This work is accessible only to Andrews University faculty, staff, and students. Off-Campus Andrews University users should click the "Off-Campus Download" button below, then enter your Andrews University username and password when prompted.

Manuscript Type


Abstract (For book reviews see instructions below)

This article offers a comparative analysis of Ellen G. White’s and Arthur G. Daniells’s positions concerning race relations. Through a careful survey of White’s writings—especially Testimonies to the Church, vol. 9, pp. 199–226 and The Southern Work—I argue that she never supported separationism. I hypothesize that Adventist separationism gained precedence through Daniells’s selective compilation of White’s counsels in his 1906 response to the People’s Church. My findings unpack White’s beliefs in spiritual leadership and ministry. She called for workers able to simultaneously accommodate culture and undermine prejudice internally through the gospel. Her vision necessitated the adjustment of methods on a local level, and thus she opposed official race-based policies. Daniells’s eagerness to settle racial tensions led to a push for racial separation. He would interpret White’s “no policy” stance as justification for instituting a separationist policy in DC and ultimately wherever racial tensions existed. Effectively, Daniells created a hermeneutical method for aligning administrative initiatives with the writings of White and was critical in solidifying segregation within the Seventh- day Adventist Church.