Question:
If God has given us natural remedies and the writings of E. G. White speak so strongly against drugs, isn’t it wrong for believers and health reformers to use conventional medication?
Answer:
We understand why this is a difficult question. Those who take the health message seriously cannot simply dismiss the strong warnings concerning drugs or minimize the place God has given to natural remedies.
At the same time, faithfulness requires us to allow all the inspired counsel to speak. We should not take one statement, however strong, and press it so far that other inspired statements are left without a meaningful place.
This is not an attempt to persuade anyone to take medication or to tell others what medical decisions they must make. It is an effort to understand the balance presented in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, and to explain why we do not believe every use of conventional medicine is necessarily a denial of faith or health reform.
Begin With Scripture
The Bible gives strong warnings concerning wine and strong drink. Yet Proverbs contains this striking statement:
“Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”
—Proverbs 31:6, 7
This passage does not overturn the Bible’s warnings or establish the ordinary use of strong drink. It does, however, show that a general rule should not always be applied so rigidly that there is no room for mercy in an exceptional circumstance.
The exception does not destroy the rule, but neither should the rule be separated from the heart of God.
Jesus used this same reasoning when His disciples were criticized for plucking grain on the Sabbath. He first pointed to David, who, in a time of need, ate the shewbread that was ordinarily reserved for the priests (Matthew 12:3, 4). He then reminded His hearers that the priests performed necessary duties in the temple on the Sabbath and were nevertheless “blameless” (verse 5).
In neither case was God’s law treated as unimportant. Rather, Jesus showed that the law must be understood according to its purpose and applied in harmony with necessity and mercy. That is why He concluded:
“But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.”
—Matthew 12:7
The principle came from the Lord’s words through Hosea:
“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.”
—Hosea 6:6
Jesus repeated the same lesson on another occasion when He told the Pharisees:
“But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.”
—Matthew 9:13
We really do need to learn what that means. Faithfulness is not merely knowing the rule. It also requires us to understand the heart of God in the application of that rule, especially when someone is in need or suffering.
Mercy does not abolish principle. It teaches us how the character of God should govern our application of principle.
Allow All the Counsel to Speak
Ellen White wrote that there are many ways of practicing the healing art, “but there is only one way that Heaven approves.” She then directed attention to God’s simple agencies of nature—pure air and water, cleanliness, proper diet, purity of life, exercise, and trust in God (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 443).
That is strong counsel, and we should not weaken it. God’s natural agencies should occupy a prominent place in preserving and restoring health. We should seek the cause of sickness, correct harmful habits, and cooperate intelligently with the body rather than merely suppressing symptoms.
However, the question is whether natural remedies are the only forms of treatment that may ever be used under any circumstances.
In that same discussion, Ellen White says that the work of the Christian physician extends to “the diseases of the mind” (5T 443–444). She also states that, in some cases, a physician “must increase suffering in order to save life” (5T 444). Evidently, the approved work of a Christian physician could involve more than the pleasant application of simple natural agencies.
She makes the point even clearer when addressing surgery:
“If there is need of a surgical operation … it is not a denial of faith to have the operation performed.”
—Selected Messages, book 2, p. 284
Immediately before this, she says, “It is our privilege to use every God-appointed means.” She also assures us that “the Saviour is present in the sickroom, in the operating room” (2SM 284).
Surgery is not one of the commonly listed natural remedies. This does not prove that every medical intervention is wise or appropriate. It does demonstrate that God-approved care cannot be reduced to a rule that automatically excludes every intervention beyond the natural remedies.
Ellen White also wrote:
“In some cases the counsel of an earthly physician is very necessary. This position we have always held.”
—Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 135
Seeking qualified medical counsel is not, in itself, a denial of faith.
“Seldom” Does Not Mean “Never”
Ellen White’s counsel concerning drugs is unmistakably strong:
“Educate away from drugs. Use them less and less, and depend more upon hygienic agencies.”
—Selected Messages, book 2, p. 281
She then says:
“Drugs need seldom be used.”
—2SM 281
We should not turn “seldom” into “frequently,” but neither should we turn it into “never.”
Her direction is to educate away from the careless, routine, and excessive use of drugs while increasing dependence upon healthful living and natural agencies. That is different from saying that every use of medication, under every circumstance, is sinful.
A compiler’s note in Selected Messages preserves an account reported by W. C. White. A missionary had refused quinine for his son’s malaria because he feared that using it would be wrong. The child died. When the father later asked whether giving the quinine would have been a sin, Ellen White reportedly answered, “No, we are expected to do the best we can” (2SM 281–282).
Because this account was supplied by W. C. White and included by the compilers, it should be identified honestly as such. Nevertheless, it is consistent with the broader principle found throughout the counsel: natural remedies should be emphasized, drugs should not be carelessly or unnecessarily used, but an exceptional need may call for a different application.
We should also be cautious about assuming that every nineteenth-century use of the word drugs corresponds precisely to every medication prescribed today. The substance, dosage, purpose, risks, benefits, and available alternatives all matter. Even without settling every historical question, the inspired language itself—”less and less” and “seldom”—does not support an absolute prohibition.
What About Mental Illness?
Conditions affecting the mind should not be dismissed as merely spiritual failure, weak faith, or a lack of surrender.
Ellen White wrote:
“There are grave mistakes made in dealing with unbalanced, diseased minds. They are sick. They need a physician.”
—Medical Ministry, p. 210
That statement does not mean that every mental or emotional struggle requires medication. Neither does it settle which treatment is appropriate in a particular case. It does establish that mental illness can be genuine sickness and that seeking competent medical care should not automatically be treated as faithlessness.
Prayer, Scripture, Christian fellowship, healthful living, pastoral care, counseling, medical evaluation, and—when genuinely needed—properly supervised medication should not be made enemies of one another.
What Is the Balanced Position?
The balanced position is not that all medication is good, necessary, or harmless. Medicines may be overused, poorly prescribed, or relied upon while the causes of illness and the laws of health are ignored. Natural remedies may also be used carelessly, and the word natural does not automatically mean that something is safe or appropriate.
The better questions are:
- Is there a genuine medical need?
- Have reasonable natural and lifestyle measures been considered?
- What are the known benefits and risks?
- Is the treatment being directed and monitored by a competent professional?
- Is the medication addressing a legitimate condition, or merely replacing the work of correcting harmful habits?
- Are we continuing to pray, study, and seek the wisest available course?
We should not make the laws of health less important than inspiration makes them. But neither should we make natural remedies more exclusive than inspiration makes them.
A Necessary Caution
No one should abruptly stop, reduce, replace, or begin prescribed medication on the strength of a sermon, article, testimony, or personal conviction alone. Some medications can produce serious consequences when discontinued suddenly.
Anyone concerned about a medication should discuss those concerns openly with a qualified medical professional and ask whether it remains necessary, whether the dosage should be adjusted, or whether safer alternatives are available. The goal should be informed, prayerful, and responsible care—not fear, shame, or presumption.
Conclusion
God’s natural remedies should be taken seriously. Healthful living should be foundational rather than an afterthought, and unnecessary dependence upon medication should be avoided.
But the inspired counsel does not require us to conclude that every use of conventional medicine is sinful. Surgery may be necessary. The counsel of a physician may be necessary. Mental illness may require professional care. Even medication may, in an exceptional case, be the best help presently available.
This is where the principle of mercy becomes especially important. The rule still matters. The counsel still matters. But when someone is suffering and there is a genuine need, we must also ask what wisdom and mercy require in that particular case.
“I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” does not abolish principle. It teaches us that the heart of God must govern the way we apply it.
