1920 – Attempting a Reconciliation
(Part II)

Second Question

Elder Daniells explained:

"There is a way to bring a question before the brethren and to be heard. Let us begin with the [local] church. Some of the members may have some discrepancy with one of the officers or superintendents. It may be something in the leadership of the church of which they cannot approve. What should they do in such a case? Should they straightaway set up another church and be separate? I say, No. Let them bring the question before the Conference Committee. . . . Suppose this is done, and those members are not satisfied with the decision. Then let them present it to the Union. But suppose they are not satisfied with the Union Conference decision. Then they can appeal to the General Conference Committee. Suppose the [local] church refuses to accept the decision of the General Conference–and she has a right to do so–then those in question must go. They must withdraw in a Christian manner and leave us alone."

The case with the dissatisfied minority, however, was that they had no intention to leave the church; they were put out. In 1915 W. Richter, one of their representatives, prepared a "Protest" asking for an interview with the leaders. This document was read by E. Doerschler, one of the spokesmen for the disfellowshiped minority, during the conference in Friedensau in 1920. He said, "Through this writing we requested a meeting with the brethren, but our petition was refused." Now they came before the General Conference men with the question, "Where have we failed to follow the Bible way?" This was a courteous and diplomatic way of asking which of the two parties had actually failed to follow the Bible rule.

At the end of the meeting in Friedensau, the representatives of the faithful minority still believed in the possibility of correction and reconciliation, in spite of the disappointing replies, especially to the first question, received from the General Conference president. And this is what transpired:

"E. Doerschler: I ask if the answer given by Brother Daniells, yesterday, was made in the name of the whole committee of the General Conference.

"Elder A. G. Daniells: I think, brethren, that we should give this matter much consideration. I will not say that this problem could not be disputed in a larger meeting. I shall not cut the meeting short by giving a decision now. As far as our conviction and judgment guide us, and as far as it depends on us, we think our judgment is definite.

"E. Doerschler: Couldn’t there be a higher authority?

"Elder A. G. Daniells: There is not any higher authority; it may be only a larger number of brethren. In our meeting in autumn we are going to have a larger number of brethren meeting together, but this body of members of the General Conference will be there."

Third Question

In answer to the third question, first part, Elder Daniells said:

"I am glad I can tell you that the General Conference has never changed its position toward the Testimonies in the last fifty years. . . . Our position toward the Testimonies is the same as it was before." Elder Kern added: "And [Sister White’s] books are sold today more than before."

The question put by our representatives was actually motivated by the fact that many church members and even leaders in Europe did not believe in the divine inspiration of the writings of Sister White. Conradi, the president of the European Division and vice president of the General Conference, was one of them, and his unbelief was well-known. We quote from Froom’s book Movement of Destiny, p. 677 (published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association):

"Conradi . . . sought increasingly to undermine, and at last bitterly to fight, the Spirit of Prophecy. . . . Wherever he lived and labored and traveled he subtly scattered unsettling seeds of doubt as to the validity of the Spirit of Prophecy."

With his misleading influence, which was evident, Conradi was nevertheless kept in high offices for years, while Elder Daniells, in the presence of many other leaders, tried to give the impression that the SDA leadership was still taking a sound stand for the Testimonies and that the question of the reform-minded brethren was unnecessary and meaningless.

In those days many SDA Reformers made great sacrifices, selling their properties to provide means for the translation and publication of the Testimonies. Later on the Reformers were sued for this by the SDA Church in Romania, Yugoslavia, and Hungary.

Replying to the second part of the third question, Elder Daniells said:

"Brethren, our attitude to health reform remains the same today as it has always been. And perhaps we are paying more attention to this line of reform today than we did before. We have a Medical Mission and a secretary, Brother Hansen. He is out organizing this work better than before in all the churches."

Our pioneers took that answer of Brother Daniells as an effort to evade the question at issue. It was evident at that time, and it is much more evident today that "many have backslidden from their former loyalty to health reform principles" (Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 153). "Many have refused to live in harmony with the counsels of God!" (Ibid., p. 158). It seems strange to us that members who are in such habits as smoking, drinking, and eating pork should be kept on the church rolls. And there is more: "Will any who are ministers of the gospel, proclaiming the most solemn truth ever given to mortals, set an example in returning to the fleshpots of Egypt?" (Ibid., pp. 159, 160). While the Spirit of Prophecy says, "Educate away from drugs" (Medical Ministry, p. 259), the leadership is doing exactly the opposite. On top of that, SDA sanitariums are not following the blueprint given by the Spirit of Prophecy. The principle of health reform, the right arm of the message, is evidently maimed. In view of these facts, we think that the answer given by Elder Daniells does not even cover the tip of the problem.

Fourth Question

In answer to the fourth question, Elder A. G. Daniells said:

"Brethren, there is really no doubt about it [that our message is an international message] for this church. If we believe anything, we believe that this is a worldwide message, for all tongues and nations. . . . We maintain that in this work we are still on the original path."

If this is true, then the spirit of nationalism should never have been cherished by the SDA Church in any place and, therefore, the attitude taken by the leadership in Germany was wrong. This is what they reported:

"Our leaders have, up to this date, permitted our surplus church money to be used in war loans, in the fullest hope that, with the help of God, Germany would come out victorious at the end of this struggle."–Dresdener Neueste Nachrichten, April 12, 1918.

And the national spirit has never been eradicated from the SDA people, as can be proven. During World War II, the German Adventists wrote: "Germany must subsist. . . . The faith in the fatherland is growing. . . . Let us march!" (SDA calendar published in Germany, Nov. 9, 1943); the Russian Adventists said: "With all our strength we are helping to hasten the day of final victory over the enemy" (Botschafter No. 1, SDA paper published in USA, Jan. 1, 1943); the American Adventists encouraged the members in USA: "For victory buy U.S. war bonds and stamps" (Botschafter No. 1, SDA paper published in USA, Jan. 1, 1943); and the Australian Adventists declared: "If Australia were invaded [the SDAs] would fight to the last man in defense of their country." (Smith’s Weekly, published in Australia, Jan. 25, 1941). As far as we can see, this attitude cannot represent an international Christian brotherhood. Read Galatians 3:28.

In our conviction, the effort to minimize the responsibility of the leadership for what happened in Europe (1914—1918) and also for what is happening in many other places today does not clear the General Conference and the church as a whole. We can no longer regard it as a local problem, not only because the highest leadership left these evils uncorrected (especially the one in the first question–the stand of the General Conference about bearing arms), but also because, in this case, the whole body of believers becomes guilty of complicity. We cannot turn away from this rule:

"[God] shows us that when His people are found in sin they should at once take decided measures to put that sin from them, that His frown may not rest upon them all. But if the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, His frown will be upon them, and the people of God, as a body, will be held responsible for those sins. In His dealings with His people in the past the Lord shows the necessity of purifying the church from wrongs. One sinner may diffuse darkness that will exclude the light of God from the entire congregation."–Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 265.

For more detailed information, please feel free to contact: Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement P. O. Box 7240 Roanoke, VA 24019 U.S.A.