More Than a Prophet by Graeme Bradford

More Than a Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006; $25) is the third book since 2004 by Graeme Bradford about the life and ministry of Ellen G. White. His previous two books, Prophets are Human and People are Human talk about the role and authority of Ellen White in dialogue format between several fictional characters. At several points through his fictional dialgoue he refers to a paper he had written. It seems likely that More Than a Prophet, which reads much more like a series of lectures, is the outgrowth of his research and the most extensive summary of his views about Ellen White and Adventism. It is interesting to note that unlike his two previous books which were published by the Australian Signs Publishing Company and distributed through official church channels, this latest book was not published by a denominational publishing house hinting that there may have been problems with the manuscript (Bradford is far from inerrant with frequent typos along with a generous number of historical and grammatical errors).

Since its publication the book has been cotnroversial. On Sept. 14, 2006, the White Estate published a response stating that it did not endorse the book (contrary to the claim by Bacchiochi in the preface that the book was endorsed by officials of the Ellen G. White Estate) and that they in fact have significant concerns and that a fuller, more-detailed critique will be forthcoming. Recently Bradford responded to the White Estate in a statement. So why is this book generating so much buzz? Although Bradford's first two books only received a minimal amount of attention (Denis Fortin published a critique and Angel Rodriguez published a review in the BRI newsletter [April 2005]) the overall package that he presents has not been thoroughly dealt with by the church. So what are the problematic areas?

• Do prophets make mistakes?
• What is inspiration?
• Did Ellen White grow theologically in her understanding of truth?
• Is Ellen White's description of end-time events still relevant?
• What is the meaning of the 1919 Bible Conference for the church?
• How did the church come to teach inerrancy?
• What role did Questions on Doctrine have?
• What does it mean to be an Adventist historian?

While the answers to some of these questions may seem obvious, they represent a growing body of Adventists who view Ellen White more as a devotional writer than as an inspired prophet with a continued, authorative message for the present. While Bradford does not say she is not inspired, his continual appeal to her culture seems to have resonated with more liberal theologians in the church and at the same time struck a dissonent chord among others. Thus, despite the poorly developed arguments in the book, the potential ramifications of Bradford's views for the present have made this book controversial. The reality is if Bradford's views are accepted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church it would represent a significant shift in the official stance of the church toward the life and ministry of Ellen G. White.

Comments

[Greg Schneider]

Perhaps the online version of Bacchiochi's Foreword at SDAnet has been altered in response to the White Estate's protest, but I've just read it twice and find no claim that White Estate officials endorsed Bradford's book. He does speak of "Favorable evaluations by respected Adventist church leaders and scholars" of earlier versions of Bradford's manuscript. And he does speak of the "1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop sponsored by the E. G. White Estate" at which certain things were agreed to--by whom specifically he does not say. It seems a long reach indeed to turn these words into a claim for EGW Estate endorsement.
Here's the link to the online document:
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/prophet-foreword.htm

[Darrell]

Quote from Michael Campbell
"While the answers to some of these questions may seem obvious, they represent a growing body of Adventists who view Ellen White more as a devotional writer than as an inspired prophet with a continued, authorative message for the present. While Bradford does not say she is not inspired, his continual appeal to her culture seems to have resonated with more liberal theologians in the church and at the same time struck a dissonent chord among others."

I think that Bradford lays it out quite thoroughly that the problem is the way people have interpreted "a continued, authorative message for the present." and the fundamental belief that cites EGW as 'an authoritative source of truth', something that wasn't contained in the 1931 list of FBs when refering to the Spirit of Prophecy.

I think that the current interpretation of what this means is what Bradford is speaking against, as opposed to the inspiration of EGW itself.

I have found that Bradford is trying to find the middle ground on how EGW needs to be viewed and how her writings are to be used if she is going to be taken seriously as ANY 'source of authoritative truth'.

What I believe Bradford is addressing is what should have been addressed and dealt with long, long ago. Attempts were made in both the 1919 and 1982 conferences but sadly our church chose to cover them up instead of dealing with them as Bradford is with 'More Than a Prophet'.

I hope that our church takes a close look at Bradfords excellent research, experience and insights on this matter that has been a bane for our church since its inception.

[Michael Campbell]

Greg, you are correct in your observation that the online version is different than the print one. Graeme Bradford in the April issue of "Ministry" does make a point of this in reviewing my review in the letter that was published.

Darrell, your assessment that Bradford is speaking about interpretaton rather than the actual meaning of inspiration itself. Milton Hook misses this point in his scathing letter of my review in the letters column of "Ministry." Where we disagree, or at least where I disagree in particular with Bradford, is his research on the 1919 Bible Conference. I don't believe church leaders covered something up. I expound on this point in more detail in my more extensive review of "More Than a Prophet" in the next issue of the BRI Newsletter.

[Shaun Charpentier]

Dr. Bradford was just at my church (Glendale SDA, Glendale, AZ) this weekend. He is an extrodinary speaker, seems to be a very humble man, but at the same time he seems to be the wolf in sheeps clothing. Knows Sister Whites writing very weel, but at times seems to slip in his own falsehoods. Their have been many problems in our church and his book has been a great deal of controversy between members, i myself included trying to stand up against it.

[Graeme Bradford]

Michael I am suprised and dissapointed about what you are still saying about my book especially after the conversation we had in your office in May.
Remember you apologized to me about your review in Ministry and said you wished you could do it again and be more affirming. I do not read you saying anything like this in your site. It seems to me that you are taking to talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe its good for your career.

[Colin MacLaurin]

I was a student of Graeme's for three subjects at Avondale College, before his recent retirement. I appreciated his lectures a lot. For one thing, he quoted Ellen White more than most people I am used to. We even did an entire assignment on what she said about using the voice in preaching, for the subject Homiletics. I am convinced that Graeme is attempting to defend Ellen White, because many people have left the church after their lofty views of her inspiration were shattered. He argues for a moderate approach to begin with. Hence I think Michael's review was a little too critical. However on the other hand, if Graeme's comment above is accurate he might understandably feel frustrated, however a personal attack against Michael will not help the situation. I must express my appreciation to Michael for his posts on the ProgressiveAdventism.com Forum discussion regarding Ellen White, which seemed to be appreciated by that community: http://progressiveadventism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

[downloadcheapoem]

[b][u]FREE DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE download[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.4softsite.info]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE CS2 indesign real real world world[/url] - DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE ACROBAT 8
[b][u]FREE DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE reader download[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.4softsite.info/manufacturer-Adobe.html?session=146011198080532]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE 8[/url] - 3rd DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE edition matter PHOTO
[b][u]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE ACROBAT reader[/b][/u]

[Mike MacLennan]

The SDA church certainly did cover up about the 1919 Bible Conference. Yes, literally - the minutes were covered up down in the basement of the GC. The leaders chose not to share that information with the church. That is SDA church history! We all remember the shock of reading them in Spectrum in the 1970s. The cover up only made the shock of Numbers and Rea's discoveries all the more shocking.

[ehr software]

I think that the current interpretation of what this means is what Bradford is speaking against, as opposed to the inspiration of EGW itself.

Kevin

[Don]

Re: The 1919 Cover-up

To prove a cover up takes strong evidence. Was there a vote taken or a consensus reached to not make public the discussions? I have not read such. I have read where individuals were uncomfortable with the information. Some did not want to disrupt the faith of the laity. Perhaps they thought it was too much for them to handle.

Some even today wonder if it is still too much. But for us historians, its a gold mine.