BY LIMONI MANU

WENTY YEARS AGO IT SEEMED crystal clear to me: Nonvegetarian Adventists will not enter heaven. And I shared my faith with everyone who would lend me an ear. After all, is it not a work that God expects of His people to accomplish before they can stand before Him a perfected people?1 And are we not counseled that "meat eating will eventually be done away with," and "flesh will cease" to form a part of the diet of those waiting for the coming of Christ?2

As I reminisce about my lethal heresy, my heart shrinks with shame at the trauma I must have caused the poor rural Island folks! Yet what still boggles my mind is that that heresy still appeals to elements within Adventism. But when you think seriously about it, each one who is bound for heaven is susceptible to delusions of all kinds. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, we too are anxious to affirm our eternal destiny. How much are we prepared to sacrifice for heaven? Is not the fleshpot of Egypt a small sacrifice in comparison to the loss of eternal bliss and tranquillity?

What then was wrong with my teaching? In retrospect, I realize that my problem was one of eisegesis. I had misconstrued the message of health reform as a measuring rod for salvation. How then should eager reformists approach Ellen White's writings while guarding against irresponsible hermeneutics?

As a former lunatic, I humbly suggest a few principles for understanding the counsels of Ellen White, including some practical guidelines for sharing the health message with others.

Principles for Understanding Ellen White's Counsels
Three basic principles should not be overlooked when sharing the health reform message with others.

1. The Context of Ellen White's Counsel
Like any literary work, the writings of Ellen White were construed in a particular context. If her counsels are lifted out of their context, the meaning has great potential for misinterpretation. Take, for example, this statement:

"I have been instructed that flesh food has a tendency to animalize the nature, to rob men and women of that love and sympathy which they should feel for everyone, and to give the lower passions control over the higher powers of the being."3

Does Ellen White mean that meat eaters lack love and sympathy for everyone, and that the lower passions have control over the higher powers of the being? Would this justify the insistence for all Adventists to be vegetarians? Undoubtedly, it is essential to pay close attention to the context of the passage in order for a reader to remain faithful to the primary intention of Ellen White. What does Ellen White say in the prior paragraph, and that which follows?

Consider the prior paragraph (or sentences).

"We do not mark out any precise line to be followed in diet; but we do say that in countries where there are fruits, grains, and nuts in abundance, flesh food is not the right food for God's people."4

Consider the paragraph (or sentences) that follows.

"If meat eating was ever healthful, it is not safe now. Cancers, tumors, and pulmonary diseases are largely caused by meat eating. We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have on others."5

The context helps to clarify the ambiguity. In view of the prevalent health problems (tendency to animalize the nature, cancers, tumors, pulmonary diseases, etc.) associated with meat eating, Ellen White cautions on the dangers of its consumption. However, Ellen White does not in any case mark out any precise line of vegetarianism to be followed worldwide. On the contrary, she underscores the importance of flexibility in countries where fruits, grains, and nuts are not in abundance. To insist otherwise would be pushing Ellen White's intended meaning too far. The first principle of interpretation will assist the interpreter to avoid the danger of misunderstanding.

2. The Time and Place of Her Writing
"In this country [Australia] there is an organized vegetarian society, but its numbers are comparatively few. Among the people in general, meat is largely used by all classes. It is the cheapest article of food; and even where poverty abounds, meat is usually found upon the table. Therefore there is the more need of handling wisely the question of meat eating. In regard to this matter there should be no rash movements. We should consider the situation of the people, and the power of lifelong habits and practices, and should be careful not to urge our ideas upon others, as if this question were a test, and those who eat largely of meat were the greatest sinners."6

It is clear that when Ellen White first wrote this counsel in 1896 (time), very few people in Australia (place) at the time were vegetarians. Meat was the cheapest food item that could be bought, so among the people in general it was a common diet. Because of this, Ellen White cautioned that when teaching health principles: (1) there is the need to handle the meat issue wisely; (2) reform should be progressive (and not rash movements); (3) the situations of people must be considered; and (4) meat eating should not be a test of fellowship.

The second principle underscores that "time" and "place" should not be overlooked when interpreting Ellen White's writing. The intricacy and complexity of a given situation or isolated region of the world must be considered in the process of applying the principles of health reform. This may mean that the emphasis of health reform in places such as the United States, Australia, or New Zealand may well be health deform in other places, for example, Kiribati in the Pacific, or the stricken areas of Africa. Consideration must also be given to the vast disparity between countries (and even within a country itself) of climate, economy, availability of vegetables, fruits, or grains, and other essentials owing to the negative effects of living in a sin-sick world.

3. The Overall Counsel on a Given Topic
In some areas of the world church, health reform has sometimes become a major issue of contention. It is critical that Ellen White's overall counsel regarding health be considered in totality. Both her absolute statements and her variable statements must be taken into account.7

a. Ellen White's absolute statements

"Vegetables, fruits, and grains should compose our diet. Not an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs. The eating of flesh is unnatural. We are to return to God's original purpose in the creation of man."8

"God demands that the appetite be cleansed, and that self-denial be practiced in regard to those things which are not good. This is a work that will have to be done before His people can stand before Him a perfected people."9

b. Ellen White's variable statements
"Where plenty of good milk and fruit can be obtained there is rarely any excuse for eating animal food; it is not necessary to take the life of any of God's creatures to supply our ordinary needs. In certain cases of illness or exhaustion it may be thought best to use some meat, but great care should be taken to secure the flesh of healthy animals. It has come to be a very serious question whether it is safe to use flesh food at all in this age of the world. It would be better never to eat meat than to use the flesh of animals that are not healthy. When I could not obtain the food I needed, I have sometimes eaten a little meat; but I am becoming more and more afraid of it."10

"A meat diet is not the most wholesome of diets, and yet I would not take the position that meat should be discarded by every one. Those who have feeble digestive organs can often use meat, when they cannot eat vegetables, fruit, or porridge."11

Ellen White's absolute statements seem to insist on a strict vegetarian diet to be practiced by Adventist believers in every country of the world while awaiting the second coming of Christ. It may also imply that unless one becomes a vegetarian, Christian perfection would not be attained. Her variable statements, on the other hand, present the need to consider the practical realities of living in a sinful world. Hence, the responsibility of the interpreter is to find the general principle in the overall counsel of Ellen White on health reform, and to make appropriate application. To do otherwise is irresponsible interpretation.

Practical Guidelines
As we practice and share the health message with others, it is vital that our overall approach is practical and balanced. Although we insist on the Edenic diet as an ideal for human consumption (Gen. 1:29; cf. Gen. 3:17, 18, an added dimension by tilling the soil), we must at the same time be cautious of the following pitfalls.

1. Guard against teachings that undermine health reform. The health reform message is closely connected to the three angels' messages of Revelation, and people need to hear it. In most cases, those among us who speak negatively of health reform are themselves guilty of neglecting health principles.

2. Guard against teachings that make health reform a criterion for salvation. The entire process of salvation has never, and will never be, a matter of eating or drinking (Rom. 14:17). As Paul has stressed, we owe our salvation entirely to the undeserved favor of God (Eph. 2:8). And just in case the truth does not sink in, the apostle excludes every possibility of self-achievement, lest any of us should boast (verse 9).

3. Guard against extremes in health reform. Beware of reformists who teach extreme views of health reform. Health reform that is carried to extremes becomes health deform and a health destroyer.12 Sinful human nature aspires to the edges of extremity and fanciful interpretations. The left-wing extremists often nurture a careless attitude to Ellen White's counsels on health. In contrast, the right-wing extremists push the boundaries of idealism, and neglect the practical realities of life situations. The problem of going to extremes underscores the need for balance.

4. Guard against irrational reform. Ellen White herself recognized that owing to sin, the reality in different places of the world may be far from the ideal. Hence the need for commonsense dietary reforms to be practiced in real-life situations. The subject must be studied broadly and deeply, and no one should criticize others because their practice is not, in all things, in harmony with their own.13 Ellen White understood the impossibility of making an unvarying rule to regulate everyone's habits, and discourages anyone from thinking himself or herself a criterion for all.14 It is better, she says, to err on the side of the people rather than on the side where we cannot reach them; nor should we try to be peculiar merely for the sake of being peculiar. Health reform, therefore, should not be made into an "iron bedstead, cutting people off or stretching them out to fit it. One person cannot be a standard for everybody else. What we want is a little sprinkling of good common sense."15

5. Guard against insensitive reform. "I cannot say to them: You must not eat eggs, or milk, or cream; you must use no butter in the preparation of food. The gospel must be preached to the poor, and the time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet."16 While health reform is a necessity, many factors such as climate changes, the abundance and lack of vegetables and fruits, economy and its impact on different stratifications of society and others determine what is best in different parts of the world.

As Adventists we must be careful to ensure that our interpretation of Ellen White's writings is consistent with the teaching of Scripture regarding salvation. Our safety is by paying close attention to the principles of interpretation, by not overlooking the context, time and place, and the overall counsel of Ellen White on health issues. By so doing, as we share the principles of our health message, we will at the same time guard against the pitfalls of setting up false criteria for salvation.

God in His great mercy understands each individual and the unique circumstances that surround them in different areas of the world church. God knows their abundance or lack of vegetables, fruits, and nuts. He knows their wealth and their poverty. Vegetarianism has never been, and will never become, a test of fellowship, nor the criterion for salvation. What God simply asks is that we eat the best permissible food that is available under the circumstances in which we are placed for His honor and glory.

_________________________
1 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1948), vol. 9, p. 154; cf. Counsels on Diet and Foods (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1946), p. 381.
2 Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 380, 381.
3 Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 159.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 462.
7 Ellen White's absolute statements refer to what may seem as policy statements. Her variable statements are what assist the interpreter to determine the underlying principle on a given topic such as health reform.
8 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 380.
9 Ibid., p. 381.
10 Ibid., p. 394. (italics supplied.)
11 Ibid., pp. 394, 395.
12 Ibid., p. 202.
13 Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1942), p. 319.
14 Ibid., pp. 319, 320.
15 Ellen G. White, Sermons and Talks (Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), vol. 1, p. 12.
16 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 206.

_________________________
Limoni Manu is working on a Ph.D. in Religion at the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, in Cavite, Philippines.