The Rural Health Retreat letter

[aiminghigher]

Readers of this forum would do well to read the whole letter to “Dear Friends at the [Rural] Health Retreat.” You can find it as Letter 3, 1884.

It is true that statements from this letter have been quoted, more or less out of their full context. But I think the language of the statements is obvious enough that they weren’t so wide of the mark, despite that fact.

The letter speaks to the people leading out at the health retreat, but it does so, not as physicians, nurses, helpers or administrators, but as health reformers, and as Seventh-day Adventists.

“We are health reformers, seeking to come back, as far as possible, to the Lord’s original plan of temperance. Temperance does not consist merely in abstaining from intoxicating liquors and tobacco; it extends further than this. It must regulate what we eat.”

The observation about diet is directed at those who know better:

“You are all acquainted with the light upon the subject of health reform. But when I visit the Retreat, I see that there is a very marked departure from health reform on the matter of meat eating, and I am convinced that there must be a change, and at once. Your diet is largely composed of meat. God is not leading in this direction.”

The statement “it will eventually come to this” is talking about what God will do for His people:

“A positive injury is done to the system by continuous meat-eating. There is no excuse for it but a depraved, perverted appetite. You may ask, ‘Would you do away entirely with meat-eating?’ I answer, ‘It will eventually come to this, but we are not prepared for just now.’ Meat-eating will eventually be done away. The flesh of animals will not longer compose a part of our diet, and we shall look upon a butcher’s shop with disgust. Again and again I have been shown that God is bringing His people back to His original design, that is, not to subsist upon the flesh of dead animals. He would have us teach people a better way.”

The following paragraph reinforces the same:

“We are built up from that which we eat. Shall we strengthen the animal passions by eating animal food? In the place of educating the taste to love this gross diet, it is high time that we were educating ourselves to subsist upon fruits, grains, and vegetables. This is the work of all who are connected with our institutions. Use less and less meat, until it is not used at all. If meat is discarded, if the taste is not educated in that direction, [and] if a liking for fruits and grains is encouraged, it will soon be as God in the beginning designed it should be. No meat will be used by His people.”

Again it appeals to God’s people in spiritual terms, and addresses their influence on others:

“We have been going back to Egypt rather than on to Canaan. Shall we not reverse the order of things? Shall we not have plain wholesome food on our tables? Those who elevate the standard as nearly as they can to the order of God, according to the light God has given them through His Word and the testimonies of His Spirit, will not change their course of action to meet the wishes of the friends or relatives, be they one or two or a host, who are living contrary to God’s wise arrangement. If we move from principle in these things, if we observe strict rules of diet, if as Christians, we educate our tastes after God’s plan, we shall exert an influence which will meet the mind of God. The question is, Are we willing to be true health reformers?”

As those with the light within their reach, the people connected with the Health Institute should set a good example:

“The sin of this age is gluttony in eating and drinking. Indulgence of appetite is the god which many worship. Those who are connected with the Health Institute should set a right example in these things. They should move conscientiously in the fear of God and not be controlled by a perverted taste. They should be thoroughly enlightened in regard to the principles of health reform, and under all circumstances stand under its banner.”

One of the doctors needed to learn more about health reform for themselves, which shows this letter was not just about what they were providing for the patients:

“I hope, Dr. Burk, that you will learn more and more how to cook healthfully. Provide an abundance of good, wholesome food. Do not practice economy in this direction. Restrict your meat bills, but have plenty of good fruit and vegetables, and then you will enjoy seeing the hearty appetites with which all will partake of your preparations.”

Next comment will provide some more summary thoughts and analysis.

[aiminghigher]

Analysis

• This letter was written in 1884 to “Friends at the Rural Health Retreat”
  • A diligent student will see and recognise that this is the context in which the letter was written
  • I has been argued that it therefore is administrative or institutional advice which is not meant to apply to the church more generally
  • However, while it is written to people working in connection with an institution, the nature of the advice given appeals to them individually and personally, and refers to their spiritual relationship to the church and its principles of temperance
    • It does mention the dietary policy at the institution, but the appeals to principle are directed at the people who work there and their own personal standards, choices and commitment to health reform
    • It addresses the subject in a framework of how it applied to Seventh-day Adventists as a people
• The testimony sets out the real basis for addressing this question as a moral issue from the Scriptures
  • “We are health reformers, seeking to come back, as far as possible, to the Lord’s original plan of temperance. Temperance does not consist merely in abstaining from intoxicating liquors and tobacco; it extends further than this. It must regulate what we eat.”
• The testimony repeatedly refers to them individually, as Seventh-day Adventists, and to what that means in terms of their personal choices
  • “We are health reformers”
  • “Temperance… must regulate what we eat”
  • “You are all acquainted with the light upon… health reform”
  • “Your diet is largely composed of meat”
  • “if we have no standard… ourselves”
  • “If as Christians, we educate our tastes after God’s plan, we shall exert an influence which will meet the mind of Christ.”
  • “Are we willing to be true health reformers?”
• Those who work at the institute are using their patrons as an excuse
  • “the excuse… has been that the pleasure-seekers who come are not pleased with any other diet.”
  • The reality was that this was only an excuse for the choices made by those who knew better
• It also appeals to them in terms of where God is leading His people
  • “God is not leading in this direction”
• The heart of the statement, which we apply to this subject, is the future-looking paragraphs
  • “Meat-eating will eventually be done away. The flesh of animals will not longer compose a part of our diet, and we shall look upon a butcher’s shop with disgust. Again and again I have been shown that God is bringing His people back to His original design, that is, not to subsist upon the flesh of dead animals.”
  • “In the place of educating the taste to love this gross diet, it is high time that we were educating ourselves to subsist upon fruits, grains, and vegetables. This is the work of all who are connected with our institutions. Use less and less meat, until it is not used at all. If meat is discarded, if the taste is not educated in that direction, [and] if a liking for fruits and grains is encouraged, it will soon be as God in the beginning designed it should be. No meat will be used by His people.”
    • This is a call to individuals
    • And it applies to them, not as health retreat workers but as believers in the health reform and in the principle of Christian Temperance
    • The phrase “use less and less meat” was not a reference to the menu at the health retreat but to the personal choices of the individuals connected with it

Conclusion

• This testimony, while containing specific references to work at the health reform institution, contains principles which have such broad reach that their wider application is appropriate to the extent that the language indicates.
• What is the application that we make of it?
  • It gives prophetic guidance to indicate that God is leading His people back to a point where they will not use meat for food.
  • In 1884 this was clearly spelled out

[Gerson]

Thanks for taking the time to consider my article thoughtfully, and for your comments. I can agree fully with your observation that

“the letter speaks to the people leading out at the health retreat, but it does so, not as physicians, nurses, helpers or administrators, but as health reformers, and as Seventh-day Adventists.”

However, several of your comments address a question that isn’t actually in dispute. You wrote: “It has been argued that it therefore is administrative or institutional advice which is not meant to apply to the church more generally.” But I don’t argue against applying health reform principles more broadly to the church. My concern is how they are applied.

Do foundational elements of her counsel in this letter apply more broadly to Seventh-day Adventists as individuals and as a body, and not merely to health institution staff? Granted. But does broader applicability alone convert this counsel into a test of fellowship? As far as I can tell, such a conclusion would run contrary to the principles given by the Spirit of Prophecy itself.

The point I actually make in Part 2 is this:

“When we examine the complete letter (4LtMs, Lt 3, 1884), we discover it addresses institutional dietary policy at a church-owned health facility, not church baptismal requirements.”

That statement is factually accurate. The letter does not propose, or anywhere suggest, that meat eating should be made a test of fellowship. I make this argument again further along in that same section:

“The counsel was directed to institutional workers - those ‘connected with our institutions’ - not to church members as a test of fellowship.”

The concern is not with individual members or the church body practicing health reform more devotedly. The concern is specifically with making vegetarianism a test of fellowship.

Let me be clear about what this series of articles has never contested:

1. That Ellen White taught vegetarianism as God’s ideal for His people - she clearly did.
2. That the counsel regarding health reform applies to individuals personally, not merely to institutional administrators - it clearly does.
3. That God is leading His people toward a plant-based diet - this is plainly stated.
4. That health reform is a matter of spiritual significance, not merely physical wellbeing - absolutely.

The question we’re examining is not whether the counsel in the Testimonies and in these letters called for God’s people - individually and corporately - to practice health reform. The question is whether vegetarianism should be made a test of fellowship - that is, a requirement for baptism and church membership. These are categorically different questions. A practice such as this can be God’s ideal, vigorously promoted, spiritually significant, and personally applicable to every believer - and still not be a administered by the church as a test of fellowship. I know it is difficult for us in SDARM to conceptualise that, but its not impossible.

Ellen White addressed the flesh test question directly - and she did so in the context of the very principle of Biblical temperance you cite. In her 1881 testimony “Proper Use of the Testimonies on Health Reform,” she wrote:

“Temperance is exalted to a high level in the Word of God. Obeying His Word, we can rise higher and still higher.” Ms 5, 1881, par. 5

Yet in the same letter, she identified a troubling pattern among some who were misusing the testimonies on this very subject:

“Statements are made that some are taking the light in the testimonies upon health reform and making it a test. They select statements made in regard to some articles of diet that are presented as objectionable, statements written in warning and instruction to certain individuals who were entering or had entered on an evil path.” Ms 5, 1881, par. 8

What articles of diet is she referring to? We don’t need to guess – she mentions some of these articles explicitly a bit further down in the same letter:

“The question whether we shall eat butter, meat, or cheese is not to be presented to anyone as a test… The Word of God has given tests to His people. The keeping of God’s holy law, the Sabbath, is a test, a sign between God and His people.” Ms 5, 1881, par. 15

Notice what she does here (and this is the point my article highlights): she distinguishes between divine tests rooted in Scripture and dietary counsel that should be taught and modelled but not driven as tests. She even draws a further distinction between substances like tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol - which she calls “sinful indulgences” to be “discarded” - and items like meat, eggs, butter, and cheese, which “are not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work” (par. 16).

This wasn’t an isolated statement. In 1909, addressing the General Conference, she declared:

“We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship.” (4LtMs, Ms 37, 1909).

And in 1911 she reaffirmed:

“I am not prepared to advise that we make the matter of meat eating a test question with our people.” (25LtMs, Ms 23, 1911)

Ellen White could simultaneously believe that God was leading His people toward vegetarianism, promote the biblical principle of temperance, and counsel that vegetarianism should not be made a test of fellowship. That is precisely the position she articulated throughout her ministry.

Your conclusion states:

“It gives prophetic guidance to indicate that God is leading His people back to a point where they will not use meat for food.”

Agreed. But notice what doesn’t follow: that the church should therefore require vegetarianism for baptism. The statement describes where God is leading His people - a destination toward which they are being guided. It doesn’t authorise the church to require everyone to have arrived at that destination before entering the fold.

This is the distinction between God’s ideal (which we teach, model, and encourage) and a fellowship test (which we require before baptism). Ellen White maintained this distinction throughout her ministry. The question is whether we will maintain it as well.

[aiminghigher]

One of the wonderful consequences of thoughtfully discussing things is that we focus our conversation and in the exchange of thoughts we understand one another better.

“Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” Proverbs 27:17.

Perhaps I was assuming too much about the argument surrounding the Health Retreat letter, in the AppealtoSDARM article. I heard it said verbally the other day, “Oh, wasn’t that a letter to the health retreat, so we can’t use those counsels in relation to the church?” Whereas, although it was written to the health retreat staff, its counsels are both in their wording and in their overall context still appropriate to apply in terms of how God is seeking to direct His people.

Likewise, perhaps it should just be clarified whether the Health Retreat statements are being used to directly support a test of fellowship? As in, are they being used in a context that’s saying they call for a test of fellowship?

I’ll try to state my understanding in a simple way, and that is this

• At no time did the Spirit of Prophecy call for a test of fellowship to be implemented on meat eating. On analysis of all the evidence, that is clear.
• There are some forward-looking statements that are seen to leave a potential door open for this.

So perhaps it’s that second point we are really talking about. Of course the immediate application of any statement we read is that meat eating is not made a test of fellowship. But the question is, does that hold true forever after?

I think that’s a subject for another thread.