By David R. Larson
Without adamantly asserting them, a successful neurobiologist, business man and student of 19th Century Seventh-day Adventism in Southeren California named TJoe Willey, who is also a friend of mine, has recently made three proposals regarding Ellen G. White's one-time remarks about the amalgamation of man and beast. The first is that she probably meant what it sounds like she meant: that some human races today descend from the sexual union of human beings and non-human animals. A second is that in thinking along these lines Ellen White and others who were close to her came too close to endorsing polygensis, a theory of human origins that then had some currency, and that on occasion they actually stepped over the line into its heretical doctrinal territory. Willey's third suggestion is that this movement toward polygenesis distorted EGW's theory of the atonement, in Christian thinking how people and perhaps other living things are reconciled with each other and with God, such that all people are not treated equally.
I believe that Willey's paper makes a good enough case for its first suggestion but not for its second and third. Indeed, I am persuaded that its last two suggestions risk misrepresenting everything that EGW stood for throughout her long life. Here are the perplexing and controversial lines which appeared under her name in 1864 when she was not a child but 37 years old:
But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. —Ellen G. White. Spiritual Gifts. 1864. p. 64.
Willey, who has devoted much time to studying what others were saying when EGW wrote these words, presents several lines of evidence on behalf of understanding them to refer to sexual intercourse between human beings and non-human animals, presumably primates of one sort or another. One of these is that for at least a couple of centuries such unions had been reported, especially by those who had traveled to Africa and elsewhere and found in this an explanation of the different colors and features of the people they encountered as well as a justification for enslaving or otherwise oppressing them. Another is that in EGW's time the term "amalgamation" was frequently used by those who did have intraspecies intercourse in mind of and they made this clear in widely read racist writings and cartoons. A third factor is that two prominent SDA ministers left the denomination, taking a great number with them, partly because they understood EGW to have meant this and they strongly objected. A fourth consideration is that in his written defense of EGW on this and other matters Uriah Smith explicitly endorsed this view. In ways that we would rightly find morally reprehensible today, he went so far as to identify certain races that in his view descended from such unions. A fifth is that EGW's husband, James White, openly endorsed Uriah Smith's defense of his her views on this and other matters. A sixth is that EGW never protested this interpretation of her words; indeed, she allowed something she had written to be disturbed in the same book as Uriah Smith's offensive defense of her. Three of the Whites--James, Ellen and one of their sons--promoted and sold the book without any objection from her at one of the campmeeting they attended shortly after it was published. Yet another is that throughout much of her she counseled against interracial marriage. And finally, the evidence shows that many Americans of European descent who opposed slavery still did not regard the slaves and other Africans as their equals.
Although it is a steep climb, those who believe that EGW did not have intraspecies intercourse in mind can say a number of things on behalf of their stance. One of these is that she never said that this is what she meant. A second is that in her time the word "amalgamation" was also used for intermarriage between people of different races. A third is that, even though James White approved of Uriah Smith's defense of her, her son, apparently didn't. He is reported to have said that his mother did not agree with Uriah's Smith defense of her in this regard, making it possible that her husband and son disagreed about this and that her son understood her more accurately. After all, such family dynamics are not entirely unheard of. A fourth consideration is that these lines, and their very negative view of races other than her own, seem out of character with most--I would say all--of what we otherwise know about her. A fifth factor is that in his defense of her Uriah Smith does not quote her. He is more like a lawyer who says, "This is what I would like to say on behalf of my client" than one who says "Please let me tell you exactly what my client has said about her. In other words, it is possible that in Uriah Smith's defense of EGW we hear more of him than her. Sixth, the two ministers who reported that EGW meant intraspecies intercourse and then left the denomination in protest, taking many members with them, might have been prompted by other considerations as well. And seventh, their report was based on the statement of a man who said he had heard another man say that James White had said that this is what EGW had in mind. That this is at least three steps away from (James White, reporter # 1 and reporter #2) makes it possible to wonder. Finally, it is well known that EGW and Uriah Smith did not always see eye-to-eye. Sometimes she openly disagreed with him. On many other occasions she simply held her tongue.
There is another possibility which is conjectural and speculative on my part. This is that James White and Uriah Smith might have had considerable influence over what what was published under Ellen White's name in Spiritual Gifts, the book in which the controversial lines appear, and that this is at least one reason why they seem more intent on defending them than she was. Again, I have no evidence for this. It is only a hunch. But in the long run such hunches often turn out to be right.
Given the various arguemets back an forth it is understandable and commendable that some choose not to cast a vote either way. Yet if I had to make a choice, I would probably say that my best bet is that EGW had intraspecies intercourse in mind. The factor that tips the scales for me is that if she didn't, it is difficult for me to imagine what she was thinking. The other explanations all strike me as less plausible and at least as offensive.
Also, it would neither surprise nor upset me if someone who is a "Messenger to the Remant ," as we SDAs often describe EGW, matured over the years on this and other issues like it. She lived for 51 years after she wrote these controversial lines--with the possibility of considerable input from others-- and she never returned to them. This should tell us something about the direction of her thinking. This trend--this trajectory--is what matters most of all. It clearly headed in the right direction.
We can now turn to the issue of polygenism. I think the following lines from Willey's paper are the most pertinent ones:
Polygenism called for special creations of humans by God in different parts of the world.
Most Christians at the time, including Adventists rejected polygenism because the Bible only held out Adam and Eve as the original parents.
Ellen White’s amalgamation views moved perilously toward polygenism by creating at least two separate origins for humans, one through Adam and Eve and the other through a biological union of man with a “beast.” From the Christian point of view, polygenism cast aside the doctrine of the unity of mankind found in Acts 17:26. “God have made of one blood all nations of the earth for to dwell on all the face of the earth…”
Mrs. White created a crisis of faith for her Iowan brethren (and others later) by drifting away from monogenesis and employing amalgamation of man and beast to account for the confused species and varieties seen in the Earth’s biosphere.
James White, Uriah Smith, and other early Adventist leaders failed to comprehend what this bifurcation or divisibility meant.
Smith suggested looking at the beast’s “mental capabilities” to determine “the basis on which we are to work” in converting Bushman and Hottentots to the gospel and thus whether to consider them included in the plan of salvation. His peculiar defense and suggestion of limiting redemption to all mankind was not debated or corrected by any of the Adventist pioneers, including Mrs. White.
It has been difficult since these amalgamation views first appeared to understand why the early Adventists drifted away from monogenesis to account for all of mankind created in the image of God.
By resorting to a form of polygenism Mrs. White emphasized people of different ethnicity with some as human and some like animals or beasts, and in the process opened cracks in the doctrine of the unity of man in historical Adventist theology
Ellen White’s amalgamation statements raises another important theological issue. By placing “primitive man” i.e., the Bushmen of Africa, Hottentots, Digger Indians, and Patagonians somewhere between humans and animals and referring to them as confused species which “defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere,” and “the destruction of the world by flood” one can never be assured if they themselves are also of a “confused” derivation.
Without devising blame or shame, but understanding the historical background of the amalgamation statements, it is now possible to sympathize with the profoundly perplexing doctrinal offspring that amalgamation created in the mind of Mrs. White and why she thought some slaves would not be in heaven.
Up to now most discussions of EGW's statements on amalgamation of man and beast have focused upon their historical context, scientific plausibility and ethical consequences, particularly with regard to racism. Yet with these remarks Willey's paper strides with remarkable confidence into yet another area of academic discourse: Christian systematic theology. It claims that EGW and other early SDAs believed in polygenism and for this reason the theological integrity of her doctrines of creation, atonement and assurance of salvation is compromised. This is a very serious charge.
The paper's line of reasoning is interesting in this regard. On the one hand, it typically falls short of explicitly and directly asserting that EGW and the others espoused polygenism in favor of suggestions that they "moved perilously close" to it and that they "drifted away from monogenism" although they "failed to comprehend what this bifurcation or divisibility meant." On the other hand, throwing all such caution and condescension aside, it straightforwardly charges them with doctrinal heresy. I doubt that one can have it both ways: Either they actually did embrace polygenerism and actually did plunge into heresy or they didn't. I do not see how it is possible to say that they came close to doing the first but really did do the second.