Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
David
Koresh
(Prophetic authority)
Distorted similarities
189
ANOTHER WACO?
Right about now you're probably feeling some an-
ger, and I am too. What a terrible deception to have
David Koresh posturing as Ellen White's successor!
How distorted a comparison could there be?
Ellen White was humble; David Koresh was vain.
Sister White was self-denying; Koresh was self-indul-
gent. She was honest in her intentions; he was a de-
ceiver to the core. The contrast between two human
characters could hardly be more distinct, yet the de-
ception was there just the same. You see, Ellen
White spoke in the name of God, and so did David
Koresh, Many Adventists give Ellen White authority
to interpret the Bible; Koresh claimed the same. El-
len White communicated strict demands upon the
conscience, and so did David Koresh. The difference
was that Ellen White's call to holiness was sincere,
whereas for Koresh it became a tool of manipulation.
Only time revealed the danger of his deceptions.
The problem was not the high standards of a
prophet's message. Personally, I appreciate the chal-
lenge of Ellen White's straight testimony, don't you?
We need to hear that sin—all sin—must be repented
of and forsaken. How good to know God has power
to help us overcome any sin He convicts us of. Don't
you want the Lord to confront you with His high and
holy calling in Christ Jesus? That's one of the reasons
I read Ellen White. Her no nonsense, plain-spoken re-
bukes leave the reader humbled and subdued.
That's good for us and good for the church.
Problems arise, however, when we forget her
counsel that "the feeling of guiltiness must be laid at
the foot of the cross, or it will poison the springs of
life."1 Unfortunately, many Adventists overlook or
minimize her many comforting statements and
1
Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers, p. 518.
190
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
stumble over many other things she said that could
be misunderstood or misapplied. It was precisely
those quotations that Koresh exploited. He misused
Ellen White to put people on a first-class guilt trip.
He caused them to question their salvation and also
the integrity of their church so that they were willing
to listen to his reform message. Then he convinced
them he had the prophetic gift of present truth.
Fatal brainwashing
Let's review the deceptive strategy of David Kore-
sh. Targeting Adventists, he won their assent that
the Bible was important but not good enough; it
needed interpretation from a modern prophet. Kore-
sh then assaulted his hearers with guilt and insecur-
ity, and with his overwhelming spiritual knowledge
he positioned himself as God's special messenger
proclaiming the straight testimony for today. Follow-
ing night-long brainwashing sessions, weary minds
surrendered to his purported prophetic authority.
The next logical step was to abandon career ambi-
tions, say good-bye to friends and family, and join
the fatal follies at Ranch Apocalypse.
After Koresh's new converts packed up and moved
to Waco, just two more things had to happen before
they were ready to die for him. He tapped into their
already existing paranoia about prophecy with
nightly study sessions. They spurned the loving Rev-
elation of Jesus Christ with its faith-inspiring instruc-
tion for the last days; for them, the last book of the
Bible became a zoo full of beasts and an arsenal of
warlike symbols pointing to a fiery Armageddon.
Then came the final step to hell—tolerating Kore-
sh's sinful lifestyle. How did those who shunned sin
in their own lives tolerate it in their leader? The
191
ANOTHER WACO?
great deceiver convinced them that the Lamb of
God had to fully identify with fallen humanity to the
point that He completely participated in the sinful-
ness of those being saved. By living a pure life, Kore-
sh asserted, Jesus failed to fulfill that aspect of Mes-
siah's role 2,000 years ago. So God called him, Dav-
id Koresh, to pick up where Christ left off and experi-
ence sin in its fullness. Fulfilling that unholy calling
qualified him as the final Lamb of God.
Bad theology. Twisted logic. But it worked its
deadly charm in the lives of earnest Adventists.
The torched corpses sprawled among the ruins of
Ranch Apocalypse were not the remains of stupid
people or those looking for an easy way out of obey-
ing God. Cult members were so spiritually commit-
ted that they sacrificed their personal freedom and
dignity, their children and even their spouses to help
the "Lamb" identify himself with sinful humanity.
They rose before dawn to dig trenches while he
slept past noon. They munched on popcorn and
apples while he gorged himself on steak and beer.
They slept on single beds in celibate barracks while
he defiled virgins and their mothers in his private
penthouse. Such was life, until it went up in smoke.
Do you see how the pieces of the puzzle fit togeth-
er?: 1) Conscientious Adventists agreed that the
Bible wasn't enough for the final remnant—they
needed the straight testimony of a modern prophet;
2) Koresh exploited their spiritual insecurity with his
manipulations of guilt and fear, bombarding them
with Ellen White quotations and Bible texts until
they concluded that his knowledge of inspiration
qualified him as a channel of new inspiration; 3)
Presenting prophecy as a horror show of beasts cul-
minating in a fiery finish, Koresh primed them to
192
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
fight and win the battle of Armageddon; 4) Koresh
convinced them that the Lamb of God had to fully
partake of sinful humanity.
The above four points are not mere theological
theory. They are documented history, the simple
facts of life and death with David Koresh. Remem-
ber, the Waco cultists were not lacking in intelli-
gence or spiritual fervor. These four points on which
they succumbed are actually perversions of genuine
spiritual truths: 1) God has placed the gift of proph-
ecy in His last day church; 2) Laodicean Adventists
indeed are doomed unless they gain new insight and
inspiration; 3) Revelation does speak of beasts and
other symbols culminating in Armageddon and a fi-
nal fire; 4) Christ did become a human being.
Unfortunately, the doomed cultists failed to realize
that 1) While there is a modern gift of prophecy, the
Bible remains the supreme authority and the stand-
ard by which all teaching is tested; 2) The remedy
for Laodicea is not guilt and fear-based religion but
faith, love and the Holy Spirit; 3) The bottom line of
prophecy is not the behavior of beasts but the com-
ing of Christ; 4) Jesus shared humanity with us but
He remained "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate
from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). He picked up where Adam
failed; Adam sinned in sinless flesh, and that's
where Christ overcame.
Prophetic growth
Did you know that Ellen White, though inspired,
initially held a number of convictions which later
changed as the Holy Spirit guided her understand-
ing? Consider this:
"In 1858, a somber, 30-year-old Ellen White wrote:
'John's life was without pleasure. It was sorrowful
and self-denying.'3 By age 50 (1877), she had
caught a glimpse of joy: 'John's life, with the excep-
tion of the joy he experienced in witnessing the suc-
cess of his mission, was without pleasure.'4 But for
Ellen White at 70, joy had conquered the camp of
the saints: 'John enjoyed his life of simplicity and re-
tirement.'5"6
One of two things had happened: either John the
Baptist became progressively happier between 1858
and 1897, or Ellen White grew in her capacity to ap-
preciate Christian joy. Since the Baptist was dead
during the nineteenth century, we are left with only
one option. If you disagree, perhaps you have an al-
ternative explanation.
Why should we resist the reality of Ellen White's
growing understanding of truth? She herself ex-
3
Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 29.
4
Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 69.
5
Ellen G. White, The Youth's Instructor, January 7, 1897.
6
Alden Thompson, "Alden Thompson Responds to Beast
Bashing," Columbia Union Visitor, November 15, 1993, p. 6.
197
ANOTHER WACO?
plained: "That which God gives His servants to
speak today would not perhaps have been present
truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message for
this time."7
One example of this is how, back in the 1850s,
she counseled a brother not to forbid the eating of
pork.8 Not until her health visions of the 1860s did
she take a stand on unclean meat. Evidently the
Lord was leading in His own good time.
Another area of growth in Ellen White's understand-
ing is her concept of God's character. Notice this
from her Appeal to Youth, published in 1864:
"God loves honest hearted, truthful children, but
cannot love those who are dishonest." "The Lord
loves those little children who try to do right, and He
has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But
wicked children God does not love." "When you feel
tempted to speak impatient [sic], remember the
Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do
wrong."9
Now, compare the above with the following, writ-
ten 28 years later (after 1888): "Do not teach your
children that God does not love them when they do
wrong; teach them that he loves them so that it
grieves his tender Spirit to see them in transgres-
sion."10
Thank God, Ellen White was always moving in the
right direction. Suppose that in 1864 she taught that
God loved bad children then later said He didn't love
7
Ellen G. White, "Talk to Ministers," The Ellen G. White 1888
Materials, p. 133.
8
See Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp.
206, 207.
9
Ellen G. White, An Appeal to the Youth, pp. 42, 62.
10
Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, February 15, 1892.
198
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
them—that would be a problem. But the growth in
her understanding of truth proves that she was led
by the Spirit of truth.
It has been an agonizing struggle for some Advent-
ists to acknowledge the reality of Ellen White's need
to grow. But why? If we see the need for growth in
the greatest of prophets can we not accept it in our
own? Just think. What if God had given the message
of 1888 to us in 1844? We couldn't have digested it.
It was hard enough to swallow 44 years later.
Since Ellen White indeed was a true prophet, should
we not expect to see a pattern of growth in her writ-
ings to correspond with the growing capacity for ma-
turity in our movement?
Ellen White also grew in her understanding of proph-
ecy. Back in the first edition of The Great Contro-
versy she wrote that Babylon "cannot refer to the
Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen
condition for many centuries."11 But in her 1911 revi-
sion she inserted a significant word: Babylon "can-
not refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church
has been in a fallen condition for many centuries."12
"The pastor did not rob the bank." "The pastor did
not rob the bank alone." Do you see the difference
in meaning coming from one little word?
Some cannot imagine that Ellen White might have
changed her mind regarding Babylon. Actually, the
very person she asked to supervise the revision of
The Great Controversy, W. W. Prescott, reported that
indeed there was a fundamental doctrinal shift in-
volved. At the 1919 Bible Conference, he testified to
fellow church leaders that "before 'Great Contro-
versy' was revised, I was unorthodox on a certain
11
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 1888 ed., p. 383.
12
Ibid., 1911 ed., emphasis supplied.
199
ANOTHER WACO?
point, but after it was revised, I was perfectly ortho-
dox. 'Great Controversy' said that Babylon could not
mean the romish church, and I had made it mean
that largely and primarily. . . . I will tell you frankly
that I held to that position on the question of
Babylon for years when I knew it was exactly con-
trary to 'Great Controversy,' but I went on, and in
due time I became orthodox. I did not enjoy that ex-
perience at all, and I hope you will not have to go
through it. . . . What settled me to take that position
was the Bible, not any secular authority."13*
Notice that Elder Prescott took his stand on the
basis of his Bible study, not through human reason-
ing or preferences. In doing so he was following El-
len White's own counsel that the Bible and the Bible
only should be the foundation of our faith and teach-
ing.
However you may feel about W. W. Prescott's testi-
mony, perhaps it may not matter whether that revi-
sion in The Great Controversy reflects a transition in
Ellen White's understanding of doctrine or whether
she was revealing a new dimension in what she
already understood. The simple fact is that her 1911
position is more easily defended from the Bible. That
should inspire our confidence.
19
Ellen G. White, quoted in LeRoy E. Froom, Movement of
Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971), p. 229.
Emphasis supplied.
20
See Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 164.
208
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
God, as the end of all controversy and the founda-
tion of all faith."21 She left no doubt that the Bible is
its own expositor. At times she became quite vigor-
ous and intense in getting people to look away from
her to the Bible. Have you ever read this amazing
quotation?:
"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one
side. Don't you never quote my words again as long
as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you
take the Bible and make that your food, and your
meat, and your drink, and make that the elements
of your character, when you can do that you will
know better how to receive some counsel from God.
But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted be-
fore you today. And don't you give a rap any more
what 'Sister White said'—'Sister White said this,' and
'Sister White said that,' and 'Sister White said the
other thing.' But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Is-
rael,' and then you do just what the Lord God of Is-
rael does, and what He says."22
Vintage, untamed inspiration. And this:
"But don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you
ever to quote Sister White until you get your vant-
age ground where you know where you are. Quote
the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fat-
ness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know
more Bible than you know now."23
Despite such earnest, sound counsel, many who
claim to believe her inspiration reject what she says
about the Bible. It's amazing how some members
claim to uphold everything she says but reject her
clear teaching that the Bible alone is our rule of
21
Ellen G. White, Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 39, 40.
22
Ellen G. White, Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 167.
23
Ibid., p. 174.
209
ANOTHER WACO?
faith and doctrine.
I remember an experience conducting a witness-
ing seminar in Chicago. I was explaining that Jesus
must be the center of every Bible study lest we err
like the Pharisees did. Christ accused them of
searching the Scriptures to find eternal life, yet re-
fusing to come to Him, the object of the Scriptures,
in order to receive that life. I noted that the King
James Version doesn't accurately represent the
meaning of John 5:39, because it says Jesus told the
Pharisees to "search the Scriptures"—when obvi-
ously they already were searching the scriptures
while rejecting Christ.
Immediately a man's hand went up. "Pastor, the
Spirit of Prophecy used that text in the way you say
is incorrect. Ellen White in the Testimonies quotes
John 5:39 while exhorting someone to read the
Bible, to 'search the Scriptures.' Do you think you
know more about that text than the servant of the
Lord does?"
Well, it was an awkward moment. Fortunately, I had
been reading the Desire of Ages, where Ellen White
also quotes John 5:39 the opposite way—making the
same point I was trying to get across. I identified the
chapter where our brother could look it up for him-
self.
I'm sure he finally accepted the true meaning of the
text when he realized Ellen White endorsed it. But
the Bible by itself wasn't good enough for him. He
rejected the principle of "sola scriptura"—the Bible
and the Bible only.
You may have heard about the discovery of a pre-
viously unpublished Ellen White manuscript regard-
ing the nature of Christ. Some Adventists are excited
that now, at last, they can know for sure the truth
210
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
about the Lord's humanity. But is it right for them to
put that nineteenth century document in authority
over Scripture? Or is it a gross misuse of the proph-
etic gift, the type of thing Mormons do with Joseph
Smith?
Some would protest that they are not giving Ellen
White authority over the Bible; they just let her "ex-
plain" it—but in effect they impose her interpreta-
tion upon Scripture. This is a terrible abuse of her
prophetic role. Ellen White herself acknowledged
that her gift operated under the authority of Scrip-
ture. When will we all accept that?
Circular reasoning
Some Adventists, despite their sincere desire to
uphold the Bible, end up making Ellen White their fi-
nal authority. How does this happen? Through circu-
lar reasoning:
"Why do I believe in Ellen White? Because
everything she says agrees with the Bible. So
everything in the Bible can be tested by her writ-
ings. I rely upon her interpretation of Scripture. This
means that in principle I accept 'the Bible and the
Bible only,' since everything she says agrees with
the Bible."
A Catholic friend of mine uses similar reasoning:
"Why do I believe whatever the pope says? Because
everything he says agrees with the Bible. So
everything in the Bible can be tested by the teach-
ings of the pope [including Sunday worship]. I rely
upon his interpretation of Scripture. This means that
in principle I accept 'the Bible and the Bible only,'
since everything the pope says agrees with the
Bible."
You see the problem. Anything that defines Scripture
threatens to replace it as the final authority. The fun-
damental issue of the Protestant Reformation was
that the Bible must be its own interpreter. It was not
that the pope was a bad interpreter of Scripture and
now we must find a better lord over the Word. Re-
member, the Bible itself is its own final word. It con-
tains the entire system of truth.
214
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
Once saved, always saved?
Some suggest that since Ellen White proved herself
to be God's messenger in the 1840s, ever afterward
—for the next seven decades—everything she
taught must without question be the word of God.
Having once been proven faithful to the Scriptures,
never again need the prophet be tested by the
Bible. Is this "once saved, always saved" for proph-
ets?
We find examples in Scripture where certain proph-
ets wandered away from God's will. Ellen White, of
course, remained faithful throughout her long min-
istry. Yet still as a matter of principle, should we not
test all her writings by the Word? At what point in
her life could we pronounce her beyond the need of
testing, having become in fact once saved, always
saved?
"Once saved always saved"—every good Adventist
ought to flee in horror at the very hint of such
heresy!
And consider this: If we fail to test Ellen White's
messages by the Bible and make her an infallible
law unto herself, what could prevent some new
prophet from intruding into the sacred circle of
Scriptural authority?
This question is more than a possibility. Back in the
1890s Anna Phillips Rice appeared, claiming the
same prophetic gift Ellen White had. She actually
won endorsement from some of our most influential
church leaders. A. T. Jones held up her testimonies
before a church assembly, proclaiming the new
"prophet" to be just as inspired and therefore au-
thoritative as Ellen White. Fortunately, Ellen White
herself in Australia caught wind of the crisis and put
an end to Anna's would-be ministry.
215
ANOTHER WACO?
What if another Anna Phillips Rice appeared today?
It's happening! In the Adventist Church today,
dozens of members claim to have inherited Ellen
White's prophetic authority. On the speaking circuit
I've become acquainted with several. At one Atlantic
Coast campmeeting someone reverently handed me
a thick file folder full of "prophetic counsels" she val-
ued on par with Ellen White's books and the Bible.
Can you imagine the chaos in the church if large
numbers of our members endowed a new prophet
with the same doctrinal authority that they now give
Ellen White? Actually, forcing everything we believe
to be re-interpreted through new extra-biblical revel-
ations? Isn't this the same thinking that empowered
David Koresh's delusions?
If we granted Ellen White the power to re-invent
Bible truth, then every succeeding prophet must
have the same authority. There would no longer re-
main any objective anchor for our faith. It is abso-
lutely essential to test and keep testing by God's
Word everyone who claims the prophetic gift.
Our only safeguard against another Waco is
restoring the Bible to its proper place. Testing times
are coming; of that we may be sure. David Koresh is
dead and gone, but more like him are waiting in the
wings.
We undo if we overdo
God can help us honor the gift of prophecy
without making it more than He intended it to be.
The tombstones of those who exaggerated the
prophetic gift line the hallway of Adventist history.
Defectors from our church usually make their first
mistake in putting Ellen White above the Bible.
When their impossible expectations of her ministry
216
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
are shattered by reality, they feel devastated. Bit-
terly they reproach our prophet and abandon our
church. We all know of former Adventists who had
this tragic experience.
How much pain we suffer through misconceptions
about inspiration! Not only that, our witness to fel-
low Christians is severely compromised if we pro-
mote unauthorized claims about Ellen White.
You know how it goes. Your Baptist friend down the
street finally agrees to attend church with you. Un-
fortunately, before she ever hears an Adventist ser-
mon, what happens in Sabbath School shakes her
confidence in our message. Too often, all she hears
is "Sister White says this, Sister White says that." So
she leans over to you and whispers, "All this talk
about Sister White! What about the Bible?"
You've lost her. She brands the Adventist Church a
cult and never comes back. To avoid such heart-
breaking situations, many pastors and evangelists
encourage Sabbath school superintendents and
teachers to be discreet about invoking the authority
of Ellen White. But is the real solution to hide what
we believe about the Spirit of prophecy? Or should
we get our thinking straight and put the Bible first
and foremost?
When we establish ourselves as truly people of the
Book, we can quote Ellen White without repelling in-
formed Christians. Many of them already know
about spiritual gifts and will be delighted to welcome
the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. But we must
meet them on the solid rock of the Bible only as our
rule of faith.
Which Adventist doctrine cannot stand on the Bible
alone? Despite such a solid biblical base, some Ad-
ventists perceive sola scriptura to be a threat to the
217
ANOTHER WACO?
authority of Ellen White. Often they refer to this
warning of inspiration: "The very last deception of
Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony
of the Spirit of God. . . . Satan will work ingeniously .
. . to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant
people in the true testimony."25
Is this ingenious deception happening right now? We
are witnessing two basic attacks against Ellen
White's authority. On one hand many despise her
writings in order to "do their own thing," speeding
along the highway to heaven in reckless abandon.
Will they be lost for rejecting Ellen White? Only be-
cause her straight testimony which they refuse is
based upon the Bible.
False freedom is a dangerous temptation indeed, but
perhaps Satan has reserved his most cunning de-
ception for those whose blind zeal causes them to
exalt Ellen White as lord of the Scriptures, where
God never intended her to be and where she never
wanted to be. Throughout our history some have bit-
terly forsaken the Bible, the Christian life and the
Adventist Church after reality deflated their over-
blown expectations regarding Ellen White.
Were the Millerites perfect in their theology? Not
even the prophet John the Baptist was flawless in his
teaching, so why must Ellen White be? We need di-
vine insight to acknowledge her humanity and see
God at work in her gift. Otherwise our appreciation
of inspiration will be so shallow that we must de-
ceive ourselves to retain "faith."
Where would the Adventist Church be without Ellen
White? Less enriched, for sure, but with our Bibles
still in hand would we have no hope? Some insist
that Adventism will collapse unless we build our
25
Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, February 24, 1874.
218
WHO'S GOT THE TRUTH?
faith upon her writings. But is Ellen White the rock
on which Christ built His church?
Perhaps Ellen White's friends have done much more
damage to her reputation than her enemies. Really,
she doesn't need us to defend her; all we need do is
read her books in their proper relation to the Bible. I
believe that any genuine believer will recognize in
her writings the voice of the Shepherd.
Well, those are my convictions on Ellen White.
Please do not accept them if you have better an-
swers than this chapter has offered for the following
questions: