Ellen White under Fire: Identifying the Mistakes of Her Critics, by Judson S.

Lake: Nampa,
Idaho: Pacific Press, 2010. 356 pp. ISBN 978-0-8163-2408-8. Hardcover, USD $24.99.

Written twelve years ago, Ellen White under Fire seeks to answer the critiques of
Ellen White. Jud Lake has a Th.D. and D.min and currently is a professor at Southern
Adventist University.1 The book appears to have recommendations from reputed Adventist
scholars stating that this work was much needed and is a comprehensive look on the subject.
Jud Lake begins his book by acknowledging the proliferation of criticisms on Ellen G.
White on the internet. He provides and overview of the criticisms. Lake appeals to using the
apologetic approach seeing apologetics as “reasoned defense.” He notes that Ellen White
anticipated criticisms against her after her death and instructed the church not to ignore them
but to consider them carefully. Regarding responding to criticisms Seventh-day Adventists
vary. While some loose trust in the church, others are either not bothered or are vehemently
aggressive against the criticisms. He notes that the reason why many are against the Seventh-
day Adventist Church is because of the role Ellen G. White plays in the church.
The author introduces the reader to the history of criticism against Ellen White by
beginning with the Messenger Party. He points out that the criticisms were not directed only
at the writings but against Ellen White and her husband. As criticisms began to increase, the
author notes that God led her to guide the church from spending time answering their
critiques to focusing on defending the truth. The Messenger Party was followed by the
Marion party. Their criticisms were answered by the church and Ellen White herself. But she
did not engage to answer all her critics. She refrained from answering Miles Grant, thus
setting an example to choose one’s battles wisely. The author notes that although there are
many criticisms, these criticisms have not obliterated her voice in the church and the world.
In the book, Dudley M. Canright is presented as an unstable character. After his initial
conversion, he was seen to go back and forth in support of the church and Ellen G. White and
the rejection of both. The author brings out the idea that Canright misunderstood the
presentation of the gospel in the Adventist church and supported a legalistic view. He would
later reject Adventism on this basis failing to consider the 1888 message of righteousness by
faith. Commenting on the book, some critics see the author’s approach as deceptive and
blames him of not allowing Canright to speak on his own. It is claimed that since the message
of 1888 includes the keeping of the law, it was in line with perfectionism and not totally
righteousness by faith. For this reason, Canright rejected Adventism. Furthermore, stating
that later criticisms all stem from Canright is not a fair representation of Ellen G. White
critiques because of the negative picture SDA’s have on Canright.2
The author continues by attempting to answer some of the accusations of Canright.
Out of this he discusses how the church through A.G. Daniels and others attempted to
respond to the criticisms. Although critics claim that the fact there is a delay in the response
implies fabrication, the presentation of the subject is as brief as it can be, and he provides
reasons for the delay. Although some are dissatisfied with how he dealt with the Shut door
issue3, it is commendable that he stated that the best one to consult on the interpretation of

1
Adventist Book Center, “Jud Lake,” Adventist Book Center, accessed October 25, 2022,
https://adventistbookcenter.com/authors/jud-lake.
2
Joseph Rector, “Sabbatismos Ministries: Finding Our Rest in Christ - Ellen White Under Fire by Jud
Lake,” Sabbatismos, last modified 2010, accessed October 26, 2022, http://www.sabbatismos.com/reviews-of-
sda-publications/ellen-white-under-fire-by-jud-lake/.
3
The objection has been brought out that Jud Lake did not consider that there were three parties
described in the vision. The critique perceives that the phrase “the wicked world which God rejected” would
imply that she considered the rest of the world to be lost from God’s saving grace. Ibid.
Ellen White’s writings is Ellen White herself. It is also good that he guides the reader to
consider other works in defense of Ellen White, rather than try to state them all by himself.
The chapter adequately shows how the church has engaged with the critiques and how some
of the critics left the church because they misunderstood the messages and beliefs of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church, especially the soteriology of Ellen G. White.
Lake discusses the definitions and nature of revelation and inspiration. This kind of
discussion is present in many recent works on the writings of Ellen G. White and appears to
be essential. Given the lack of consensus on revelation and inspiration in the Christian world,
his discussion lays the ground on which we are to see her writings. He rightly states the
differences between Inspiration and Illumination and stressed that neither the Bible nor Ellen
G. White’s writings support the idea of “Degrees of Inspiration”. He also rightly points out
the difficulties the church went through in trying to understand how God communicates His
message to His people.
The book discusses the different views of inspiration and reveals how Ellen G. White
saw the leading of God and how at times she was at variance with the leaders of the church
on how God inspired her. He assents to what he calls a “whole person” model of inspiration
which to some appears insincere.4 It appears that he should have shown how the statement of
Ellen G. White on inspiration would help understand her statement where she does state that
God gave her the words to write.
Literary borrowing as he terms it, appears to be present with Bible writers. But this
presentation still leaves much to be desired. He does rightly state however, that she never
claimed that God gave her the “very words” and points out that the rigid view of inspiration
cause critics to lose faith in Ellen G. White as a prophet.
On the authority of the writings of Ellen G. White, it is pointed out that the pioneers
did not see her writings as having greater or equal authority to the Bible. Rather, they were
subject to the Bible. It is pointed out that James White believed that prophetic visions lead
one to follow the Bible. The Bible was viewed by the pioneers and even Ellen G. White as
the foundation of the Christian faith. He highlighted well the analogies that Seventh-day
Adventist have used to discuss the role Ellen G. White’s writings play. The analogy of Mrs.
Henry is one worthy of note.
Lake has rightly brought out the authority of non-canonical prophets considering that
she has “circumscribed authority” according to Ramm’s definitions and the continuation of
spiritual gifts for the edification of the church. It is commendable that he stressed that the
writings of Ellen G. White are not considered as an addition to scripture, believing that the
cannon of scripture has been closed. Furthermore, he has clarified that Ellen G. White’s
appeal to her writings was not to consider them above the Bible, but that her visions
grounded in the Bible had authority.
In the process of understanding Ellen G. White, the author points out the importance
of context and presents seven levels of literary context which he terms “circles of context.”
He also informs the reader to take the historical context into account. The author makes the
reader aware of the work of George. R. Knight on the way one must read Ellen G. White.
Above all, the author has emphasized consulting the Bible before considering the writings of
Ellen G. White.
In understanding Ellen G. White, the author provides two examples of false
accusations, one by Anderson and the other by Cleveland and goes through the steps of how
to analyze the statements of Ellen G. White in their context. About the pestilence, he appeals

4
It is stated that Lake forgot to consider many of the statements where Ellen G. White stated that God
gave her the words to write. Canright appears to appeal to these statements to bring out the idea that she was not
consistent as she should have been. Furthermore, it is understood that her ‘borrowing’ did not include ample
referencing, showing that she was trying to pass out statements made by others as her own. Ibid.
to the idea that Ellen White never stated that the world would certainly end in her day. He
notes that she longed for the soon return of Jesus. In terms of speaking to her dead husband,
he emphasizes that it was a dream. There was no real communication with the dead. Ellen G.
White herself was opposed to such practices. The author rightly notes that the dream was not
a testimony for the church. Given that the White Estate publishes only parts of documents
that they see fit, critics have accused the church of hiding information. But it looks like there
is no satisfactory way to answer this accusation.
Lake points the reader to the most important theme present in the writings of Ellen G.
White -The Great Controversy Theme. He notes that the writings of Ellen G. White have not
been produced in a Systematic Theology format and thus her statements must be studied in
the context of the Great Controversy. He notes that Ellen G. White understood the weakness
of prophets and never claimed infallibility. It was good to note that God works through erring
humans to reveal truth to the people. The Great Controversy theme is an excellent theological
paradigm to consider. Lake summarizes the main ideas of the theme adequately and reveals
how at the core of her theology, Ellen G. White saw the atonement of Christ as central.
The Great Controversy motif is a valid, biblical worldview. The author points out that
various scholars have seen a theme of warfare present in the Bible. Lake’s presentation of
Ellen White’s view of the Atonement of Christ is commendable. It is disheartening that
critics choose to nit-pick statements that are obscure rather than consider all the true, clear
positive statements she has made. He has rightly stated that many critics do not look at her
writings through Arminian/Wesleyan soteriology. In terms of the assurance of salvation,
Lake has given enough evidence to ensure that one rightly understands where Ellen G. White
stands, even mentioning Steps to Christ which many critics do not consider.
Ellen G. White is seen as an evangelical at heart. She taught the cardinal doctrines of
Christianity. The author further notes that her ministry helped the church steer clear of many
evils such as fanaticism, legalism, pantheism, spiritualism and the like. Lake must be praised
for admitting that the Seventh-day Adventist church has not done a good job on advertising
the truths it possesses. Legalism in the church has marred the experience of many. He
encourages the church to know Ellen G. White in the right way and make the Bible the basis
of belief. The points that he provides gives a clear outline on what to remember when
encountering her works and engaging with critics. It is good that he considers criticism as
opportunity to be more grounded in the truth.
Lake concludes the book by providing the reader with reasons that he believes in the
ministry of Ellen G. White. He also provides his own experience with Ellen G. White, which
can help many understand where he is coming from, and the impact they have on him. The
appendix also contains useful information on various perceptions of the public of Ellen G.
White. The testimonies of Uriah Smith and J.N. Andrews are like the icing on the cake. They
provide a view of Ellen G. White from the perspective of her contemporaries.
This work is a comprehensive summary that every church member needs to have
access to. Although there are some minor misgivings Lake’s emphasis on the Great
Controversy theme and “The whole person inspiration” provide the perspective through
which her work must be considered. Understanding that there were critics even in her day
shows that critics will exist till the end of time. As the author points out, by her fruits we
know that she is of God.

Joash Raj Chavakula

Spicer Adventist University, INDIA