.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
February
|
Historian Who Wrote Ellen G. White Biography Honored with Academic Symposium
By T. Joe Willey
Ron Numbers recently retired from the University of Wisconsin after nearly 40 years as a professor specializing in the history of science. He has served at various times as president of three different scholarly groups—the History of Science Society, the American Society of Church History, and the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science—and scholars from many nations who know him organized an academic conference in his honor on February 15 and 16 in Tallahassee, Florida.
Numbers is the author of two books that are among the most widely recognized sources on key figures in Adventist history. Prophetess of Health, a biography of Ellen G. White, one of the cofounders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was first published in 1976 by Harper & Row, with a third edition coming out in 2008 from Eerdmans, the noted Evangelical publisher in Grand Rapids. The Creationists, a history of creationism that includes a major section on Adventist educator and author George McReady Price, was first published in 1992 with an updated version in 2006 by Random House.
The grandson of a former General Conference president and the son of an Adventist pastor, Numbers graduated from what is now Southern Adventist University near Chattanooga, Tennessee. In 1969 he earned a PhD in the history of science at the University of California in Berkeley and became a faculty member at Loma Linda University. He is considered by fellow historians as the greatest living expert on American creationism.
T. Joe Willey attended the event and filed the following report for Adventist Today: With a warm welcome, the tall, casually dressed Pastor Brent Coupland stepped to the lower stage in what is called the most beautiful building in Florida and gave a brief history of the Presbyterian church in Tallahassee, where the conference was held. The event was titled "Science without God: Religion, Naturalism and Sciences." This church is the oldest public building in continuous use in Florida.
To begin the conference, Coupland introduced his "favorite agnostic," Michael Ruse, who welcomed the participants and announced the proceedings. The conference was organized by three of Numbers' friends: Ruse, who is Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy and Director of the History and Philosophy of Science Program at Florida State University; Jon Roberts, the Tomorrow Foundation Professor of American Intellectual History at Boston University; and Peter Harrison, formerly the Idreous Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University and now Research Professor and Director of the of the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland, Australia.
More than 60 historians, all friends of Numbers, attended the conference, which explored the growth of so-called methodological naturalism in science, an approach which excludes any appeal to supernatural explanations but leaves scientists free to believe whatever they want about the reality of God.
Naturalism does not deny the existence of God. The scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers or influences that are supernatural. During the conference there was a brief summary of each paper by a presenter. Then a commentator offered suggestions for improving the paper, followed by open discussion. A book based on the conference has been solicited by the University of Chicago Press. Presenters came from Turkey, Israel, Greece, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Among the participants were three Adventist scholars: Terrie Aamodt, professor of history at Walla Walla University; Rennie Schoepflin, professor of history at California State University at Los Angeles and formerly a faculty member at La Sierra University; and Jonathan Butler.
Launching the conference was the question, "What was the relationship between naturalism and religion among the Greeks and Romans?" Subsequent papers dealt with the Middle Ages and early modern natural philosophy, as well as with such diverse disciplines as astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, medicine, anthropology, biology, psychology, the social sciences, and biblical studies. Surprisingly, in most cases the impetus to adopt methodological naturalism came from devout Christians, not skeptics or unbelievers. This arrangement made it possible for practitioners of all stripes to work harmoniously in the scientific vineyard, though disputes occasionally erupted.
Many expressed appreciation to Numbers for his genuine promotion of their careers and intellectual interactions as editor and conference organizer for such books as When Science and Christianity Meet, Science and Religion Around the World, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, God and Nature, Caring and Curing, and Disseminating Darwinism, The Disappointed: Millennialism and Millerism.
Under current consideration by Oxford Press is a new book edited by Terry Aamodt, Gary Land and Ron Numbers titled, Ellen Harmon White: An American Prophet. Although in retirement, Numbers is also researching and writing a biography of John Harvey Kellogg, a key figure in the development of Adventist health ministry.
T. Joe Willey is a scientist and scholar who was a faculty member at a number of universities throughout his career. He is a regular contributor to Adventist Today.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
That early in the church men deemed it wise to begin a literature evangelism to sell E G White books, begin a publishing/book bindery to compile, print, and market more literature, then build elitist sanitariums and hospitals, finally establishing educational institutions to create their own trained staff, employing the students to do the necessary sales work while simultaneously paying for their tuition suggests a certain type of wisdom. I am not suggesting God was not involved in these things, but am suggesting that man in his own wisdom rarely -if ever- fully vested follows the divine bidding without interjecting his own "better ideas" to concurrently achieve his own agendas. That there were casualties in human capital as well in the greater work is indisputable; that such men utilising their own wisdom would hide said damages certainly unsurprising in light of the shadow of the apple tree. And yet, indisputable that somehow God still worked through this; to wit, unheard that in mere one hundred years, an upstart and peculiar (and largely unpopular, marginalised) Protestant faith community with an unpopular and complex theology was defined, and grew into a systematically institutionalized world-significant effort is certainly suggestive of supernatural intervention.
Perhaps it makes us feel smugly good about ourselves to smudge the lens and haze the truth and overwrite our own emergent history to downplay the confounding and too-oft contentious human element. If the scriptures were written entirely with such objectives, what portion of the truth would still be hid within it?
If we deny our past, and obfuscate the less flattering elements, perhaps we are doomed (and are even now) repeating it. Are there at present elements within our institutional hierarchy that wish to control the "news", manage "problems", downplay certain information while highlighting chosen soundbites-while profiteering? I suggest we are, right now, in real time repeating this very history. What was done to Kellog by E White (iterestingly, despite changing most of the post-fire fundraising effort book "Living Temples" manuscript to suit her, he was still disfellowshipped for "infidel statements" by the Oct 4 1878 GC.) Will Keith, his younger brother, continued to live as lifelong Adventist. Intersting to also note that Charles William Post, a patient of Dr John Kellogg, saw the flake making process and began a competing business which grew into General Mills.
Human activity; it is rarely not about the benjamins. To pretend otherwise is a pretty pink cloud...and a very insecure foundation. Curious that he was buried in Oak Hill cemetary, not far from Uriah Smith (whose books developed the churches eschatological views), the Whites, and CW Post (who died of self inflicted gunshot in 1914). A fitting footnote is the academic legacies left by the Kellogs and Post, and the Whites, who together all told were foundational in developing literally dozens of higher education institutions.
Many here will worship the ground he walks on - and I won't be surprised.
I remember vividly the year in the 1970s when Dr. Numbers' book on Ellen White was published, and the shaking it wrought within denominational circles. Yet I have not noticed any significant decline in growth of our denomination, or outright rejection of Ellen White since Dr. Numbers' first book appeared. By and large, the book has helped remove some of the mystical gloss from the image of Sister White and makes her (to many of us) a far more accessible visionary writer. One of the more adroit reponses to Dr. Numbers' book was to see a further demystifying of Ellen White in the biographical writings of her grandson and a de-emphasis upon compilations that often did more to alienate us from Sister White than to build up the church (because these were essentially books of quotes, not balanced, readable prose that resonated with the charisma and emotion of Sister White as a human being. In many of those books she consequently comes across as an unrelenting scold, sadly enough). As the Bible effectively points out about the Lord Jesus, we cannot follow Him effectively unless we first love him. Ellen White in days leading up to Dr. Numbers was not (in my opinion) greatly loved in Adventism; she was largely seen as an intimidating enforcer on God's behalf. Her image has significantly changed since that time, and to some degree the greater openness about the facts of her life and personality can surely be attributed to the precedent set in 1976 by Dr. Numbers. We may judge him harshly for doing what he did and for leaving fellowship in Adventism, but God has a way of bringing forth blessings from apparent adversity.
I do not fear any forthcoming book by Dr. Numbers that focuses on Dr. J.H. Kellogg. I look forward to it. There is a vacancy in our cultural appreciation for this massive human influence in our history. Dr. Kellogg's influence is by all counts pervasive in the church, yet his personality continues to hang on the laughable thread of the childish "The Road to Wellsville."
--------------
Well - for starters, it seems me, that there is some clear indication that this was not just a regular scholarly biography but a premeditated biased ploy to discredit and disparage Ellen White by a particular groupthink involved. You know how Ellen White gets in the way of the permissiveness of some pockets within Adventism with regards to certain doctrines, their cultural bias and sadly often enough their tertiary indoctrination of 'critical thinking'. From what I have gathered, 'critical thinking' in itself may not be all that bad but it would hardly imply resorting to 'malicious criticism'. I think some may have confused 'higher criticism' with this.
It's also quite interesting to note that Dr. Numbers is one of the 'founding fathers' of the Association of Adventist Forums (now Adventist Forums) which to me includes other Ellen White detractors forming a major part of their support base. In fact Dr. Numbers in his book acknowledges his cousins Dr. Roy Branson and his brother Bruce Branson, (all three of them grandsons of W. H. Branson a former GC President), by making known his appreciation for their assistance. He also acknowledges Dr. Molleurus Couperus with words of appreciation among a few other people. Dr. Roy Branson and Dr. Molleurus Couperus are both former editors of the liberal Spectrum Magazine with Dr Branson doing so for a substantial amount of time. It is no coincidence that it was Spectrum Magazine who invited Fawn M. Brody to do a review of Prophetess of Health. As a mattter of interest I found that Dr. Raymond Cottrell (founder member and former editor of AToday) served as a consulting editor to Spectrum Magazine. His position regarding IJ aligns with Dr. Desmond Ford. (The plot thickens). It therefore comes as no surprise that Ellen White is taboo on these forums.
It should also be noted that Fawn M. Brody was a former Mormon who left her faith altogether and was one who was either an atheist or agnostic at best. So too is Dr. Ron Numbers from what I have gathered.
This alone can hardly be termed fair play. To make matters worse Dr. Numbers conveniently does his biography by purposefully excluding any divine inspiration recognition in her work and claims that her writings on health were already well known and needed no divine intervention thereby discrediting her writings and her calling in receiving the gift of prophecy.
The title itself 'Prophetess of Health' is a cynical attempt to mock Ellen White. The fact that Dr. Numbers doesn't take into consideration any divine inspiration in Ellen White’s ministry yet uses 'prophetess' in its title in a biography of her exposes this undercurrent of cynicism.
Then also, as Dr Numbers, isn't an eye witnesses, he uses the sources of some of her detractors from her day in order to again portray her in a negative light. He uses D. M. Canright and E. S. Ballenger as key eye-witnesses among others.
Here is a comment by Dr Kellog who was one of the best trained Physicians at that time:
scientific knowledge or erudition should have been able to organize, from the confused and error-tainted mass of ideas advanced by a few writers and thinkers on health subjects, a body of hygienic principles so harmonious, so consistent, and so genuine that the discussions, the researches, the discoveries, and the experience of a quarter of a century have not resulted in the overthrow of a single principle, but have only served to establish the doctrines taught. The guidance of infinite wisdom is as much needed in discerning between truth and error as in the evolution of new truths. CTBH, p. iv.
The questions regarding Kellogs purported pantheism were not raised until his failure to obey Whites edict to not rebuild the BC Sanitarium after the 1902 fire. His desire was to use the proceeds from his book to rebuild; it perhaps is unsurprising that White denounced the book (the manuscript which he changed in response to Whites specific charges, to no avail. She continued to denounce it, and him).
Curiously, some make claim the holy spirit burned down the R&H printing efforts to prevent publication of the book.
I suppose whenever history and facts, 'truth' are massaged to present own agenda in favorable light, suspicions-perhaps properly-are roused. Even today, to have such outcry against examining the known facts about these things brings out the same suspicions.
'But there is a will that controls the heart. It is the divine will that causes it to beat, and in the beating of that heart that you can feel, as you put your hand upon the breast, or as you put your finger against the pulse, an evidence of the divine presence that we have within us, that God is within, that there is an intelligence, a power, a will within, that is commanding the functions of our bodies and controlling them…'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#cite_note-4
That doesn't sound like Pantheism to me, it sounds like theopoiesis (divinization), which I understand is actually one of the earliest Christological and atonement theories in Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theopoiesis
There is much irony in this charge, because Kellogue's quote seems to well fit the Adventist emphasis on such NT texts as the human body being temples for the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 6:19-20, or the more conservative elements of Adventism which put emphasis on sanctification. Kellogue may in fact have been quite comfortable with today's Adventists who promote last generation theology!
The tension between those who would venerate White and those who would denigrate her display the exact same flaw. Failure to see her as she is, in honest light, and and in her humanity, flawed like each of us. Curiously, i see no denigration of White here, but perhaps a shifting of the bar. The venerators denigrate whom they purport to be non-venerators.
Truth needs no such calisthenics, and can certainly withstand scrutiny and critique. Furthermore, truth that requires such defenses suggests the one clinging too tight to a too static truth is in fact himself possibly afraid and unsure of his faith.
As for "22Oct1844" (how appropriate, the date of the failure of a prophecy) statement that "To make matters worse Dr. Numbers conveniently does his biography by purposefully excluding any divine inspiration recognition in her work" This represents a classic example of "believers" are not aware of the difference between history as done by a serious academic historian and history done by an apologist for a particular religious perspective. .
As for the pantheism charge against Kellogg, Mr. Ferguson is absolutely correct. In addition, I have seen comparisons between some passages from Kellogg's book and from EGW and it is very hard to tell who wrote what.
So, in what way am I a Dr Numbers detractor when I only say that his take on Ellen White is based on a biased view of her and that his sensationalist use of 'Prophetess' in the title is questionable especially since he 'excludes' any recognition of her prophetic inspiration? This to me reeks of an agenda to mock at her and Adventism as a whole?
The 2300 days prophecy of Dan 8:14 is not a failed prophecy as doctor Taylor likes to suggest. It marked the beginning of the Investigative Judgment on 22 October 1844. I'm guessing that Dr Numbers, Dr Taylor and Mr Onjukka (including many of Dr Ford's other followers) aren't converted on this point of doctrine. Part of their unbelief may be their view that Ellen White was erroneous in this regard which they refer to as 'her flaws'.
Apparently “22” (Can I call him “22” or is that too familiar?) cannot decode or comprehend a simple English sentence, so let’s try again with slightly different wording. Serious academic historians do not use “prophetic inspiration” as an explanation. Dr. Numbers clearly states that EGW and her followers believed that she was inspired by God. It is not possible to know whether she was or was not inspired by God. If you are a “believer” then you may say she was. That is a confessional statement of apologists not something an objective historian would make. I hope this is a simple enough statement for “22” to understand.
Also “22” seems to want to rewrite what actually happened on 22 Oct 1844. A group of early Adventists said that the Bible predicted that Jesus would come on 22 Oct 1844. He did not. That is a classic example of a failed prophecy. (It inspired a research project and a book entitled “When Prophecy Fails” which is often assigned reading in the sociology of religion classes) Then a small group of these early Adventists came up with a very inventive explanation of why Jesus had not come on 22 Oct 1844 (although the “Corn Field” episode was invented many years later). EGW then had a vision that the interpretation was correct and the classic Adventist “Investigative Judgment” dogma was born. This is one of the most notable pieces of ex post facto theological creativity of the 19th century American religious history.
"Serious academic historians do not use “prophetic inspiration” as an explanation."
-------------
The problem with the decoding sir is that you are keen on wanting me to accept and see things the way you see it and insist that that is what Dr Numbers did. How convenient that one would rule out inspiration because of professional academic standards when doing a biography on one who claimed she was inspired - especially setting out to prove that she wasn’t. Dr Taylor’s insistent belief that there was no bias or pre-conceived agenda on Dr Numbers part won’t change the fact that Dr Numbers does assume a number of things and uses sources who were rather bitter detractors of EGW after they had left Adventism. This to me shows bias supporting his (and Dr Taylor’s) belief that EGW was not inspired or their version of what this entails. If Dr Taylor believes that this is not the case and that Dr Numbers followed the guiding principle ‘Serious academic historians’ follow then he can by all means go ahead and do so. I am rather sceptical about Dr Numbers being unbiased and without having a pre-conceived agenda. His long association with Spectrum Mag and its notorious Ellen White bashing, to me, precedes his scholarly insights. So I’m not convinced otherwise to say the least.
Based on the assertion of what "Serious academic historians do not use"; it is rather questionable to me, why he would entitle the book 'Prophetess of Health' if indeed “prophetic inspiration” as an explanation” was ruled out by him in the first place. Dr Numbers sets out attacking her work in order to prove it was not done by “prophetic inspiration” yet Ellen White said that her writings, even on health, are inspired. To me, the title is used for sensationalist propaganda and clearly displays bias, together with the objective of bringing her work into disrepute and mocking her of course.
I also have reason to believe that the aftermath of the book which took the form of a review caused some major disagreements within the camp when one of the chief editorial staff members resigned at Spectrum Mag supposedly as a result of him not wanting to publish the awful review by a known sectarian basher looking for some sensationalism. Dr Numbers and the book reviewer both in my opinion ultimately seek to portray Adventism in a bad light. My heart goes out to all the many Adventists and potential Adventists who have accepted such fallacies and have left the church or denied Adventism as a result.
-------------
The disappointment of 1844 was not the failure of the 2300 days prophecy of Dan 8:14 but rather a component of its fulfilment which shed light on the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment.
Perhaps the 'Prophetess of Health' can better explain my position on this:
I also recall the first Church movement began with its own disappointment and revisionist history. No doubt many sceptics can and do make the same arguments against Christianity as a whole that is often levelled against early Adventism and those who espoused the 'revisionist' history of 'failed prophecy'.
I think a finaly good point to take from 22 Oct 1844 (again the event not the person), is the danger of thinking we all have prophetic events in the future mapped out. Even when we think we know something, prophecy tends to be fulfilled in a way we don't quite expect. John the Baptist being Elijah, or Jesus' unglamorous First as opposed to magificant future Second Advent being other important examples. I wonder how many who uphold the importance of that date recognise that important point?