Reformed Adventist Movement Responds to German Union Conferences
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, July 28, 2014
Most Adventists are simply not aware of the fact that there are a few, small Sabbath-keeping Adventist denominations besides the Seventh-day Adventist Church with headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. One of the largest of these small movements that have felt the need to leave the larger denomination at some point is the International Missionary Society Seventh-day Adventist Church Reform Movement. It was first organized in Europe during World War I over issues related to the traditional Adventist stand against participating in the military.
As Adventist Today has previously reported, a symposium was convened at Friedensau Adventist University in Germany earlier this year to examine the impact of World War 1 on the Adventist faith and organization after 100 years. At that time the two union conferences in Germany joined in releasing a statement that included an apology for the behavior of some European church leaders during the second decade of the 20th century and reached out to the Reformed Adventists. Speakers from the Reform movement were included in the symposium.
Now Adventist Today has the exclusive opportunity to publish a seven-point statement from Reformed Adventist leaders in response to the statement of the German union conferences. The statement begins with an expression of "appreciation" for points in the statement from the German union conferences. It also explains why the separation occurred in the past, asserting that "the faithful Adventists who protested starting in August 1914 were not motivated by personal ambition, time-setting, dreams, or fanaticism … nor had they rejected the fundamental principles of the church." It quotes from a 1977 statement by former General Conference president, Pastor Robert Pierson, who shared this assessment. The items listed are often given as reasons for splinter groups and independent ministries by those who are critical of them.
The statement also affirms that "Christ is the center" of Adventist faith and specifically "the message of 1888 which presented Jesus as Christ Our Righteousness." It includes a quote from Ellen G. White that when "Christ is the center … the closer we shall come together in feeling, in sympathy, … in love" despite differences of opinion on various issues. The statement concedes that some reformers "have acted improperly with a wrong attitude" placing too much emphasis on "personal sins of Adventists," and expresses the wish to do more to communicate with "our Adventist brethren."
It asserts again the key point that led to separation in 1914; that early Adventists, including a voted statement by the General Conference in session, taught "that all members as conscientious objectors abstain from participating in war and promote peace. (James 3:17-18)" The statement appeals for a recognition of the "suffering and sinfulness of war." It points out that this original teaching of early Adventists has been widely disregarded and is for many in today's generations largely lost.
The Reform Adventists continue to stand for pacifism and urge that it be seriously considered by all Adventists everywhere as an integral part of the original message of the Remnant Church. It is a key part of "the truth" in their convictions and should be taken seriously, especially in today's world where violence of many kinds has become institutionalized in many places.
The full, seven-point statement without any redaction can be seen here: [LINK]
The statement of the two German union conferences can be seen here: [LINK]
In our missionary activities in South America, we had the opportunity to visit with a number of small congregations that used the name "Iglesia Adventista…Reformista(ada)" and had been in existence from the early 1900s (apparently an important era for reformed movements in the Church). The primary wedge separating the spin-off groups in South America was the Spirit of Prophecy and its advocacy of vegetarianism; this group revolted against what they saw as reticence on the part of the main Adventist body to accept, implement, and promote compliance with key principles in the health message. The main body employed a "go slow" program in promoting Mrs. White's vegetarian advocacy (which leadership back in the early 1900s saw as non-implementable in the high Andes of South America, where virtually no vegetables exist, this in days before automated transportation) and this slow march was unacceptable to the reformist elements that wanted to move ahead (so we were told). The reformists began with two spin-off congregations, and when we were there 15 or so years ago, there were still two spin-off groups, basically having remained much the same size for four generations, over 100 years. The reformists seemed to otherwise regard the main Adventist congregations as at least sisters in spirit, and we invited the reformists to come over and teach the mainline congregations about vegetarian cooking (we ourselves were-and are-vegetarian). The classes were quite successful as joint ventures, in a town with ample access to fruits and vegetables of all kinds.
I have no direct experience with Adventist non-combatant issues in Europe, except to say that my Lutheran ancestors near Hamburg emigrated to America rather than be drafted into the Kaiser's army. There seems to have been a non-combatant strain of Christian thought even among non-Adventists in years leading up to World War I.
Does spending time discussing an issue a century in the past not speak volumes about why the church is becoming irrelevant in modern society and in Europe, in particular?
Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. A history shows that it has been repeated by those who didn't know history and ignored it.
Focusing on what is important today does not mean we are ignoring the lessons of history.
I think history has a lot to say about our future, and if we cannot clean up our historical debris, it may say more about our worthiness and ultimately our relevancy than we care to admit. These discussions are vital, especially for a Church where the ability to work out differences is so important a part of our witness. It seems we often indulge the spirit of great controversy in our Church, over and above the Lord's primary commandment to love one another, bearing one another's burdens with compassion and understanding. To refuse to dialogue with a segment of our Church that left out of conscience on the matter of participating in armed combat would send out a fearful message about the quality of our Christianity.
'One of the largest of these small movements that have felt the need to leave the larger denomination at some point is the International Missionary Society Seventh-day Adventist Church Reform Movement.'
I have had some exposure to the SDARM over the years – both of them!
When talking about the Seventh Day Adventist Reform as 'one of the largest of these small movements', it is important to stress there are in fact two groups, who excommunicated each other, who claim this name.
They also split over leadership 'kingly power' issues in 1957 I believe, so that there are now two duplicate organisations. They have essentially disfellowshipped each other and think their own tiny group the 'seed of the remnant', even though they have identical beliefs, down to the long hair (for females), mandatory vegetarianism, and mandatory dress reform.
Not to diminish the clear wrong done to those Germans 100 years ago, it seems they are a group that doesn't forgive easily. And if they can't even forgive their own splinter in 1957, how will they ever forgive the mainstream SDA for 1918?
They seem to be the Adventist equivalent of the ancient Donatists of the 3rd and 4th Centuries in North Africa. Like the ancient Donatists, they are obsessed with their supposed 'purity' and don't forgive easily for wrongs done to them a century earlier. Like the Donatists, they effectively share the same doctrines as their neighbouring Adventists, except that what 'mainstream' Adventists usually see as an ideal (e.g. vegetarianism or dress reform) the SDARM make a 'minimum' as a test of fellowship.
The SDARM are the very essence of a 'Sevy-Taliban' in my book. If you're more interested in them, then check out the books by Vance Ferrell and Helmut Kramer:
http://www.temcat.com/015-WolvesinFleeces/Wolves-fleece.htm
'The statement also affirms that "Christ is the center" of Adventist faith and specifically "the message of 1888 which presented Jesus as Christ Our Righteousness."'
They claim to have a Christ-centred faith, but on the ground everything I have seen from the SDARM is that they have a rules-centred faith. Or if they do have a relationship-based faith, it is a faith centred on a relationship with Ellen White, not Jesus.
I have been told on more than one occassion by these supposed Reformers that whilst Jesus ate meat, we now have new light from Ellen White, meaning if we eat meat it is a sin. So if only Jesus (who was God) had the benefit of Ellen White (who was a mere fallible human), then He'd have known better!
They claim to uphold sola scriptura (Bible and Bible alone as the test for doctrine) but on the ground this is not the case. They can't even discuss issues without instantly going for SOP.
They finally claim to uphold the 1888 message of Jones and Wagner, which they say the mainstream SDA Church rejected. However, given that message was very much centred on righteousness by faith, the SDARM appeal to 1888 is a huge irony, as there are no greater legalists in Adventism. A good article from the GC on that point is as follows:
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/independent-ministries-and-others/information-seventh-day-adventist-reform-movement
'The statement appeals for a recognition of the "suffering and sinfulness of war." It points out that this original teaching of early Adventists has been widely disregarded and is for many in today's generations largely lost.'
Even this statement by the SDARM is a bit misleading. A good exposition on the issue of SOP and military service is the document prepared by Aurthur White for the Ellen White estate:
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/MilitaryService.html
For example, we need to be careful of applying statements about the US Civil War to all forms of military service in all situations. For example, in 1886 Ellen White actually talked favourably of military service in Europe:
'We have just said farewell to three of our responsible men in the office who were summoned by the government to serve for three weeks of drill. It was a very important stage of our work in the publishing house, but the government calls do not accommodate themselves to our convenience.
They demand that young men whom they have accepted as soldiers shall not neglect the exercise and drill essential for soldier service. We were glad to see that these men with their regimentals had tokens of honor for faithfulness in their work. They were trustworthy young men.
As a SDA Pastor: If the German Conference is associated with the GCSDA Corporation in Silversprings, Maryland well that is apostate, and has made an Imagine To The Beast. The next sad problem about this is the Reformed SDA Movement in America has done the exact same thing. Both these denominations are 501(c)(3) U.S. Business Corporation under the state. They are trying to please both the state and The Lord God Almighty. But here is a verse I want all who is reading this to focus and meditate upon Exodus 23: 32,33. The same sins the GC is experiencing through the state, so will the reform movement will do. This is a legal and documented fact. Now if any Adventist desires the two government document where the GCSDA united the denomination with the state, I have them. I have the state certified copied from michigan where the first conference was located. And I have the 1950 IRS document of their 501(c)(3). Please send me an email request at herculi777@gmail.com serious inquiries only. SDA Pastor Will
I had to chuckle when I read that the SDARM stand for pacificism. I have a "friend" who is a member of one of their tiny churches in Australia. Their congregations are dominated by eastern europeans. He has expressed a passionate desire to line all that class of member against a wall and shoot them.
And yet he firmly believes that his version of Adventism is the correct one.
Go figure.
What is the right version of Adventism and what is the wrong version? What is a good Christian and what is a bad Christian? And when Jesus commented on the fact that only God was good, what does that do to qualifying anything as either Good or Bad? And when did God, Jesus, or even the Holy Spirit give us permission to make those kind of judgements anyway?
I don't know if there is a right version of Adventism. I left. Initially, I thought that if God could work through any church, then it would be pretty arrogant of me to say that I couldn't. But then I was pointed to the revolving door, and told to scarper.
As a Pastor of the Seventh-day Adventtist Denomintation I am often amazed at the interpretations drawn from scriptures. Especially those focused particularly on the Israelites as God was preparing them to enter Canaan. On the other hand Jesus advised, or rather commanded His followers to "render unto Ceaser what was Ceaser's". When an organization follows the laws of the nation that governs the establishing of a religious organization it is hardly making an "Image to the Beast"!
Jesus gave His disciples and us another command, to take the Gospel to the world. I am continually amazed at how little time is spent on the Gospel and how much time is spent on issues which have nothing to do with inviting others to meet their Creator. If the people do not know their Savior it won't matter who the Beast is or is not!
Matthew 7:21-23, and Matthew 25:31-46 reveal how those who are disciples of Jesus respond to the world around them. Since Jesus is the One describing these characteristics I feel confident that I want my life to be a reflection of His words here and a reflection of His prayer in John 17. As always life in God's Grace is about process. Moment by moment the Comforter is transforming us into all our Creator wants us to become, a reflection of His Love.
Agree, but your comment relates to the SDARM how exactly?
See my comments elsewhere regarding being united in purpose even when we do not agree on every belief and practice.
Jesus prayed for unity in the Spirit among His followers. Satan seeks every opportunity to sow dissension and discord among the followers of Jesus. We have two millennia of Christian history to show the results. Among other things we can see that cnetrlized attempts to enfoce orthodoxy and/or orthopraxy are often counter-productive unless enforced by the sword. Jesus told Peter to put-away his sword but those who claim to be sucessors of Peter seem to have forgotten that command.
I know little about these particular Reform movements except that I have met a few of their offspring in my many travels. I do find it ironic that among those of us who claim to be peace-loving, there can be so much quarreling and so little willingness to forgive. I can testify in my own life to the healing power of forgiveness towards those in the chuch who have wronged me. Otherwise I would have long since ceased to darken the doorways.
Father forgive us for we do not know what we are doing.
Although only indirectly related it is well known that the SDA church has ceased placing emphasis on a noncombatant role for military service members.
Prior to WWII the SDA church prepared its young men who would be subject to the draft with training in what was called the Medical Cadet Corps.
Why has the church seemed to walk away from the noncombatant status it once vigorously emphasized?
Maranatha