As the great reformation carried on by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others in the sixteenth century actually had its beginning several centuries earlier (The Great Controversy, p. 78), so the prophesied Reform Movement among Seventh Day Adventists, in existence today, had its embryonic beginning in 1888, when the Lord sent a special message to His people.

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17 through November 4, 1888, Seventh-day Adventists held a memorable and controversial General Conference session. Ninety delegates (85 were present when the session was opened and 5 more were seated on October 26) representing a world membership of 26,968, gathered in one of the largest chapels owned by Seventh-day Adventists at that time–the church building located on the corner of Lake Street and Fourth Avenue South. The important event which took place at that conference was the presentation of a vital subject–the message of Righteousness by Faith–by two young ministers, E. J. Waggoner, and A. T. Jones, editors of The Signs of the Times.

In plain terms, the Spirit of Prophecy placed its seal of approval upon that message. Sister White wrote about it thus:

"The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." –Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91, 92.

"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, vol. 15, p. 92.

What Caused the Message to Come

As the date for the General Conference session that was to meet in Minneapolis (1888) was drawing nigh, God sent to the Adventist leadership and people specific testimonies showing the spiritual condition that had developed in the church and that made the coming of the message an urgent necessity. Sister White wrote:

"What is our condition in this fearful and solemn time? Alas, what pride is prevailing in the church, what hypocrisy, what deception, what love of dress, frivolity, and amusement, what desire for the supremacy! All these sins have clouded the mind, so that eternal things have not been discerned." –The Review and Herald, March 22, 1887.

"Spiritual death has come upon the people that should be manifesting life and zeal, purity and consecration, by the most earnest devotion to the cause of truth. The facts concerning the real condition of the professed people of God, speak more loudly than their profession, and make it evident that some power has cut the cable that anchored them to the Eternal Rock, and that they are drifting away to sea, without chart or compass." –Ibid., July 24, 1888.

The Purpose of the Message

The message of Christ’s righteousness (which includes Isa. 58:1 and Rev. 3:18, 19) was entrusted to the angel of Revelation 18 for the purpose of accomplishing a work of revival and reformation under the ministration of the Holy Spirit. That this message was to remedy the backslidden state of the church and prepare a people for the coming of the Lord can be seen from several testimonies:

"Now, it has been Satan’s determined purpose to eclipse the view of Jesus, and lead men to look to man, and trust to man, and be educated to expect help from man. For years the church has been looking to man and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered. Therefore God gave to His servants a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel’s message, in clear, distinct lines." –Testimonies to Ministers, p. 93.

"The third angel’s message must go over the land and awaken the people, and call their attention to the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Another angel unites his voice with the third angel, and the earth is lighted with its glory. . . . What are you doing to prepare for this work? . . . You must remember that this angel represents the people that have this message to give to the world. Are you among that people?" –The Review and Herald, August 18, 1885.

"God has raised up men to meet the necessity of this time who will cry aloud and spare not, who will lift up their voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins. Their work is not only to proclaim the law, but to preach the truth for this time–the Lord our righteousness." –Ibid., August 13, 1889.

"Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel’s message, and I have answered, ‘It is the third angel’s message in verity.’ The prophet declares, ‘And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.’ Brightness, glory, and power are to be connected with the third angel’s message, and conviction will follow wherever it is preached in demonstration of the Spirit. How will any of our brethren know when this light shall come to the people of God? As yet, we certainly have not seen the light that answers to this description. God has light for His people, and all who will accept it will see the sinfulness of remaining in a lukewarm condition; they will heed the counsel of the True Witness." –Ibid., April 1, 1890.

"The question of most vital importance for this time is, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Who will unite with the angel [of Revelation 18:1] in giving the message of truth to the world? Who will receive the light that is to fill the whole earth with its glory?’ Those who cherish the light that they have will receive more. Increasing light will shine about the souls who yield to the softening, subduing grace of Christ; and those who love the light, will be saved from the delusions of Satan." –Ibid., November 5, 1889.

"If we would receive the light of the glorious angel that shall lighten the earth with his glory, let us see to it that our hearts are cleansed, emptied of self, and turned toward heaven, that they may be ready for the latter rain. Let us be obtaining a fitting up to join in the proclamation of the angel who shall lighten the earth with his glory." –The Signs of the Times, August 1, 1892.

"Mystic Babylon has not been sparing in the blood of the saints and shall we [not] be wide awake to catch the beams of light which have been shining from the light of the angel who is to brighten the earth with his glory." –Selected Messages, bk. 3, p. 426.

How the Message Was Received

It cannot be said that the General Conference delegation and the majority of the Adventist membership in 1888 accepted the message of Righteousness by Faith. Among the leaders and the people there were serious differences of opinion. Arthur G. Daniells, in his book Christ Our Righteousness, p. 43, states that a complete report of the presentation and discussion of the message was never published. From subsequent writings of Sister White, however, we know that the message had a very limited reception. Therefore, the work of revival and reformation, that was called for to uproot the growing weeds of apostasy and restore the church to the favor of God, did not take place. And, as a consequence, a large proportion of leaders and members were left to walk in the sparks of their own kindling. Sister White, who supported the message and the messengers, refers to that regrettable experience and its consequences as follows:

"God meant that the watchmen should arise and with united voices send forth a decided message, giving the trumpet a certain sound, that the people might all spring to their post of duty and act their part in the great work. Then the strong, clear light of that other angel who comes down from heaven having great power, would have filled the earth with his glory." –Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, p. 111.

"When I purposed to leave Minneapolis, the angel of the Lord stood by me and said: ‘Not so; God has a work for you to do in this place. The people are acting over the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. I have placed you in your proper position, which those who are not in the light will not acknowledge; they will not heed your testimony; but I will be with you; My grace and power shall sustain you. It is not you they are despising, but the messengers and the message I sent to My people. They have shown contempt for the word of the Lord. Satan has blinded their eyes and perverted their judgment; and unless every soul shall repent of this their sin, this unsanctified independence that is doing insult to the Spirit of God, they will walk in darkness. I will remove the candlestick out of his place except they repent and be converted, that I should heal them.’" –Ibid., vol. 3, p. 191.

"Oh, for a religious awakening! The angels of God are going from church to church, doing their duty; and Christ is knocking at the door of your hearts for entrance. But the means that God has devised to awaken the church to a sense of their spiritual destitution have not been regarded. The voice of the True Witness has been heard in reproof, but has not been obeyed. Men have chosen to follow their own way instead of God’s way because self was not crucified in them. Thus the light has had but little effect upon minds and hearts."–Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 719, 720.

"For nearly two years we have been urging the people to come up and accept the light and the truth concerning the righteousness of Christ, and they do not know whether to come and take hold of this precious truth or not. They are bound about with their own ideas. They do not let the Saviour in." –The Review and Herald, March 11, 1890.

"Since the time of the Minneapolis meeting, I have seen the state of the Laodicean church as never before. I have heard the rebuke of God spoken to those who feel so well satisfied, who know not their spiritual destitution. . . . I feel sad when I think how for long years there has been a gradual lowering of the standard. I have been shown that very few realize the constant presence of the Divine Watcher who declares, ‘I know thy works.’ Through the indulgence of sin, many have forfeited the favor of God, misrepresented Jesus, forgotten His presence, forgotten that they are living in His sight, and so have added evil to evil. All such are foolish virgins. . . . The reasons why the churches are weak and sickly and ready to die is that the enemy has brought influences of a discouraging nature to bear upon trembling souls. He has sought to shut Jesus from their view as the Comforter, as one who reproves, who warns, who admonishes them, saying, ‘This is the way, walk ye in it.’" –Ibid., August 26, 1890.

"The influence that grew out of the resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis tended to make of no effect the light God has given to His people through the Testimonies." –Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 305.

"Instead of leading the world to render obedience to God’s law, the church is uniting more and more closely with the world in transgression. Daily the church is becoming converted to the world."–Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 119 (1903).

If the church, that was "steadily retreating toward Egypt" (Ibid., vol. 5, p. 217), had actually accepted the message "Christ Our Righteousness," she would have made a U-turn in her itinerary, and would now be moving in the opposite direction–with Christ to the heavenly Canaan. And she would not have been accused, in 1903, of having become a harlot (Ibid., vol. 8, p. 250), nor would she become "a cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 265) as a result of her progressive unity with the world. In 1903 the Spirit of Prophecy made this startling declaration about the condition that had developed in the church:

"Why is there so dim a perception of the true spiritual condition of the church? . . . Who can truthfully say, ‘Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments are unspotted by the world’? I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: ‘Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? "How is the faithful city become an harlot!" My Father’s house is made a house of merchandise, a place whence the divine presence and glory have departed! For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking.’ " –Testimonies, vol. 8, pp. 248, 250.

Jones and Waggoner Leave the Church

Soon after 1903 A. T. Jones was taken in the delusions of Dr. J. H. Kellogg and was finally separated from the church. In 1909 a special effort was made to restore him. Several meetings were held with him. He seemed to be moved and prepared for a reconciliation. When Elder Daniells, the General Conference president, extended his hand to him, pleading, "Come, Brother Jones, come," he stood up, slowly reached out his hand too, but suddenly pulled it back and said, "No, never," and sat down again.

E. J. Waggoner also had a negative experience when domestic problems led him to resort to divorce, and then he remarried. He nevertheless advocated the fundamental SDA beliefs to the day of his death.

This was not the first or the last time that those especially chosen by the Lord apostatized after having faithfully given the message. The Spirit of Prophecy, however, warns us that this unfortunate backsliding should not be used as an argument against the light of Heaven that came through them to the people of God. Messengers may draw back, but this will not turn the truth that they have preached into a lie. We have been warned:

"It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. . . . I know that this is the very position many would take if either of these men were to fall, and I pray that these men upon whom God has laid the burden of a solemn work, may be able to give the trumpet a certain sound, and honor God at every step, and that their path at every step may grow brighter and brighter until the close of time."–Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, pp. 201, 202.

The message brought by these two brethren set up an important landmark in the history of the SDA Church. "It marked the beginning of a great reform."–Department of Education, General Conference of SDAs, The Story of Our Church, p. 246.

A Fatal Choice and Its Consequence

God had placed two possibilities before the Adventist Church–either to accept the message of "Christ’s Righteousness," and be transformed, and finally become the triumphant church, or to reject the message, and consequently become like one of the popular churches.

1. If the church accepted the message of 1888 which demanded a revival and reformation . . .

"If the church will put on the robe of Christ’s righteousness, withdrawing from all allegiance with the world, there is before her the dawn of a bright and glorious day. God’s promise to her will stand fast forever."–The Acts of the Apostles, p. 601.

2. If the church acted contrary to the light of heaven and allowed the apostasy to grow and take over . . .

"If most earnest vigilance is not manifested at the great heart of the work to protect the interests of the cause, the church will become as corrupt as the churches of other denominations." –Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 513.

The repeated denouncements which came through the ministry of Sister White, accompanied by factual evidence marking the downward trend of the church after 1888 (especially the great changes witnessed since World War I), show which of the two alternative routes was taken by the denomination. And the final consequences of this fatal choice have been clearly pointed out in the prophetic picture referring to the end of probation. All those who do not heed the counsel of the True Witness and refuse to wear the white raiment of Christ’s righteousness (Rev. 3:18) must be left without the seal of God and without protection against the seven last plagues. Unfortunately, since very few have accepted the remedy offered in 1888, the great majority will suffer a denominational disappointment. This can be read in Ezekiel 9, which is explained by Sister White as follows:

"Those who receive the pure mark of truth, wrought in them by the power of the Holy Ghost, represented by a mark by the man in linen, are those ‘that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done’ in the church. Their love for purity and the honor and glory of God is such, and they have so clear a view of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, that they are represented as being in agony, even sighing and crying. Read the ninth chapter of Ezekiel.

"But the general slaughter of all those who do not thus see the wide contrast between sin and righteousness, and do not feel as those do who stand in the counsel of God and receive the mark, is described in the order to the five men with slaughter weapons."–Ibid., vol. 3, p. 267.

"Here we see that the church–the Lord’s sanctuary–was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust."–Ibid., vol. 5, p. 211.

There Were Some Revivals

After the Minneapolis General Conference session of 1888, Sister White traveled with A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner from place to place, taking part in the presentation of the message, which was attended by the power of God. She reported:

"In every meeting since the General Conference, souls have eagerly accepted the precious message of the righteousness of Christ. We thank God that there are souls who realize that they are in need of something which they do not possess–gold of faith and love, white raiment of Christ’s righteousness, eyesalve of spiritual discernment." –The Review and Herald, July 23, 1889.

"We have seen souls turned from sin to righteousness. We have seen faith revived in the hearts of the contrite ones." –Ibid., May 27, 1890.

Especially informative is the description of the revival meeting held in South Lancaster, Massachusetts, shortly after the Minneapolis conference. That memorable gathering is an example showing how the Lord wrought through the message for the conversion of souls. Sister White reported:

"I have never seen a revival work go forward with such thoroughness, and yet remain so free from all undue excitement. There was no urging or inviting. The people were not called forward, but there was a solemn realization that Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. The honest in heart were ready to confess their sins, and to bring forth fruit to God by repentance and restoration, as far as it lay in their power. . . . There were many who testified that as the searching truths had been presented, they had been convicted in the light of the law as transgressors. They had been trusting in their own righteousness. Now they saw it as filthy rags, in comparison with the righteousness of Christ, which is alone acceptable to God. While they had not been open transgressors, they saw themselves depraved and degraded in heart. They had substituted other gods in the place of their heavenly Father. They had struggled to refrain from sin, but had trusted in their own strength. We should go to Jesus just as we are, confess our sins, and cast our helpless souls upon our compassionate Redeemer. This subdues the pride of the heart, and is a crucifixion of self." –Ibid., March 5, 1889.

These individual or local revivals, however, did not benefit the Adventist leadership and people in general. The church as a church continued sliding deeper and deeper into apostasy. This is clearly revealed in the writings of E. G. White, who testified at the turn of the century:

"On every hand we see those who have had much light and knowledge deliberately choosing evil in the place of good. Making no attempt to reform, they are growing worse and worse." –Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 62.

In the General Conference Bulletin, March 15, 1897, pp. 365—374, there is an article about a serious controversial question which was already making inroads among the Advent people–"Should SDAs take part in politics and war?" Under the title, Out of Babylon and Egypt (No. 7), A.T. Jones discusses the issue. Hereunder we reproduce the highlights of his article. We recommend, however, that you read the whole article in the General Conference Bulletin.

By A. T. Jones 

It is right in the third angel’s message, that by it, and through it, God proposes to "establish Christianity upon an eternal basis." Then, as surely as in the third angel’s message, God establishes Christianity upon an eternal basis, it will be a Christianity that will not be connected with anything upon this earth. It will be connected only with God; only with His eternal word; enlightened by His eternal Spirit; taught by Him whose goings forth have been from the days of eternity; and thus be led to the eternal God, that He may rule, and underneath shall be the everlasting arms.

I know, and you know, that there are some of the brethren that do not think that this is straight. Two years ago it was preached, and was published in the Bulletin. By many it was not accepted. By some it is not accepted yet. It is thought to be altogether wrong. But in the late General Conference, two testimonies were read to us–written especially for this Conference, and one of them, I find, is printed in Bulletin No. 4; the next one is not printed yet, but will be, I suppose, shortly–reproving Seventh-day Adventists for engaging in political matters. I read a passage here that will show you the idea of it:

The Lord Jesus is disappointed in His people. He is the Captain; they are to file under His banner. They have no time, wisdom, or strength to spend in taking sides with political parties. Men are being stirred with an intense activity from beneath, and the sons and daughters of God are not to give their influence to this political strife. But what kind of spirit takes hold upon our people, when those who believe we are now under the third angel’s message, the last message of mercy to the world, brothers in the same faith, appear wearing the badges of opposing political parties, proclaiming opposite sentiments and declaring their divided opinions.

Now I ask this question in the form of a proposition: If that which was preached two years ago on this subject of government and the church had been accepted and followed by all Seventh-day Adventists, could there possibly have arisen any place for that testimony?–Plainly, no. Then did those lessons call for the wrong thing, when they called God’s people to a position where it would be impossible for Him to find fault with them? I mean in this particular point. I mean that when a line of truth is presented from the word of God, which, if His people would accept it before God and the world, would set them in such an attitude that it would be impossible for the Lord to find fault with them in things related to that line of truth, is it not safe to accept that as the truth? How could it possibly be wrong? . . .

I do not ask now that anybody shall accept that because it is there. I ask that they shall accept it, study into it, pray over it, look at it, and accept it because it is the truth, and will deliver the people of God from the possibility of His ever being called upon to reprove or correct them upon any such point as that. Yet I know that there are brethren who still think that it is all wrong; and say that it called for our people to take an extreme position, and that it was taking an extreme position. Can that be an extreme position which puts God’s people where He wants them to stand, so they will be utterly free from all these confused things that confuse the world? . . .

There is another thing that we need to consider. If we take part in political affairs and political discussions, different sides will be taken by different individuals, in opposing political parties, proclaiming opposite sentiments and declaring their divided opinions, while professing to be brethren. What is the last step in political working?–War, of course. Then what is in it, at the beginning?–Simply what is in it at the end–war. It is that spirit from beginning to end. Can brethren in Christ, who are one in Christ, engage in anything that will cause them to be divided in the spirit of antagonism? Can they?–No! not and remain one in Christ. . . .

But this is not all. If we as Seventh-day Adventists are to preach those principles, and are to hold to them, there is an important step that must be taken, in justice to the United States government, in justice to the state of Michigan, and several other states, that we may appear in the right light.

I say it again, so that you may understand what I am talking about. If it is to be so that we shall accept the principle that Christians may fight, may lift their right arm to defend country and government and all that, then the denomination, in justice to itself, and especially in justice to the government of the United States and to several of the states, must publicly proclaim it, and repudiate and reverse the course that was once taken by the denomination as such.

I have here two little documents printed in 1865, but what is written in them occurred in 1864. One of them is entitled "Views of Seventh-day Adventists Relative to Bearing Arms, as Brought before the Governors of Several States and the Provo-Marshall General [that is, of the United States], with a Portion of the Enrolment Law."

At that time Seventh-day Adventists, by the General Conference Committee, represented to the government of the United States, to the government of the state of Illinois, of Michigan, of Pennsylvania, of Wisconsin, and another state or two, that Seventh-day Adventists, as Christians, and because they were Christians, could not allow that Christians could under any circumstances bear arms or fight. The other document is extracted from the writings and publications of Seventh-day Adventists, to justify the government in accepting from the denomination, that plea as genuine.

Now if that order is to be reversed, and we are to accept the view that Christians may fight under any circumstances at all, for government or whatever it may be, then we owe it to the government of the United States to have the General Conference Committee, representing the denomination, go to the government of the United States and tell them that we have changed our views; and go to the governors of these states and tell them that we have changed our views; so that the records will stand according to our new and revised views upon that subject. . . .

Now I will read to you some of the extracts that were then printed from documents, publications, and papers of Seventh-day Adventists, as evidence to the United States government, and as evidence to the governors of the states, that that position taken by the General Conference Committee of the denomination, was their understood position, and not one made up for the occasion, to escape the draft, or to escape the results that were coming upon the country because of the war. . . .

Here is an extract from something written in the Signs of the Times, by Elder James White, in 1853:

The professed church of Christ has left the arm of her true husband, and now leans on the strong arm of the law. She seeks protection, and to be nourished by the corrupt governments of the world, and is properly represented by the harlot daughters of the old mother, she being a symbol of the Catholic Church. As the woman should cleave to her husband, so should the church cleave to Christ, and instead of seeking protection from the arm of the law, lean only on the potent arm of her Beloved. The church is unlawfully wedded to the world. This may be seen in the various departments of civil government. Even in the war department, the professed minister of Jesus Christ is seen mocking the God of peace with his prayers for success in battle.

Again, an extract quoted from the Review and Herald of May 9, 1854:

Whether these things are at hand or not [it is about the coming of the Lord], the fact remains: a war spirit is abroad, a spirit of hatred and delusion. It is its contaminating influence that we fear–it is the demoralizing influence of familiarity with the ideas of war and bloodshed; it is the unhealthy excitement, the bitter party spirit, that is evil and causes evil to spread.

Let it not be said there is no danger to Christ’s disciples from these causes. There is danger; because "when iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Such are the mysterious and inexplicable sympathies which bind man to man, which forbid a separate and isolated interest, that we catch unconsciously the prevalent tone, and we know not till the mind is warped and unsettled; and thus being in an unhealthy state it is ready to receive and to conceive evil. The moral scourge is more destructive even than the pestilence. . . .

I now read another extract, reprinted from the Review, dated Aug. 14, 1856:

Has the gospel of Jesus granted you the right to use the sword, to arm you with carnal weapons, to take the sword to "provide for your own household," to deliver the oppressed out of the power of the oppressor, by breaking the sixth commandment of God, "Thou shalt not kill"? Jesus says, "Love your enemies."

Do you think that you, as a Christian living under the gospel, have a Bible permission to mingle in political strife in any way whatever? either in legislating, or executing the laws of human government? If so, I think you are greatly mistaken.

That is what the denomination said in 1864. They presented that to the government of the United States as evidence that they did not believe in war, and that they could not engage in bearing arms, and that if they were drafted, they could not be expected to fight. And the government of the United States listened to their representations, and made provision that they should attend the hospitals where they could do the work of ministers of the gospel, and care for the sick, and bring salvation to the dying. Now if that is to be reversed, we should stand fairly before the government and state that it has been reversed. 

As pointed out before, the rejection of the message of 1888 was not without consequences. From history we learn what happens when a message of God is rejected. "Where the message of divine truth is spurned or slighted, there the church will be enshrouded in darkness; faith and love grow cold, and estrangement and dissension enter" (The Great Controversy, pp. 378, 379). The Laodicean condition (Rev. 3:17) affected the church to such a point that, when a great crisis came with the outbreak of World War I, the majority were not prepared for the test.

Before we can discuss the events that took place under the test, we must reemphasize the original position of Seventh-day Adventists concerning participation in war.

Original Stand: No Participation 

Over one hundred years ago, when SDAs were faced with the question whether bearing arms, especially in time of war, is consistent with the requirements of the law of God, they decided:

"We are compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed."–Report of the Third Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (The Review and Herald, May 23, 1865).

The original Adventist position–no participation–had the seal of God’s approval. It was in harmony with the Bible (John 18:36; Matt. 5:43, 44; Luke 9:56; Matt. 26:52; John 15:14) and with the Spirit of Prophecy. Sister White wrote during the Civil War:

"I was shown that God’s people, who are His peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war." Why not? "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."–Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 361.

"War and bloodshed," according to the Spirit of Prophecy, is "a disregard for the law of God." –The SDA Bible Commentary [E. G. White Comments], vol. 7, p. 974.

At the Turn of the Century: Same Position 

At the turn of the century, the Adventist Church had already gone a long way in the wrong direction (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 75, 76, 84, 217; and vol. 8, pp. 119, 249, 250; and so on). Nevertheless, her spiritual condition was incomparably better in those days than it is today. Her original position–no participation–was still upheld, as can be seen from articles published in the Review and Herald and in the Signs of the Times.

Here is an interesting experience summarized from an article published in the Review and Herald of June 21, 1898.

"Many people imagine that the times when quiet, unoffending people could be made to suffer real persecution for their loyalty to God and His Word, are in the past, and that men in these days are too enlightened to persecute their fellowmen for conscience sake; but we have had under close observation for nearly a year a case which shows that all the elements of religious persecution are everywhere present as much as they ever were; and that more extended and relentless persecution than has ever yet been known is not only possible, but is highly probable, yes, actually inevitable, since careful and systematic preparations are being made for it."

Hereunder we refer to the experience of a young Adventist in one of the European countries.

Christen Rasmussen, a nineteen-year-old Dane, was called up for military service in l897, when he was just turning to the Lord. April 10, 1897, was a Sabbath day; therefore, he did not present himself at the military headquarters at one o’clock p.m., according to the conscription letter he had received. Instead, he appeared only after sunset. Being sharply reprimanded for his delay, he was assigned to his duty.

During the week he approached the captain requesting exemption on Sabbath days, but his petition was not granted. Under those conditions, the young man understood that it was his sacred duty to obey the King of the universe rather than the king of Denmark. Sabbath morning he remained in his room reading his Bible. A corporal came after him, but he refused to act contrary to his conscience. Then a lieutenant came, and commanded him to take his place in the ranks, but he replied, "I cannot."

"Why not?" the lieutenant asked.

"Because it is the Sabbath."

Finally Christen left his room, accompanying the lieutenant outside, but he refused to take his place in the ranks.

So the young conscientious objector was brought to the captain.

"Why do you not take your place?" the captain asked.

"Because the Lord has said, The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work."

"Well, you are a soldier, and must obey; nothing of that kind is taken into consideration here. Take your place," said the captain.

"I cannot, sir."

As the young man did not yield to the pressure of the officers, a sergeant was ordered to take him to prison.

Before the military court his only answer was this:

"The God who created heaven and earth has said, ‘On the seventh day, which is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, shalt thou do no work,’ and I cannot do anything other than obey Him."

The young hero of the faith was sentenced to eighteen days’ solitary confinement, on bread and water. After each period of five days in a dark cell, he was permitted to spend one day in a lighted cell.

The sentence he received was milder than he expected: "eight months’ hard labor in the penitentiary." Because of his refusal to work on the seventh day, each Sabbath he was put in a dark cell, or hole, where there was no fire, and he suffered much from cold. But he spent only a little less than two months in prison. He was pardoned on the king’s eightieth birthday.

A Danish newspaper, Aarhus Folkeblad of February 19, 1898, commented on this case as follows:

"One cannot comfort himself with the thought that this is an isolated case; for that there will soon be many I know of a certainty. We really come to the heart of the matter only when we see that such a man can come into a yet more serious situation in time of war. For, according to what I have seen, belonging to the Seventh-day Adventists, they will absolutely refuse to go against an enemy with weapons in hand. They will hold themselves strictly to the fifth [sixth]* commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ They will allow themselves to be killed, but they will not kill. If this is correct, and I believe it is, then these men are useless as soldiers, and may, if war should break out, come into the most deplorable condition in that they may be condemned to death, and put others in the painful situation of being obliged to pronounce so hard a sentence upon them."

Christen represented the historic position of the Adventist people, who believed that, while in the army, a Christian could not obey military orders and at the same time remain loyal to the law of God. In those days it was also understood that on this point a great test was before the people of God. The editor of the Review and Herald (June 21, 1898) added the following comment:

"The Danish people are as kind and courteous and gentle a people as can be found in the world. Moreover, all those who came in contact with young Rasmussen liked him personally, and the officers praised his efficiency and willingness; yet the worship of the military demon begets so false a conception of duty that not one of them would hesitate in obedience to inflict upon him any sort of punishment. Why?–Because, in their minds, human government is greater than God. Young Rasmussen was not punished because the officers had any ill-will toward him, nor because they were hardhearted men. Far from it. On the contrary, it caused them pain, and they did it at the sacrifice of personal feelings to what they conceived to be their duty. The same thing would be done in any other country in the world; only the punishment might be much more vigorous. The kings and rulers of earth have set themselves against God and have assumed the right to set aside His law, which says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; and as a matter of course, the other portions of that law are as lightly regarded by them.

"This case shows the fallacy of another idea that is entertained by many; namely, that religious persecution must be prompted by hatred of the religious principles of the ones persecuted. In this case those at whose hands Rasmussen suffered had no religious bias. They cared no more for Sunday than for the Sabbath. It was absolutely immaterial to them what religion the soldiers professed, or if they professed none at all. The only thing that concerned them was to secure implicit and unquestioning obedience to the regulations of the army. If a man disregards them, the fact that he does so in obedience to God’s law is not for a moment taken into consideration; punishment must follow to the bitter end.

"‘But there must be discipline in the army, or else its efficiency is at an end; and if partiality is shown, there will be an end of discipline,’ will be urged by many, and not last, by any means, by men who occupy places of influence in the church. Think of the wickedness of such a defense! God and His law must be considered of secondary importance to the military machine! It is of more importance that the army should be maintained than that God should be regarded! The mere statement of the case is sufficient to show that it is as gross paganism as ever existed. What hope can there be of peace on earth as long as such principles rule?

"The situation will be worse in the future than it has ever been in the past; for war is now sanctioned by the professed ministers of the gospel as it has never been before. It is so easy for the rulers to raise the cry of ‘humanity’ in justification of any war, or else there is always that magic word ‘patriotism’; and when a country is ‘Christian,’ it is readily argued that to defend its ‘honor’ is a Christian act; so that he who will refuse to disobey God’s law, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ will be condemned as a traitor to God and his country, and that even by the ministers of religion.

"Is it not time that the question should be again asked: ‘How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.’ In so-called ‘Christian’ countries, the worst sort of paganism is assuming overwhelming proportions. The great mass of people seem to think that when the ‘government’ (which is, in the main, only another name for the army) commands disobedience to God’s law, there is no alternative but to disobey it; and those who refuse to transgress God’s law are branded as lawless and disobedient. What is it but heathenism thus to ignore God, and to set the military god above Him?

"Thank God that there are still faithful witnesses to the truth, lone voices in the desert, saying, ‘Behold your God!’ When the testing time comes, these single voices will be multiplied by thousands, whose quiet lives of humble obedience to God’s law will speak louder than any words, and will result in bringing many from the camp of Satan to enlist under the banner of the Prince of Peace."

Other young Adventists, in Germany, also represented the historic position of the church. In The History of the Advent Movement in Germany, a thesis prepared by Jacob Michael Platt for his doctorate of philosophy degree, Stanford University, he gives the following information based on an article published in the Review and Herald of September 26, 1907:

"The German Seventh-day Adventist young men drafted into the armed forces before 1914 faced many hardships as a result of adhering to their beliefs."

The military authorities believed that these young men were simply following the instructions received from their pastors. So, in some cases, church leaders were called before the military courts to give an explanation. The leaders were wise enough to assert that, while it was true that they taught obedience to the law of God as a Christian duty, each soldier acted according to the dictates of his own conscience. It became clear that the soldiers could think and decide for themselves. In no instance were the authorities able to determine that an Adventist soldier was acting on the advice of his spiritual leaders. Platt continues his report:

"The German Ministry of War resolved on the strict enforcement of the law, hoping that severity of punishment might bring these Seventh-day Adventist young men to terms. Military authorities were astonished to find that these soldiers were willing to endure harsh punishment rather than do ordinary work on Saturday."

Young Adventist men, as a rule, suffered severe punishment for their decision to obey God rather than men. Among others, Platt mentions these two: Hermann Gross and Hans Kraemer. Having been sentenced to eight years of imprisonment in 1904, Gross served four years in military prison, often in solitary confinement and at times in a dark cell. A similar sentence was meted out to Kraemer. They were both released upon the advice of medical officers, who certified that longer confinement would cost their life.

A peculiar case was narrated by Platt: In 1903, Johann Strasser, when drafted into the army, refused to do service on the Sabbath. The officers interrogated him: "How long have you been a Sabbathkeeper?" "I have been a Sabbathkeeper from childhood, as my parents had," Johann replied. The military authorities found out that Martin Strasser, Johann’s father, for refusing to work on the Sabbath while in the army, received a prison sentence of three years, and they were convinced that Johann, too, would remain faithful to his religious convictions. Therefore, they exempted him from service on the Sabbath.

"As instances of adherence to religious beliefs increased, the German army officials became perplexed," Platt informs. "It was evident that Adventist soldiers would not violate their consciences, regardless of consequences. For about nine months, during 1904 and 1905, when a new recruit was found to be a Seventh-day Adventist, he was rejected as unfit for military service; but the government did not continue this policy. Yet for all of the rigors of the German military discipline, the authorities dealt relatively mildly with objectors for conscience’ sake. They meted out to Seventh-day Adventists no punishment worse than imprisonment, or enforced labor on fortifications, or duty in hospitals."

Before World War I, historic Adventists understood that war songs are not heard in the narrow pathway leading to heaven, but only in the abyss (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 595). It was clear to them that combatancy is inconsistent with the law of God. To the question, "Can a Christian do military service?" they had only one answer–No! Here is additional evidence quoted from the Signs of the Times:

"Can a Christian enlist in the army and be a soldier?

"A Christian has yielded himself a servant of Christ. ‘Ye call Me Master and Lord; and ye say well, for so I am’ (John 13:13). ‘One is your Master, even Christ’ (Matthew 23:8). ‘Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey?’ (Romans 6:16, R. V.).

"Having become a servant of Christ, a man cannot accept another master. ‘No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other’ (Luke 16:13).

"Notwithstanding these plain statements, some men think they can be Christians while as soldiers they are sworn servants of the government, and may at any time be ordered to the front and to fire upon the enemy. Indeed, they expect this when they enlist, though it is in direct disobedience of the command of God, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13).

"What is the soldier’s business? Is it not to fight and to war? But ‘the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men’ (2 Timothy 2:24). And the Holy Spirit said through John the Baptist, ‘Do violence to no man’ (Luke 3:14). Read these scriptures: ‘This is My commandment, that ye love one another as I have loved you’ (John 15:12). ‘Love worketh no ill to his neighbour’ (Romans 13:10). ‘I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’ (Matthew 5:44).

"Reader, do you honestly think you can serve these two masters?"–The Signs of the Times, April 9, 1902 (by Geo. E. Hollister).

The evidence presented so far shows that noncombatancy, which in those days was equivalent to no participation or conscientious opposition, was the historic position of the SDA Church in connection with military service, especially in time of war. And this position was based on the Bible (New Testament) and on the Spirit of Prophecy.

At this stage a serious question should arouse the thinking of the reader: What consequences are to be expected if the church changes her stand from no participation to complete freedom of participation? Will everything continue as usual? Will peace and harmony be kept up among the members as if nothing serious has happened in the church? Or will there be a crisis and a shaking? These questions will make the contents of this book meaningful to serious-minded Adventists when they find out that such a change has actually happened.

While the Adventist denomination was recovering from the crisis of 1902—1903, and while plans were being made to expand the work, to launch new enterprises, and to establish new institutions, the servant of the Lord warned the leadership and the people about a much more fearful crisis that the church would have to face in the near future. She was shown the preparations that were being made in the political world for a series of conflicts that would start with World War I and how these conflicts would affect the people of God.

"The nations of the world are eager for conflict," she had written back in 1900; "but they are held in check by the [four] angels. When this restraining power is removed, there will come a time of trouble and anguish." –The SDA Bible Commentary [E. G. White comments], vol. 7, p. 967.

Sister White wrote Testimonies for the Church, volume 9, during a period of five years, from 1904 through 1909. Deeply impressed by the scenes that she had seen in vision, she started the first chapter of that book by sounding a warning:

"We are living in the time of the end. The fast-fulfilling signs of the times declare that the coming of Christ is near at hand. . . . Plagues and judgments are already falling upon the despisers of the grace of God. The calamities by land and sea, the unsettled state of society, the alarms of war, are portentous. They forecast approaching events of the greatest magnitude.

"The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. . . .

"The condition of things in the world shows that troublous times are right upon us. The daily papers are full of indications of a terrible conflict in the near future." –Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 11.

"The world is stirred with the spirit of war. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment. Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies will take place." –Ibid., p. 14.

"Fearful tests and trials await the people of God. The spirit of war is stirring the nations from one end of the earth to the other." –Ibid., p. 17.

In connection with this warning, she quoted, among other verses, Isaiah 24:1—8. Verse 1 mentions the destruction that would be caused by wars in the latter days: "Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof."

In spite of the warnings that the Advent people had received, the majority were not able to see what was actually going on behind the scenes. Only those who were prayerfully watching the signs of the times saw that the world was about to be involved in an international conflict identified with "the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:8).

World War I did not start suddenly out of events emerging in 1914. The real causes of the conflict can be traced much further back. Tensions resulting from unwise political attitudes over a period of years lined up the most powerful nations of Europe in two blocs. Each side was proud, jealous, suspicious, and filled with a spirit of nationalism. Both sides were heavily armed and fearful of each other.

Sensing that war was about to erupt, wise leaders in those nations did their best to ward off the imminent danger. Also, a Permanent Court of Arbitration was established at The Hague, the Netherlands, for the purpose of helping nations to settle disputes. The first international peace conference, attended by 24 nations, was held at The Hague in 1899. A second peace conference, to which 44 nations sent their representatives, took place in l907. But the Hague Court had practically no authority, as it could only help settle disputes that the contending nations were willing to submit to it for arbitration.

Besides the efforts made through the Hague Court and the Hague Conferences, there were organized peace movements supported by wealthy men in the early years of the twentieth century.

Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, donated a high sum of money to be distributed in the form of prizes in the interest of peace and cooperation among the nations. Andrew Carnegie, an American steel manufacturer, built the famous Peace Palace for the Hague Court. But "the nations were angry" (Revelation 11:18) beyond human help. While the Peace Palace was under construction, a reporter wrote:

"The erection of the Peace Palace at The Hague is going on satisfactorily. There is much discouragement connected with this peace building. It has quite a dangerous drawback. Proof: When the construction was approved, the Boer war broke out. When the plans for the building were accepted, the Russo-Japanese war started. At the time of the laying of the foundation, the German emperor visited Tangier and the unrest in Morocco began. When the first floor was completed, Austria conquered Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Turks. When the second floor was finished, the German-French tension over Morocco began. Since the completion of the attic chambers, the Italian-Turkish war broke out. I have been following with great fear the progress of the building. The closer it is drawing toward its completion, the worse the situation is becoming. When you think that the glaziers, the paperhangers, and the decorators have not even started their job, what will it be like when these men begin working? I have heard of some of the great symbolic peace paintings which should brighten the triumph of the peace movement. I’m afraid. As often as one part is completed, somewhere in the world there will be a shrapnel shower. Also a few statues are to be placed in the gallery of this palace–Pax, Lex, Labor, etc. Every one will cost thousands of lives. And, finally, the day when this temple of peace shall be dedicated, every one of us will shoulder his gun. A general World War will then break out–all against all. Therefore, I request that this palace be torn down as quickly as possible." –Taegliche Rundschau, No. 473.

The spirit of imperialism kept fueling the tension existing especially among the European powers. So, before 1914, Europe was split into two rival military alliances, as mentioned before. On the one hand there was the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, and on the other hand the Triple Entente of Great Britain, France, and Russia.

Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities in 1914, the two military blocs, from fear of each other, increased their military preparations, which, in turn, increased their mutual fears day by day. Only a little "spark"–a new international crisis–was needed to trigger the imminent conflict, and this crisis was provoked on June 28, 1914, when the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, a province which Austria-Hungary had recovered from the Turks in 1908. And then the feared chain reaction began. When the war was over, in 1918, the casualties on all fronts were estimated at 10 million dead and 20 million wounded.

Let us go back a few years before the war. In view of what was about to happen in those eventful days, 1914—1918, Sister White predicted the beginning of a time of trial and persecution for the church as follows:

"A season of great trial is before us. . . . The time is right upon us when persecution will come to those who proclaim the truth. . . . But wherever God’s people may be forced to go, even though, like the beloved disciple, they are banished to desert islands, Christ will know where they are and will strengthen and bless them, filling them with peace and joy.

"Soon there is to be trouble all over the world. It becomes everyone to seek to know God. We have no time to delay. . . . God’s love for His church is infinite. His care over His heritage is unceasing. He suffers no affliction to come upon the church but such as is essential for her purification, her present and eternal good. He will purify His church even as He purified the temple at the beginning and close of His ministry on earth. All that He brings upon the church in test and trial comes that His people may gain deeper piety and more strength to carry the triumphs of the cross to all parts of the world."–Testimonies, vol. 9, pp. 227, 228.

Tests and trials have a purifying effect upon the church. When everything seems to be at peace, there is no noticeable difference between the two classes of believers. But when strict obedience to God is followed by oppression and persecution, and threats of imprisonment, torture, and death, the false-hearted professors are clearly distinguished from those who have made a "Thus saith the Lord" their rule of life. This dreadful experience was before the Adventist people when the servant of the Lord was writing Testimonies for the Church, volume 9. She often pointed out the fact that the coming crisis would reveal two distinct companies of Adventists.

"The authorities will make laws to restrict religious liberty. . . . They will think they can force the conscience, which God alone should control. Even now they are making a beginning; this work they will continue to carry forward till they reach a boundary over which they cannot step. . . . Many stumble and fall, apostatizing from the faith they once advocated. Those who apostatize in time of trial will, to secure their own safety, bear false witness, and betray their brethren." –The Desire of Ages, p. 630.

"Thank God, all will not be rocked to sleep in the cradle of carnal security. There will be faithful ones who will discern the signs of the times. While a large number professing present truth will deny their faith by their works, there will be some who will endure unto the end." –Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 10.

"Soon God’s people will be tested by fiery trials, and the great proportion of those who now appear to be genuine and true will prove to be base metal. . . . To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when the champions are few–this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason. . . . The test will surely come." –Ibid., pp. 136, 137.

Some of the readers may think that the oft-predicted test will not come before the Sunday decree. Surely, we will all be tested when the image of the beast is set up shortly before the close of probation. A decree enforcing Sunday observance will go forth to all the nations of the world. But this will be "the final test" (The Great Controversy, p. 605), "the last act in the drama" (The SDA Bible Commentary [E. G. White comments], vol. 7, p. 980). When E. G. White mentions the coming "test" or "tests," she often refers to a testing time, or a series of tests beginning with the preliminary tests and ending up with the final test. This is evident in The Desire of Ages, p. 630, quoted above, as well as in other Spirit of Prophecy statements.

Another point which must be clarified before we can proceed to the next chapter: unless we have a correct concept of what it means to "apostatize from the faith," we will not have a clear understanding of certain Spirit of Prophecy declarations. Some will say that apostatizing from the faith is the same as leaving the church. Not necessarily. History teaches that, century after century, the apostatized majority did not leave the church; on the contrary, they took control of the church. This is why, today, there is a whole family of fallen churches –Babylon, both mother and daughters (Revelation 17:5). In Testimonies, vol. 3, pp. 265��267, and vol. 5, pp. 210—212, and in many other prophetic writings referring to the end, we read about an unreformed majority which will hold the reins of government in the Adventist Church until it is too late to make a change.

The course of the unfaithful majority was prophetically described as follows:

"There is a prospect before us of a continued struggle, at the risk of imprisonment, loss of property, and even of life itself, to defend the law of God, which is made void by the laws of men. In this situation worldly policy will urge an outward compliance with the laws of the land, for the sake of peace and harmony."–Ibid., p. 712.

"A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions." –Selected Messages, bk. 2, p. 385.

In her prophetic visions, Sister White saw also another company of Seventh Day Adventists, namely, a faithful minority:

"I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation."–Early Writings, p. 258.

"Not all in this world have taken sides with the enemy against God. Not all have become disloyal. There are a faithful few who are true to God; for John writes, ‘Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.’ Revelation 14:12."–Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 15.

The first phase in the fulfillment of these predictions was seen in 1914—1918 under the preliminary tests.

The Lord has always given leaders the first opportunity to exhibit faithfulness and courage but, unfortunately, when the crisis loomed up before the church in 1914, it found them unprepared. The decisive majority of the membership in Europe were unable to see that the brethren in the highest offices were leading the church in the wrong direction by committing the members to combatancy.

Under that fiery test, the SDA leadership in Europe issued declarations instructing the brethren to take a combatant part in the war. These writings brought much confusion in the churches. Thousands of Seventh Day Adventists in Europe were thrown into great trial and perplexity, as, to avoid persecution and possible death, they consented to give up Sabbath-keeping, to bear arms, and do as other patriots were doing. The great majority acted in accordance with the decisions of their leaders.

It was only a small minority of conscientious objectors who chose to stand for truth and righteousness. They were not troublemakers; they were honest Adventists who stood up in defense of the law of God in a time of crisis, when the church was wavering between loyalty and compromise. But their position was out of harmony with the decision of the leaders, who wanted the church to be in favor with the government. Therefore, the faithful few who stood for their convictions were disfellowshiped from the church. The persecution and tribulation which followed as the result of this attitude is part of denominational history. In the crisis caused by World War I, God had His faithful witnesses in every country, as we will see in the following pages.

Since the beginning of the war, the SDA General Conference was aware of the troubles that had come upon the church in Europe. The contentions and divisions that were taking place in the Adventist ranks were not concealed from the General Conference brethren. Therefore, at the end of 1916, William A. Spicer, the General Conference secretary at the time, was sent to Europe to obtain firsthand information about the problems and, if possible, to help find a solution. Perhaps if he had contacted the disfellowshiped minorities and heard their side of the story also, he might have taken back to Washington, DC, a different picture of the situation. But he was satisfied with the one-sided reports obtained from the European leaders (especially L. R. Conradi) who were responsible for and directly involved in the difficulty. Thus, the visit of Elder Spicer, instead of serving to resolve or minimize the issue regarding faithfulness to the commandments of God in the time of war, only served to aggravate it.

From the facts considered so far, we already know that the leadership of the church and the majority of the membership felt free to set aside distinctive Adventist doctrines, such as strict obedience to the Law of Ten Commandments, both in times of peace and in times of stress and war. Consequently, a minority held that, with such a deviation, the import of the Advent message would be lost sight of and the unique doctrines hitherto advocated for over a half century would be nullified. They felt that the threat of persecution and loss of property should never have led the denomination to seek a compromise with the powers of darkness. The refusal to secure false peace at the sacrifice of principle, they contended, would now be the distinguishing mark between the true and the professed Adventist believers.

Through the years of World War I, the controversy over doctrinal differences widened the gap between the majority and the minority until, in many cases, the faithful few were disfellowshiped. The church leadership had reasoned that this step was necessary in order to safeguard the properties of the denomination and ensure the right of the Adventist people to continue holding their meetings.

The strife and division, we must emphasize again, was by no means confined to Germany; it was witnessed in sixteen countries, involving hundreds of true Adventists. Since traveling was restricted, much of what went on during those perplexing years was done through correspondence, and mutual contacts were established among the separated groups.

When the war was over, the news was spread that the numbers of those who had been cut off from church membership, because of their loyalty to the fundamental doctrines of the Advent Movement, had increased to thousands. These people realized that something more definite must be done in search of a solution to the existing problem. It was suggested that a preliminary meeting, if called in a nearby neutral country, would be welcomed by the disfellowshiped minority and that their experiences would offer them a common ground for the united actions that were required under those circumstances. The purpose of such a meeting would be to strengthen connections among fellow believers who had suffered for the truth’s sake and to encourage one another in the truth.

The planned meeting convened in Switzerland in the autumn of 1919. Brother D. Nicolici reported on the event as follows:

"When we in Romania were disfellowshiped from the Adventist Church, we did not know that faithful brethren in other European countries had gone through similar experiences. As soon as we received information about the Reform brethren in Germany, we wrote to them. As a result of mutual contacts among Reformers in several countries, arrangements were made to hold a meeting in Switzerland toward the end of 1919. From Romania, we sent two representatives along with our experiences and views. During that meeting, which was attended by 16 brethren, the question of organization was not discussed because the Reform brethren were hopeful that a reconciliation with the Adventist Church would come. We were not interested in separation but in unity, and we expected that our Adventist brethren would open the door for an official discussion with some of their General Conference representatives. Upon the suggestion of Brother Otto Welp, it was then agreed that an international conference of Reformers would be held in Wuerzburg, Germany, in 1921."

As the brethren narrated their experiences in that meeting in 1919, it became very evident to them that the hand of God was leading a faithful remnant in a work of reformation. There was no doubt in their minds that what they had suffered, both at the hands of the SDA leaders and of the secular authorities, was the result of their unflinching decision and of their determined effort to remain loyal to the fundamental truths upon which the Advent Movement had been founded. According to reports presented, many had sealed their testimony with their lives. Others had suffered years of imprisonment and privation. The fact that in not a few cases both lay members and ministers had chosen the pathway of compromise and employed their talents to bring persecution against the reform-minded Adventists was the cause of considerable consternation.

At this meeting, it was agreed that the international connections should be fostered under the leadership of Brother Otto Welp, who had his office in Wuerzburg, Germany. The brethren had no desire to form a separate organization, at least not on a permanent or final basis. It was believed that the General Conference leadership of the Seventh Day Adventists would vindicate the position of the faithful minority and set things in order. With the fondest hope that the necessary corrective steps would be taken by the church, that memorable meeting came to a close.

The General Conference Executive Committee members in Washington, DC, had been informed of the difficulties involving the church in Europe. Several executive officers were therefore sent to Europe to examine and, if possible, solve the problem. During June and July 1920, they visited various countries where hundreds of members had been disfellowshiped from church membership. Their visit was eagerly anticipated. But these General Conference leaders yielded to the influence of the European leaders and supported their compromising attitudes. Thus, at the conference in Friedensau, 1920, Elder A. G. Daniells endorsed the disfellowshipment of the faithful minority (known as "Reformers" or "Reform brethren").

From the very outbreak of hostilities, the leading brethren in the United States were aware of the crisis which had affected the work in Europe. They knew that there was a division among the members. Yet they extended no support or sympathy to the persecuted ones who found themselves outside the church.

In 1920 four members of the SDA General Conference Executive Committee visited Europe with the stated purpose of settling the difficulty and in some way restoring unity among the believers. They were particularly concerned with the Balkan countries and Germany, but in all their efforts they made scarcely any attempt to contact the scattered groups of minority believers who had endured the fires of affliction for the third angel’s message. Their opinions were based almost entirely upon the reports received from the European leaders who were directly involved in the problem. It became evident to them, however, that the apostasy in Europe could not be easily covered up, and that one day it would be made known to the Adventist membership at large.

The Reformers began to ask themselves serious questions about the real intentions of the General Conference brethren: Are they actually willing to settle the problems, or do they only intend to clear themselves of the responsibility for what had taken place in Europe? Will they admit or minimize the betrayal of the European leaders, and give the impression that on the whole they had been loyal to the message, and that they had done the best they could under the circumstances? Do they think that the Reform brethren were only a group of rebellious elements, extremists and fanatics, who refused all efforts for reconciliation? Our brethren were invited by L. R. Conradi, H. F. Schuberth, G. W. Schubert, and P. Drinhaus (see Zions-Waechter, Nos. 13 & 14, July 1920) to send a delegation to a meeting of ministers to be held in Friedensau, Germany, where the General Conference president would be prepared to discuss the controverted questions.

The opportunity of meeting with the General Conference president and other Executive Committee members was welcomed by our pioneers, who thought they could expect a fair and impartial hearing. They soon realized, however, that they were mistaken in their optimistic expectations. It was declared that the German leaders had been faithful in the time of crisis, that no principle was involved in the stand taken by the church, and that the Reformers were only a small group of disaffected and disgruntled elements, deluded by false dreams and visions.

A conference was held at the SDA Missionary College in Friedensau, July 21 through 23, 1920. There were present 51 members of different Union Conference Committees (the three German Unions, The Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary); plus 16 members of the disfellowshiped minority (who were called by the SDA leaders "The Movement of Opposition"); plus 4 General Conference men: A. G. Daniells (president), L. H. Christian, F. M. Wilcox, and M. E. Kern. The main speakers for the Reformers were Edmund Doerschler and Heinrich Spanknoebel.

The Reformers had four questions to which they desired answers:

First question: "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 presented)."

Second question: "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 (SDA paper in Germany), Numbers 13 & 14, July 1920? We will present the evidence later on."

Third question: (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?"

Fourth question: "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."

The reasons for, and the purpose of, these questions should be understood, so the answers may be properly evaluated. Here we will focus on the first question as it is the most relevant to the Reform Movement's origin and history.

First Question 

The first question was asked with a view to finding out how far the evident involvement of the General Conference in the combatant position taken in Europe was admitted by the Adventist leaders, and whether they were willing to make the necessary correction.

Many SDA leaders realize that this is a very delicate point; and many try to deny some very serious facts which we must disclose to the Adventist believers, namely, that:

a. By having condoned combatancy, not only among SDAs in Europe, but also in America, and by not having corrected the situation soon after World War I, the General Conference made matters worse; and,

b. By now refusing to acknowledge any General Conference involvement in the World War I defection, the leaders were actually increasing their complicity and culpability.

The Adventist brethren should be informed that, during the Friedensau conference (1920), the European leaders were whitewashed, and even Conradi and Dail, respectively president and secretary of the European Division (who had signed documents in behalf of SDA combatancy), were justified as if they had committed no blunder in connection with the law of God and the war question. And those few who had stood up in defense of the commandments of God were condemned for believing in strict obedience to the precepts of Jehovah both in time of peace and in time of war, according to the original SDA stand. The discussion is quoted from the Minutes of the Conference with the Movement of Opposition (held in Friedensau, July 21—23, 1920), published by the SDA Church.

Following is the gist of Elder Daniells’ answer to the first question:

"As soon as the war broke out in Europe, we in America studied this matter carefully. . . . And we took this position: Let everyone act according to his conscience in this question. . . . Then we had some brethren who had the spirit of love for their country, and went to the battle line, and fought. They came to England and France, and went to the trenches, and I don’t know what they did while they were there, but they served and came back when the armistice was signed. . . . We regret the war, and we are against it. But we must permit every citizen to act toward the authorities according to the dictates of his own conscience. Not one of these persons was disfellowshiped from our church. Not one of them was treated as if he was not a Christian. . . . As long as we do not have precise limits towards the authorities, it must be left with each one to act according to his own conscience. The brethren in America took the same moderate and tolerant position as our brethren in Europe. . . . I would like to say that, when the declaration of Brother Dail reached us in America, it did not seem right, and we regretted it. We received letters from brethren who condemned it severely and asked us to arise and condemn it too. We told them to be quiet and cautious. . . . Therefore, brethren, neither Brother Spicer nor I have ever used the pen to publish a condemnation against these declarations. . . . In spite of our views about this declaration, we did not send one word in answer to it. . . . So I believe I have made clear the feeling and position that has existed in America regarding the events which took place in Europe. After all this, we are convinced that our brethren here, too, take the noncombatant position. We have talked with brethren who were in the war, and I can tell you that I have not found in any brother in Europe a greater military spirit than in America. And I can say, too, that in their spirit and in their procedure, our brethren in Europe have been as faithful as our brethren in America. I will say it all over again in other words: We are sorry for some of the declarations that have been issued. But when we consider the spirit and the purpose that led them to do that, we find that these brethren stand as faithful and upright in the work as we ourselves. . . . And I must say that everyone has had the right to set up his own conviction and form his own conscience with reference to the war question. . . . We believe that you brethren [referring to the representatives of the disfellowshiped minority] are completely wrong in the position you represent. We do believe in the fourth commandment as we have ever believed in it. But we cannot agree with your interpretation in connection with it. What would you have said about Moses a few days after he had received the law on mount Sinai, if he had told you to go and kill the king of Bashan, and all the men, women, and children? Would you have accused him of murder? But God commanded him to violate the sixth commandment. You see that there are many things to be found in the interpretation of the commandments, and we must have freedom to read and understand them, without being bound to the interpretation of any small corporation."

This quotation from the Minutes of the Conference with the Movement of Opposition (held in Friedensau, July 21-23, 1920), published by the SDA Church in Germany, shows the original and real issue which brought the Reform Movement into existence: it was the law of God. SDA leaders libel us in too many unprofitable words, with too many irrelevant remarks and even nonsensical conclusions, and generally miss the point altogether (as is the case of Elder Christian in his Aftermath of Fanaticism or A Counterfeit Reformation). However, Elder Daniells, the General Conference president in 1920, was different. He brought to view, in a few words, the actual big bone of contention, which caused the division at the beginning of the crisis in Europe. We will restate his answer in a few words:

a. From the very beginning the General Conference men were informed of what was going on in Europe and read at least some of the compromising declarations of the European leaders, but they decided to keep quiet, leaving it up to the Europeans themselves to decide what they should do under those circumstances. Elder F. M. Wilcox had already explained this acquiescent attitude in an article published in the Review and Herald:

"Particularly should the Church of God today remember our European brethren who are now suffering adversity. Some have been forced into active military service; their lives are constantly menaced, and they are exposed to hardship and danger. Families have been broken up; those left at home are anxious with fear for those who have gone to the front. The officers of some of our Conferences and churches have been compelled to forsake their charges and join the national colors. It should be our earnest prayer that God will save His cause of truth during this trying period, and that He will safeguard the lives of His children. As to just what our European brethren should do under these trying circumstances only they alone in prayer to God can decide." –The Review and Herald, August 27, 1914.

Elder Conradi, the president of the European Division, wrote:

"After having received instruction from the highest authority, we in Europe were permitted to decide this matter ourselves."–Zions-Waechter (SDA paper in Germany), No. 18, 1914.

b. The General Conference men then took the position that everyone should follow his own conscience concerning the law of God in connection with war service. And this is exactly what the European Adventists did. The great majority, in Germany and other countries, according to their conscience, took a combatant stand. The leadership in Germany declared in one of the newspapers:

"At the beginning of the war our organization was split into two parties. Ninety-eight percent of our membership, by searching the Bible, came to the conviction that they are duty-bound, by conscience, to defend the country with weapons also on Saturdays. This position, unanimously endorsed by the leadership, was immediately announced to the War Ministry. Two percent, however, did not submit to this resolution and therefore had to be disfellowshiped because of their unchristian conduct."–Dresdener Neueste Nachrichten, April 12, 1918.

c. The General Conference men even sent word to the European leaders, expressly authorizing them to continue in their combatant position. This cannot be denied in the face of the evidence existing in our files: Curierul Misionar (SDA paper in Romania), November 3, 1916. Also, a declaration in Zions-Waechter (SDA paper in Germany), April 3, 1916, shows the responsibility of the General Conference for the combatant position taken in Europe. These evidences were not denied when shown to the General Conference men in Friedensau, 1920.

d. Elder Daniells, the General Conference president, made it plain that, while in theory, SDAs declare themselves noncombatants, they may in practice follow their own conscience–which means that they actually have their own choice and are free to act either as faithful Christians or as patriotic warriors–when facing the war question.

e. The small disfellowshiped minority were condemned by Elder Daniells as being "completely wrong" in their interpretation that taking part in war service is irreconcilable with the law of God. This condemnation was pronounced in the presence of many SDA leaders in Europe and some General Conference leaders too. It is true that we still hold the same belief–and by the grace of God intend to hold it to the very end–for which we have often been stigmatized as fanatics.

The evidences which we have just produced pinpoint the main cause of the division and show that the law of God is in question. And since the two parties hold different views on such a vital issue, they must go their separate ways, as Elder Daniells himself declared in answer to the second question.

History shows and the Word of God confirms that fanatics and disorderly elements have always been associated with the work of reformation.

"In all the history of the church no reformation has been carried forward without encountering serious obstacles. Thus it was in Paul’s day. Wherever the apostle raised up a church, there were some who professed to receive the faith, but who brought in heresies that, if received, would eventually crowd out the love of the truth. Luther also suffered great perplexity and distress from the course of fanatical persons. . . . And the Wesleys, and others who blessed the world by their influence and their faith, encountered at every step the wiles of Satan in pushing overzealous, unbalanced, and unsanctified ones into fanaticism of every grade. . . .

"In the days of the Reformation its enemies charged all the evils of fanaticism upon the very ones who were laboring most earnestly against it. A similar course was pursued by the opposers of the advent movement. And not content with misrepresenting and exaggerating the errors of extremists and fanatics, they circulated unfavorable reports that had not the slightest semblance of truth. . . .

"The fact that a few fanatics worked their way into the ranks of Adventists is no more reason to decide that the movement was not of God than was the presence of fanatics and deceivers in the church in Paul’s or Luther’s day a sufficient excuse for condemning their work."–The Great Controversy, pp. 396��398.

To give the reader an idea of the different forms of fanaticism associated with Seventh-day Adventists in the early days of the movement, we quote from an Adventist book:

Difficulties Within the Movement

 "Between 1844 and the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church nearly twenty years later, but especially in the first few years after the disappointment, the Adventist believers were at times embarrassed by extremes and fanatical movements. A part of Ellen White’s work was to witness against these movements.

"Writing of her early experiences, Mrs. White tells of a trip taken with her husband through the New England States in 1850. Many former believers had become bitter from the disappointment. Some were still looking for truth. ‘But we had a still worse element to meet,’ she writes, ‘in a class who claimed that they were sanctified, and they could not sin, that they were sealed and holy, and that all their impressions and notions were the mind of God. . . .’

"‘They claimed to heal the sick and to work miracles. They had a satanic, bewitching power; yet they were overbearing, dictatorial, and cruelly oppressive. The Lord used us as instruments to rebuke these fanatics, and to open the eyes of His faithful people to the true character of their work.’–Ellen G. White, in Review, Nov. 20, 1883.

"Another group claimed to be sanctified so that they could not sin. Yet they were immoral in their actions, following their own lust and committing presumptuous sin. They even advocated ‘spiritual’ free love.

"Fanaticism showed up in some other strange forms. Some got the idea that religion consisted in great excitement and noise. Their behavior irritated unbelievers and aroused hatred against themselves and the doctrines they taught. When they were opposed or mistreated because of their annoying ways, they rejoiced because of the ‘persecution.’

"Mrs. White had to rebuke some people who professed great humility and tried to demonstrate it by creeping on the floor like children. They would creep around their houses, on the street, over bridges, and in the church itself.

"Another group believed it was a sin to work, although they seemed to think it quite consistent for their wives and others to do the necessary work for them. Animal magnetism, or mesmerism, the forerunner of hypnotism, was practiced by some. The supposed gift of tongues, accompanied by shouting and confusion, appeared in a few places. From time to time some small group would announce a new time for Christ to appear."–Department of Education, General Conference of SDAs, The Story of Our Church, pp. 238, 239.

If the previous statement from The Great Controversy is correctly understood, similar difficulties should also be expected in connection with the present-day SDA Reform Movement. There must be a parallel.

Sad to realize, history repeats itself also in the distorted picture presented about the relationship of some fanatics with the Reform Movement. In the past, as we just read, the enemies of the reformation made it their business to establish confusion between wild fanatics and true reformers, bunching them together as birds of the same nest. Today the enemies of Reform are doing exactly the same thing. This is as preposterous as affirming that those fanatics mentioned in The Story of Our Church were actually the pioneers of the SDA Church. Worse than that, to create a still more distorted picture, SDA leaders associate with Reform certain elements who never belonged to the organized Reform Movement.

Margaret Rowen, a false prophetess, was a member of the SDA Church, not of Reform. Yet her name is often used for the purpose of smudging the name of the Reform Movement.

Johann Wieck, a member of the SDA Church, was jailed for refusing to be vaccinated. January 21, 1915, he had some visions in which, he declared, God had shown him that the end of probation would come in the spring of that year. He wanted to see his visions published by the church. As the SDA leaders refused, he got them published on his own and forwarded a copy to each minister and to each church all over Germany. He never belonged to the Reform Movement, but his name is still being used for maligning and slandering us. It has even been declared that he was the founder of the Reform Movement. What an absurd and irresponsible figment!

In the discussion that took place in Friedensau, Germany, July 21—23, 1920, this was stated:

"Elder A. G. Daniells [the General Conference president]: These here are the documents that were handed to us by Brother Conradi. They should show what relationship they have with this movement. We can select and separate those that you brethren do not regard as belonging to your movement. The first writing is by Wieck.

"E. Doerschler [representative of the disfellowshiped minority]: He never belonged to this movement. I have had the privilege of belonging to this movement from the very beginning.

"Elder A. G. Daniells: Then how about this second document–by Stobbe?

"E. Doerschler: Yes, that belongs to us. . . . I would like to give a short explanation on this subject. Some very unsober people came to us. We could not see what kind of people they were, and they went ahead and published different writings without consulting the committee, because at the beginning we were not as organized as we are now. . . .

"Elder A. G. Daniells: Was this Herms with you?

"E. Doerschler: For a short time. We marked these people immediately when they did these things behind our backs."

This discussion, quoted from the Minutes of the Conference with the Movement of Opposition (held in Friedensau, July 21—23, 1920), published by the three German Unions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is sufficient evidence that fanaticism was not the origin of the SDA Reform Movement any more than it had been (as quoted from The Story of Our Church, pp. 238, 239) the starting point of the SDA Church.

Nevertheless, in a libel entitled The Aftermath of Fanaticism or A Counterfeit Reformation, published by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Elder L. H. Christian makes this gross overstatement: "This fanaticism in Germany as well as in the other countries in Europe is the true origin of the counterfeit reformation movement." This simplistic conclusion is an offense to an honest and intelligent person who can weigh the evidence for himself.

In more recent years the SDA leadership published a more decent, but not entirely correct, report about the rise of the Reform Movement. In the SDA Encyclopedia, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 10, p. 1183, they say: "Though the original issue was over visions and time setting, the bone of contention through the years has been the stand taken by the SDA Church concerning the duty of its members in military service." There is at least half a truth in this statement. While it is not true that "visions and time setting" brought the Reform Movement into existence, it is true that the stand taken by the SDA Church concerning the duty of its members in military service and in war, in the light of God’s law, has always been the main bone of contention from the very beginning. The holy law of God has always been the real issue. But, since 1914—1918, new controversial points have arisen, which were briefly mentioned in the preface to this book.

Our first international conference proper was held in Wuerzburg, Germany, in 1921. This meeting was covered by a report which supplies much information about the beginning of the work and the early experiences of the SDA Reformers. For this reason we reproduce it hereunder (transcribed from the Sabbat-Waechter, special issue, 1921):

By the merciful help of God, we as brethren from different countries were able to meet in Wuerzburg, in the morning of November 18, current year (1921). To this meeting we were invited by the German brethren of the Reform Movement. The following were present: the brethren of the German Union Committee; two brethren as representatives of the believers in Sweden; two brethren from Denmark; two brethren from Estonia; two brethren from the Danubian Union (which comprises Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia); two brethren from Switzerland; one brother from Czechoslovakia, and the brethren from the Committee in Holland.

Due to prevailing circumstances, none of the brethren connected with us in Poland were able to come. . . .

After we had considered Psalm 96 and had, with thankful hearts, entreated the Lord and Saviour to grant us His special presence, we discussed our conference program.

We decided to exchange our experiences in the Reform Movement, to discuss the principles, to confer on our work, and to become united in the proclamation of the third angel’s message through the election of an International or General Conference Committee.

Origin and Progress of Reform in Germany

 Brother O. Welp gave the following report:

Confusion and division in the SDA Church in our country began with the proclamation of error by our leading brethren in Hamburg in the matter of Sabbathkeeping during the war and our position toward military service when the war broke out in 1914.

A circular letter of Brother G. Dail (secretary of the European Division), dated August 2, 1914, sent out from Hamburg, contained an appeal for participation in the military and for Sabbathbreaking. Our conscientious conviction as well as that of other sincere brethren was provoked to raise a protest in many places against this distortion of the holy law and rejection of the third angel’s message.

In May 1915, we found out by a roundabout way, through a brother at the General Detachment in Dresden, about a declaration directed by H. F. Schuberth to the Ministry of War in Berlin, in which declaration the wrong stand of the leadership was made known. The churches in Germany had no knowledge whatsoever of this declaration. Through the tract Der Christ und der Krieg (The Christian and War), this error was taught in all the churches, and all the protesting brethren were declared to be "a menace to the peace of the church" and were disfellowshiped. We were termed "the movement of apostasy."

Apart from the movement of protest in the Rhine Province, there was a similar movement at the church in Bremen. None of the brethren who loved the truth more than error intended to leave the church. We wept and lamented over this situation before the Lord. At first we even hoped that our brethren would turn around and repudiate their wrong stand. In September 1915, when we requested a meeting with the leading brethren, we received no reply; we rather noticed greater opposition to the truth. The opposition of the brethren who teach error brought us to the firm conclusion that it is not the will of God to use holy tithe money to diffuse error. We became more and more determined in our desire to associate ourselves together in the truth.

We had our first meeting in the Reform Movement at Wermelskirchen (Rhine Province), July 1915. There, after we had reached full unity in the third angel’s message, we elected a committee to lead out in the work of reformation and appointed a treasurer. In April of the same year, some of the brethren had distributed all over Germany a pamphlet containing the third angel’s message, entitled, Die letzte Gnadenbotschaft (The Last Message of Mercy). The magazine Waechter der Wahrheit (Watchman of the Truth) first appeared in August. It was published in Barmen.

We found good access to the churches everywhere, and many brethren took their stand with Reform. Opposition to the truth, from the leading brethren in Hamburg, kept growing. Our work became the object of direct persecution by the authorities, who had been stirred up against us.

In December 1915 we had our second conference at Gelsenkirchen (Rhine Province), with the presence of 250 brethren. Then the enemy began an even stronger attack against the truth, as he brought error and fanaticism into our ranks.

Many of the brethren will remember the names Sturm, Herms, Fratz, Kersting, Jeschke, Portzek, Schamberg and Bach in connection with so-called divine visions and inspirations. Publications were scattered advocating the celebration of the feast of tabernacles and a different form of self-sanctification. The way of sober truth was blasphemed. These difficulties and trials prepared by Satan impelled us to seek God in prayer and to search the Scriptures and the Testimonies. The Lord answered our petitions by sending us more light and clarity.

After the revolution in Germany, we met in Erfurt (Germany), January 1919, where the Lord showed us that we must scatter the light given us, by means of literature, among His people all over the world. We transferred our printing office and headquarters to Wuerzburg and began an international work, which was richly blessed by the Lord. We saw the need to publish a church paper in which we could narrate our experiences in the third angel’s message. So the first Sabbat-Waechter (Sabbath Watchman) appeared in 1920.

As we have gone through several difficulties, our work in other countries . . . has revealed to us the need to establish a firm apostolic church order so that there would be unity of faith and procedure. During our blessed conference in Fr[ankfurt], in August this year, a letter of invitation was directed to all our brethren abroad, calling them to attend an international gathering for a full unification in the third angel’s message.

During the discussion with a few General Conference leaders in Friedensau, July 1920, the explanations given by them showed that there is a general apostasy from the third angel’s message. Nevertheless, through a representation of the international Reform Movement we were happy to bring the existence of this movement once more to the attention of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. We are conscious of the fact that, in view of this international gathering, we now stand before an important turn in the work of reformation. May this work be instrumental in bringing blessings and salvation to us and to many brethren who were formerly united with us! This is our prayer.

The Netherlands

 As reported by Brethren K. J. Stiphout and Le Vermeulen, the beginning of the work in The Netherlands, under the Spirit of God, was similar to that in Germany. At a conference in The Hague, 1916, Brother Stiphout and Brother . . . (?), from the Amsterdam church, presented a protest to which the leadership of the conference paid no attention. Also, they sent in the same declarations as in Germany with reference to Sabbathkeeping and the war question. As the consequence, Brother Stiphout laid down his office in the church and, together with other members, he resigned from membership in January 1917. The activities of German fugitives, who brought fanaticism, has been a great hindrance to the development of the work. Nevertheless, the few standard bearers there have the firm hope that, through patient labor, the way will be opened for the loud cry.

Switzerland

 According to a report by Brethren C. Adams and O. Welp, the Reformation in Switzerland has had to face greater difficulties than in Germany. Souls were aroused in . . . (?), who were scattered again through the spiritualistic (?) activities of E. Herms. Apostasy and self-exaltation have suffocated, even for these few, the work of reformation, as Brother Carl Spanknoebel reported. In spite of all these things, however, some who are working and praying with us rejoice to see that the third angel’s message is gathering together God’s children.

Sweden

 This is what Brethren K. A. Ekeroth and C. E. Liljebaeck reported:

For a long time we had been deploring the great apostasy among the Advent people and had been praying to God that He would send an awakening among us. How such a thing would take place we had no idea. We had hopes in new leaders; and new leaders came, but there was no reconversion to the old principles. We were disappointed again and again. Last winter a pamphlet came to our hands, entitled To All Our Dear Brethren in Germany, from which we learned that the apostasy existed also in Germany. Constrained by the Spirit of God, we raised the following questions at the conference at Nyhyttan, May 1921:

    1. What is the position of the Swedish Conference, which is now in session here, towards Brother Daniells’ views concerning liberty of conscience in connection with the fourth and sixth commandments?

    2. What is the position of the Swedish Conference towards the Testimonies of E. G. White: Are they or are they not inspired? May those who are striving for purity and holiness still eat meat?

    3. What is the position of the Swedish Conference toward the Reform Movement in Germany and other countries?

    4. Have the German church leaders confessed and corrected before the church their deception concerning the law of God, and have they retracted their writings containing doctrinal error, such as Der Christ und der Krieg (The Christian and War), as well as the declarations inserted in the newspapers?

In answer to these questions, Brother Raft gave a long lecture in which he explained that the Reform Movement is fanaticism. As evidence that the work is of Satan, he mentioned a few fanatics. After that we were disfellowshiped. We had long been waiting for a reformation and had believed that the reformation must come through the leadership. But by earnestly searching in the Testimonies we saw that God will use simple men. Some wanted to sound a call for an awakening; these, however, did not regard themselves as worthy and thought that a revival would possibly come through some ministers. We entreated much light and power of God. And then we saw the heaven-appointed way open before us. Our God wants to be with us, and we want to be sanctified through this pure truth. We stand firm like one man with you, dear brethren, in the glorious truth and testimonies of God.

As the direct result of circumstances mentioned before, over 3,000 believers found themselves outside the ranks of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1922. Their efforts to achieve a reconciliation and unification upon the fundamental principles of the Advent faith were not treated with good will, and many false reports were put into circulation to create prejudice against them.

However, before any steps could be taken for a definite organization, our brethren still felt it their duty to follow the Bible rule and present the problem before the General Conference delegation in session; hence their decision to send two delegates to the General Conference.

The General Conference session of Seventh-day Adventists convened in San Francisco, USA, on May 11–31, 1922. The two representatives of the disfellowshiped Adventists arrived in due time and notified the General Conference of the purpose of their coming to the United States. Furthermore, they directed three written appeals to the delegation: first appeal, May 11, 1922, handed by Brother Otto Welp to Elder A. G. Daniells; second appeal, dated May 18, mailed to every member of the General Conference Committee together with a copy of the first appeal; third appeal, dated May 22, handed to Elder Daniells. And there was no answer. The period of waiting stretched from days into weeks without the slightest indication that their petition would be granted. Anxious as to the outcome of their long journey, our two delegates went to the hall where the session was being conducted. There they contacted Elder Daniells personally and requested a hearing before the whole delegation. His answer was: "We cannot allow these questions to come before the whole delegation."

Words would fail to express the depth of disappointment that came to our believers when they heard how the two representatives and their appeals had been treated at the General Conference session. The serious issue which divided the church was not brought up for discussion. It was completely ignored.

As the president, Brother Daniells, refused to allow our representatives to present their case before the assembly, our brethren then had no other alternative than to organize separately, in a definite way, to carry on the gospel work, lifting up the standard and pouring forth the straight truth.

Refusing to recognize the true work of revival and reformation which had begun in the church, and trying to offset the influence the Reform Movement was having upon many members in the church, the SDA leadership made an attempt to introduce a revival and reformation within the ranks of the denomination. We quote from a recommendation made before the assembled delegates of the 1922 General Conference:

"One of the recommendations I feel pressed to make is so important, so vital, that I shall venture to call it an appeal. It is this:

"That during the next quadrennial period a supreme effort be made to bring about a great spiritual revival and spiritual reformation in all our churches throughout the world. . . . If every one of these responsible leaders in God’s cause will first of all gain this spiritual experience and work in God’s appointed way for others, a wonderful reformation will be brought about in our ranks. And, brethren, just that reformation must take place or we are doomed with the rest of mankind. We cannot survive without it."—General Conference Bulletin, 1922, p. 16.

When our brethren learned of this resolution, they knew that a true revival and reformation could not come unless there was a recognition and a putting away of the apostasy; but they hoped that some good would come as a result. Time proved, however, that this was only a passing sentimental revival which was soon forgotten. Similar efforts have been made in succeeding years to give the appearance that at last the long-awaited reformation had come within the church. We would be overjoyed if this should happen, but we cannot pass over the facts as they exist. By changing her position from "no participation" to "complete liberty to participate" in war, the SDA Church changed her position toward the law of God. This is contrary to the Bible (New Testament) and to the Spirit of Prophecy. And this apostasy has never been confessed. No true revival and reformation is possible without first experiencing genuine repentance. The work of reforming the church is not left to the decision of any council or committee. It is rather the prerogative of God to work upon the hearts of men and women and to choose His own instrumentalities. If we reject the messengers whom God sends with a message of reformation, we virtually reject Him.

The leaders of the Adventist Church in Europe realized that, to counteract the work of the Reform Movement, something else had to be done besides talking about revivals and reformations. At the joint meeting held in Friedensau (July, 1920), there was no evidence that those who were directly responsible for the apostasy were actually sorry for what they had done. In the Report of the Negotiations with the Opposition Movement (Protokoll) there is no indication of repentance. So, a declaration containing a formal confession of their error was the expedient adopted by those leaders. During a committee meeting held at Gland, Switzerland, they declared (January 2, 1923):

"We revere the law of God contained in the Decalogue as explained in the teachings of Christ and exemplified in His life. For that reason we observe the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) as sacred time; we refrain from secular labor, upon that day, but engage gladly in works of necessity and mercy for the relief of suffering and the uplift of humanity; in peace and in war we decline to participate in acts of violence and bloodshed. We grant to each of our church members absolute liberty to serve his country, at all times and in all places, in accord with the dictates of his personal conscientious conviction."—F. M. Wilcox, Seventh-day Adventists in Time of War, pp. 346, 347.

In addition to this declaration, the leaders of the German Union signed a special statement declaring:

"At the Council of the European Division Committee in Gland, Switzerland, Dec. 27, 1922, to Jan. 2, 1923, our position during the war as it had been expressed in different documents was reviewed, and we herewith by our own signatures confirm anew, what had already been declared at Friedensau in 1920, our regret that such documents had been issued. We are in full harmony with the statement adopted by the Council today (Jan. 2, 1923)."—Ibid., p. 347.

To the Reformers and reform-minded Adventists this semblance of confession brought disappointment because, while seemingly admitting their error, the leaders still confirmed their compromise with the powers of darkness by giving their members "absolute liberty" to continue doing what many of them had actually done during the war. As a matter of fact, their later declarations and actions clearly show that their so-called "repentance and confession" was only a farce. Consider these examples:

SDA Church in Romania: "Doing military service and taking part in war does not involve a covenant with the world, nor is it equivalent to taking sides with Babylon. Participation in war is a mere civil duty."— P. P. Paulini, Prophecy, 1924, p. 41.

SDA Church in Yugoslavia: "According to the Bible standard, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ Adventist Christians fulfill all their duties, including military duties. They conscientiously serve the army with weapons in time of peace as well as in time of war."—Adventism, 1925, pp. 53, 54.

SDA Church in Germany: "Even in the middle of the battle the soldier can show Christian love: toward the disarmed [adversary] he uses kindness, toward the conquered [foe] he uses mercy, toward the prisoners he uses compassion."—Der Adventbote (SDA paper published in Germany), October 15, l927.

SDA Church in Russia: "This sixth assembly of Seventh-day Adventists, 1928, declares and decides that SDAs are required to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and to God that which belongs to God. This means that they are to serve the state in the army and render all forms of service, according to the established rule for all citizens."—Report of the Sixth General Assembly of Seventh-day Adventists, May 12–19, 1928.

Documentary evidence shows that, during World War II, the official position taken by the Adventist Church permitted or encouraged its members to enter the armed forces as combatants and do even worse than they had done during World War I. Sad to say, among Adventists, absolute freedom for every believer to serve his country as a combatant has become a firmly established position. Mind the following declarations:

"Though our Adventist ideal for our youth in war is that of noncombatancy, we do not take a dogmatic position on this. Accordingly, we do not disfellowship the youth who does not enter the armed services as a noncombatant. Far from it. We follow him into the armed services with our prayers." —The Review and Herald, February 28, 1963.

"Individual conscience is held supreme at all times and it is therefore possible for an Adventist young man to be either a combatant or a conscientious objector and still be an Adventist."—Bulletin issued by the West Australian Conference, September 25, 1967.

For more evidence on this point, we refer our readers to the book A Turning Point in the History of Adventism published by the Reformation Herald Publishing Association, P. O. Box 7240, Roanoke, VA 24019, USA.

Before our brethren came to the conference of 1925 and reached an agreement about the name to be adopted for our church, they used different local names. In Scandinavia: Adventists of the Original Faith; in Czechoslovakia: The Seed of the Woman; in Transylvania: Adventists of the Ancient Faith; in Yugoslavia: Remnant Adventists; in South Romania and Bulgaria: Adventists Standing on the Basis of the Faith of 1844; in Hungary: Seventh Day Adventists Standing on the Old Platform of 1844. In Germany, at first they called themselves International Missionary Society of Seventh Day Adventists–German Union (Internationale Missionsgesellschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten–Deutsche Union). This can be seen from a circular letter issued in February 1919. The German brethren showed the same name, except German Union, in the magazine Watchman of the Truth (Waechter der Wahrheit) published before July 1919. Beginning with the issue of July 1919, however, they put an addition to the name in use so far: International Missionary Society of Seventh Day Adventists–Standing on the Old Platform of 1844 (Alte, seit 1844 stehengebliebene Richtung). The German Union was incorporated, December 23, 1919, under the name: International Missionary Society of Seventh Day Adventists–Standing on the Old Platform of 1844–German Union. At the end of 1921, as can be seen from the Watchman of the Truth, they preferred to be known as International Missionary Society of Seventh Day Adventists–Reform Movement (Internationale Missionsgesellschaft der STA Reformations-bewegung). After the return of our two delegates from S. Francisco (1922), where they were not given any hearing, our brethren published, under the name International Reform Movement of Seventh Day Adventists (Internationale Reformbewegung der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten), the booklet Revival and Reformation among the Seventh Day Adventists–Our Experience during the General Conference Session in San Francisco, May 1922. But, afterwards, their Sabbath Watchman (Sabbat-Waechter), a monthly paper, was published under the name Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement. Later on they added the designation German Union.

At our first General Conference session, 1925, the delegation adopted the name, Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement General Conference (Generalkonferenz der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten Reformations-Bewegung) for “the joint connection of all Union Conferences,” namely, “the entire denomination in general,” according to the Minutes of the General Conference delegation session(1925 session, resolution 11). Resolution 11 also says that the Principles of Faith should be published under this name.

It was agreed in 1925 that the General Conference should be incorporated separately from the German Union. But this was not done immediately. After a few years, due to circumstances mentioned below, the registration of the General Conference became an urgent need, and it was carried out under the name, International Missionary Society of Seventh Day Adventists, Reform Movement, General Conference (Internationale Missionsgesellschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten Reformations-bewegung, Generalkonferenz), and not under the name that had been adopted by the General Conference delegation in 1925.

When the statutes were ready for the incorporation of the General Conference, with the signatures of the Board of Directors, Brother Otto Welp, the reelected General Conference president, signed as representative of the Seventh Day Adventist Church–Reform Movement–German Union.

According to the laws then in force in Germany, a corporation must own property in order to qualify for registration, and the General Conference owned no property at that time. Therefore, its registration was delayed. During the General Conference Committee meeting held in the mission house of the German Union, June 29 through July 4, 1927, it was resolved:

“That the General Conference be registered in the same way [as the Union Conference], so that the same statutes filed at the registration of the Union may cover also the General Conference; and that in future the German Union operate under these statutes, under the name of the General Conference” (Resolution 8).

The main reason for this resolution was that the property at Isernhagen, near Hannover, used by the German Union, had been purchased with a loan taken from the General Conference, and that the Union president, Brother W. Richter, had a serious difference with the General Conference administration. It was certainly wise, on the part of the General Conference leading brethren, to take precautions for the protection of the properties and interests of the work.

The registration of the General Conference at Burgwedel, near Hannover, Germany, January 11, 1929, in that emergency situation, was done on the initiative of the Executive Committee. Both names–the one agreed upon by the General Conference delegation in 1925 and the one registered in 1929–were used for some time, even on the same documents, although the General Conference delegation in session never authorized the change. It was wise at that time to use both names in order to prevent splinter groups from legally taking any of the names once used by the Reform Movement. The registration of January 11, 1929, was canceled by the secret police (Gestapo) on May 11, 1936.

Under the name that was adopted by the General Conference delegation in session, in 1925, and that was always maintained by the General Conference delegation, the General Conference was registered in the state of California, USA, by Brethren C. Kozel and D. Nicolici, respectively president and secretary of the corporation, April 8, 1949, in harmony with a decision made by the delegation at the 1948 General Conference session. When this was done, Brother Kozel wrote in his circular letter of April 18, 1949:

“We were able . . . to have our General Conference registered a few days ago. The Lord helped us wonderfully in all these things. The name of our General Conference is as follows: Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement General Conference, P. O. Box 234, Oak Park, Sacramento, California, USA.”

The Union Conferences and Fields were notified about this registration, which they ratified by letter.

In May 1951, when Brother C. Kozel and his supporters still were united with us in one religious body, of which he was the president, the General Conference delegates met in Holland, under the umbrella of this registration, and under this name. And it was under this name that the polarized leaders and delegates, unable to settle their differences, reorganized themselves into two separate General Conference Committees, each claiming to be the continuation of the original General Conference organization, with the original name adopted by the General Conference delegation in July 1925. Brother Kozel and his newly elected General Conference Committee still recognized the bylaws that went along with the registration of April 8, 1949. They called them “our bylaws” in their declaration of May 24, 1951.

In spite of the split, for one year both parties of the divided General Conference brethren claimed to belong to the corporation carrying the original name, Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement General Conference, registered in the state of California, USA, with headquarters in the city of Sacramento. They even signed an agreement on May 7, 1952, recognizing each other as members and leaders of this corporation, under this name. That was the only corporation and the only name officially recognized by both sides. In those days there was absolutely no controversy over the official name used by the Reform Movement.

The two parties continued within one and the same body, with the same name, the same registration, the same headquarters, until June 6, 1952, when Brother Kozel and his supporters decided to reorganize themselves separately from us, but together with the Denver brethren, who had been disfellowshiped in the presence and with the approval of Brother Kozel on March 4, 1949. It was only then, and not at an earlier date, that they formed their own General Conference corporation with headquarters in Denmark and later in Germany.

In a pamphlet published in Latin America by the leaders of the separated brethren, they explain why Brethren Kozel, Mueller and Ringelberg (their highest leaders at that time) decided to make their own reorganization (June 6, 1952):

“In 1951 . . . Nicolici retained the name of the church, the properties, and the headquarters, exactly as the big church had done. For this reason, the brethren . . . were forced to organize themselves without, however, giving up the true name of the church –Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement. In front of this name they only added the words, International Missionary Society. . . . This they did only to distinguish themselves from Nicolici’s organization, which retained the name, the properties, and the headquarters, exactly as the big church had done.”–Breve historia de la iglesia en la tierra, p. 2.

In a nutshell: The name that we have retained is the name that was adopted at the first General Conference delegation session in 1925 and that was registered in 1949. That name has never been changed by the General Conference delegation in session.

Throughout our history since 1914, we have seen the merciful hand of God with us in every crisis. He has given us many victories. Hereunder are the most noteworthy events which transpired since 1921.

First Period: 1921 – 1934

Some of the first Sabbath School quarterlies printed by our pioneer brethren deal with the book of Revelation. From top to bottom: Romanian (1922), German (1923), Russian (1924).

1921–1925

Before the organization of the SDA Reform Movement in 1925, and especially before the meeting in Wuerzburg (1921), Reformers and so-called Reformers did a great deal of unofficial publishing. But we can identify some official publications, too.

Local Sabbath School lessons began to be published as soon as 1915. However, the earliest lessons we have in our library were published in 1922. Beginning with the fourth quarter of 1922, the first two quarterlies dealt with the book of Revelation.

The Sabbat-Waechter (Sabbath Watchman), a monthly magazine, appeared in 1920.

In 1923, Carl Spanknoebel was sent as a missionary to the USA. Also, Willi O. Welp, the son of Otto Welp, immigrated to America in the same year. Arthur W. Doerschler, Otto Welp's son-in-law, arrived a little later. Oscar Kramer arrived in the United States in 1925.

Andrei Lavrik, from Bessarabia, Romania, went to Brazil in 1924 to do pioneering work.

1925–1928

The great concern of the Reform brethren in those days (1925–1928) was to send out missionaries and to occupy new territories.

Andrei Cecan from Bessarabia, Romania, went to Brazil in 1926 with his parents. He was a great help to Brother Lavrik. Karl (Carlos) Kozel from Germany, and Iefteni (Eugenio) Laicovschi from Bessarabia, Romania, immigrated to Argentina in 1927.

As far as the international center of operations was concerned, it was decided that the General Conference should, for the time being, share the same building where the German Union had its headquarters, in Wuerzburg. In 1926 the General Conference office was moved from Wuerzburg to Isernhagen, near Hannover, Germany, together with the German Union headquarters.

Since the General Conference of the Reform Movement was organized, our Sabbath School quarterlies were edited in the name of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement General Conference and printed by the German Union. Translations from German were made into many other languages. From the time that our GC headquarters were established in the USA, translations have been made from English originals.

As a bigger and much more suitable place had been secured for the two headquarters (General Conference and German Union), a print shop was also set up on the same property. The establishment of the Religious Liberty Publishing Association (Missionsverlag fuer Glaubens-und-Gewissensfreiheit) permitted the development of the colporteur work, which became a very active enterprise.

After so many years have elapsed, we cannot easily distinguish between the work of the General Conference and that of the German Union in the early days of our history.

The first number of the official organ of the SDA Reform Movement General Conference–Der Adventarbeiter (The Advent Worker)–appeared in October 1928.

Reform publications that had been sent overseas and had been scattered in many places generated some response. The seed was already springing up and it was necessary to send workers to answer the Macedonian calls coming from different areas. And there were courageous men who said, through their attitude, "Here am I; send me," showing their willingness to do pioneering work in faraway countries, where they would have to learn a new language and adapt themselves to different living conditions.

1928–1931

Publication of Der Adventarbeiter (The Advent Worker), organ of the SDA Reform Movement General Conference, began in October 1928.

Soon after the first General Conference session (1925), internal difficulties began to arise; 1928 was a particularly difficult year for the work in Germany and for the General Conference administration. Wilhelm Richter, president of the German Union, was in opposition to Otto Welp, the General Conference president. During the second General Conference session (1928), the whole committee of the German Union, under the influence of Brother Richter, stood up against the General Conference administration. Albert Mueller, Joseph Adamczak and Kasper Kissener sided with Brother Richter. Brother Richter was removed from his office as president of the German Union, but his committee supported him against the decision of the General Conference. Special efforts were made to convince the German leaders to change their attitude and, after a long discussion, they finally admitted that they were in error. The leadership of the German Union was then given to Brother Mueller. But that was not the end of the trouble. The next day, Brother Richter recanted his confession and continued his opposition. He, together with some of those who continued supporting him, were disfellowshiped. For years he tried to establish his own group but was unsuccessful. During World War II, for some time, he seemed to be reconciled with the leading brethren. But toward the end of the war, he fell out with the leadership again. Disgruntled, he returned to the Adventist Church in 1945.

Articles for the Week of Prayer have been supplied internationally by the SDA Reform Movement General Conference ever since the organization was completed (1925).

The General Conference was incorporated on January 11, 1929. Some of our leaders wanted to know what had become of that registration. So, in 1963, D. Nicolici, plus the author of this book and one more brother went to the registration office at Burgwedel, near Hannover, Germany, and this is what they learned: The German Union was incorporated on March 21, 1927 (this was the second incorporation); and it was dissolved by the Secret State Police May 12, 1936. The General Conference was incorporated on January 11, 1929, and dissolved by the Secret State Police May 11, 1936.

1931–1934

The work of reformation had already gained a good foothold in Europe, and, with the help of human and financial means coming from the European countries, Reform missionaries were already working in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. Now it was necessary to answer the urgent calls coming from other parts of the world. According to a report presented by T. T. Ndhlovu, from Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), at the 1931 General Conference session, a European missionary was needed to help in the work in the southern parts of Africa. Eugen Frick, from Germany, and his wife accepted the call. Arrangements were made by the General Conference Executive Committee (meeting at Isernhagen, Germany, August 1931) for Brother and Sister Frick to move to South Africa by the end of September 1931.

Prophetic charts were needed for the work in several places. Martin Hunger, from Germany, was entrusted with the task of preparing these missionary materials.

A small missionary school had already been started at Rama, near Wuerzburg, Germany, in 1920. Yet this was a local initiative. So, during their meeting in August 1931, the Executive Committee of the General Conference decided to establish a missionary training center on an international basis for the preparation of workers for the worldwide field, in Schwaebisch Hall, Germany. The date for the beginning of the school year was set for April 1, 1932.

These are some of the publications prepared in Germany in the early days of the Reform Movement, explaining why, how, and when the SDA Reform Movement came into existence. A few of these booklets were translated from German into other languages.

The Executive Committee was filled with concern regarding the preparation of young people for the work. It was evident that each Union was not in a position to establish its own missionary training center. So, the Committee decided (July 1932) to recommend the following plan to all Union Conferences: Each local church and group should function as a little school where young men and women should receive a theoretical and practical training for the work.

The Executive Committee (July 1932) still had to deal with one of the questions that had come up during the delegation session in 1931, namely, the latter rain and the loud cry. In one of their resolutions, they declared with reference to the last stage of the work of Revelation 18:1–4:

"On the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy writings concerning the meaning of the loud cry, and the way in which the loud cry is to come, it is our knowledge and conviction that we are not in the loud cry at this time. According to Early Writings, p. 271, it is evident that the loud cry will come together with the latter rain. However, we believe that this work of reformation is a fulfillment of Revelation 18:1 in the sense that it is preparing the way for the loud cry."

The next General Conference Executive Committee meeting took place in Heerlen, Holland, on December 1933. Still greatly concerned with the need to enter new fields, the Committee sent the following recommendation to all Union Conferences: The leaders of the different Unions should select the most faithful and capable young men, who have already proved that they have a burden for souls and who already have a good experience in the colporteur work, and encourage them to learn foreign languages. If necessary, under special circumstances, the General Conference will cover the expenses involved in this program. As the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy say that workers are to be sent out two and two, this plan must be taken into account by our young men when they make up their mind to start learning a language, in agreement with one another, under the guidance of the Union Committee. Then they can be sent out as colporteurs, two to one country, two to another country, and so on. Pioneering work is to be done through colporteurs.

The return of the two delegates–Brethren Otto Welp and Heinrich Spanknoebel– from their trip across the Atlantic, in 1922, aroused untold interest and, in some cases, disappointment and perplexity. Through correspondence and personal contacts the news spread from country to country that there were no prospects of reconciliation with the Adventist Church . . . that the door was closed . . . that our two envoys had not even been granted a hearing at the General Conference session in San Francisco. Many of the brethren began to ask themselves: What will be the next step? Prayerful consultations with one another led the representatives of the different groups of SDA Reformers to the conclusion that a general meeting was absolutely necessary.

 

1922 – Second International Conference (Bebra, Germany)

Conference of SDA Reformers, Eisenach, Germany, 1922. Representatives of several Unions were present at this second international convention.

A second international meeting of Reformers took place at Bebra, west of Eisenach, Germany, in the summer of 1922. Four Unions that had already been organized agreed to unite into a General Conference and work together. Sabbath School quarterlies, Week of Prayer magazines, and other publications had been put out locally according to the possibilities of the brethren in each country. But now the need was felt to centralize the preparation and dissemination of these materials through the General Conference office in Wuerzburg, Germany. This office became the coordinating link among the different Unions and the center from which attention would be given to new interests and new groups that should be aroused by the message of reformation in many other places in the world. The four Unions committed themselves to support the General Conference work with a tithe of the tithes. Brother Welp was confirmed as president and Brother Spanknoebel as secretary. It was decided that the General Conference would be organized on a definite basis in 1925, and the believers in general were informed of this plan.

 

1925 – Our First Official General Conference Session

Our first GC delegation session proper was held at Gotha, Germany, July 14–20, 1925, with the presence of 18 delegates. It is from that time that official minutes of our GC sessions have been kept. We still preserve the original minute book as a precious treasure.

When the brethren came together in 1925, the verse in Acts 15:4 could almost be paraphrased as follows: "And when they were come to Gotha, Germany, they were received of the church and of the elders who had organized the conference, and they declared all things that God had done with them." Their reports confirmed again the fact that the reform-minded brethren in several countries had gone through similar experiences. But every heart seemed to be worried over the question: How far are we united in doctrine? All were genuine Seventh Day Adventists. All professed to be Reformers. All upheld the truth as revealed in the threefold message of Revelation 14. There was no doubt as far as the general tenets of Adventism were concerned. But coming down to minutiae–to the understanding and application of certain principles–it could not be said that they were all "joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). Far from that. And then there were different ideas with reference to the proposed organization and everything that goes with it. Amid the apparent confusion of concepts, however, there seemed to shine a ray of hope for a better future.

GC delegates of SDA Reformers, first session, Gotha, Germany, 1925. Front row, left to right: Constantin Ursan, Wilhelm Richter, Dumitru Nicolici, Wilhelm Korpmann, Johann G. Hanselmann, Otto Welp, P. Rasmussen, Wilhelm Maas, Joseph Adamczak, Albert Krahe. Back row, left to right: Mihai Streza, Karl Kozel, Heinrich Spanknoebel, Sister A. Ottender, A. Jurgens, K. A. Ekeroth, Sister Ekeroth (not a delegate), Max Koehler, C. Adams.

The points of harmony–where all could see things eye to eye–were explored in the first place. All shared the conviction that sincere and orderly efforts had been made to bring about a genuine and God-approved reconciliation with the church that they loved. All were of the opinion that it would be useless to try again, since there was no evidence that the serious errors which lay at the basis of the discussion at Friedensau, 1920, had been or would ever be removed. They had no hope that the needed reformation would ever come "within the church." All felt that they were going through the experience of their predecessors in the work of reformation. History, which has a tendency to repeat itself, and which is a textbook of pattern procedures, held out an important lesson for them as follows:

"When the Reformers preached the word of God, they had no thought of separating themselves from the established church; but the religious leaders would not tolerate the light, and those that bore it were forced to seek another class, who were longing for the truth. . . . Often those who follow in the steps of the Reformers are forced to turn away from the churches they love, in order to declare the plain teachings of the word of God. And many times those who are seeking for light are by the same teaching obliged to leave the church of their fathers, that they may render obedience."–The Desire of Ages, p. 232.

"The work of God in the earth presents, from age to age, a striking similarity in every great reformation or religious movement. The principles of God’s dealing with men are ever the same."–The Great Controversy, p. 343.

Thus, when our first delegation session proper was convened, our pioneers in the work of reformation were already convinced that God demands unity "upon a true, scriptural basis," not unconditional affiliation. This principle, exemplified by our forefathers in the faith, was clear to them:

"To secure peace and unity [our forefathers] were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war."–Ibid., p. 45.

"Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. . . . He does not gloss over wrongdoing with a coat of untempered mortar."–Selected Messages, bk. 1, p. 175.

Our delegates in 1925 did not have the Fundamental Principles of SDAs published in 1872, but they had the book Bible Studies for the Home Circle, which was based on that publication of 1872. They did not believe in establishing a creed but, for the sake of ensuring uniformity in teaching and practice, they deemed it necessary to adopt a set of principles based on the material available to them, from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They did their best, according to their knowledge and understanding. This is how our humble booklet Principles of Faith came into existence. Resolution No. 10 reads:

"The principles of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement submitted to the General Conference were adopted after examination and detailed deliberation. Seventeen delegates voted for their adoption in their original form. One delegate had objections because of the formulation with reference to the 144,000. The principles were accepted by the majority."

To us as a Movement the Principles of 1925 have ever been a symbol of unity in the faith.

When this step of prime importance was settled, there was a secondary step which also involved some discussion, namely, the organization of the Reform Movement. Most of those 18 delegates (representing 4,000 members) felt that the fundamental truths of the threefold message could not be successfully promoted without a concrete form of organization. Some were opposed to this idea, but their objections did not prevail.

This was the first reason presented in favor of organization: From the very beginning, every true reformation has had to face opposition. The apostles had a struggle with disorderly elements. Luther and Melanchthon contended with them. The early Adventists fought them. And, certainly, this Reform Movement would be no exception. For the purpose of keeping out impostors and for several other purposes (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 26), a definite form of organization was considered necessary. And it was understood that this organization should be built on the same platform which had been established by the Advent pioneers and strengthened by the distinctive doctrines of the Advent Movement, but separate from the organization of the Adventist mother church; for, "How can two walk together lest they be agreed?"

Left : Minutes of the first GC session of SDA Reformers, 1925, first page. Right : GC minutes, 1925. Decision 11 refers to the Principles of Faith. See next page.

The official name to be adopted by the Reform Movement was another matter of discussion among the delegates. The representatives of the work in Germany proposed that their name, International Missionary Society, registered in 1919, should be accepted for the Reform church as a whole. The majority had a different idea. The main objection was that many other societies, such as the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses, were using the name "International." The delegates wanted a name that would not cause unnecessary confusion with other societies. And, after a lengthy discussion, they finally agreed to adopt the name (Resolution No. 11) that we have carried until today.

The meeting of 1925 paved the way for a worldwide movement. At this session the Principles of Faith were adopted, four Union Conferences joined to form a General Conference, and the name of our organization was agreed upon, as shown in the General Conference minutes of 1925 and on the front cover of the booklet Principles of Faith published immediately afterwards in Germany:

The Principles of Faith of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement and their Rules of Church Order–Concise Presentation published by the General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement during the General Conference session held in Gotha (Germany), July 14–20, 1925:

German Union: Wuerzburg (Germany)
Danube Union: Sofia (Bulgaria)
Scandinavian Union: Copenhagen (Denmark)
Baltic Union: Revel (Estonia)