1914 – A Reformation?

 

ear SDARM Minister,

 

I am a Seventh-day Adventist belonging to a group that has broken away from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in the 1980s, and is now going by the name, which we believe God has supplied to us for this time, “The Creation Seventh Day and Adventist Church.”  As such, I understand and accept as a matter of my own personal experience that there may come a set of circumstances in which a once-authentic Church Body experiences a separation of the faithful from the unfaithful, and the work begins afresh under a new structure and organization.  As Ellen White once wrote, applicable to that concept: “I am instructed to say that we must do all we possibly can for these deceived ones. Their minds must be freed from the delusions of the enemy, and if we fail in our efforts to save these erring ones, we must ‘come out from among them’ and be separate.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Seven, page 190]

 

That having been said, however, I recently saw a video produced by one of your members – perhaps one of your ministers – that explained the reasons why your group came out from among the mainstream Adventist body in 1914.  That video, “The SDA Reformation of 1914,” is found here. (It may also be found by doing an online search in Google Video or Youtube for “1914 Reformation”)

 

There are a few statements there with which I cannot agree, because I believe they go against the very concept of what a reformation is, and that the reasons for the separation given are insufficient to justify the withdrawal of our pioneers from the original group.

 

It may seem strange to have one individual who is separate from the mainstream body questioning the origins, reasoning and methods of others who have also left, but the reason for my concern is that the Bible tells us what is a valid reason for leaving a group and what is an invalid one.  Those who leave a church for invalid reasons are just as culpable – if not more so – as those who remain in one for invalid reasons, and I pray that as we dialogue we can examine what these reasons are.

 

I - Introduction

 

From what I understood of the video I posted above, the history of the SDARM basically follows these lines:

 

1)      The World War 1 conflict produced a crisis of faith in some Seventh-day Adventists who were opposed to the use of violence, even in times of warfare, and the fourth and sixth commandments were cited as those that would be broken by any participation in military actions.

 

2)      This crisis was brought to a head when the General Conference published statements essentially endorsing Adventist participation in warfare, and refusing to punish those whom this group saw as being commandment-breakers.

 

3)      As a result of maintaining and promoting this viewpoint, the resisting group was disfellowshipped from the main body.

 

4)      The little group, seeing that it was now separated from the mainstream body, organized itself into another conference, and began, in a sense, to seek “reconciliation” with the mainstream body.  I have said, “In a sense,” because this is one of the issues I wish to raise later – I do not believe any genuine attempts at reconciliation were made, and I will shortly explain why.

 

5)      The Conference refused to submit to the new Reform Movement’s terms of reconciliation, and from that day forward the SDARM has constituted a separate movement, adhering to what it believes is the original Adventist viewpoint concerning obedience to the commandments and military participation.

 

After watching the video, the following are the conclusions to which I have come, which I will explain more closely as I continue:

 

1)      I believe that there has been a misuse of the Bible, the early Adventist pioneer writings, and particularly the quotations of Ellen G. White, in order to support a group that has become (but may not have originally been) rebellious in its position.

 

2)      As stated in #1, I believe that the SDARM did not begin as a rebellious group, but as a small group of genuine believers that held strong and legitimate convictions – but they became rebellious after being disciplined by the mainstream body, and while claiming that there were attempts made to reconcile with the main body, it in fact sought ways to get the leadership of the main group to submit to its viewpoint.  Questions were asked of the Adventist leadership in an attempt, not to draw both closer together, but to solicit statements of guilt and error, basically an admission of wrong.  This is not the proper (less, Biblical) method of reconciling brothers in disagreement.

 

3)      I believe there was guilt on both sides of the matter; the General Conference should not have disfellowshipped individuals because their convictions forced them to hold a particular viewpoint, and the Conference leaders (e.g., A.G. Daniels) should not have refused to hear the questions of the Reform Movement in the latter attempts at dialogue.  At the same time, the SDARM separated from the Conference for Biblically unjustifiable reasons, and organized themselves as a competing group rather than submitting to a Body that had not (yet) fallen from Christ’s graces according to the Biblical standard.

 

I will now go into some detail about each of these conclusions, and I pray your patience as I write:

 

II - What is A Reformation?

 

I will start by looking at Conclusion 3, to establish that there was indeed guilt on both sides of the 1914 conflict.  The statement was made by the video’s presenter, Henry Dering, that there was a reformation in 1914 as a result of the actions of a faithful few Adventists.  This cannot be the case, for we must ask ourselves, “What is a reformation?  What is the pattern God uses when bringing about a reformation?”

 

Returning to the quote from Ellen White above, when there is to be a reform the following outline is given by inspiration: “if we fail in our efforts to save these erring ones, we must ‘come out from among them’ and be separate.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Seven, page 190, emphasis added]

 

Let us look at the Biblical and Ecclesiastical history of reformations.  The quote used in the video is a statement of truth: “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.” (Luke 6:22)  This is a true saying for those who have already separated themselves from the company of evildoers, and seek to go back to them with the intention to teach them the truth, as was the case with Christ’s disciples.  But this is not – and never was – how a reformation begins.  A reformation begins with the reformers voluntarily leaving the fellowship of the ungodly because of their convictions that the body has erred and fallen. They are not cast out only to realize it thereafter. 

 

Consider:

 

1) When the Apostles began a movement separate from Judaism they left of their own free choice, though they initially had no desire to do so, and taught others: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)

 

So the pattern is this: The reformer(s) received insight that the main body was wrong, and wrong beyond hope of repair.  They did not try to “fix” things from the inside but, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they came out from among the fallen system, and then called others to do the same.  More examples follow:

 

2) When Martin Luther and the others began a movement separate from Roman Catholicism he left of his own free choice, though he initially had no desire to do so, and taught others of a great need of separation for, he said, “Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is Antichrist, and that his throne [i.e., the papal office at the head of the Roman Catholic Church] is that of Satan himself.” [D’Aubigne, History of The Reformation, B. 6, p. 9]

 

3) When the Seventh-day Adventist Church was called forth from Sunday-keeping Protestantism, we read of many who came out voluntarily under William Miller’s preaching; and, having seen the errors of the churches which they left as irreparable, organized under the leadings of Christ, into a great movement of reform.  They taught, as we believe, that the Sunday-keepers were being unfaithful to God because they had neither “the commandments of God” nor, in most cases, “the faith of Jesus.”

 

The SDARM did not follow the Biblical pattern of a “Reform.”  A genuine reform never has its genesis in a casting-out; this would be unprecedented.  Mrs. White taught us to labor for the erring for a time, and then we must leave if they will not themselves be transformed by the testing truths.  The end of the video that I saw spoke of Christ, of Luther, of others, but each example given only serves to further point out this particular error of the SDARM’s origins; Christ, Luther, and the early SDA Pioneers acted exactly unlike the Reform Movement’s founding members – they left the evil, the evil did not cast them out.

 

Now, the mainstream Church DID err in disfellowshipping those that left; however, even from Mrs. White’s writings we see that this was not predicted as a reform.  Ellen White said, as was quoted in the passage the video cites, that “not one in five” Adventists were ready to face the test coming upon the people of God.  One-in-five is, however, 20%, not the 2% involved in the opening movements of the SDARM!  To say, “Ellen White predicted this reformation,” and use that quote to support it, is simply not accurate.  As the presenter of that video rightly said, any reform that takes place must be prophesied; yet neither Ellen White nor any other inspired source predicted the appearance of the SDARM as a true reformation.  The movement has sought statements that appear to foretell its appearance, but these are simply statements of convenience, not intended to show any such movement.  It is true that she predicted a reformation, and that reformation came to pass… but it did so in the way that reforms have always come to pass, and not as a result of the particular questions of faith described by the SDARM.  To be sure, far fewer than 20% were involved in the actual reform that eventually happened, but this was after much passage of time and a deepening of the Laodicean condition, not merely a few years after the initial statement was made.

 

Now some, upon hearing our position on the Reform Movement, have asked, “What would you have done in their situation?”  Finding myself disagreeing with the mainstream body, I would have prayed for them, and protested.  If I found myself disfellowshipped, I would have attempted to reconcile with them.  “But,” you might say, “We did attempt to reconcile – and several times!”  But you have not. The  “4 questions” that were asked of the Conference leaders in 1920 was not an attempt to reconcile, they were an attempt to elicit a confession of wrong.

 

The questions were:

 

1)      What stand does the General Conference take toward the resolution adopted by the German leadership, since 1914, in regard to the fourth and sixth commandments? On this point we refer to the following written declarations. (Five documents were presented)

 

2)      What evidence can be presented to us that we have not followed the biblical way toward the brethren, as we are accused in the last issue of Zions-Waechter (an SDA publication in Germany), Numbers 13 & 14, July 1920?

 

3)      a) What is the stand of the General Conference, the American brethren, concerning the Testimonies of Sister White? Are they or are they not inspired by God? (b) Should we or should we not continue presenting the light on health reform (as brought forth in the Testimonies) as the right arm of the message?

 

4)      Is our message, according to Revelation 14:6-12, a national or an international message? We have here several numbers of Zions-Waechter which do not show that we are an international people. Example: Zions-Waechter, Number 5, March 3, 1920, from the leadership of the school.

 

These questions, except for possibly the second, do not at all demonstrate a true reconciliatory spirit, as is made clear by the explanation of what these questions mean, and why they were relevant to the question at hand.

 

For those in Israel, when Rehoboam treated them harshly, were they right to follow Jeroboam into apostasy? (1Kings 12)  As it is written, “Wisdom is justified of her children.” (Mat 11:19)  Jeroboam, after separating from the legitimate king (although he himself was neither a wise king nor a pure) erected his own standards, his own temple, and led the people astray.  While it is true that he was to have held the northern kingdom for a short time, he quickly organized his own forms of devotion, and sought to prevent those who would have returned to the House of David from going back to Jerusalem for genuine, Heaven-appointed worship.  It is this pattern (not the Bible pattern of Reform for which I have given three relevant examples) that the SDARM has surely followed.

 

“[Jeroboam] made two calves of gold, and said unto [the people], ‘It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem [i.e., it is too hard to go to the true place of worship]: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’ And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.

 

“And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.” (1Kings 12:28-33)

 

Surely, as it is written, those who do not follow the pattern of the Reformation will invariably erect their own altars, set up their own images, and think that they are genuinely worshipping the King of Heaven.  Jeroboam left of his own free will, yes; Jeroboam’s initial actions were prophesied, yes; but even that was not enough to justify his subsequent course or those of northern Israel!  Those who followed Jeroboam believed they had no choice, being “forced” out of Rehoboam’s kingdom due to his harsh ways; but under no circumstances can we accept the idea that the North was a “Reformation” of the South.  It was the first to fall into captivity, and such will be the end of all who “jump the gun” in spiritual matters.  A true Reformation must both follow the right pattern, and be for the right reason.

 

III - The Commandments of God and The Faith of Jesus

 

SDARM claims to be the “remnant” of God because they keep the commandments of God to a more faithful degree than did the mainstream Adventist body of 1914.

 

Let us examine that for a moment.  Is it a violation of the 6th commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” to serve in military capacity?  We read, specifically, “Do not commit ratsach.” (Exo 20:13)  I have left the last word un-translated from Hebrew. What does it mean? More to the point, what does it not mean?  It does not mean, “take a life.”  It means precisely this:

 

To murder, slay, kill

a) (Qal – basic root) to murder, slay

1)     premeditated

2)     accidental

3)     as avenger

4)     slayer (intentional) (participle)

 

Notice that the two meanings the SDARM most require it to mean (i.e., to kill in combat or to execute) are not there.  One may become guilty of ratsach by committing a pre-meditated murder, by making a mistake that results in the death of another, or by killing in revenge.  These three ways (particularly the first and third meanings) are specified by that word in the same way that the word “murder” in English is different from the word “kill.” The general word for “kill” in Hebrew is another word entirely, usually harag.

 

Of course, one could always use this to justify other kinds of killings, so we must look not merely at what a word means in a basic sense, but how it is used.  Let me demonstrate further, therefore:

 

“Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, ‘Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay [harag] every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.’” (Exo 32:28)  Notice, those who obey the Lord can slay (harag) a man without being guilty of ratsach in violation of the sixth commandment.  I want to make it clear: this is not my opinion, for I am as opposed to violence against human beings as any other; but this is a strictly Biblical distinction.  In the mouth of a second and third witness, let us establish that this is a legitimate doctrine:

 

“Samuel also said unto Saul, […] “slay [Heb: mueth – put to death] both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”  When Saul would not finish the work to which God Himself had appointed him, we find that the very prophet who gave the instruction had to step forward to complete the task: “And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.” (1Sam 15:1, 3, 33)

 

Another, “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” (Exo 22:2)  In other words, those who defend their homes against a thief are not guilty of ratsach, for anyone who was found guilty of that transgression was himself to have his blood spilled. (Gen 9:6)

 

Yet another, “Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night. And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew [nakah – yet another word] them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.” (Joshua 10:9, 10)

 

There are too many examples, and too consistent a pattern, for it to be said that those who understand this doctrine are merely “cherry-picking” favorable verses.  There are a number of different words used in the Bible for taking human life, yet in both places where the commandments are recorded (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) a specific word is used that means “murder.”  We find that those who execute criminals, and those who slay others during legitimate warfare, are not merely left unpunished.  They are actually praised for their faithfulness.  One clear case is Phinehas, of whom it is written,

 

“And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw [the rebellious Isratelite], he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the [heathen] woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

 

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ‘Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.” (Num 25:7-13)

 

I emphasized the words “peace,” “everlasting priesthood,” and “atonement” there deliberately; God Himself does not consider justified slaying to be a disqualifying characteristic of those who can hold even the most holy offices among His people – an atoning priest with a covenant of peace whose descendants may likewise serve in his office.

 

Some may say, and it is a worthy point to discuss, “That was a theocracy, or a divine monarchy.  Now, under the New Covenant, no such thing is to be done.”  This cannot be justified either, however.  The soldiers who came to John the Baptist became followers of the Way, and John did not tell them to cease to be soldiers, but to be just and good soldiers. “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages,” was his instruction to them. (Luke 3:14)  But doesn’t “violence” mean that they would have to cease being soldiers?  No, that word does not mean violence in the physical sense; it means “extortion.”  It means not to be a terror to others, not to extort money unjustly, or to unduly cause fear.  It has nothing to do with a soldier’s profession as a warrior.

 

Even after Christ died we find centurions and swordsmen among the converts, (Acts 10:1, Acts 16:25-34) and these were never instructed to lay aside their arms.  The Biblical tradition, right down to the very last book, has understood the need for conflict in a world filled with sin  - and so did our Adventist pioneers, including Ellen White, which I will demonstrate below.

 

The SDARM has used some of Mrs. White’s statements to say, “Look, early Adventists were against all war.”  This is a misuse of a few of her statements, pulled unfairly out of context, and I will turn to those shortly.

 

What of the fourth commandment?  Surely… to commit military actions on the holy Sabbath is a violation of the direct Word of God?

 

Not so.  Let us read the Word for ourselves, and not make any arguments of our own private devising:

 

“And the LORD said unto Joshua, ‘See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.’” (Josh 6:2-4)

 

Now it might be said, “Well, they were marching, they weren’t really fighting.”  That would be missing the point; the entire conflict was a military exercise for the purpose of taking Jericho, and one day of that week was obviously a Sabbath.

 

More clearly:  “And [the Israelites and Syrians] pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day.” (1Kings 20:29)  This phrase “the seventh day” does not necessarily indicate that the battle itself took place on a Sabbath, but certainly there was preparation for warfare during the time at which the tents of each army were pitched “over against the other.”

 

We read of the Maccabees in the inter-testamental period, how they defended themselves from pagan attackers on the Sabbath day. (1Macc 2:41)  While this is not a Canonical book, and should not be used for the formulation of doctrine, we find that the Hebrews who participated in that action were blessed in a way that had effects upon Judaism even down to the time of Christ. (John 10:22 – the “Feast of Dedication” had its origins in the cleansing of the Temple from its defilement during this period.)

 

The only question that may, from the Bible, be asked in matters of warfare is whether or not the conflict is just.  In this, the Conference was right to conclude that liberty of individual conscience is the only safe guide for its members, and liberty of conscience is in no way a violation of either the 4th or the 6th commandments under these circumstances.

 

We may conclude, with as little “interpretation” of the Word as possible, but merely by an honest reading, that to kill another in a) military conflict, b) in the defense of one’s home, c) as a means of executing justly condemned men, was never considered to be a violation of the 6th commandment.

 

We may further conclude, on the basis of both Biblical and Hebrew sources that had effects on the New Testament record, that it is not a violation of the Sabbath to defend one’s self and even to participate in military acts on the seventh day of the week.  Now, let me be clear – these acts are never pleasant ones.  There is no great joy for a follower of the Lord of Life in fighting and killing men, and certainly no particular joy in performing necessary but laborious acts such as medical or military service during sacred hours; but there are often sheep who fall into pits that must be lifted out.  If we may “break” the Sabbath in securing the safety and happiness of a creature over which mankind has dominion, how much more will we be found guiltless if we work to secure the safety and happiness of our human brothers and sisters on such a day?

 

Any “instruction” that adds to the Word’s own well-defined boundaries on the fourth and sixth commandments are surely the inventions of men.  Perhaps they are conscientious, well-meaning men, but they are men nonetheless, who find themselves at variance with the Scriptures on these unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, tasks.  Not everything that is pleasant is righteous, and not everything that is difficult is good; even for God, killing is a “strange” work, yet there are times when it is done for necessity’s sake, as it is written. (Isa 28:21)

 

The presenter says that since Ellen White died just as the conflict was beginning, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was deprived of what would have been her useful counsel.  The video, however, fails to make mention of the fact that Ellen White did know about World War 1 from the news of coming events, and did have things to say about Adventists bearing arms.  What she said completely refutes the Reform Movement’s position.

 

In response to her son W.C. White’s question about whether the members of the Church should refuse to bear arms, she said,  “I do not think they ought to do that […] I think they ought to stand to their duty as long as time lasts.” [Ellen G. White Volume 6: The Later Elmshaven Years 1905-1915, page 427]

 

Even more clearly she wrote, “I am not fully settled in regard to taking up arms, but this [moderate stance advocated in an editorial in the Review of August, 1862] looks consistent to me. I think it would please the enemy for us to obstinately refuse to obey the law of our country (when this law is not against our religious faith) and sacrifice our lives. It looks to me that Satan would exult to see us shot down so cheaply, for our influence could not have a salutary influence upon beholders, as the death of the martyrs. No, all would think we were served just right, because we would not come to the help of our imperiled country. Were our religious faith at stake, we should cheerfully lay down our lives and suffer for Christ.

 

“Now is the time we are to be tested, and the genuineness of our faith proved. Those who have merely professed the faith, without an experience, will be brought into a trying place. Young and old should now seek for an experience in the things of God. A superficial work will not avail now.” [Ellen G. White Volume 2: The Progressive Years 1862-1876, page 43]

 

What a difference between Mrs. White’s position and that of the Reform Movement!  The “test” that Ellen White mentions in regard to World War 1 is whether or not the faith of a Christian would lead to courage or cowardice, and it is abundantly clear that neither she nor any other early Adventist considered the act of warfare as an automatic violation of the commandments of God.

 

What we find, therefore, is that one of the great underlying foundations of the SDARM, that early Adventists were faced with a choice between keeping the commandments or joining the military, is fallacious, and any viewpoint built upon this artificial argument must collapse upon any close examination of what the commandments actually require.  It should be obvious to any Bible-believer watching the video that the General Conference does use the Bible to support its position, but the SDARM makes instead what is essentially an “argument from emotion.”  Those who are familiar with Adventist theology find it likewise obvious that the SDARM makes appeals to some badly misunderstood writings of Ellen G. White.  What are Christians, any Christians, to conclude from this?  Even if Mrs. White’s statements were rightly used in this matter, a contention disproved by her own statements in other places, a Christian of integrity must demand a Biblical argument – and the SDARM offers none, except for a mistranslated reading of the 6th commandment, and an understanding of the 4th entirely unsupported by the Biblical record itself.   Where does the truth therefore lie?  Where does sola scriptura leave the Reform Movement’s position?

 

IV - The Evidence Further Examined

 

The online video begins by speaking of the “old paths,” and the need to return to these righteous ways… but the problem is that the old paths of Adventism, as the old paths outlined in the Holy Scriptures, do not agree with the SDARM position.  As I said previously, I believe that there has been a misuse of the Biblical and S.O.P. passages in an effort to support the independently bred strain of Adventism that constitutes the Reform Movement.

 

The “great test” for God’s people described in Mrs. White’s writings was not World War 1, as explicitly pointed out above.  Although the presenter of the video links her statements about the conflict between the nations to the test to come upon the saints, no such connection exists IN the writings themselves, or the contexts of either set of statements.  Warfare, as mentioned in Mrs. White’s writings, was used just as Jesus Christ used it, as evidence of the time of the end, leading to the abomination of desolation and the coming mark and image of the beast – THIS was to be the test of the Churches, not any secular conflict between the nations.  We read, “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that ye be not troubled, for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” (Mat 24:6)  Mrs. White tells us herself what the “great test” is: “The Lord has shown me clearly that the image of the beast will be formed before probation closes, for it [the image] is to be the great test for the people of God, by which their eternal destiny will be decided.” [Last Day Events, page 227]

 

Wherever Mrs. White writes of “the great test,” she is referring to the testing trials of the very last days, and that which will be brought about by the image of the beast.  Even if the precise nature of the last test imposed by the image of the beast does change over time (as the CSDA church believes it has) this does not at all invalidate the principles so clearly seen in prophetic vision.  It cannot be a secular war.   All of the quotes read by the presenter regarding the great crisis and the “serious mistakes” that could potentially be made by Adventism are speaking of the last period of human history, not 1914. World War 1 did not lead to the formation of the image of the beast, or its mark.  Now Creation Seventh Day Adventists, of which movement I am a member, believe that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has indeed formed an image of papal Rome; but this took place well after 1914, and for reasons that are actually present and emphasized in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.  What the SDARM does, and to its great fault, is to say, in essence, “There are two great tests,” and to make the World War 1 question another “great test” of which Mrs. White said not a single word.

 

Mrs. White’s writings, in fact, never speak against warfare wholesale – as the two quotes from her biography make clear.  She is instead to be heard praising the heroes of the Old Testament just as the later books of the Bible do. John the Baptist, (the greatest of all prophets) told the soldiers who converted to Christianity to be good soldiers, not to lay down their arms, as I mentioned before.  Abraham went to war to rescue Lot, and he was not under a Theocracy; he was an individual nomad – part of no society at all as of yet.  God did not come to Abraham in a vision and say, “Fight to rescue Lot,” but the course of his actions were just and right, though they involved the death of others, because they were in the defense of another, relatively innocent, party.  The result: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.’” (Gen 14:18, 19)

 

What the Reform Movement does, and it is very subtle, is to a) read that Mrs. White said a war was coming, b) read that Mrs. White said a test was coming, and then c) conclude that the war is the test.  However, the war was “coming” in days and months, while the test – which was always about the image and mark of the beast – was “coming” at the very end of all days.  The above conclusion by the SDARM is highly improper, but it can be made to sound very convincing to those who read the prophecies without regard for context or the timing outlined by the texts themselves.  The arguments of the video’s presenter fit the very definition of the logical error called a non sequitur, or “it is not followed.”  It does not follow that because a test was coming, and a war was coming, that the war was the test, just as it does not follow that since tomorrow is Sunday the word “tomorrow” is synonymous with the word “Sunday.”  Nothing in the writings indicates that the First World War was any test for God’s people except to try their faith in God’s protection of their individual persons… whether they served in the military or not.  The early Reform Movement pioneers believed that World War 1 was the great testing time predicted, but this is worse than a private interpretation, since it is actually contradicted by the context of almost every statement in the Spirit of Prophecy writings that actually refers to the “great test.”

 

Here is a quote used by the Reform Movement to support the idea that Mrs. White was opposed to all warfare, in contradiction to what she actually said in the biographical book by Arthur White: “I was shown that God’s people, who are His peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war, for it is opposed to every principle of their faith. In the army they cannot obey the truth and at the same time obey the requirements of their officers. There would be a continual violation of conscience. Worldly men are governed by worldly principles. They can appreciate no other. Worldly policy and public opinion comprise the principle of action that governs them and leads them to practice the form of rightdoing.” [Testimonies For The Church Volume One, page 361]

 

That statement was not made, of course, about World War 1, but what was it about that war, and that specific war, that forbade Adventists from participating?  Was it the fact that there was a war at all?  No, that was not the reason.  The very quote tells us that it was because of the principles governing the men in charge of that particular conflict.  We read, from Mrs. White’s own pen: “As this war was shown to me, it looked like the most singular and uncertain that has ever occurred. A great share of the [Northern] volunteers enlisted fully believing that the result of the war would be to abolish slavery. Others enlisted intending to be very careful to keep slavery just as it is, but to put down the rebellion and preserve the Union. And then to make the matter still more perplexing and uncertain, some of the officers in command are strong proslavery men whose sympathies are all with the South, yet who are opposed to a separate government. It seems impossible to have the war conducted successfully, for many in our own ranks are continually working to favor the South, and our armies have been repulsed and unmercifully slaughtered on account of the management of these proslavery men. Some of our leading men in Congress also are constantly working to favor the South. In this state of things, proclamations are issued for national fasts, for prayer that God will bring this war to a speedy and favorable termination.” [Testimonies For The Church Volume One, page 256]

 

My brother, be very careful, and very honest here… what was it about the Civil War that forbade the conscientious participation of Seventh-day Adventists?  Was it the fact that there would be conflict?  No.  Ellen White was clearly in favor of a Northern victory if it could be obtained, calling that side of the conflict “our army,” and expressing disapproval of “many in our own ranks,” (i.e., Seventh Day Adventists) operating on behalf of the South. Was it the fact that there would be military operations on Sabbath?  No.  This was expected then just as it is now.  It was the principles underlying the war, and the questions about the motives and loyalties of those in charge that rendered it “uncertain.”  Please read the above prayerfully: “to make the matter still more perplexing and uncertain, some of the officers in command are strong proslavery men whose sympathies are all with the South, yet who are opposed to a separate government.”

 

Adventists could not then, as they cannot now, support any form of government that is pro-slavery, as were the Confederate states and some officers of the North.  Mrs. White wrote quite calmly and rationally about the war itself – the problem was that even those who fought on the North side were not all doing so for the right reasons – this was one of the factors that made the war perplexing, and that rendered it a wholly Babylonian affair.  The SDARM completely misunderstands, misinterprets, ignores, or undermines what the prophetess was truly saying in order to justify the position taken by their founding members.  I am sorry, but I have to consider this a blatant misuse of sacred writings; it was never intended to stretch to all warfare, or to malign those who fell in the defense of others, or to speak against conflict in a just cause.  There is no connection in the Bible, or the writings of Ellen White, that inherently connect military service to sin.  No connection at all may be found there.

 

V – A Key Distinction Ignored

 

One of the distinctions that the SDARM position fails to take into account is that which exists between a “non-combatant” and a “conscientious objector.”  The first is opposed to bearing arms (this is more in line with Adventist beliefs) and the second will not participate in any capacity during warfare, (this is not necessarily in line with Adventist beliefs) because he “objects.”  These two terms are not at all the same… not at all equivalent.

 

The presenter’s statement about warfare that “today we call them [i.e., non-combatants] conscientious objectors” is entirely false, and his following statement, “please keep this important thought in mind,” only serves to hang the subsequent arguments on an entirely faulty premise.

 

I wish to note what I perceive to be a contradiction in the SDARM mindset related to Adventist participation in warfare.  The pioneers were praised (or at least excused) for deciding to give $300 to the military upon being drafted rather than to actively participate in the war (this would make them non-combatants – they were still supporting the war effort with their means; therefore, they were not “objectors”).  The quote was appropriately provided by the video, “In none of our denominational publications have we advocated or encouraged the practice of bearing arms; and, when drafted, rather than violate our principles, we have been content to pay, and assist each other in paying, the $300 commutation money.” [Francis M. Wilcox (1936), “Seventh-Day Adventists in Time of War,” Review and Herald, p. 58]

 

Even, therefore, conceding that killing during warfare is a violation of Adventist principles (which would be a step-up from the practices outlined in the Bible, and perhaps rightly so) we find that there was no problem with being “drafted,” and no problem in the pioneer mindset with non-combative support of the military efforts of the country.  The presenter, by thoroughly confusing the terms “conscientious objector” and “non-combatant,” wrongly concludes that any support of warfare (even though he just quoted a statement describing the financial support of warfare!) is a violation of Adventist principles.  The use of Ellen White’s statement about the Civil War (i.e., “this perplexing war”) have already been discussed, and cannot possibly be used to support the video’s conclusion that “a Christian cannot go into the army in any capacity,” worse still the statement that “even being a medic in the army goes against God’s will” simply because “the primary object of the medic is to help the war effort.”

 

If a thing is wrong an Adventist should not, should never, support it with his means any more than with his active service or participation.  Consider the principle revealed in Mrs. White’s writings regarding the liquor industry, which Adventists universally declare to be a great societal evil: “Men whose money has been made, directly or indirectly, in the liquor traffic, are members of churches, ‘in good and regular standing.’ Many of them give liberally to popular charities. Their contributions help to support the enterprises of the church and to sustain its ministers. They command the consideration shown to the money power. Churches that accept such members are virtually sustaining the liquor traffic. Too often the minister has not the courage to stand for the right. He does not declare to his people what God has said concerning the work of the liquor seller.” [The Ministry of Healing, page 340, emphases added]

 

My brother minister, consider that statement very carefully in light of the SDARM position as revealed in the video, “The SDA Reformation of 1914.”  An Adventist Church should not even have accepted as a member one involved in so dishonorable a trade as the liquor industry – to say nothing of having its members contribute money to such an infernal system.  If all participation in warfare were to be considered evil then the SDA pioneers, who represent the original Adventist position on the matter by our mutual admission, would be in error in their concession to pay the $300 commutation money.  The further contention that a medic in the army is going against God’s will because he heals soldiers is at once unBiblical and unChristian.  Consider for a moment that the Good Samaritan did not ask the profession of the poor man left on the side of the road before he healed him.  God causes his blessings to fall on the just and the unjust alike – and are we, His children, to make so great a judgment about whose life we will allow to be lost simply because we disagree with his or her actions?  We are called to be no such judges!  Whether we are under a theocracy or not has nothing to do with the principles of our individual actions toward our fellow man.

 

The SDARM position seems to be, “It was okay for the early Adventists to give $300 to avoid the bearing of arms in times of warfare, even though it supported the war effort.  It is not, however, okay for modern Adventists to serve as non-combatants (such as medics), even when they save lives, because it supports the war effort.”  I have watched the video more than once, and I have attempted to understand this discrepancy, but I cannot conclude anything else than that it is a mere inconsistency of thought.

 

One final point to make about missing distinctions: Of course, the support of Hitler by the German SDA Church (a point brought up near the end of the video) was clearly wrong.  This does not, however, speak to general principles upheld by the Seventh-day Adventist Church regarding all warfare.  Yes, the European Adventist Churches erred grievously by their participation in and support of the Nazi regime.  Yes, SDARM members were persecuted in Nazi Germany, and unfortunately so… but so were many Jews.  This fact, and the appeal to emotions that follows the revelation of this fact, does not automatically make either class a champion of right-principles or identify them as the faithful people of the Almighty.  Being persecuted does not give evidence for a right stand, nor does it confer any moral superiority.  Being persecuted for the right principles, and the right understanding of those principles, does. (1Pet 4:15, 16)

 

VI – The CSDA Position on Reform

 

What follows is a brief summary of the Creation Seventh Day Adventists’ view on Reformation.

 

We certainly agree with the presenter’s quotation in the video: “God’s people will not endure the test unless there is a revival and a reformation. [Testimonies for The Church Volume 7, p. 285]  However, only a few paragraphs before that she mentioned that “time is short,” and spoke of the brethren not making great efforts to expand our work too much in one area while other branches suffer.  This was clearly one of her many predictions about the very end of days, and as such we must not apply it to the origins of the SDARM movement in 1914, even allowing for multiple fulfillments of prophecy.  Each fulfillment must abide by the same principles.

 

We fully agree with 1888 message of “Righteousness by Faith,” by Jones and Waggoner that was mentioned in the video.  This message we have continued to herald under the simple title of the “Victory” message, based upon the verse, “this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1John 5:4)  As quoted by the presenter, “The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Fifteen, page 92]

 

Yet what A.T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner presented is not being taught in or to Laodicea.  Indeed, we have found no group that teaches the full and complete righteousness by faith message except for our own.  Far from a statement of pride or elitism, this should be read as a lament, for we believe that the last movement will consist of many Tribes, of which our current fellowship is but one.  We continue to seek them.

 

Having spoken with a number of current and past members of the SDA Reform Movement, I know with assurance that it is not perfectly taught in the SDARM that, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit (i.e., knowingly perform) sin.” (1John 3:9)  It is not taught that, “whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” (1John 5:18)  I asked one of your membership, “What would happen if one of your members knowingly committed sin?”  The essential reply was, “He would have the elders speak with him, and try to correct the problem.  He would be disciplined and perhaps even disfellowshipped if necessary.”

 

Scripturally, one who knowingly sins after a claim of conversion and acceptance into Church membership must undergo a TRUE conversion, and be baptized afresh. We read, “Those who have been baptized can claim the help of the three great Worthies of heaven to keep them from falling, and to reveal through them a character that is after the divine similitude. This is what we claim to be --followers of Jesus. We must be molded and fashioned in accordance with the divine pattern; and if you have lost your Christlikeness, my brethren and sisters, you can never, never come into communion with God again until you are reconverted and rebaptized.” [Sermons and Talks Volume One, page 366, emphasis added]

 

Even more powerfully, “The principles of righteousness must be implanted in the soul. The faith must grasp the power of Jesus Christ, else there is no safety. Licentious practices are getting to be as common as in the days before the flood. Not one should be buried with Christ by baptism unless they are critically examined whether they have ceased to sin, whether they have fixed moral principles, whether they know what sin is, whether they have moral defilement which God abhors. Find out by close questioning if these persons are really ceasing to sin, if with David they can say, I hate sin with a perfect hatred.

 

“My burden is that ministers of the gospel shall preach the truth as to what constitutes true conversion. They are not to lead down into the water souls who are not converted. The church is becoming composed of men and women who have never realized how sinful sin is.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Six, page 165]

 

Adventists today know no such words as these!

 

But you might ask, what does this issue about true conversion and victory over sin have to do with the CSDA position on reform?  Simply this: we believe that the foundation of every reform must be the Gospel.  The focus of the reforming movement must ever be the righteousness of Christ instilled within the believer, and the soon return of the Lord.  We believe that doctrinal differences, even differences in conviction held by diverse groups within the movement, do not constitute a legitimate reason for withdrawing, or for setting up an alternative (competing) system by those who have been disfellowshipped – even for an unjust cause.  It is only when the once-faithful system has “fallen” to the degree that the Gospel can no longer be taught that a separation is justified, and not until that point.  You might ask, “Doesn’t the repudiation of the fourth and sixth commandments prevent the proper teaching of the Gospel?”  It would if these commandments were truly being violated but, as explained above, we do not see – from a strictly Biblical viewpoint – that the Seventh-day Adventist Church advocated or excused the violation of these commandments’ actual requirements in 1914.

 

Now please note, and note well: “It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy--the beast.” [The Great Controversy, page 443]

 

It is certainly possible for Laodicea to fall, as the presenter Mr. Dering properly said; however the question of HOW it falls is routinely ignored.  It is assumed by the video, and presumably by the SDARM as a whole, that apostasy is what makes a Church fall from grace.  This is false!  Apostasy may lead to a fall, as the quote above records, but that is not the event that causes it, nor is it the “point of no return.”  To leave before that organization develops into a system mirroring the papacy is to disregard the second part of that quote, “So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.”

 

Must we, the question may be asked, wait for something akin to the papacy to develop before our departure is justified?  According to Adventist beliefs: Absolutely!  We read, “When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the State, and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of ‘heresy.’ In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the State will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.” [The Great Controversy, p. 443]

 

Our pioneers both accepted and developed this idea: “When the early church departed from God and imbibed pagan errors, she became Babylon. When she united with the state, she fell, and, as an organization, was the body of Christ no longer.” [International Sabbath School Quarterly, February 29, 1896]

 

Note that while apostasy leads the way to a) the formation of the papacy, b) the “fall” of the Church and c) the need to depart… until that church becomes “united with the state” it is still the Body of Christ, and “Enfeebled and defective as it may appear, the church is the one object upon which God bestows in a special sense His supreme regard.” [The Acts of the Apostles, page 12]  It is at this point, when the Church unites with the state, that the Gospel cannot be taught because of the corporate guilt of the system (see Joshua 7, Isaiah 9:16 and Acts 2) and the people are called forth from a fallen (not merely an erring) system.

 

This has happened… but in the 1980s, not in 1914.  The General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists formed a Trademark law to protect its property and reputation from those (such as ourselves – your group and ours) who openly testify that we are Seventh Day Adventists, but who do not bow to the spiritual images set up by the Conference.  Since that time the Conference has gone about bringing lawsuits against churches and private individuals, using the power of the Second Beast to its advantage.  It has “employed it to further her own ends,” and fulfilling to the very letter the prediction that “to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the State will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.”  When we saw THIS, we realized that we must depart, and we left – as did Christ, Luther and the Millerites.  Note that in this we have followed the genuine path of reformation, reasoning with the erring ones and then departing of our own free will.  A reformation has never begun with the expulsion of the righteous ones out of the fellowship of the wicked.  Some may, of course, be disfellowshipped after they have left in spirit and bodily presence, but it is not the disciplinary actions of the fallen body that leads to the reform itself.

 

In our fellowship, there is one who was an SDARM member, but after she studied the relevant quotes from Ellen White, and after seeing the Biblical principles explained, she realized that she had erred in joining herself to an “untimely birth,” and she had to repent.  She was baptized afresh, and is now actively working to call people out of a Church that was once the true and faithful servant of God (yes, even with its errors in 1914) but is now no longer so because, in that state of error, she united with the state and subsequently fell.  This, and this only, is the Heaven-inspired pattern for Reform and Reorganization.

 

VII - Summary and Conclusions

 

The end of the video included a substantial section explaining the need for separation from a fallen Church.  We agree with all these things, with all these principles. The examples of Christ, the apostles, Luther, and the early Seventh-day Adventist movement, based upon the fall (not merely the apostasy) of the earlier systems perfectly reflects the history of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church; but it is entirely unlike the origins of the SDARM as described in the video, “The SDA Reformation of 1914.”

 

The Conference was not clear of guilt in 1914, and erred greatly in many of its policies and actions.  This is, however, in no way a defense of the Reform Movement’s pioneers.  Two wrongs hardly make a right, and the described “reconciliation attempt” made by the SDARM was not truly an attempt to reconcile, but an effort to get the 98% to join the 2% by extracting a confession.

 

The SDARM cannot legitimately point to the violation of the commandments by the mainstream body – we disagree with the misreading of the Scriptures necessary to uphold that viewpoint – or to the out-of context statements of Ellen White regarding a “great test” to come upon God’s people, and her negative statements about one particular war (i.e., the Civil War).  They cannot, further, point to the example of the early SDA pioneers, for while they were non-combatants, and held the Adventist people to that standard, they were not by any means conscientious objectors, for they supported the war with their means (i.e., the $300 fee) if not with their active service.  A “conscientious objector” would not have paid that commutation money, nor could a Seventh-day Adventist who believed that warfare in general was evil, as evidenced by the principle of not supporting the liquor industry to any degree. [The Ministry of Healing, page 340]

 

Finally, it is only when the Gospel cannot be taught (based upon the principle of “corporate accountability”) because the older system unites with the state while in a condition of apostasy that the faithful remnant must depart.  The true reformers will not be kicked out if the fallen body; they will recognize, because of the Holy Spirit’s leadings, that they must depart, and they will do so at any cost, in order to teach the Gospel, the message of “Righteousness by Faith,” and the Victory that overcomes the world to the nations that are preparing, whether they know it or not, for the soon return of the Savior and Judge.

 

I look forward to your thoughts on these most timely and vital matters.

 

Your servant in the Messiah,

David.