This passage addresses a critical moment in early Adventist health reform history when extreme positions threatened to undermine the movement's credibility and effectiveness. Ellen White wrote that "The Reformer was about dead. Brother B had urged the extreme positions of Dr. Trall. This had influenced the doctor to come out in the Reformer stronger than he otherwise would have done, in discarding milk, sugar, and salt" (
3T 19.2). **The Context of Extremism** The Health Reformer was a publication promoting health principles, but it was failing due to extreme positions being advocated. Brother B (identified as Brother Gage in some versions of this testimony - see
PH159 42.1) had pushed Dr. Trall toward more radical stances than the doctor might have otherwise taken. This created a problematic dynamic where the publication was advocating positions that were ahead of what people were ready to accept. Ellen White acknowledged that completely discontinuing milk, sugar, and salt "may be right in its order; but the time had not come to take a general stand upon these points" (
3T 19.2). This reveals an important principle in her counsel: progressive reform rather than immediate extremism. The issue wasn't whether these dietary changes might eventually be appropriate, but whether demanding them immediately was wise or helpful. **The Problem of Hypocrisy** What made this situation particularly damaging was the inconsistency of those advocating these extreme positions. Ellen White pointed out that "Brother B, even while taking his stand in the Reformer with Dr. Trall in regard to the injurious effects of salt, milk, and sugar, did not practice the things he taught. Upon his own table these things were used daily" (
3T 19.2). This hypocrisy undermined the credibility of health reform and gave critics legitimate grounds for dismissing the movement. She emphasized that "those who do take their position, and advocate the entire disuse of milk, butter, and sugar, should have their own tables free from these things" (
3T 19.2).
The principle is clear: don't demand of others what you're not willing to practice yourself. **The Broader Impact** The consequences of this extremism extended beyond just the publication. Ellen White explained that these men "were extremists and would run the health reform into the ground. They were not pursuing a course which would tend to correct or reform those who were intemperate in their diet; but their influence would disgust believers and unbelievers, and would drive them further from reform, instead of bringing them nearer to it" (
2T 377). She also noted the practical difficulties this created: "We saw that the writers in the Reformer were going away from the people and leaving them behind. If we take positions that conscientious Christians, who are indeed reformers, cannot adopt, how can we expect to benefit that class whom we can reach only from a health standpoint?" (
3T 20.2). The extreme positions were actually counterproductive, pushing people away from health reform rather than drawing them toward it. This passage teaches important lessons about the dangers of extremism, the importance of personal consistency, and the need for progressive rather than radical reform that meets people where they are. --- 💡 **You might also want to explore:**
• What other counsel did Ellen White give about avoiding extremes in health reform?
• How did Ellen White balance progressive reform with meeting people where they are?
• What did she say about the proper use of milk, sugar, and salt in the diet?
Ellen Chat