Chapter 5—The Question of Fish and Shellfish

While Mrs. White gave up meat-eating in 1894, she did not at the same time give up the eating of fish, although the evidence seems fairly clear that she discontinued even the use of this article of diet before the end of the 1890s, as we shall show. But before we examine this seeming “inconsistency,” let us briefly inquire into Ellen White’s position relative to what today the church considers to be “unclean” shellfish.EWV 18.4

In 1882 Ellen White wrote a letter to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White (Willie’s first wife), who was living with her husband in Oakland, California. In this letter she included a “shopping list” of things to bring on their next visit to her home. Concerning certain items on this list, she said:EWV 19.1

“If you can get a good box of herrings—fresh ones—please do so. The last ones that Willie got are bitter and old.... If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them.” ^{1Letter 16, 1882 (May 31).}

If such a purchase order seems strange to us today, it must be remembered that the question of whether or not shellfish was permissible under the Levitical code was still a moot question among Adventists in the 1880s. Evidence that this was true is seen in an interesting exchange in the columns of the Review the very next year (1883).EWV 19.2

W. H. Littlejohn, pastor of the Battle Creek Tabernacle, pamphleteer, and soon to be elected president of Battle Creek College, ^{2“Littlejohn, Wolcott Hackley,” SDAE (rev. ed.), 794. 30} was conducting a question-and-answer column in the general church paper. In the August 14, 1883 issue he dealt with the question: “Are oysters included among the unclean animals of Leviticus 11, and do you think it is wrong to eat them?”EWV 19.3

Littlejohn’s response clearly illustrates the slow, tentative process by which Adventists worked their way through the question of permissible versus impermissible kinds of flesh food as they proceeded to their present rather decided position. ^{3“Littlejohn, Wolcott Hackley,” SDAE (rev. ed.), 794.} Littlejohn replied: “It is difficult to decide with certainty whether oysters would properly come under the prohibition of Leviticus 11:9-12.” He then went on to opine, “It would, however, seem from the language, as if they might [be unclean].” ^{4“Scripture Questions. Answered by W. H. Littlejohn,” The Review and Herald, August 14, 1883, 522.}EWV 19.4

As regards the Levitical distinction between “clean” and “unclean,” there is evidence that Ellen White drew a distinction between “clean” animal flesh food, which she calls “meat,” and “clean” fish. This is a common distinction made in many parts of the world, even today. So, when Ellen White took the no-meat pledge, she did not mean she had given up the eating of fish. The distinction she made respecting meat and fish is made abundantly clear in her correspondence.EWV 20.1

In 1876, for instance, Mrs. White wrote her husband who was traveling, “We have not had a particle of meat in the house since you left and long before you left. We have had salmon a few times. It has been rather high.” ^{5Letter 13, 1876 (Apr. 24).} (She is here referring to the price, of course.)EWV 20.2

When Ellen White signed the no-meat pledge at the Brighton camp meeting, she obviously did not include “clean” fish, for the next year, in a letter to A. O. Tait, she remarked that “we seldom have any fish upon our table,” and she went on to give in detail her reason for decreasing consumption of this article of food:EWV 20.3

In many localities even fish is unwholesome, and ought not be used. This is especially so where fish come in contact with sewerage of large cities.... These fish that partake of the filthy sewerage of the drains may pass into waters far distant from the sewerage, and be caught in localities where the water is pure and fresh; but because of the unwholesome drainage in which they have been feeding, they are not safe to eat. ^{6Letter 76, 1895 (June 6).}

In spite of this possible danger, there were circumstances in Australia, in the mid-1890s when Mrs. White recognized that it was proper, even necessary, to include fish in the daily menu. Thus in a letter to her son, W. C. White, in 1895, she wrote concerning the problems in feeding the workmen then building Avondale College. Said she:EWV 20.4

We cannot feed them all, but will you please get us dried codfish and dried fish of any description,—nothing canned? This will give a good relish to the food. ^{7Letter 149, 1895 (Aug. 6).}

In 1896, Mrs. White wrote to a non-Adventist niece, Mrs. Mary Watson (nee Clough), who at one time served her as a literary assistant, and said, referring to her Brighton “pledge”:EWV 21.1

Two years ago I came to the conclusion that there was danger in using the flesh of dead animals, and since then I have not used meat at all. It is never placed on my table. I use fish when I can get it. We get beautiful fish from the salt water lake near here. I use neither tea nor coffee. As I labor against these things, I cannot but practice that which I know to be best for my health, and my family are all in perfect harmony with me. You see, my dear niece, that I am telling you matters just as they are. ^{8Letter 128, 1896 (July 9).}

But by 1898 Ellen White had concluded that the flesh of fish as well as the flesh of animals was no longer safe to eat and hence should not be served at the new Adventist sanitarium in Sydney. Taking issue with three sanitarium physicians who were prescribing a meat diet for their patients, Mrs. White surveyed the history of the question in a letter to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg:EWV 21.2

Years ago the light was given me that the position [at that time] should not be taken positively to discard all meat.... [But] I present the word of the Lord God of Israel ...[that] meat eating [now] should not come into prescriptions for any invalids from any physician [in our institutions] ...[because] disease in cattle is making meat eating a dangerous matter. The Lord’s curse is upon the earth, upon man, upon beast, upon the fish in the sea, and as transgression becomes almost universal the curse will be permitted to become as broad and as deep as the transgression. Disease is contracted by the use of meat....

The Lord would bring His people into a position where they will not touch or taste the flesh of dead animals. Then let not these things be prescribed by any physician who has a knowledge of the truth for this time. There is no safety in eating of the flesh of dead animals, and in a short time the milk of the cows will also be excluded from the diet of God’s commandment-keeping people. In a short time it will not be safe to use anything that comes from the animal creation....

We cannot now do as we have ventured to do in the past in regard to meat-eating.... The disease upon animals is becoming more and more common, and our only safety is in leaving meat entirely alone. ^{9Letter 59, 1898 (July 26).} Emphasis supplied.EWV 22.1

Here Ellen White indicates that fish as well as meat should not be prescribed in Adventist health institutions. And by 1905 it appears she was as afraid of fish as earlier she had been of meat; for in writing the chapter on “Flesh as Food” for Ministry of Healing, she stated:EWV 22.2

In many places fish become so contaminated by the filth on which they feed as to be a cause of disease. This is especially the case where the fish come in contact with the sewage of large cities.... Thus when used as food they bring disease and death on those who do not suspect the danger. ^{10The Ministry of Healing, 314, 315. (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1905) (Hereunder cited as MH.)}