Religious and Secular Influences on the Development of the Philosophy of Adventist Higher Education

The historical context of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s philosophy of higher education is closely tied to ideological shifts during the 19th century. However, current discussions on this topic generally fail to address the significant influence public higher education played in establishing a uniquely Adventist model. As a result, an incomplete definition of Adventist education as education that takes place within the halls of Adventist institutions has been purported. By re-examining the context surrounding the creation of Adventist higher education, we will better understand its philosophy and the important reasons for its existence.

The Initial Context of American Higher Education

Historically, universities, primarily served the interests of the state church or dominant religion, preparing students for ecclesiastical service and education rather than for careers in science and industry.¹ While still in its infancy, the United States sought to establish its own philosophy of education. However, besides establishing a new approach to higher learning, the young country laid the foundation for a pluralistic edifice that would ignite a struggle between conservative and modernist theologians, scholars, and university presidents.² This conflict set the stage for the leaders within the newly formed Seventh-day Adventist Church, under prophetic guidance from Ellen G. White, to respond to the challenges and opportunities arising from America’s pursuit of higher education.

The Initial Context of American Higher Education

The history of higher education in the United States includes various stages and reforms. Among these is the gradual transition toward establishing and developing the modern university. As part of this significant change, the creators of the modern university wrestled with the role of religion in higher education.³ One example of initiators of this change is the Göttingen graduate quartet: Edward Everett, George Ticknor, Joseph Cogswell, and George Bancroft. In 1817, Edward Everett, a Unitarian minister and Harvard graduate, became the first American to earn a doctorate from the University of Göttingen in Germany.⁴ He studied alongside his companion George Ticknor, a Dartmouth graduate.⁵

Overlapping the experiences of Everett and Ticknor at Göttingen was Joseph Cogswell from Massachusetts, who had a particular interest in German instructional methods.⁶ George Bancroft was the group's final member, notably studying German hermeneutics, constitutional theory, and history.⁷ These individuals later took on significant leadership roles at Harvard, introducing German-inspired pedagogies, philosophies, and theologies to the American academic scene beyond Boston. At Harvard, they established educational trends derived from their German graduate education, creating a standard and curricular framework in the United States that other educational leaders would follow.⁸ Thus, the American education system bears evidence of a German imprint from kindergarten to doctoral programs.⁹

Historically, Johns Hopkins (founded in 1876) was the first successful American research university that drew inspiration from the scientific and secular spirit of the German model. However, others, including Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, and the University of Michigan, had already taken a similar path.¹⁰ In fact, when the trustees of the newly formed Johns Hopkins sought to learn as much as possible about higher education, they consulted Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, Andrew D. White of Cornell, and James B. Angell of the University of Michigan to shape what Johns Hopkins would become.¹¹

For American scholars in higher education, establishing a modern research-based institution required addressing the role of faith and science during a time when Americans were undergoing their own search for religious identity. The Second Great Awakening laid the groundwork for social, spiritual, political, theological, and educational reform.¹² The conversion of tens of thousands had already spiked from about one-tenth of all U.S. adults in 1800 to one-third in 1850.¹³ As Protestants in America sought to define the country’s spiritual personality, four distinct movements emerged: the Evangelicals, the Formalists, the Anti-formalists, and the African American Protestants.¹⁴ Some of the movements valued a culture that exalted religious leaders with little literary education, mirroring the broader societal interplay between modernism and conservatism also reflected in higher education.¹⁵

Up to this point, university presidents had employed two approaches in reconciling the tension between religious fidelity and advancement in scientific research. Cornell University President Andrew Dickson White believed that mixing science and religion inevitably led to the worst evils for both.¹⁶ Consequently, his university, along with Harvard, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins, opted to keep the two separate. This was not the case with the University of Michigan—the only public university among the leaders in establishing the modern university model. Although a state institution, the University of Michigan operated as a Christian college in its early stages, shielding it from the secularization process.¹⁷ Michigan found itself caught between two realities: catering to a religious clientele, while establishing itself as a leader in creating a new model of higher education.

The University of Chicago, with substantial support from John D. Rockefeller, contributed to the creation of a standardized higher education model.¹⁸ When it joined the scene in 1890 under the leadership of William Rainey Harper, it proposed a third model. Whereas Cornell sought to separate religion and science to avoid injustice to either, and Michigan tolerated the tension between faith and science in hopes of ultimate alignment, the University of Chicago envisioned secular education embracing religion by making it credible through a higher critical hermeneutic that explained supernatural narratives in the Bible through scientific methods or disregarded them altogether. For Harper, Christianity was weak and needed science to strengthen it through establishing a research university.¹⁹ Science was to be the savior of the church, and higher criticism was the means of salvation.²⁰

A Theological Context

American-born religions during the early Millerite movement and the subsequent birth of Adventism can be divided into several varieties: restoration, humanistic, apocalyptic, Church of Latter-day Saints, spiritual, and ecstatic.²¹ Adventists were considered to be apocalyptic. While they adopted some beliefs from other Protestant denominations, such as the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, and the Great Commission, they (along with a few Christian groups) took a dissenting stance against imperialism, the union of church and state, and slavery.²² Thus, although they were part of Christian Protestantism, they have been classified as a minority religious group in the United States.²³

Ellen White unconventionally blurred the line between marginal and mainstream Protestantism.²⁴ This characteristic is one of the major points of differentiation between her theological beliefs and those of others who merged their theology with educational vision and administration (like Harper, Angell, Eliot, et al.). Ellen White believed that Adventism was unique because the teachings of the church were not a series of isolated doctrines but one complete system of truth in the context of the sanctuary doctrine.²⁵ This inclusive perspective did not just include theological doctrines but health, lifestyle, culture, and education as well. It was pivotal to her because it meant that her world mattered like none before because “her world marked the end of the world.”²⁶ As a complete system of truth, Adventism did not just provide doctrinal clarity but also health, lifestyle, culture, and educational reform.

A Prophetic Context

Ellen White saw a connection between the actions of the church in the first and second centuries and the theological and educational climate of her time, stating, “As they lost their first love, they increased in a knowledge of scientific theories originated by the father of lies.”²⁷ She claimed that when the early Christian Church began to lose its first love, the authority of God’s Word was questioned, causing a gradual shift that changed the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first, over the span of the next four centuries. She claimed: “If the true Sabbath had been kept, there would never have been an infidel or an atheist.”²⁸

According to Ellen White, beginning with the prophetic church of Ephesus and reaching an apex in 1844, questions arose regarding the validity of Scripture, its relationship to science, and hermeneutics that created theological fertile ground for the ideas of Charles Darwin to spread in academic and ecclesiastical settings. When Darwin wrote his Sketch in 1842 followed by his 1844 Essay, he still argued that his discoveries exalted the notion of an omniscient creator, categorizing him as an evolutionary deist.²⁹ Even in the Origin of Species, some found (at least) partial religious justification in Darwin’s support of a universal law.³⁰ In his time, Darwin’s theories emerged, and by the late 19th century, had infiltrated theology as much as they did science and the academy.

Ellen White saw a theological thread connecting the faults of the church in the first century with Darwin’s theory of evolution, expressed in his 1842 and 1844 essays and published and more widely distributed after 1859. This carried prophetic significance for her and the church because 1844 established both the theological and historical context for the uniqueness of what would become Seventh-day Adventism and its role in education.³¹ Theologically, true education was a means to disrupt trends that led toward higher criticism, evolution, and the notion that learning is possible outside communion with God. Prophetically, 1844 was the point in time where God’s endtime message entrusted to the early Millerites (and later, Seventh-day Adventists) served as a predetermined answer to Darwinism, and a system of true education was to serve as a counterculture to the emerging educational philosophies of higher education developing in leading research institutions in America and beyond.

Adventist Education: A Polemic Model

Ellen White’s guidance gradually led the church toward a commitment to a system of Adventist education, and her involvement in its development was a major determinant in defining its vision for quality and theory.³² In fact, she was the church’s primary expositor on educational theory.³³ For her, there were theological and evangelistic implications underlying the purpose, method, and intent of education.³⁴ For this reason, she believed the church needed a unique educational model that was specifically Adventist in nature.³⁵

In some ways, her philosophy of education was a direct polemic against the culture at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan in the immediate context, and the wider philosophy of education across America in a broader context.³⁶ For her, “much of the education given” was “a perversion of the name” and required an Adventist perspective to provide a “counterinfluence.”³⁷ She believed that professors in those institutions had “prostituted their powers; they have given them as a contribution to the devil.”³⁸ She said, “this is the kind of education the enemy delights in. It is sorcery.”³⁹

Since Aristotle, the educational development of society had struggled with the question: Should the purpose of education be a useful life, virtue, or higher knowledge?⁴⁰ Ellen White addressed this philosophical problem by presenting a model of the harmonious development of all three.⁴¹ Her understanding of the uniqueness of Adventist theology spilled into her philosophy of education, merging the two.⁴² Because for Ellen White, education and redemption were one and the same, Adventists did not just have a philosophy, but a conceptual construct for a theology of education.⁴³

Ellen White believed in a rationale for establishing Adventist higher education that was at least twofold: to ensure the Bible was prominent among the subjects commonly taught and to counteract the influence of modern universities that she felt were leading youth down false paths.⁴⁴ When Battle Creek College was founded, James Burrill Angell had just taken over the presidency of the University of Michigan. At the onset of his presidency, hostility by the community dating back to the first president’s tenure was reaching an unfortunate climax, with some clashes resulting from the rough conduct of students during fraternity rushes.⁴⁵

Thus, one of the main reasons for starting Battle Creek College was so that young people could learn in an environment where the development of moral character was intentional, preparing them to work for the church and its mission.⁴⁶ Church leaders believed that most public universities allowed for practices that were injurious to spiritual development and wanted a place where a thorough education could be obtained without the “artificial” and “showy” components of the modern university.⁴⁷

By the time W. W. Prescott became its fourth president in 1885, Battle Creek College was in a vulnerable stage—trying to walk the fine line between being faithful to its mandate and offering a balanced curriculum that included standard subjects, the classics, and ancient languages. Whether or not Battle Creek College ever had a clear vision for what it should be in relation to the educational systems of its time is unclear. Major and frequent shifts in its college bulletin of courses indicate internal struggles.⁴⁸

The college offered a variety of courses—one branch offering classical courses including Latin, Greek, rhetoric, natural philosophy, and others like those offered at places like Michigan, Chicago, and Harvard. Another branch focused on normal courses like elementary education and teaching, while a third branch focused specifically on teaching the Bible.⁴⁹ By offering a variety of tracks, Battle Creek College presidents and school administrators were trying to cover all bases—preparing pastors to enter the field immediately by offering a short Bible training course, offering practical training through elementary education and other special degrees, including practical and manual labor, and offering a robust academic course that was designed to compete with the colleges and universities that were being established around the same time.

Adventist Education and the Schools of the Land

From 1891 to 1895, Ellen White more actively expressed her opinions on public higher education, specifically referencing the popular University of Michigan, which Adventist medical students like John Harvey Kellogg and others had attended for training.⁵⁰ She did not encourage staying away from public colleges as a means of separation from the world. In fact, she encouraged students to engage with the public college campus “for the purpose of drawing others to Christ” but warned them against being impressed by their customs and practices.⁵¹

However, she also expressed serious concerns. She feared that the attractions of the colleges and universities of her time were the subtle intermixing of erroneous sophistry with what was useful (and even precious). She was also worried that the charisma and sharp minds of “infidel authors” would influence the students away from biblical fidelity. The subject of her harshest criticisms was that teachers had “prostituted” their powers of God-given knowledge, offering them as a contribution to the devil.⁵²

Her concerns did not form in a vacuum. The University of Michigan’s Students’ Christian Association (SCA) regularly collaborated with professors to promote the study of the English Bible, with various faculty delivering lectures on a regular basis, and clergy offering courses in philosophy, religion, and other subjects.⁵³ Her concern was that the discourses that were given by some of the university’s renowned professors were teaching popular religious doctrines using methods that “questioned the truth of the inspired word” or employed higher criticism.⁵⁴

Others shared her concerns, including prominent faculty at the University of Michigan. Andrew Ten Brook, a professor of moral and intellectual philosophy at the University of Michigan and an ordained Baptist minister, sometimes spoke for the Christian student organization on campus.⁵⁵ A theological conservative, he was nervous about the influence of the Eastern colleges on Michigan’s campus.⁵⁶ Henry S. Frieze, a Michigan professor who later held the position of university president, also spoke to the Christian students on campus in an effort to elevate morality.⁵⁷ But despite the attempts of these two significant leaders (and others) to keep Michigan as a Christian university, their religious experience and influence over the students was not enough to hold secularization at bay. In 1895, doctrinal conflict among Christian students in the SCA caused some members to withdraw from the club to form a new organization. The “vigorous growth” that it experienced is a probable indicator that dissenters were not small in number.⁵⁸

At this time, William R. Harper, who had worked at Yale and was now appointed as president of the University of Chicago, became the principal of the American Institute of Sacred Literature—an organization aimed at introducing higher criticism to public university students.⁵⁹ That same year, in February, he conducted a three-day Bible institute in cooperation with the Students’ Christian Association at the University of Michigan.⁶⁰

These kinds of activities, although not considered socially immoral by some educators and theologians, were considered the grossest kind of infidelity by Ellen White because the prominent professors sought to charm the students into accepting what she considered to be prostituted biblical instruction. The result was troubling: People were becoming sectarian rather than Christian because religion was becoming a school of metaphysical and useless distinction instead of the reflection of Christ.⁶¹

Although her criticisms were strong, Ellen White was not necessarily against Adventists studying at the University of Michigan (or other schools of the land). In fact, she hoped that church leaders would counsel some students to enter colleges and universities of her time to take advantage of a wider field of study and observation, which Adventist colleges could not afford to offer.⁶² Dedicated to that vision, the church established a Battle Creek Sanitarium Home located on the corner of Jefferson and Thompson streets to house more than 25 students studying at the university.⁶³ This very prominent location was only a short block away from the university’s union building—even closer to the center of student life than the leading fraternities. Her vision was for some Adventists to study on public campuses and filter their training through the philosophical sieve of Adventism to benefit its educational system. Her vision also included sending students to public colleges to share the message of Adventism on those campuses.⁶⁴

Conclusion

Through a brief overview of the historical development of Ellen White’s philosophy of education, several important items surface:

1. Adventist higher education was established as a polemic to the emerging German education model that prominent American universities were beginning to adopt.
2. Although education and church administrators did their best to comprehend and follow her counsels on higher education, evidence shows that her philosophy of education remained misunderstood by church and education administrators.
3. Ellen White did not classify true education based on formal learning inside of church-owned institutions; instead, she understood it to be a philosophical system meant to be internalized by students in heart and mind. In other words, whether or not a student attended Battle Creek College, or the University of Michigan did not concern her as much as the choice of a college concerns us today. Instead, she worried we would miss the importance of understanding educational philosophy and its theological implications.⁶⁵

The initial context of higher education in America was deeply rooted in religious and moral education, prioritizing service to the state church or dominant religion. Institutions were established to train clergy and prepare individuals for church employment rather than careers in industry, science, or the liberal arts. Over time, education became more about preparing for personal achievement, advocating for a better society, and advancing moral reform.

For the early Millerites and subsequent Seventh-day Adventists, education would become a means of equipping individuals “for the joy of service in this world and for the higher joy of wider service in the world to come.”⁶⁶ Adventist education embraced this vision through a polemic model, integrating faith, wholistic development, and practical skills to inspire service to humanity and God, fostering a life dedicated to meeting the needs of others now and in the world to come.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Israel Ramos

Israel Ramos, MAPM, is the Executive Director of the Center for Adventist Ministry to Public University Students (CAMPUS) at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.). Pastor Ramos is an experienced public campus ministry leader having served as a missionary, pastor, counselor, and chaplain on public college and university campuses. He has a bachelor’s degree in secondary education and teaching from Hartland College (Rapidan, Virginia, U.S.A.) and a Master’s degree in pastoral ministry from Andrews University (Berrien Springs, Michigan). He is pursuing a doctorate in missiology and education from the Talbot School of Theology (La Mirada, California, U.S.A.).