Ellen White often found herself plagued by "those who," she
claimed, "select from the testimonies the strongest expressions and,
without bringing in or making any account of the circumstances under which the
cautions and warnings are given, make them of force in every case. . . . Picking
out some things in the testimonies they drive them upon every one, and disgust
rather than win souls" (Selected Messages, book 3, pp. 285, 286).
Her observation not only highlights the fact that we need to take the
historical context of Ellen White's statements into consideration when reading
her counsel, but also indicates that she put some statements in stronger or more
forceful language than others. That idea leads us to the concept of the ideal
and the real in Mrs. White's writings.
When Ellen White is stating the ideal, she often uses her strongest
language. It is as if she needs to speak loudly in order to be heard. One such
statement appears in Fundamentals of Christian Education. "Never,"
she exhorted, "can the proper education be given to the youth in this
country, or any other country, unless they are separated a wide
distance from the cities" (p. 312; italics supplied).
Now, that is about as forceful a statement as she could have made. Not only
is it adamant, but it appears to imply universality in terms of time and space.
There is no stronger word than "never." In its strictest meaning it
allows no exceptions. She uses the same sort of powerful, unbending language in
terms of location--"in this country, or any other country." Once again
a plain reading of the words permits no exceptions. We are dealing with what
appears to be a universal prohibition regarding the building of schools in
cities. But the statement is stronger than that. Such schools are not merely to
be out of the cities, but "separated a wide distance" from them. Here
is inflexible language that does not suggest any exceptions.
At this point it is important to examine the historical context in which she
made the statement. According to the reference supplied in the book (p. 327),
this counsel was first published in 1894. But by 1909 the Adventist work in
large cities was increasing. And those cities had families who could not afford
to send their children to rural institutions. As a result, Ellen White counseled
the building of schools in the cities. So far as possible," we
read, ". . . schools should be established outside the cities. But
in the cities there are many children who could not attend schools away from the
cities; and for the benefit of these, schools should be opened in the cities as
well as in the country" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p.
201; italics supplied).
By this time you may be asking yourself how the same woman could claim that
proper education could "never" be given in Australia "or any
other country, unless they [schools] are separated a wide distance from the
cities" (Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 312) and yet still
advocate the establishment of schools in the cities.
The answer is that rural education for all children was the ideal
that the church should aim at "so far as possible." But the truth is
that the hard facts of life make such education impossible for some. Thus reality
dictated a compromise if Christian education were to reach children from poorer
families. Ellen White understood and accepted the tension between the ideal and
the real.
Unfortunately, many of her readers fail to take that fact into
consideration. They focus merely on Mrs. White's "strongest"
statements, those that express the ideal, and ignore the moderating passages. As
a result, as we noted above, "picking out some things in the testimonies
they drive them upon everyone, and disgust rather than win souls" (Selected
Messages, book 3, p. 286).
Ellen White has more balance than many of her so-called followers. Genuine
followers must take into account her understanding of the tension between the
ideal and the real in applying her counsel.
Ellen White had more flexibility in interpreting her writings than many have
realized. She was not only concerned with contextual factors in applying counsel
to different situations, but also had a distinct understanding of the difference
between God's ideal plan and the reality of the human situation that at times
necessitated modification of the ideal. For that reason it is important that we
don't just operate on the "strongest expressions" in her writings and
seek to "drive them upon everyone" (ibid., pp. 285, 286).