universal History, edited by Orest Ranum. Translated by Elborg Forster. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Bibliography

195

Bowden, Henry W. Church History in an Age of Uncertainty: Historiographical Patterns in the United States, 1906–​1990. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991. Bowersock, G. W., and S. R. Graubard, eds. Edward Gibbon and the Decline and Fall of Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Brand, Chad O. “Defining Evangelicalism.” In Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, edited by Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor, 282–​305. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. Brand, Leonard, and Don S. McMahon. The Prophet and Her Critics: A Striking New Analysis Refutes the Charges That Ellen G. White “Borrowed” the Health Message. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005. Branson, Roy, and Herold D. Weiss. “Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholarship.” Spectrum 2 (1970): 30–​33. Braudel, Ferdinand. La Méditerranée et Le Monde Méditerranéen à l’Epoque de Philippe II. Paris, France: A Colin, 1949. Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, & Modern. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Brown, Colin. History & Faith: A Personal Exploration. Grand Rapids, MI: Academy, 1987. Brown, George H. Bede, the Venerable. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1987. Brundage, Anthony. Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writings. 2nd ed. Wheeling, IL: Harlan-​Davidson, 1992. Bull, Malcolm, and Keith Lockhart. Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-​day Adventism and the American Dream. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Christian Faith and History.” In History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by Carl T. McIntire, 97–​111. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Bunzl, Martin. Real History: Reflections on Historical Practice. London, UK: Routledge, 1997. Burch, Maxie B. The Evangelical Historians: The Historiography of George Marsden, Nathan Hatch, and Mark Noll. New York, NY: University Press of America, 1996. Burguiere, Andre, and Timothy Tackett. The Annales School: An Intellectual History. Translated by Jane Marie Todd. 1st ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009. Burke, Peter. “A Survey of the Popularity of Ancient Historians, 1450–​1700.” History and Theory 5, no. 2 (1966): 135–​152. Burrow, John W. Gibbon. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1985.

196

Bibliography

Burrow, John W. Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries From Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Vintage, 2007. Burt, Merlin D. “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism From 1844 to 1849.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2002. Accessed July 3, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Bury, John B. The Ancient Greek Historians. New York, NY: Dover, 1908. Bushman, Richard L. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. New York, NY: Vintage, 2007. Butler, Jonathan M. “Adventism and the American Experience.” In The Rise of Adventism: Religion and Society in Mid-​Nineteenth Century America, edited by Edwin S. Gaustad, 173–​206. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1974. Butler, Jonathan M. “Introduction.” In Prophetess of Health, edited by Ronald L. Numbers, 1–​41. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Butler, Jonathan M. “The Making of a New Order: Millerism and the Origins of Seventh-​day Adventism.” In The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Jonathan M. Butler and Ronald L. Numbers, 189–​208. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987. Butler, Jonathan M. “Plagiarism.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 1028–​1035. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Butler, Jonathan M. “A Portrait.” In Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, edited by Terrie D. Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers, 1–​29. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014. Butler, Jonathan M. “The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century.” PhD diss., John Hopkins University, 1983. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Butler, Jonathan M. “Seventh-​day Adventist Historiography: A Work in Progress.” Church History 87, no. 1 (2018): 149–​166. Butler, Jonathan M. “The World of Ellen G. White and the End of the World.” Spectrum 10 (1979): 2–​13. Butler, Jonathan M., and Ronald L. Numbers. “Introduction.” In The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Jonathan M. Butler and Ronald L. Numbers, xiv-​ xxiv. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987. Butterfield, Herbert. Christianity and History. London, UK: Bell, 1949.

Bibliography

197

Butterfield, Herbert. “God in History.” In God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by Carl T. McIntire, 192–​204. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Butterfield, Herbert. “Historical Scholarship and Its Relation to Life.” In God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by Carl T. McIntire, 357–​372. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of History. New York, NY: Basic, 1981. Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpretation of History. London, UK: G. Bell, 1931. Buttrick, George Arthur. Christ and History. New York, NY: Abingdon, 1963. Cairns, Earle E. God and Man in Time: A Christian Approach to Historiography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1910. Campbell, Michael W. “ASDAH’s Founding Fathers: A Look at Adventist Historians in the 1910s and the Development of Adventist Historiography.” Paper presented at the Association of SDA Historians, Oakwood University, Huntsville, AL, 2007. Campbell, Michael W. “The Knight Approach to Ellen G. White’s Studies.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 145–​152. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Campbell, Michael W. “Margaret Matilda (Wright) Rowen.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 503–​504. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Campbell, Michael W. The 1919 Bible Conference and Its Significance for Seventh-​day Adventist History and Theology.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2008. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Campbell, Michael W. 1919: The Untold Story of Adventism’s Struggle with Fundamentalism. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2019. Campbell, Michael W. The Pocket Ellen G. White Dictionary. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018. Campbell, Michael W. Pocket Dictionary For Understanding Adventism. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2010. Campbell, Heidi O., and Michael W. Campbell. “John Milton.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, 984–​986, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Carr, Edward H. What Is History? New York, NY: Vintage, 1967.

198

Bibliography

Carter, Erick. “The Adventist Pilgrim: A Construct for Theological Reflection.” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 28 (2017): 45–​60. Casebolt, Donald E. Discovering Our Adventist Past: An Introduction to Seventh-​ day Adventist History. Lincoln, Nebraska: AdventSource, 2013. Casebolt, Donald E. “Ellen White, the Waldenses, and Historical Interpretation.” Spectrum 11 (198): 37–​43. Clapham, Noel. Seventh-​Day Adventists in the South Pacific 1885–​1985: Australia, New Zealand, South-​Sea Islands. New York, NY: Peter Land, 1985. Clary, Ian H. “Arnold Dallimore (1911–​1996): Reformed Evangelicalism and the Search for a Usable Past.” PhD diss., University of the Free State, 2014. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Clary, Ian H. “The Evangelical Historiography: The Debate Over Christian History.” Evangelical Quarterly 87 (2015): 225–​255. Cohen, David W. The Combing of History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Cohen, Hendrik F. The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994. Coleman, Christopher, and David Starkey, eds. Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Government and Administration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986. Coles, Larkin B. The Moral Bearing of Erroneous Appetites. Boston, MA: Ticknor, 1851. Coles, Larkin B. Natural Principles of Health and Cure: Health and Cure without Drugs and the Moral Bearing of Erroneous Appetites. Boston, MA: Ticknor, 1851. Collingwood, Robin G. The Idea of History, edited by T. M. Knox. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1946. Collins, John J. The Bible After Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Connor, Walter R. Thucydides. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987. Coon, Roger W. Ellen White and Vegetarianism. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1986. Cooper, Emma H. The Great Advent Movement. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1935. Cosgrove, Peter. Impartial Stranger: History and Intertextuality in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Newark, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1999. Cottrell, Raymond. “The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary.” Spectrum 16, no. 3 (1985): 35–​51.

Bibliography

199

Craddock, Patricia B. Edward Gibbon, Luminous Historian: 1772–​1794. 1st ed. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Craddock, Patricia B. The English Essays of Edward Gibbon. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1972. Dalberg, John E. Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History, edited by John N. Figgis and Reginald V. Laurence. London, UK: Macmillan, 1906. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. “Biography.” Accessed September 20, 2016. https://​www. andrews.edu/​~damsteeg/​page2/​page2.html Damsteegt, P. Gerard. “The Blessings of the Great Disappointment.” Accessed October 20, 2016. https://​www.andrews.edu/​~damsteeg/​Dis.html Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Covenant-​Law-​Sabbath: An Outline. Berrien Springs, MI: Christian Heritage Media, 1996. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Development of Prophetic Interpretation: An Outline. Berrien Springs, MI: Christian Heritage Media, 1995. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Development of Seventh-​ day Adventist Theology: An Outline. Berrien Springs, MI: Christian Heritage Media, 1995. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Développement de la Théologie Adventiste: Un Aperçu. Translated by Miary Andriamiarisoa. Berrien Springs, MI: Christian Heritage Media, 1996. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Early Church to A.D. 604: An Outline. Berrien Springs, MI: Christian Heritage Media, 1996. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. “Ellen White on Theology: Its Methods, and the Use of Scripture.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 4 (1993): 115–​136. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Foundations of the Seventh-​day Adventist Message and Mission. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. “Inspiration of the Scriptures in the Writings of Ellen G. White.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5 (1994): 155–​179. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Our Prophetic Heritage: An Outline. Berrien Springs, MI: Christian Heritage Media, 1996. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Seventh-​day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines. Washington, DC: Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-​day Adventists, 1988. Daniells, Arthur G. The Abiding Gift of Prophecy. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936. Davidson, James W. The Logic of Millennial Thought: Eighteenth-​Century New England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977. Davidson, James W., and Mark Hamilton L. After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-​Hill, 1992.

200

Bibliography

Davis, Henry E. An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: In Which His View of . . . the Misrepresentation of the Authors He Cites. London, UK: Dodsley, 1778. Davies, Philip R. Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History-​ Ancient and Modern. London, UK: Westminster, 2008. Davis, Moshe. America and the Holy Land: With Eyes Towards Zion. Connecticut, CT: The International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization, 1995. De Dijn, Annelien. “The Politics of Enlightenment: From Peter Gay to Jonathan Israel.” Historical Journal 55, no. 3 (2012): 785–​805. Defence Literature Committee. “Dedication.” In Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White, edited by Francis D. Nichol, 13–​14.Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1952. DeGregoria, Scott. “Introduction: The New Bede.” In Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Vene rable Bede, edited by Scott DeGregoria, 1–​10. Morgantown, WV: The West Virginia University Press, 2006. Denton, Donald L. Historiography and Hermeneutics in Jesus Studies: An Examination of the Work of John Dominic Crossan and Ben F. Meyer. London, UK: T. & T. Clark, 2004. The Department of Education of the General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Lessons in Denominational History: For Use in the Secondary Schools of the Church. Washington, DC: Department of Education, 1942. The Department of Education of the General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. The Story of Our Church. Washington, DC: Department of Education, 1960. Devine, Les. “The Adventist Heritage: An Enabler of the Faith.” In Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration of Faith and Learning. Vol. 5, compiled by Humberto M. Rasi, 1–​16. Silver Springs, MD: Institute for Christian Teaching, 1991. Dewald, Carolyn, and John Marincola, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Dias, Victor. “Augustine on the Structure and Meaning in History.” MA thesis, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada, 1996. Dick, Everett N. “The Adventist Crisis of 1843–​1844.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1930. Accessed July 3, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Dick, Everett N. Founders of the Message. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1938. William

Bibliography

201

Dick, Everett N. Miller and the Advent Crisis 1831–​1844, edited by Gary Land. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1994. Doan, Alden Ruth. The Miller Heresy, Millennialism, and American Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987. Dochuk, Darren. From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-​Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism. New York, NY: Norton, 2011. Dochuk, Darren, Thomas S. Kidd, and Kurt W. Peterson, eds. American Evangelicalism: George Marsden and the State of American Religious History. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2014. Domańska, Ewa. Encounters: Philosophy of History After Postmodernism. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1998. Douglass, E. Herbert. “What Is So Unique About the Adventists?.” Adventist Today, Spring 2014, 4–​7. Drake, H. A. Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 2002. Dulles, Avery C. A History of Apologetics. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2005. Durand, Eugene F. Yours in the Blessed Hope, Uriah Smith. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1980. Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Voltaire: The Story of Civilization. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1965. Duverne, Théophile I. La Vie de Voltaire. Geneva, Switzerland: n.p., 1786. Dybdahl, John L. “Challenges to Adventist Mission.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 175–​183. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Eberhardt, Walter. Aufklärung und Pietismus. Berlin, Germany: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-​Tags-​Adventisten, 1979. Eberhardt, Walter. Christenheit im Zeitalter der Revolutionen. Berlin, Germany: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-​Tags-​Adventisten, 1992. Eberhardt, Walter. Reformation und Gegenreformation. Berlin, Germany: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-​Tags-​Adventisten, 1973. Eckstein, Arthur M. Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. Edwards, Calvin W., and Gary Land. Seeker After Light: A. F. Ballenger, Adventism, and American. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000. Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York, NY: Princeton University Press, 1954.

202

Bibliography

Ellen G. White Estate. A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health. Washington, DC: The Ellen G. White Estate, 1976. Ellen G. White Estate. A Discussion and Review of Prophetess of Health. Washington, DC: The Ellen G. White Estate, 1976. Elton, Geoffrey R. Political History: Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Basic, 1970. Elton, Geoffrey R. The Practice of History. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002. Elton, Geoffrey R. Return to Essentials: Some Reflections on the Present State of Historical Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Evans, C. Stephen. The Historical Christ & the Jesus Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996. Evans, Richard J. “Afterword.” In The Practice of History, edited by Geoffrey R. Elton, 170–​172. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002. Evans, Richard J. In Defense of History. New York, NY: Norton, 1997. Fagal, Sylvia M., and Roger W. Coon. “Vegetarianism.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 1641–​1643. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Fea, John. Why Study History? Reflections on the Importance of the Past. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013. Fea, John, Jay Green, and Eric Miller, eds. Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation. 1st ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Fineman, Joel. “The History of the Anecdote: Fiction and Fiction.” In The New Historicism, edited by Harold H. Veeser, 49–​76. New York, NY: Routledge, 1989. Fisher, George P. Outlines of Universal History. New York, NY: American, 1885. Florovsky, Georges. “The Predicament of the Christian Historian.” In God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by Carl T. McIntire, 406–​442. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Ford, Desmond. The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1979. Ford, Desmond. Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. Casselberry, FL: Euangelion, 1980. Forquer, Hugh J. “Forty Years of Research Yield Monumental Work.” Review and Herald vol. 48, no.1 (January 1971): 32. Forrest, Barbara. “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection.” Philo 3 (2000): 7–​29.

Bibliography

203

Fortin, Denis. “George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Theology.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 133–​143. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Fortin, Denis. “Plagiarism.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 1028–​1035. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Foucault, Michel. Power/​ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–​1977, edited by Colin Gordon. New York, NY: Pantheon, 1980. Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. 1st ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994. Franke, John R. “Eusebius of Caesarea.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Micheal Bauman, Martin I. Klauber, 59–​78. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Freed, Allan William. “Arthur Whitefield Spalding: A Study of His Life and Contributions to Family-​ Life Education in the Seventh-​ day Adventist Church.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Froom, LeRoy E. “Introduction.” In The Abiding Gift of Prophecy, edited by Arthur G. Daniells, 9. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936. Froom, LeRoy E. The Coming of the Comforter. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1949. Froom, LeRoy E. The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man. 2 vols. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1966. Froom, LeRoy E. Movement of Destiny. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1971. Froom, LeRoy E. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. Vol. I, Early Church Exposition, Subsequent Deflections, and Medieval Revival. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1950. Froom, LeRoy E. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. Vol. IV, New World Rediscovery and Consummation of Prophetic Interpretation. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1946. Frykenberg, Eric R. History & Belief: The Foundations of Historical Understanding. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Gaddis, Merrill E. “The Midnight Cry.” Church History 14, no. 3 (1945): 223. Genovese, Elizabeth F., and Elisabeth Lasch-​Quinn, eds. Reconstructing History: The Emergence of a New Historical Society. London, UK: Routledge, 1999.

204

Bibliography

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Newark, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1999. Gibbon, Edward. The English Essays of Edward Gibbon, edited by Patricia B. Craddock. 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1972. Gibbon, Edward, and John H. Sheffield. The Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon: With Memoirs of His Life and Writings Composed by Himself Illustrated From His Letters, with Occasional Notes and Narrative by John L. Sheffield. London, UK: Steven & Pardon, 1837. Gil, Thomas. “Leopold von Ranke.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography, edited by Avierzer Tucker, 383–​392. Malden, MA: Wiley-​ Blackwell, 2011. Gilbert, C. Frederick. Divine Predictions of Mrs. Ellen G. White Fulfilled. South Lancaster, MA: Good Tidings, 1922. Gilbert, Felix. “Leopold von Ranke and the American Philosophical Society.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 130, no. 3 (1986): 362–​366. Gilkey, Langdon. Reaping the Whirlwind: A Christian Interpretation of History. New York, NY: Seabury, 1976. Goff, Jacques Le. History and Memory. Translated by Steven Rendall. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1992. González, Justo L. The Changing Shape of Church History. Saint Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002. González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. 2 vols. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1984. Gooch, George. P. History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Paternoster, 1913. Gordon, Paul A., and Graybill D. Ronald. “Letters to Lucinda: Excerpts From Ellen White Messages Found in the Newly Discovered Collection.” Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald vol. 150 (August 1973): 4–​7. Grafton, Anthony. The Footnote: A Curious History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Graham, Stephen R. “Philip Schaff.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber, 290–​298. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Graham, Sylvester. Lectures on the Science of Human Life. New York, NY: Fowler & Wells, 1858. Graybill, Ronald D. E. G. White Church Race Relations. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1970.

Bibliography

205

Graybill, Ronald D. “How Did Ellen G. White Choose and Use Historical Sources? The French Revolution Chapter of the Great Controversy.” Spectrum 4 (1972): 49–​53. Graybill, Ronald D. “The Lucinda Abbey Hall Collection.” Adventist Heritage 2 (1975): 55–​57. Graybill, Ronald D. Mission to Black America: The True Story of Edson White and the Riverboat Morning Star. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1971. Graybill, Ronald D. “The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century.” PhD diss., John Hopkins University, 1983. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Graybill, Ronald D. “The Uses of Adventist History.” Review and Herald 154 (1977): 29–​30. Green, Anna, and Kathleen Troup, eds. The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in Twentieth-​Century History and Theory. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1999. Green, Jay D. Christian Historiography: Five Rival Versions. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Green, William D. The Children of Lincoln: White Paternalism and the Limits of Black Opportunity in Minnesota, 1860–​1876. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2018. Greenleaf, Floyd. “Floyd Greenleaf Latin America and Caribbean Collection.” Center for Adventist Research, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, n.d. Greenleaf, Floyd. In Passion for the World: A History of Seventh-​day Adventist Education. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005. Greenleaf, Floyd. The Seventh-​day Adventist Church in Latin America and the Caribbean. 2 vols. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1992. Gregory, Brad S. “Historians’ Metaphysical Beliefs and the Writing of Confessional Histories.” Fides Et Historia 43, no. 2 (2011): 9–​17. Gulley, Norman R. Systematic Theology: Prolegomena. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003. Guth, DeLloyd J., and John W. McKenna, eds. Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G. R. Elton From His American Friends. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Forquer, Hugh J. “Forty Years of Research Yield Monumental Work.” Review and Herald 148 (1971): 32. Hadas, Moses. “Editor’s Note.” In The Annals & Histories: Tacitus, edited by Moses Hadas, xxii–​xxiii. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Random, 2003.

206

Bibliography

Halbwachs, Maurice. La Mémoire Collective, edited by Gérard Namer. Paris, France: Albin Michel, 1997. Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory, edited and translated by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Hanna, Mark M. Crucial Questions in Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981. Hanning, Robert W. The Vision of History in Early Britain. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1966. Harbison, E. Harris. “The Marks of a Christian Historian.” In God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by Carl T. McIntire, 330–​356. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Harlan, David. The Degradation of American History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Harrison, John F. C. The Second Coming: Popular Millenarianism, 1780–​1850. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979. Hasel, Micheal G. “Ellen G. White’s Use of Historians.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 867–​870. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Hash, H. Ronald. Christian Faith & Historical Understanding. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984. Hastings, Horace L. The Great Controversy Between God and Man. Rochester, NY: Author, 1858. Hatch, Nathan O. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. Hatch, Nathan O. The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary New England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977. Haynes, Carlyne B. Christianity at the Crossroads: Modernism and Fundamentalism. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1924. Headley, John M. Luther’s View of Church History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963. Heinz, Daniel. Church, State, and Religious Dissent: A History of Seventh-​day Adventists in Austria. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 1993. Heinz, Johann. “The Author of the History of the Sabbath.” In J. N. Andrews: The Man and the Mission, edited by Harry Leonard, 131–​147. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1985. Hemmerdinger, B. Essai Sur L’Histoire Du Texte De Thucydide. Paris, France: Les Belles Lettres, 1955.

Bibliography

207

Hendel, Ronald. Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005. Herodotus. Herodotus. Vol. 1. Translated by A. D. Godley. London, UK: Harvard University Press, 1920. Hoffer, Peter Charles. The Historians’ Paradox: The Study of History in Our Time. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2008. Hohne, David A. “The Secret Agent of Natural Causes: Providence, Contingency, and the Perfecting Work of the Spirit.” In Engaging With Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer’s Legacy for Today, edited by Mark D. Thompson, 158–​178. Leceister, UK: InterVarsity, 2009. Hokama, Dennis. “Knight’s Darkest Hour: Biography as Indictment.” Adventist Currents 3, no. 1 (1988): 37–​42. Holwerda, David E. “Eschatology and History.” In Articles on Calvin and Calvinism: A Fourteen-​ Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles, edited by Richard C. Gamble, 9:132–​135. New York, NY: Garland, 1992. House, Paul. “Old Testament Historians.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 13–​38. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Hoyt, Frederick. “Knight on A. T. Jones: Biography Without Hagiography.” Spectrum 19, no. 3 (1989): 58–​60. Iggers, Georg C. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge. Hanover, MA: University Press of New England, 1997. Iggers, Georg C. “The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought.” History and Theory 2 (1962): 17–​40. Iggers, George G., and James M. Powell, eds. Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline. 1st ed. New York, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1990. Immerwahr, H. R. Form and Thought in Herodotus. Chicago, CA: Scholars, 1981. Ings, William. “Rise and Progress.” Review and Herald, February 21, 1893, 219. Inowlockiand, Sabrina, and Claudio Zamagni, eds. Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2011. Irwin, Elizabeth, and Emily Greenwood, eds. Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

208

Bibliography

Jackson, James C. How to Treat the Sick Without Medicine. Dansville, NY: Austin, Jackson, 1871. Jackson, James C. The Sexual Organism. Boston, MA: B. Leverett Emerson, 1862. James, Frank A. III. “Venerable Bede.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 95–​116. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Jenkins, Keith. “Introduction: On Being Open About Our Closures.” In The Postmodern History Reader, edited by Keith Jenkins, 1–​ 35. New York, NY: Routledge, 1997. Jenkins, Keith. On What Is History? From Carr to Elton to Rorty and White. London, UK: Routledge, 1995. Johns, Warren H. “Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part I: Does Borrowing of Literary Passages and Terms Constitute Borrowing of Concepts?” Ministry vol. 50, no. 8 (August 1977): 9–​12. Johns, Warren H. “Ellen G. White and Subterranean Fires, Part II: Does Borrowing of Johns, Warren H. Literary Passages and Terms Constitute Borrowing of Concepts?” Ministry vol. 50, no.10 (October 1977): 19–​22. Jones, Gareth. “Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, edited Alister E. McGrath, 58–​ 59. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993. Kaiser, Denis. “Trust and Doubt: Perceptions of Divine Inspiration in Seventh-​ Day Adventist History (1880–​1930).” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2017. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Katerberg, William. “The ‘Objectivity Question,’ and the Historians’ Vocation.” In Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, edited by John Fea, Jay Green, and Eric Miller, 101–​127. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Keillor, Steven J. God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. Keller, Werner. The Bible as History: A Confirmation of the Book of Books. Translated by William Neil. New York, NY: William Marrow, 1956. Kellner, Hans. “Introduction: Describing Re-​ descriptions.” In A New Philosophy of History, edited by Frank Ankersmit and Hans Kellner, 9–​10. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Kendall, Paul Murray. The Art of Biography. New York: W. W. Norton, 1965. Kenneth, Miriam, and Kenneth Wood. His Initials Were F. D. N.: A Life Story of Elder F. D. Nichol, for Twenty-​One Years Editor of the Review & Herald. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1967.

Bibliography

209

Kenny, Michael G. Perfect Law of Liberty: Elias Smith and the Providential History of America. Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 1994. Knight, George R. “An Academic ‘Mutt’s’ Search for Meaning.” In Adventist Maverick, edited by Gilbert Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 217–​ 250. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Knight, George R. Adventist Authority Wars, Ordination, and the Roman Catholic Temptation. Westlake Village, CA: Oak & Acorn, 2017. Knight, George R. “An Analysis of the Educational Theory of George S. Counts.” PhD diss., University of Houston College, 1976. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Knight, George R. A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2011. Knight, George R. Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1989. Knight, George R. Anticipating the Advent: A Brief History of Seventh-​ day Adventism. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993. Knight, George R. A Brief History of Seventh-​ day Adventists. 2nd ed. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2012. Knight, George R. Ellen White’s World: A Fascinating Look at the Times in Which She Lived. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998. Knight, George R. Emeritus Professor of Church History at Andrews University. Interview by the author, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, November 14, 2015. Knight, George R. The Fat Lady and the Kingdom: Adventist Mission Confronts the Challenges of Secularization and Institutionalism. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1995. Knight, George R. “Introduction.” In Uriah Smith: Apologist and Bible Commentator, edited by Gary Land, 7. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014. Knight, George R. Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh-​day Adventism. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2004. Knight, George R. Meeting Ellen G. White: A Fresh Look at Her Life, Writings and Major Themes. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1996. Knight, George R. Millennial Fever and the Rise of Adventism. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2010. Knight, George R. Myths in Adventism: Interpretive Study of Ellen G. White, Education, and Related Issues. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985.

210

Bibliography

Knight, George R. “Preface.” In John Harvey Kellogg, MD: Pioneering Health Reformer, edited by Richard W. Schwarz, 9–​10. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2006. Knight, George R. Reading Ellen G. White: How to Understand and Apply Her Writings. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1997. Knight, George R. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-​ day Adventist Beliefs. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000. Knight, George R. Walking With Ellen G. White: Her Every Day Life As a Wife, Mother, and Friend. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1999. Knight, George R. A User-​ Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998. Knott, Ronald A. “Champion of an Academic Press.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 153–​166. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Kofsky, Aryeh. Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000. Koranteng-​Pipim, Samuel. “I Need to Finish My Work: Tribute to Dr. C. Maxwell.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 39–​43. Krieger, Leonard. Ranke: The Meaning in History. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1977. Krieger, Leonard. Time’s Reasons: Philosophies of History; Old and New. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Kugler, Michael. “Enlightenment History, Objectivity, and the Moral Imagination.” In Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, edited by John Fea, Jay Green, and Eric Miller, 128–​152. 1st ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Kuhn, May Cole. Leader of Men: The Life of Arthur G. Daniells. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1946. LaCapra, Dominick. “History, Language and Reading: Waiting for Crillon.” In American Historical Review 100 (1995): 799–​828. Lagrand, James B. “The Problems of Preaching Through History.” In Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, edited by John Fea and Eric Miller, 187–​213. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2010. Lake, Jud. “Ellen G. White’s Use of Extrabiblical Sources.” In The Gift of Prophecy in Scripture and History, edited by Alberto R. Timm and Dwain N. Esmond, 316–​332. Silver Spring, MD: Review & Herald, 2015.

Bibliography

211

Lake, Jud. “Ellen White Criticism and D. M. Canright.” In Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History, edited by Merlin D. Burt, 133–​144. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015. Lake, Jud. A Nation in God’s Hands: Ellen G. White and the Civil War. Nampo, ID: Pacific Press, 2017. Lake, Peter. “Contribution to ‘What Is Religious History’?” History Today vol. 35, no. 8 (August 1985): 47. Land, Gary. “An Adventist Conception of History.” Journal of Adventist Education 36 (1973): 19–​22. Land, Gary. “Biblical Christian Approach to the Study of History.” 22nd International Faith and Learning Seminar Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, Austria, August 12, 1998. Accessed April 25, 2017. http://​christintheclassroom. org/​vol_​21/​21cc_​455-​472.htm Land, Gary. “Coming to Terms With the Millerites.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 89–​99. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Land, Gary. “Foreword.” In William Miller and the Advent Crisis, edited by Everett N. Dick, i-​viii. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1994. Land, Gary. “From Apologetics to History: The Professionalization of Adventist Historians.” Spectrum: Journal of the Association of Adventists Forum 10 (1980): 89–​100. Land, Gary. “The Historians and the Millerites: A Historiographical Essay.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 32 (1994): 227–​246. Land, Gary. Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-​ day Adventists. 2nd ed. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Land, Gary. “Ideas and Society.” In The World of Ellen G. White, edited by Gary Land, 209–​225.Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1987. Land, Gary. “Implications of the Christian Understanding of Human Nature for the Writing and Teaching of History.” In Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration of Faith and Learning, compiled by Humberto M. Rasi, 3:101–​120. Silver Spring, MD: Institute for Christian Teaching, 1991. Land, Gary. “Integrating Faith and History.” The Journal of Adventist Education 56 (1993–​1994): 41–​50. Land, Gary. “Introduction.” In Second Advent History, by Isaac Wellcome, v–​ xxxvi. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2008.

212

Bibliography

Land, Gary. Pathways of the Pioneers [Sound Recording CD]: Stories of the Men and Women Who Founded the Adventist Church. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998. Land, Gary. “Philosophy of History.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 870–​872. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Land, Gary. “Providence and Earthly Affairs: The Christian and the Study of History.” Spectrum 7 (1976): 2–​6. Land, Gary. Teaching History: A Seventh-​ day Adventist Approach. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000. Land, Gary. Uriah Smith: Apologist and Bible Commentator. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014. Land, Gary. “Vitae.” Accessed June 11, 2017. https://​www.andrews.edu/​~land/​ vitae.htm Land, Gary, ed. Adventism in America: A History. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Land, Gary, ed. The World of Ellen G. White. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1987. Larson, Edward L. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York, NY: Basic, 1997. Latourette, Kenneth S. The Chinese: Their History and Culture. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1934. Latourette, Kenneth S. “The Christian Understanding of History.” In God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History, edited by C. T. McIntire, 176–​191. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Latourette, Kenneth S. Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. 5 vols. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1958–​1962. Latourette, Kenneth S. The Development of China. New York, NY: Houghton, 1917. Latourette, Kenneth S. A History of Christian Missions in China. New York, NY: McMillan, 1929. Latourette, Kenneth S. A Short History of the Far East. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1946. Lawlor, Hugh J. Eusebiana: Essays on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1912. Lay, F. Robert. Reading in Historical Theology: Primary Sources of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2009. Lee, Jong-​Keun. Integration of Faith and Learning: Christian Worldview. Institute of Faith and Learning. Seoul, Korea: Sahmyook University Press, 2009.

Bibliography

213

Lemon, M. C. Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. Levering, Matthew. “Linear and Participatory History: Augustine City of God.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5 (2011): 175–​195. Levine, Lee I. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1975. Levterov, Theodore N. “Daily Devotionals and Grace for the Church.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 205–​ 216. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Lindén, Ingemar. 1844 and the Shut Door Problem. Uppsala, Sweden: Upsala University Press, 1982. Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Edinburgh, Scotland: Fortress, 1986. Lowery, Zoe, ed. Historiography: The Britannica Guide to Social Science. New York, NY: Britannica, 2016. Loughborough, John N. The Church: Its Organization, Order and Discipline. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1907. Loughborough, John N. The Great Second Advent Movement: Its Rise and Progress. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1909. Loughborough, John N. The Prophetic Gift in the Gospel Church. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911. Loughborough, John N. Rise and Progress of the Seventh-​day Adventists: With Tokens of God’s Hand in the Movement and Brief Sketch of the Advent Cause From 1831 to 1844. Battle Creek, MI: General Conference of the Seventh-​day Adventists, 1892. Lowe, Harry W. “The Ten Virgins.” Advent Review and Sabbath Heraldvol. 135 (March 1958): 11. Löwith, Karl. Meaning in History. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1949. Luc, T. James. The Greek Historians. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge, 2002. Luraghi, Nino, ed. The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. Maier, Paul L., ed. Eusebius: The Church History, a New Translation with Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999. Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York, NY: Pantheon, 2017. Marsden, George M. C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity: A Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016.

214

Bibliography

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003. Marsden, George M. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997. Marsden, George M. Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Marsden, George M. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994. Marsden, George M. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Marston, Paul, and Roger Forster. God’s Strategy in Human History. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000. Marty, Martin E. Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America. Boston, MA: Little, 1984. Maxwell, Arthur S. Bed Time Stories. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1976. Maxwell, Arthur S. The Bible Story Ten-​Volume Set. 23rd ed. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1980. Maxwell, Arthur S. Your Friends, the Adventists. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. “Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews: An English Translation.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1966. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. “In Confirmation of Prophetic Interpretation.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 2 (1991): 139–​151. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. God Cares: The Message of Daniel for You and Your Family. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1981. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. God and His Sanctuary. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1980. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Great Controversy Vision [Sound Recording]: 140th Anniversary Commemoration Service. Harrisburg, PA: American Cassette Ministries, 1998. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Magnificent Disappointment: What Really Happened in 1844 and Its Meaning for Today. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1994. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Man, What a God! Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1970.

Bibliography

215

Maxwell, C. Mervyn. “Seven Encouraging Things.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 1 (1990): 88–​102. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Tell It to the World: The Story of Seventh-​day Adventists. 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1982. Maxwell, Lawrence. “C. Mervyn Maxwell: Memories of My Brother.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 18–​24. Mazlish, Bruce. The Riddle of History: The Great Speculators From Vico to Freud. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1966. McAdams, Donald. Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: The Evidence From an Unpublished Manuscript on John Huss. Berrien Springs, MI: Author, 1977. McAdams, Donald. “Shifting Views of Inspiration: Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970s.” Spectrum 10 (1980): 27–​41. McArthur, Benjamin. A. G. Daniells: Shaper of Twentieth-​Century Adventism. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015. McArthur, Benjamin. “Historian and Provocateur.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 15–​21. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. McArthur, Benjamin. “A New Look at the Old Days: Adventist History Comes of Age.” Spectrum 18 (1988): 36–​42. McArthur, Benjamin. “Point of the Spear: Adventist Liberalism and the Study of Ellen White in the 1970s.” Spectrum 36 (2008): 45–​58. McArthur, Benjamin. “Remembering Gary Land.” Spectrum 42 (2014): 7–​9. McArthur, Benjamin. “Where Are Historians Taking the Church?” Spectrum 10, no. 3 (1979): 9–​14. McElhany, B. L. “Foreword.” In Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White, edited by Francis D. Nichol, 13–​14. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1951. McGing, Brian C. Polybius’ Histories. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. McGrath, Alister E. “Augustine of Hippo.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Micheal Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 89–​90. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. McIntire, Carl T., ed. God, History, and Historians: An Anthropology of Modern Christian View of History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. McIntire, Carl T., and Ronald A. Wells, eds. History and Historical Understanding. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.

216

Bibliography

Mckenzie, Robert T. “Don’t Forget the Church: Reflections on the Forgotten Dimension of Our Dual Calling.” In Confessing History: Exploring Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, edited by John Fea, Jay Green, and Eric Miller, 280–​298. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2010. McKnight, Scot, and Matthew C. Williams. “Luke.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Micheal Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 39–​57. Nashville, TN: Braodman & Holman, 1995. Megill, Allan. “Grand Narrative and the Discipline of History.” In A New Philosophy of History, edited by Frank Ankersmit and Hans Kellner, 151–​173. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Miller, Nicholas P. “Alongside Foundationalism: Adventism’s Alternative Protestant Philosophical Path.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53 (2015): 37–​54. Miller, Nicholas P. “Divided by Visions of the Truth: The Bible, Epistemology, and the Adventist Community.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 47 (2009): 241–​262. Miller, Nicholas P. “Naked in the Garden of the Past: Is There a Seventh-​day Adventist Philosophy of History?” Paper presented for Adventism and Adventist History: Sesquicentennial Reflections, Silver Spring, MD, 2014. Miller, Nicholas P. Professor of History at Andrews University. Interview by the author. Silang, Cavite, Philippines, January 16, 2017. Miller, Nicholas P. The Reformation and the Remnant: The Reformers Speak to Today’s Church. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2016. Moon, Jerry. “C. Mervyn Maxwell: An Academic Life Sketch.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 2–​10. Moon, Jerry. W. C. White and Ellen G. White: The Relationship Between the Prophet and Her Son. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993. Montgomery, John W. The Shape of the Past: A Christian Response to Secular Philosophies of History. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Moreton, Bethany. To Serve God and Wal-​Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Morrison, James V. Reading Thucydides. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press, 2006. Muir, Edward. “Leopold von Ranke, His Library, and the Shaping of Historical Evidence.” Syracuse University Library Associates Courier 22 (1987): 3–​10. Munslow, Alun. Deconstructing History. London, UK: Routledge, 1997.

Bibliography

217

Munson, Rosaria V. Telling Wonders: Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of Herodotus. Grand Rapids, MI: Michigan University of Michigan Press, 2001. Mura, Andrea. “The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity.” Language and Psychoanalysis 1, no. 1 (2012): 68–​87. Murphey, Nancey. Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1996. Myerhoff, Hans, ed. The Philosophy of History in Our Time: An Anthology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1959. Myres, John L. Herodotus: Father of History. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1953. N. A. “In Memoriam: LeRoy E. Froom.” Ministry vol. 46 (April 1974): 48. N. A. “Miscellaneous Extracts on Hell.” Review and Herald vol. 14 (October 1859): 161. N. A. “Old Letters Surface in Battle Creek.” Lake Union Herald vol. 65 (August 1973): 10. Nam, Juhyeuk. “Reactions to the Seventh-​day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrines, 1955–​1971.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2005. Accessed July 3, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Nash, Ronald H. Christian Faith & Historical Understanding. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984. Nassif, Bradley. “Georges Florosky.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Micheal Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 449–​468. Nasville, TN: Broadmnan & Holman, 1995. Neufeld, Don F., ed., Seventh-​ day Adventist Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1976. Nichol, Francis D. The Answer to Modern Religious Thinking: A Discussion of Current Religious Trends in Their Relation to the Distinctive Teachings of Seventh-​Day Adventists. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1936. Nichol, Francis D. Answers to Objections: An Examination of the Major Objections Raised Against the Teachings of Seventh-​ day Adventists. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1952. Nichol, Francis D. Certainty of My Faith: A Clear-​Cut Answer to the Often Question, “Why Are You a Seventh-​Day Adventist?” Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1948. Nichol, Francis D. Ellen G. White and Her Critics: An Answer to the Major Charges That Critics Have Brought Against Mrs. Ellen G. White. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1951.

218

Bibliography

Nichol, Francis D. God’s Challenge to Modern Apostasy: A Study of the Three Angels’ Messages and the Sabbath in the Light of the Modern Apostasy in Christendom: An Endeavor to Show That Revelation 14 Presents the Most Timely Message for the World Today. Washington, DC: Review & and Herald, 1935. Nichol, Francis D. “The Growth of the Millerite Legend.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 21, no. 4 (1952): 296–​313. Nichol, Francis D. The Midnight Cry: A Defense of William Miller and the Millerites. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1944. Nichol, Francis D. Questions People Have Asked Me: The Editor of the Review and Herald Answers Questions on Various Matters of Interest to Adventists. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1959. Nichol, Francis D. Reasons for Our Faith: A Discussion of Questions Vital to the Proper Understanding and Effective Presentation of Certain Seventh-​day Adventist Teachings. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1947. Nichol, Francis D. The Story of a Lost Day. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1930. Nichol, Francis D. Why I Am a Seventh-​day Adventist? Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1943. Nichol, Francis D. Why I Believe in Mrs. E. G. White: Some Reasons Why Seventh-​ day Adventists Believe That Ellen G. White Possessed the Gift of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1964. Niebuhr, Reinhold. “The Foolishness of the Cross and the Sense of History.” In God, History, and Historians: Modern Christian Views of History, edited by Carl T. McIntire, 69–​80. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Nix, James R. “The History and Work of the Ellen G. White Estate.” In Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History, edited by Merlin D. Burt, 213–​227. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015. Noll, Mark A. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Noll, Mark A. In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life, 1492–​1783. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015. Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 1991. Noll, Mark A. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Noll, Mark A. “Foreword.” In God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, by Steven J. Keillor, 7–​10. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007.

Bibliography

219

Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Noll, Mark A. Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. Noll, Mark A. The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. Noll, Mark A. The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Noll, Mark A. One Nation Under God: Christian Faith and Political Action in America. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988. Noll, Mark A. Princeton and the Republic, 1768–​1822: The Search for Christian Enlightenment in the Era of Samuel Stanhope Smith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989. Noll, Mark A. The Princeton Theology 1812–​ 1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method From Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001. Noll, Mark A. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989. Noll, Mark A. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Norman, Edward. “What Is Religious History?.” History Today, August 1985, 44. Numbers, Ronald L. “Biography.” Accessed April 26, 2017. https://​medhist.wisc. edu/​faculty/​numbers/​cv.pdf Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992. Numbers, Ronald L. “Ellen G. White.” Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, edited by Rodney J. Hunter, 1320. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1990. Numbers, Ronald L. “Ellen G. White and the Gospel of Health.” In Eerdmans’s Handbook to Christianity in America, edited by Mark A. Noll, 197–​199. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Numbers, Ronald L. Hilldale Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, University of Wisconsin. Interview by Loren Seibold, Milton Freewater, OR, July 1, 2018. Numbers, Ronald L. “In Defense of Secular History.” Spectrum 1 (1969): 65–​66. Numbers, Ronald L. Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1976.

220

Bibliography

Numbers, Ronald L. Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Numbers, Ronald L. Prophetess of Health: Ellen G. White and the Origins of Seventh-​day Adventist. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1992. Numbers, Ronald L. “The Psychological World of Ellen White.” Spectrum 14 (1983): 21–​31. Numbers, Ronald L. “Ronald L. Numbers.” Accessed July 4, 2018. http://​ projectsow.org/​sites/​project-​sow.org/​files/​full_​cv_​r.numbers.pdf Numbers, Ronald L., and Darrel W. Amundsen. Caring and Curing: Health and Medicine in the Western Religious Traditions. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1986. Numbers, Ronald L., and David C. Lindberg, eds. God of Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986. Numbers, Ronald L., and Janet S. Numbers. “Ministries of Healing: Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, and the Religion of Health.” In Women and Health in America, edited by Judith W. Leavitt, 376–​389. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984. Numbers, Ronald L., and Jonathan M. Butler, eds. The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1987. Numbers, Ronald L., and Rennie B. Schoepflin. “Science and Medicine.” In Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, edited by Terrie D. Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers, 196–​224. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014. Numbers, Ronald L., and Rennie B. Schoepflin. “Sex, Diet, and Salvation in the Writings of Ellen G. White and John Harvey Kellogg.” Symposium on “Health in the Home: Popular Medicine in Early America.” College of Physicians of Philadelphia and Library Company of Philadelphia, October 3, 1998. Numbers, Ronald L., and Rennie B. Schoepflin. “Sex, Science, and Salvation: The Sexual Advice of Ellen G. White and John Harvey Kellogg.” In Right Living: An Anglo-​American Tradition of Self-​Help Medicine and Hygiene, edited by Charles E. Rosenberg, 206–​226. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2003. Oliver, Barry D. “Reflections on the Church and Unity.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 185–​ 193. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Olsen, Mahlon E. A History of the Origin and Progress of Seventh-​day Adventists. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1925. Olsen, Mahlon E. Much‐Loved Books. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1952.

Bibliography

221

Olsen, Mahlon E. The Prose of Our King James Version: Its Origin and Course of Development. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1947. Olson, Albert V. Through Crisis to Victory, 1888–​1901: From the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1966. Olson, Robert W. Assistant Director of the Ellen G. White Estate. Interview by Michael W. Campbell, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, November 18, 2004. Olson, Robert W. “Ellen G. White’s Use of Historical Sources in the Great Controversy.” Adventist Review vol. 161 (February 1984): 3–​5. Olson, Robert W., and Ronald D. Graybill. “Ellen White and Literary Dependency.” Ministry vol. 53 (June 1980): 4–​7. Osborn, Richard C. “The Establishment of the Adventist Forum.” Spectrum 10 (1980): 42–​58. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006. Partee, Charles B. “Calvin on Universal and Particular Providence.” In Reading in Calvin’s Theology, edited by Donald K. McKim, 69–​88. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984. Patrick, Arthur N. “Christianity and Culture in Colonial Australia: Selected Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan and Adventist Perspectives, 1891–​ 1900.” PhD diss., University of Newcastle, 1991. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Patrick, Arthur N. “Historians of Adventism: Their Agony, Ecstasy, and Potential.” Accessed April 26, 2017. http://​www.sdanet.org/​atissue/​white/​patrick/​egw-​historians.htm Peterson, William S. “Ellen White’s Literary Indebtedness.” Spectrum 3, no. 4 (1971): 73–​84. Peterson, William S. “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen G. White’s Account of the French Revolution.” Spectrum 2, no. 4 (1970): 57–​68. Pfandl, Gerhard. The Gift of Prophecy: The Role of Ellen G. White in God’s Remnant Church. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2008. Pflanz, Hans H. Geschichte und Eschatology bei Martin Luther. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer, 1989. Pöhler, Rolf J. “The Adventist Historian: Between Criticism and Faith.” In Glaube und Zukunftsgestaltung: Festschrift zum hundertjährigen Bestehen der Theologischen Hochschule Friedensau, edited by Bernhard Oestreich, Horst Rolly, and Wolfgang Kabus, 203–​207. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 1999.

222

Bibliography

Pöhler, Rolf J. Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching: A Case Study in Doctrinal Development. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 2000. Pointer, Richard W. “Kenneth Scott LaTourette.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber, 411–​430. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Poirier, Timothy L. “Ellen White and Sources: The Plagiarism Debate.” In Understanding Ellen White: The Life and Work of the Most Influential Voice in Adventist History, edited by Merlin D. Burt, 145–​165. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2015. Poirier, Timothy L. “Lucinda A. Hall.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 394–​395. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2013. Polybius. The Histories of Polybius. Vol. 2. Translated from the text of F. Hultsch, edited and translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Porter, Roy. Gibbon: Making History. New York, NY: St. Martin, 1989. Poster, Mark. Foucault, Marxism and History: Mode of Production Versus Mode of Information. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1984. Powell, James M. “The Confusing and Ambiguous Legacy of Leopold von Ranke.” Syracuse Scholar 9 (1988): 5–​10. Price, Roger. A Concise History of France. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Rasi, Humberto. Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration of Faith and Learning. Silver Springs, MD: Institute for Christian Teaching, 1991. Read, Walter E. The Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the Church. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1952. Reardon, P. H. “Calvin on Providence: The Development of an Insight.” In Articles on Calvin and Calvinism: A Fourteen-​Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles, edited by Richard C. Gamble, 333–​350. New York, NY: Garland, 1992. Rebok, Denton E. Believe His Prophets. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1956. Reid, Thomas. An Inquiry Into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 1997. Rengakos, Antonios, and Antonis Tsakmakis, eds. Brill’s Companion to Thucydides. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2006. Reye, Arnold C. “Adventist Educational Historian.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by

Bibliography

223

Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 23–​35. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Reye, Arnold C. “Frederick Griggs: Seventh-​ day Adventist Educator and Administrator.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1984. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Reynaud, Daniel. “Perspectives on 150 Years of Seventh-​ day Adventist Historiography.” Paper presented for Adventism and Adventist History: Sesquicentennial Reflections, Silver Spring, MD, 2014. Reynaud, Daniel. “Understanding History: Seventh-​day Adventists and Their Perspectives.” TEACH Journal of Christian Education 10 (2016): 54–​62. Rice, Richard. “Dominant Themes in Adventist Theology.” Spectrum 10 (1979): 58–​73. Richardson, Alan. History, Sacred and Profane. London, UK: Westminster, 1964. Roberts, Charlotte. Edward Gibbon and the Shape of History. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. Robinson, Ella M. Lighter of the Gospel Fires: John N. Loughborough. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1954. Robinson, John J. A. G. Daniells: The Making of a General Conference President, 1901. Mountain View, CA: 1979. Robinson, Virgil E. Cabin Boy to Advent Crusader. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1960. Robinson, Virgil E. James White. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1976. Robinson, Virgil E. John Nevins Andrews: Flame for the Lord, J. N. Andrews. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1975. Rock, Calvin. Protest and Progress: Black Seventh-​day Adventist Leadership and the Push for Parity. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018. Roney, John. The Inside of History: Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné and Romantic Historiography. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. Roney, John. “Jean Henri Merle D’ Aubigné.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber, 167–​190. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Ross, Gary M. “The Historiographical Work of Siegfried J. Schwantes.” Spectrum: Journal of the Association of Adventists Forum 4 (1972): 48–​49. Rowe, David L. God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism; 1800–​1930. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970.

224

Bibliography

Schafer, Robert Jones, eds. A Guide to Historical Method. Homewood, IL: Dorsey, 1980. Schaff, Philip. History of the Apostolic Church With a General Introduction to Church History. Translated by Edward D. Yeomans. New York, NY: Scribner, 1854. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 6. New York, NY: Scribner, 1903. Schneider, Don. “He Molded My Life Elder C. Mervyn Maxwell, My Teacher.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 15–​17. Schwantes, Siegfried J. The Biblical Meaning of History. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1970. Schwarz, Richard W. Anthology of Recently Published Articles on Selected Issues in Prophetic Guidance (1989–​1992). Compiled by Roger W. Coon. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1993. Schwarz, Richard W. “John Harvey Kellogg, American Health Reformer.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1964. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Schwarz, Richard W. Harvey Kellogg, MD. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1970. Schwarz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg, MD: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2006. Schwarz, Richard W. Light Bearers to the Remnant. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1979. Schwarz, Richard W., and Floyd Greenleaf. Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-​day Adventist Church. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1995. Schwartz, Yosseff, and Volhard Krech, eds. Religious Apologetics: Philosophical Argumentation. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Seixas, Peter. “Introduction.” In Theorizing Historical Consciousness, edited by Peter Seixas, 3–​24. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Seventh-​day Adventist Bible Teachers. Seventh-​day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957. Shankel, George E. God and Man in History. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1967. Simon, Richard. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament depuis le commencement du Christianisme jusques à notre temps: Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau Testament. Paris, France: n.p., 1695. Siniscalchi, Glenn B. Retrieving Apologetics. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door. 5th ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010.

Bibliography

225

Skinner, L. A. “Long-​Awaited Volume Ready.” Review and Herald vol. 125 (March 1948): 24. Slavin, Arthur. “Telling the Story: G. R. Elton and the Tudor Age.” Sixteenth Century Journal 21 (1990): 151–​69. Smith, Uriah. Daniel and the Revelation: The Response of History to the Voice of Prophecy. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1897. Smith, Uriah. Our Country the Marvel of Nations: Its Past, Present, and Future, and What the Scriptures Say of It. Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald, 1886. Smith, Uriah. The United States in the Lights of Prophecy: An Exposition of Rev. 13, 11. Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1872. Snider, Denton J. The Father of History: An Account of Herodotus. St. Louis, MO: Sigma, 1907. Southgate, Beverly. History: What & Why? Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Perspectives. London, UK: Routledge, 1996. Spalding, Arthur W. Christian Storytelling. Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1966. Spalding, Arthur W. Footprints of the Pioneers. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1947. Spalding, Arthur W. “Lights and Shades in the Black Belt.” Accessed May 10, 2018. http://​documents.adventistarchives.org/​Books/​LSBB.pdf Spalding, Arthur W. Love, Courtship, and Marriage. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1929. Spalding, Arthur W. Origin and History of the Seventh-​ day Adventists: A Revision of the Books Captains of the Host and Christ’s Last Legion. 4 vols. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1961–​1962. Spalding, Arthur W. Pioneer Stories of the Second Advent Message. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1922. Spalding, Arthur W. Sister White: A Life of Ellen G. White. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1950. Spalding, Arthur W. There Shines a Light: The Life and Work of Ellen G. White. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1953. Spalding, Arthur W. Who Is the Greatest? Mountain View, CA: Pacific, 1941. Spangler, Robert, Robert W. Olson, and Ronald D. Graybill. “Ellen White and Literary Dependency.” Ministry vol. 53 (June 1980): 4–​7. Spence, Jonathan. “Western Perceptions of China From the Late Sixteenth Century to the Present.” In Heritage of China: Contemporary Perspectives on Chinese Civilization, edited by Paul S. Ropp, 1–​14. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990.

226

Bibliography

Spicer, William A. After One Hundred Years, 1844–​1944: How the Work of Seventh-​ day Adventists Has Spread to the Ends of the Earth. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1944. Spicer, William A. Beacon Lights of Prophecy. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1935. Spicer, William A. Certainties of the Advent Movement. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1929. Spicer, William A. The Hand of God in History: Notes on Important Eras of Fulfilling Prophecy. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1913. Spicer, William A. Our Day in the Light of Prophecy. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1918. Spicer, William A. Pioneer Days of the Advent Movement: With Notes on Pioneer Workers and Early Experiences. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1941. Spinoza, Baruch. On the Improvement of the Understanding. Seattle, WA: CreateSpace, 2017. The Staff of the Ellen G. White Estate. A Critique of Prophetess of Health. Washington, DC: The Ellen G. White Estate, 1976. The Staff of the Ellen G. White Estate. A Discussion and Review of Prophetess of Health. Washington, DC: The Ellen G. White Estate, 1976. Staples, Russell L. “The Theological Identity of North American Holiness Movement.” In The Variety of American Evangelicalism, edited by Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston, 57–​71. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1991. Stern, Fritz. “Introduction.” In The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present, edited by Fritz Stern, 35–​40. New York, NY: Vintage, 1973. Stern, Fritz, ed. The Varieties of History From Voltaire to the Present. New York, NY: Vintage, 1973. Storey, William K. Writing History: A Guide for Students. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. Stout, Harry S. “Theological Commitment and American Religious History.” Theological Education (1989): 44–​59. Straub, Jürgen, ed. Making Sense of History, Narration, Identity, and Historical Consciousness. New York, NY: Berghahn, 2006. Strayer, Brian E. “George Knight as a Historian.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 63–​71. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014.

Bibliography

227

Strayer, Brian E. J. N. Loughborough: The Last of the Adventist Pioneers. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2014. Strayer, Brian E. “Life’s Sketch of Dr. Richard W. Schwarz.” Adelphian Academy Scrapbook. Accessed April 28, 2017. http://​www.adelphianacademy.com/​ memoriam/​faculty/​schwarz_​richardt.cfm Strayer, Brian, and John R. Nay. “Gary Gene Land: August 22, 1944–​April 26, 2014.” Accessed June 26, 2018. http://​www.sdahistorians.org/​uploads/​1/​2/​3/​ 6/​12365223/​land_​gary_​legacy.pdf Strohl, Jane E. “Luther’s Eschatology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Luther’s Theology, edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka, 353–​362. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. Sutton, M. Avery. American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press, 2014. Sweet, Leonard I. “Wise as Serpent, Innocent as Dove: The New Evangelical Historiography.” Journal of American Academy of Religion 56 (1988): 397–​416. Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View. New York, NY: Ballantine, 1991. Taylor, John W. “Mahlon Ellsworth Olsen: Health Reformer, Educator, and Historian.” Paper presented at the Association of SDA Historians, Oakwood University, Huntsville, AL, 2007. Tent, James F. In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Nazi Persecution of Jewish-​Christian Germans. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2003. Thomas, Rosalind. Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Thompson, James W. A History of Historical Writing. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1942. Thompson, Mark. “Luther on God and History.” In The Oxford Handbook of Luther’s Theology, edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka, 127–​142. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Charles F. Smith. Vol. I. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press, 1919. Tillinghast, Pardon E. The Specious Past: Historians and Others. Reading, MA: Addison-​Wesley, 1972. Timm, Alberto. History of Inspiration in the Seventh-​day Adventist Church (1844–​ 1994). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1995. Timm, Alberto. “The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 1844–​ 1863: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-​ day Adventist

228

Bibliography

Doctrines.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1995. Accessed July 1, 2017. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Trim, David J. B. “Christ and the Christian in History: Teaching Historical Philosophy and Methodology in a Christian Environment.” Journal of Adventist Education 64, no. 4 (2002): 14–​22. Valentine, Gilbert M. The Shaping of Adventism: The Case of W. W. Prescott. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1992. Valentine, Gilbert M. Struggle for the Prophetic Heritage: Issues in the Conflict for the Control of the Ellen G. White Publications 1930–​1939. Muak Lek, Thailand: Institute, 2006. Valentine, Gilbert M. W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism’s Second Generation. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2005. Valentine, Gilbert M. J. N. Andrews: Mission Pioneer, Evangelist, and Thought. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018. Valentine, Gilbert M. Professor at La Sierra University, Riverside, California. Interview by Nathan Brown, Melbourne, Australia, November 10, 2019. Valentine, Gilbert, and Woodrow W. Whidden II, eds. Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thought. Nampa, ID: Pacific, 2014. Valentine, Gilbert, and Woodrow W. Whidden II. “Preface.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II. 6–​7. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Vande Vere, Emmett K. Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Buttler. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1979. Vande Vere, Emmett K. Windows: Selected Readings in Seventh-​day Adventist Church History 1844–​1922. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1975. Vande Vere, Emmett K. The Wisdom Seekers: The Intriguing Story of the Men and Women Who Made the First Institution for Higher Learning Among Seventh-​ day Adventists. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1972. Voerman, Jan. “Ellen White and the French Revolution.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 45, no. 2 (2007): 247–​259. Voltaire. Essai Sur Les Mœurs et Esprit des Nations. Paris, France: n.p., 1771. von Ranke, Leopold. Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514. Leipzig, Germany: Duncker & Humblot, 1885. Vyhmeister, Shawna. AIIAS Research Standards and Writing Manual. 2nd ed. Silang, Philippines: Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies.

Bibliography

229

Walbank, Frank W. Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Wallace-​ Hadrill, David S. Eusebius of Caesarea. Hellesdon Park, UK: Canterbury, 1961. Wallenkampf, Arnold V. What Every Adventist Should Know About 1888. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1988. Waller, John A. “Adventist English Teachers: Some Roots.” Spectrum 10 (1979): 37–​46. Walsh, W. H. An Introduction to the Philosophy of History. London, UK: Hutchinson, 1951. Walters, Jim. “Ronald L. Numbers and the New Quest for the Historical Ellen G. White.” Adventist Today vol. 22 (Summer 2014): 6–​9. War, Cedric. “Historical Interpretation in the Writings of Ellen of Ellen G. White.” Journal of Adventist Education 41 (1979): 5–​7. Webster, Frederick C. “General Conference Archives.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 151 (January 1974): 22. Wellcome, Isaac. Second Advent History. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2008. Weinberg, Gerhard L. “The End of Ranke’s History?.” Syracuse Scholar, vol. 9 (1988): 51–​60. Weiss, Conrad C. “Two Leading Workers Die.” Review and Herald vol. 151 (March 1974): 31. Wheeler, Gerald. “An Adventist William Barclay.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II. 167–​174. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. Wheeler, Gerald. James White: Innovator and Overcomer. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2003. Whidden, Woodrow W. II. “The Definitive Interpreter of Minneapolis.” In Adventist Maverick: A Celebration of George R. Knight’s Contribution to Adventist Thoughts, edited by Gilbert M. Valentine and Woodrow W. Whidden II, 223–​232. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014. White, Arthur L. Believe His Prophet. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1956. White, Arthur L. “Bible Study Versus Ecstatic Experiences.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 150 (1973): 6–​8. White, Arthur L. Charismatic Experiences in Early Seventh-​day Adventist History. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1973.

230

Bibliography

White, Arthur L. “Ellen G. White and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 150 (1973): 8–​10. White, Arthur L. “Ellen G. White as a Historian.” Paper presented at the Quadrennial Council on Higher Education at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, August 1968. White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White: The Australian Years, 1891–​1900. Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985. White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years 1900–​1905. Vol. 5. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985. White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White: The Early Years (1827–​ 1862). Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1985. White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White: The Human Interest Story. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1972. White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905–​1915. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1982. White, Arthur L. The Ellen G. White Writings. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1973. White, Arthur L. “Ellen White letters Discovered in Historical Collection.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 1973, 10–​11. White, Arthur L. “Face to Face With the Spurious.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 150 (1973): 9–​11. White, Arthur L. “False Prophets I Have Known.” Unpublished manuscript, n.d. White, Arthur L. “Foreword.” In Through Crisis to Victory, 1888–​1901: From the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference, by Albert V. Olson, 7. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1966. White, Arthur L. “The Story of the Great Controversy Vision.” Adventism Affirm 12 (1998): 5–​10. White, Ellen G. The Acts of the Apostles. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911. White, Ellen G. to Albert O. Olsen, October 7, 1890. Letter 20, 1890. Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. White, Ellen G. Christ in His Sanctuary. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1969. White, Ellen G. Christ’s Object Lessons. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1900. White, Ellen G. Christian Education. Battle Creek, MI: International Tract Society, 1894. White, Ellen G. Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen G. White. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1922. White, Ellen G. Counsels for the Church. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1991.

Bibliography

231

White, Ellen G. Counsels on Stewardship. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1940. White, Ellen G. Counsels to Writers and Editors. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1946. White, Ellen G. Daughters of God: Messages Especially for Women. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998. White, Ellen G. “Early Counsels on Medical Work.” Review & Herald vol. 91 (June 18, 1914): 7. White, Ellen G. Early Writings of Ellen G. White. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1882. White, Ellen G. Education. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1903. White, Ellen G. G. Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 2014. White, Ellen G. The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials. Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987. White, Ellen G. Evangelism. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1946. White, Ellen G. From the Heart. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2010. White, Ellen G. Heaven. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2003. White, Ellen G. “An Important Letter From Sister E. G. White.” Review & Herald vol. 77 (December 11, 1900): para. 2. White, Ellen G. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1915. White, Ellen G. Lift Him Up. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1988. White, Ellen G. to Lucinda Hall, May 17, 1876. Letter 67, 1876. Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911. White, Ellen G. to John N. Loughborough, August 19, 1890. Letter 103, 1890. Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD. White, Ellen G. Messages to Young People. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1930. White, Ellen G. The Ministry of Healing. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905. White, Ellen G. “Notes of Travel.” The Review and Herald vol. 61 (October 21, 1884): para. 10. White, Ellen G. Patriarchs and Prophets. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1890. White, Ellen G. Prophets and Kings. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1917.

232

Bibliography

White, Ellen G. “The Rochester Vision of 1853.” Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 150(August 1973): 9–​10. White, Ellen G. Selected Message From the Writings of Ellen G. White. Books 1–​3. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1958. White, Ellen G. Testimonies. 9 vols. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948. White, Ellen G. Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923. White, Ellen G. Testimonies for the Church. Vol. 4. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1881. White, Ellen G. Ye Shall Receive Power. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1995. White, James. “Call to Remember the Former Days.” Advent Reviewvol. 1, no. 1 (August 1850): 11. White, James. His Glorious Appearing: An Exposition of Matthew Twenty-​Four; Revised and Illustrated. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1910. White, James. Life Incidents: In Connection With the Great Advent Movement, as Illustrated by the Three Angels of Revelation XIV. Battle Creek, MI: Steam, 1868. White, James. The Signs of the Times, Showing That the Second Coming of Christ Is at the Doors: Spirit Manifestations, a Foretold Sign That the Day of God’s Wrath Hasteth Greatly. Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald, 1853. White, James. “Two Hundred Men Wanted.” Review & Herald vol. 35 (September 20, 1870): 7. White, James. A Word to the ‘Little Flock.’ Brunswick, Maine: Author, 1847. Wieland, Robert J. The 1888 Message: An Introduction. SE Paris, OH: Glad Tidings, 1997. Wieland, Robert J., and Donald K. Short. 1888 Re-​examined: 1888–​1988, the Story of a Century of Confrontation Between God and His People. Leominster, MA: Eusey, 1987. Williams, Donald T. “John Fox.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber, 117–​138. Nashville, TN: Broadman& Holman, 1995. Williams, Michael. “George Park Fisher.” In Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, edited by Michael Bauman and Martin Klauber, 305–​330. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Willis, Richard J. B. The Kellogg Imperative: John Harvey Kellogg’s Unique Contribution to Healthful Living. Grantham, UK: Stanborough, 2003. Wilson, Brian C. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic Living. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2014.

Bibliography

233

Wilson, Neal C. “Preface.” In Movement of Destiny, by LeRoy E. Froom, 15–​16. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1971. Wilson, Neal C. “White Estate Staffer Reassigned.” Adventist Review, February 1984, 31. Wilson, Norman J. History in Crisis? Recent Directions in Historiography. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-​Hall, 1999. Winks, Robin W., ed. The Historian as Detective: Essays on Evidence. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1969. Wood, John W. “The Bible and the French Revolution: An Answer.” Spectrum 3, no. 4 (1971): 55–​72. Wood, Miriam, and Kenneth Wood. His Initials Were F. D. N.: A Life Story of Elder F. D. Nichol, for Twenty-​One Years Editor of the Review and Herald. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1967. Worcester, Thomas. “Gallican Articles.” In An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies, edited by Orlando O. Espín and James B. Nickoloff, 480–​485. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2007. Yerushalmi, Yoseph H. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seatle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1996. Zafirovski, Milan. The Enlightenment and Its Effects on Modern Society. New York, NY: Springer-​Verlag, 2010. Zagorin, Perez. Thucydides: An Introduction for the Common Reader. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Zurcher, Jean R. “Missionary to Europe.” In J. N. Andrews: The Man and the Mission, edited by Harry Leonard, 202–​203. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1985. Zurcher, Jean R. “A Vindication of Ellen White as Historian.” Spectrum 16, no. 3 (1985): 21–​31.

Index A Acton Lord  39 Adventist apologetic historians viewed 122 – historians 41 Adventist history  27 – development of critical approaches and responses  127–​179 – land description  24 interpretation of  25, 26 – professional approach  127 – revisionist realistic approach  166–​177 Adventist intellectual  128 Adventist memory  122 Adventist review  140 Albertsworth F. Edwin  131 Anderson D. Eric  136 Andrews N. John  66, 71 Apologetic historians concern  144 Apologetic(s) 130 – is 83 Augustine of Canterbury  46 B Basic historical facts  21 Bates Joseph  61, 62, 63, 64, 71 Beard Charles  57 Becker Carl  57 Benson L. Clement  131 Bible prophecy and correlation with history 65 Blaich Roland  28 Bloch Marc  41 Bossuet Jacques Benigne  48 Branson Roy  27, 134 Braudel Ferdinand  41

Brodie M. Fawn  157 Burch 55 Burt D. Merlin  59 Butler George I.  103 Butler J.  140, 141, 143 Butler M. Jonathan  24, 29–​30 Butler M. Jonathan  27 Butterfield Herbert sir  52, 53, 54 C Campbell W. Micheal  59 Carner Vern  27 Carr H. Edward  41 Christian history (20th century)  52–​59 – as apologetics (adventist approaches)  83–​123 Christian apologetics functions  83 – approaches to history  44 – thinker (Augustine of Hippo)  45, 62 Clark L. Jerome  27 Classical historiography  33–​37 Closed secular confessional history 144 Critical apologetic history  162 – conservative history  160–​162 – historiograpghy  130–​131 D D’Aubigne Merle H. Jean  49–​50, 74, 76, 86 Daniells G. Arthur  85, 100 Davies R. Philip  119 – pertinent question  120 Day of God’s vengeance  142 Dick N. Everett  133

236 E Earliest sabbatarian Adventist  62 Early and medieval history  44 – denominational history textbooks  114–​122 Ecclesisastical history  17–​18 Elton R. Geoffrey  40 Eusebius  44–​45, 62 F Father of English history (Bede)  45–​46 Fisher P. George  51, 52, 75 Foucault Michel  42 Froom LeRoy (Apologetic historian)  84, 100–​103, 106, 107, 134 G Gibbon Edward  38 Graham R. Stephen  50–​51 Graybill D. Ronald  24, 136, 137, 140, 143 Green D. Jay  53, 58 – evaluation of five rival version  57 Greenleaf Floyd  164–​165 H Hagiographical vision  128, 133 Hatch Nathan  53, 55, 56, 57 Herodutus 34 Historical hermeneutics  28 – survey of approaches  31–​60 – methods 31 – reflection 62 Historiography 18 History  17, 27 – approaches to  31 – as faith commitment theological approach  61–​81 – 17th to 19th centuries  48 Holmes Claude  133

Index

I Individual historical narratives  84 J Jones A. T.  103 K Keillor J Steven  57 Kellner Hans  43 Knight R George  26, 59, 122 L Labrousse Ernst  41 Land Gary  22, 23, 24 Latourette S. Kenneth  52 Lefebvre Lucien  41 Levterov N Theodore  59 Linden Ingemar  142 Loughborough N. John  77, 78–​ 80, 86, 87 Luther (Anabaptist and puritanism) 86 M Marsden George  53, 55, 56, 57 Maxwell C. M.  27, 160–​162 McArthur Benjamin  23, 27, 141–​142 McAdams Donald  27, 136 Mediating approaches  22 – positions and new explorations 160 Methodological atheism  28 – naturalism 159 Miller N.P.  29 Millerite movement  122, 134, 145 – peers 76 – revival  19, 20 – evangelists 142 Modern approach to history  58 – secular history  37 Munslow Alun  43

237

Index

N Neander August  50 Nichol D. Francis (Apologetic historian)  84, 95–​100, 106, 107, 134 Noll Mark  53, 55, 56, 57 Nora Pierre  119 Norman Edward  18 Norwood Frederick W.  155 Numbers Ronald (major argument)  24, 144–​149, 156, 159–​160 – denomination response  150–​152 – guy fritz argument  154–​155 – schwarz concern  152–​154 O Olsen E. Mahlon (Key critic)  84, 85, 86, 87, 88 Olson V. Albert (Apologetic historian)  84, 103–​104 Open critical history  131–​144 P Parable of ten virgins  20 Peterson S. William  27, 135, 136 Pius VI Pope  76 Pointer W. Richard  53 Polybius  35–​36 Postmodern history  42 Protestant reformation and history  46–​48 Providence 49 R Ranke von Leopold  32, 39, 40, 58–​59 Religious historians  157–​159 Religious history (Lake Peter definition) 17 Reynaud 29

Rise and progress  77 Roney John  49 S Sabbatarian Adventist  20, 21 Saudean Ernest  76 Schaff Philip  50–​51, 75, 76, 86 Schleiermacher Friedrich  50 Schwarz Richard  162–​164 Seventh-​day Adventist  19, 20, 21 – history 85 – thinkers 62 Smith Uriah  66–​68, 71, 103 Soul of history  49 Spalding W. Arthur (apologetic historian)  84, 91–​95 Spicer A. William (apologetic historian)  77, 84, 89–​91, 106 T Tacitus 36 Taylor W. John  85 Theological approach to history  62 Theology of history refers  45 Thucydides  34–​35 Traditional Christian history  44–​52 Trim David  28–​29 V Vandervere K. Emmet (Apologetic historian) 104 Voltaire  32, 49, 58 – Arouet Francoise-​Marie  37–​38 W Waggoner J Ellet  103 Washburn J. S.  133 Weiss Herold  27, 134 White A.L.  84, 111, 112, 113, 138, 140 White E. G  24, 30, 61, 78, 84, 90, 111, 128, 129, 132, 133, 135–​140

238 – approach to theological history  68–​77 – bible as sacred history  69–​70 – estate  107–​114, 138 – great controvercy theme  72 – prophecy and history  70–​72 White James  64, 65 White W. C.  84, 85, 110, 111, 113

Index

Williams Micheal  51, 52 Wilson C. Neal  129–​130 Writing theological history (Earliest attempts)  62–​68 Wylie James A.  136 Y Yerushalmi H. Yosef  119