between pacifism and patriotism

12
16 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 BETWEEN PACIFISM AND PATRIOTISM Helping Students Think About Military Options RESOLVED, That it is the judgment of this Conference, that the bearing of arms, or engaging in war, is a direct violation of the teachings of our Saviour and of the spirit and letter of the law of God. S o stated the body of Christian believers recently organized as the Seventh-day Ad- ventist Church, meeting at their fifth annual General Conference session in 1867. As this emerging movement forged its organizational identity, the crisis of the American Civil War forced them to reflect about the implications of their radical faith in dealing with the moral dilemma of war. 1 As I prepare this article early in 2003, the United States is mobilizing for war in Iraq, with thousands of Adventists serving in the U.S. Armed Forces—in both active duty and Reserves, the majority bearing arms. 2 While encouraging young people to choose options other than combatant service in the military, the church’s official stance since 1972 has recognized the possibility that con- scientious Adventists will reach different conclusions on this momentous moral issue. Adventist educators thus face the responsibility of informing those consciences. The historical sketch, interpretation, and resources in this essay are intended to assist educators in developing their own approaches to teaching the issue. The main arguments and the background material are based on American Adventist history, though some comparisons with developments in other parts of the world are included. Pacifism, Pragmatism, and Prophetic Witness: 1860-1915 While many of the earliest Seventh-day Adventists considered pacifism, or nonresistance, a part of their radical faith, 3 it was also important for the success of the fledgling church to show that its outsider identity did not cause members to resist civil authority. According honor and subordination to earthly governments, too, was commanded by Scripture. Thus, Adventists, who had not spread beyond the Northern states at that point, sought ways to overcome suspicions that their pacifism en- tailed disloyalty to the Union or sympathy for the Confederate rebellion. Moreover, their passionate By Douglas Morgan

Upload: flavio-filho

Post on 04-Sep-2015

232 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

DESCRIPTION

Consciencious objectors fighting for the faith.

TRANSCRIPT

  • 16 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003

    BETWEEN PACIFISM AND PATRIOTISM

    Helping Students Think AboutMilitary OptionsRESOLVED, That it is the judgment of this Conference, that the bearing of arms, orengaging in war, is a direct violation of the teachings of our Saviour and of the spirit andletter of the law of God.

    So stated the body of Christian believers recently organized as the Seventh-day Ad-ventist Church, meeting at their fifth annual General Conference session in 1867.As this emerging movement forged its organizational identity, the crisis of theAmerican Civil War forced them to reflect about the implications of their radicalfaith in dealing with the moral dilemma of war.1 As I prepare this article early in2003, the United States is mobilizing for war in Iraq, with thousands of Adventistsserving in the U.S. Armed Forcesin both active duty and Reserves, the majority

    bearing arms.2

    While encouraging young people to choose options other than combatant service in the military,the churchs official stance since 1972 has recognized the possibility that con-scientious Adventists will reach different conclusions on this momentousmoral issue. Adventist educators thus face the responsibility of informingthose consciences. The historical sketch, interpretation, and resources in this

    essay are intended to assist educators in developing their own approaches to teaching the issue. Themain arguments and the background material are based on American Adventist history, thoughsome comparisons with developments in other parts of the world are included.

    Pacifism, Pragmatism, and Prophetic Witness: 1860-1915While many of the earliest Seventh-day Adventists considered pacifism, or nonresistance, a part

    of their radical faith,3 it was also important for the success of the fledgling church to show that itsoutsider identity did not cause members to resist civil authority. According honor and subordinationto earthly governments, too, was commanded by Scripture. Thus, Adventists, who had not spreadbeyond the Northern states at that point, sought ways to overcome suspicions that their pacifism en-tailed disloyalty to the Union or sympathy for the Confederate rebellion. Moreover, their passionate

    By Douglas Morgan

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 16

  • and near unanimous opposition to slaverymade for heartfelt identification with theUnion cause.

    So, the dilemma: If they resistedmilitary service in order to be faithfulto Scripture, they risked being ac-cused of disloyalty, which couldlead to a severe government crack-down on their fledgling movement.They would also be indirectly abet-ting the continuation of the slavesystem they had so fiercely de-nounced. To participate in armedcombat, though, would make amockery of their claim to be a rem-nant faithful to the commandmentsof God and faith of Jesus. Theirprophetic message would be compro-mised, along with their witness to thefourth and sixth commandments.

    Let us trace, then, how they workedthrough this dilemma. With the possibility of con-scription on the horizon in Au-gust 1862, James White, thechurchs foremost organizer, setforth a pragmatic line of thoughtin an Advent Review and SabbathHerald editorial entitled, TheNation. White reasoned that ifAdventists were drafted, theyshould submit, letting the govern-ment assume responsibility forany violations of Gods law.4

    Whites editorial sparked vig-orous, extended debate in thepages of the Review.5 Some believ-ers called for Adventist participa-tion in the Unions crusadeagainst traitorsone even fanta-sizing about an armed regiment ofSabbath keepers that wouldstrike this rebellion a staggeringblow.6 Other believers weighedin for total pacifism, includingHenry Carver, who maintainedthat under no circumstances wasit justifiable in a follower of theLamb to use carnal weapons to take the lives of his fellow-men.7 Fortunately, before the federal draft was institutedin March 1863, a testimony from Ellen White deftly setforth a position that avoided inflammatory rhetoric, yettook a principled stand on noncombatance. Mrs. White re-buked both the pacifists enthusiasm for draft resistance aswell as the zealousness of these who longed to volunteer forthe Unions righteous cause. Adventists should not court

    martyrdom by making provocative pro-nouncements, she cautioned. Yet she also

    warned that Gods people . . . cannotengage in this perplexing war, for it isopposed to every principle of theirfaith. In the army they cannot obeythe truth and at the same time obeythe requirements of their offi-cers.8

    The 1863 federal draft law al-lowed conscripts to purchase anexemption or to provide a substi-tute, thereby giving Adventists away out of their dilemma. Though

    the hefty $300 commutation feeplaced a financial strain on the

    church, which tried to raise the fundsfor those who could not afford it, this

    provision made it possible to avoid messyconfrontation with the government.Congress, in July 1864, restricted these op-

    tions to conscientious objectors with membershipin a recognized pacifist church.The Adventist leadership quicklysought governmental recognitionof their noncombatant position.Declaring themselves a peopleunanimously loyal and anti-slav-ery but unwilling to shed bloodbecause of their convictions,based on the Ten Command-ments and the teachings of theNew Testament, they obtained anexemption allowing them two op-tions: (1) accepting assignment tohospital duty or care of freedmen,or (2) paying the $300 commuta-tion fee.9 Despite this governmentrecognition, at the local level,many Adventist draftees were re-fused alternative duty, threatenedwith imprisonment or court-mar-tial, and harassed when they triedto claim their right to alternativeduty.

    Obtaining governmentalrecognition formalized the

    churchs commitment to pacifism, which though widelyheld, had not been systematically delineated or expressed ina generally agreed-upon form prior to the war. A resolutionvoted by the General Conference session of 1865 declared:While we thus cheerfully render to Caesar the thingswhich the Scriptures show to be his, we are compelled todecline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed asbeing inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our

    Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 17

    While encouraging youngpeople to choose options

    other than combatant ser-vice in the military, thechurchs official stance

    since 1972 has recognizedthe possibility that consci-

    entious Adventists willreach different conclu-

    sions on this momentousmoral issue. Adventist edu-

    cators thus face the re-sponsibility of informing

    those consciences.

    James White

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 3:51 PM Page 17

  • divine Master toward our enemies and toward all man-kind.10

    Our Adventist founders encounter with the AmericanCivil War thus established a legacy that combined a reli-giously based pacifism with a commitment to cooperatingwith government, both as a matter of expediency and insupporting the governments just cause against the slave-holders rebellion. It remained for their successors to adaptthe elements of this legacy to new situations.

    Matters of war did not again create a major crisis for thechurch until World War I. However, important develop-ments relating to its noncombatant stance occurred becauseof the churchs expansion overseas and the Spanish-Ameri-can War. During the late 19th century, Adventism beganwinning adherents in European states with universal mili-tary service systems.11 While visiting Basel, Switzerland, in1886, Ellen White wrote a letter in which she briefly re-ferred to three Adventists working in the conference officethere who had been called to participate in three weeks ofmilitary drill. Mrs. White warmly commended the youngmen and their course of action, noting that they did not per-form the military exercises by choice, but because the lawsof their nation required this.12 Though hardly an in-depthtestimony, the letter from Basel would prove influential.Some European Adventist leaders interpreted it to meanthat members need not resist required military service.

    Still, the pacifist ethos ran deep if not wide in EuropeanAdventism. Russian Adventists in the early 20th century re-ceived harsh treatment for refusing to carry weapons, in-cluding one convert from atheism who, in 1913, sufferedsevere floggings while in the penal section of the army.13 Ac-cording to a Soviet study in the 1930s, Adventists were thethird-largest group among religious objectors to bearingarms in World War I.14

    Though frequently overlooked, the era of the Spanish-American War, during which America began to emerge as aworld power, is significant because pacifismand with it,protest against war and militarismwere more prominentthan at any other time in Adventist history.15

    Adventist leaders warned against getting caught up inthe war fever sweeping the nation and joining in thecheers for the war as a Christian cause, which were beingsounded by mainline Protestant voices. A Review editorialdecried the spirit of militarism being fostered rightwithin the bosom of American churches and the compa-nies of Christian cadets being trained for action underchurch auspices.16 Denominational leaders called on thechurch to adhere to a pacifist ethic. In a sermon preached atthe Battle Creek Tabernacle 12 days after the United Statesentered the war with Spain, General Conference PresidentGeorge A. Irwin declared we have no business whateverto become aroused and stirred by the spirit [of war] that isabroad in the land. Citing several passages from the Ser-mon on the Mount, he declared that these Scriptures showwhat I believe is the position of the Christian in this con-flict, and what are the teachings of our Lord and Master inregard to war and the spirit that comes with it.17

    At the same time, critique of the increased mingling ofnationalistic patriotism with Christianity became a promi-nent theme in Adventist publications. The Christians citi-zenship is in heaven, Adventists insisted, and thus, Chris-tian patriotism meant loyalty to the heavenly kingdom, notto any earthly nation.18

    Noncombatancy as Conscientious Cooperation, 1915-1950

    The 20th century, with its world wars, Cold War, weap-ons of mass destruction, and repeated genocide, brought

    18 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003

    Three of many conscientious objectors in the American Army during World War I. Dick Hamstra, center, wears the Croix de Guirre (Cross ofGallantry Medal), awarded him for bravery by the French Government. Others shown are Julius Peters (left) and Henry Skadsheim.

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 18

  • Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 19

    What was the basisfor the early Sev-enth-day Adventistcommitment to non-violence? Why didthey feel compelled

    to take such an unpopular stance?The central rationale running

    through articles, petitions to governmen-tal authorities, and General Conferenceresolutions was, quite simply, the obliga-tion to obey the biblical mandateboththe Ten Commandments (particularlythe fourth and sixth) and the teachingsof Christ. Jesus declared that peace-makers will be called the children ofGod, and exhorted His followers, Donot resist an evil doer. But if anyonestrikes you on the right cheek, turn theother also (NRSV).

    Before the Civil War, the Advent Re-view and Sabbath Herald published oc-casional articles contending that thesixth commandment and Christs teach-ing that His followers should love theirenemies meant that Christians must notengage in killing or use of carnal weap-ons.

    While the debate within the churchsparked by the pressures of war and thedraft in the early 1860s revealed a diver-sity of perspectives, the assumption thatbiblical commands were meant to beobeyed framed the entire discussion.Even James Whites controversial initialproposalthat Adventist draftees wouldnot bear moral responsibility for whatgovernment compelled them to dorested on the assumption that: (1) Ad-ventists would not volunteer for servicein the army; (2) if drafted, church mem-bers would do their best to obtain Sab-bath privileges and recognition as non-combatants. Only if such efforts failedwould moral culpability fall upon thegovernment (see the Advent Reviewand Sabbath Herald [September 9,1862], page 118).

    In its first official step to obtainrecognition as a peace church, the Gen-eral Conference Committee in August1864 approved a Statement of Princi-

    ples for presentation to the governor ofMichigan. This document cited thefourth and sixth commandments as im-peratives of their faith to which theycould not give allegiance in militarycombat.

    The Statement of Principles con-tained no references to Christ or theNew Testament, which indicates that ad-herence to the Ten Commandments wasthe basis for Adventist resistance to en-gaging in warfare. After all, keeping thefourth commandmentand indeed theentire Lawwas central to their reasonfor existence.

    However, when the church soughtfederal recognition from the provostmarshal general James Fry in Septem-ber 1864, it also cited the teaching ofthe New Testament in its rationale.Moreover, the resolution adopted by theGeneral Conference the following yearcited the duties enjoined upon us byour divine Master toward our enemiesand all mankind, without explicitly men-tioning the Ten Commandments. TheGeneral Conference resolution of 1867,cited on page 16, included both theteachings of our Saviour and the spiritand letter of the law of God in its ratio-nale.

    The consistent theme was radicalfaithfulness to the whole biblical testi-mony. Early Adventists found impera-tives for nonviolence in both in the TenCommandments and in the teachings ofChrist.

    However, the early Adventists werenot reading Scripture in a vacuum. Themovement sprang up in the cultural cli-mate of radical reform in the antebellumNorth, where the causes of temperance,abolitionism, and peace were bound to-gether.

    Millerite Adventist leader Joshua V.Himes had joined with abolitionist Wil-liam Lloyd Garrison and others in form-ing the New England Non-ResistanceSociety in 1838. The society linked re-pudiation of force, including militiaservice with the millennial theme ofbearing a peace testimony until right-

    eousness and peace shall reign in allthe earth (see Henry Mayer, All on Fire:William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolitionof Slavery, pages 250, 251). Other Ad-ventists supported this movement, andWilliam Miller himself, according to Gar-rison, was an outspoken friend of thisand other reform causes (see RonaldGraybill, The Abolitionist-Millerite Con-nection in Ronald L. Numbers and

    Jonathan M. Butler, eds, The Disap-pointed: Millerism and Millennarianismin the 19th Century, pages 140-143).

    While it does not appear that any-one in the Sabbatarian branch of thebroader Adventist movement was alsoprominent in the peace movement, theSabbatarian Adventist literature of the1850s and 1860s breathes the spirit ofGarrisonian abolitionism and nonresis-tance. That radical reform ethos in turndrew on the heritage of radical dissent-ing Protestantismfrom the Anabaptistsof the 16th century to the nonconform-ists of England and New England. Anonviolent orientation was thus an out-growth of the line of dissenting, alwaysreforming Protestantism with which Ad-ventists identified.

    Why Adventists Took A Noncombatant Stand

    William Lloyd Garrison

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 19

    Picture Removed

  • 20 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003

    challenges beyond even the apocalypticimagination of Adventisms founders.During the first half of the 20th century,noncombatancy in general remainednormative in Adventism, despite signifi-cant exceptions outside the U.S. How-ever, a subtle but significant change inemphasis occurred. Most 19th-centuryAdventists viewed pacifism as a matterof faithfulness to Christ and obedienceto the law of God, although they soughtto accommodate the state as far as possi-ble without violating principle. Twentieth-century Advent-ists tended to shift the priority to the Christians patrioticduty to the nation-state, and sought ways to fulfill that dutywithin their religious scruples.

    With church members facing military conscription forthe first time in many years, denominational leaders met inApril 1917, one week after the U.S. declaration of war, tothrash out a position. One participant in the Huntsville, Al-abama, meeting recalled a heated debate in which those

    favoring acceptance of noncombatant service in the militaryprevailed over those favoring a more pacifistic stance.19 Inthe statement finally agreed upon, Adventists affirmed theirloyalty to the government and petitioned that we be re-quired to serve our country only in such capacity as will notviolate our conscientious obedience to the law of God ascontained in the decalogue, interpreted in the teachings ofChrist, and exemplified in His life.20

    The Selective Service law enacted shortly thereaftercontained exemptions from combat for members of reli-

    gious groups whose principles forbade participation in war,but required them to accept service declared by the Presi-dent as noncombatant.21 No provision was made for a 1-O,or totally pacifist stance.

    Holding strongly to their refusal to bear arms, Advent-ists were willing, even eager, to accept other roles definedfor them in support of the war effort. They were, said F. M.Wilcox, seeking to assist the government in every way pos-sible, aside from the work of actually bearing arms.22

    Though accommodation betweenchurch leaders and government wasreadily achieved, its application pro-duced considerable difficulty and con-flict. Church members still faced localdraft boards and training camp officersunfamiliar with their church or withgovernment exemptions for noncombat-ants. Many faced harassment, beatings,court martial, and imprisonment for ad-hering to their convictions.23

    The problems Adventists experi-enced in World War I prompted effortsto be better prepared for the next war.However, not everyone was convincedthat the direction taken during WorldWar I was the right one. Some, whoshared in the wave of pacifism that de-veloped as a reaction to the crusadingmilitarism of many churches during theGreat War, urged the General Confer-ence to take a firm stand, not onlyagainst bearing arms but also againstother forms of voluntary support for the

    war, such as buying bonds. General Conference leaders alsoreceived several inquiries from student groups concerningthe churchs position.24

    The renewed attention to the problem of military ser-vice, however, did not produce a shift toward pacifism or aresistance to militarism, but rather a move in the oppositedirection. In May 1934, the General Conference Committeeapproved a pamphlet by J. P. Neff, Our Youth in Time of War,to guide young people in preparing for the possibility ofmilitary service in a future war. Adventist youth, said Neff,

    A testimony from Ellen White deftly setforth a position that avoided inflamma-tory rhetoric, yet took a principled standon noncombatance. Mrs. White rebukedboth the pacifists enthusiasm for draftresistance as well as the zealousness ofthese who longed to volunteer for theUnions righteous cause.

    British Seventh-day Adventist noncombatant soldiers who were imprisoned during WorldWar I for refusing to bear arms or work on Sabbath.

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 20

  • Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 21

    How have Christiansthrough the ages dealt withthe moral dilemmas asso-ciated with war and militaryservice? While an ethic ofnon-retaliation, peacemak-

    ing, and love of enemies is central toNew Testament theology, soldiers whoappear in various biblical passageswere not exhorted to abandon their oc-cupation. The centurion Cornelius, forexample, highlighted as the charterGentile convert, received, along with hishousehold, the gospel message and anoutpouring of the Holy Spirit withoutbeing required to resign his commission.

    On the other hand, the early Chris-tians passionate commitment to thenonviolence of the gospel message cre-ated a tension with requirements for mil-itary service. Hippolytus, in the earlythird century, describing moral stan-dards for new converts (which by thenwere long-established), wrote: A mili-tary constable must be forbidden to kill.If he is commanded to kill in the courseof his duty, he must not take this uponhimself . . . (The Apostolic Tradition,cited in Eberhard Arnold, The EarlyChristians in Their Own Words [Farm-ington, Pa.: Plough Publishing House,1997], p. 113).

    One of Emperor Diocletians firststeps in his escalating efforts to eradi-cate Christianity included a decree pro-hibiting Christians from serving in thearmy because he suspected that theywould not obey orders to fight. SeveralChristians were executed for resistingpressures to deny their faith so theycould remain in the Roman army (seeJusto L. Gonzalez, The Story of Chris-tianity, vol. 1 [New York: HarperCollins,1984], p. 103).

    When Christianity became the reli-gion of the empire after the conversionof Constantine in the fourth century, anentirely new issue came to the forefront,one with which believers have struggledever since. Christians were now incharge of the army, or later, in moderndemocracies, had significant influenceover those who were in charge and howthey should behave. For the most part,Christians since Constantine have been

    guided by the theory of just war, firstset forth by Augustine in the fourth cen-tury and refined by Thomas Aquinas inthe 13th century. Just war theory holdsthat Christians may rightfully, even lov-ingly, engage in warfare, if

    the cause of the war is just, military action is initiated by legiti-

    mate governmental authority, this action is the last resort, it has a reasonable hope of suc-

    cess, and it is a proportional response to the

    evil it seeks to redress.During the Reformation in the 16th

    century, the Anabaptist movement(which was the precursor of the variousMennonite and Amish churches), fol-lowed by the Quakers in the 17th cen-tury, revived the concept of pacifism asa core Christian value. The historicwitness of these and other peacechurches has gained a broader influ-ence in the wider Christian communityin recent decades through the work ofscholars such as John Howard Yoderand Stanley Hauerwas.

    Sources for Further StudyFor information on recent events

    such as peace protests by Adventist col-lege students, the churchs official state-ment on the Iraq War, and the fate ofchurch members seeking noncombatantstatus in Russia and North Korea, seethe March 2003 news section in the offi-cial church Web site: http://www.adventist.org/news/data/2003/02/.

    Bainton, Roland H. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979).

    Cadoux, C. John. The Early Christian Attitude to War (New York: Seabury Press, 1982).

    Carter, Jimmy. Talking Peace: A Vision for the Next Generation (New York:Puffin Books/Penguin Group, 1995).

    Challenge of PeaceGods Promise and Our Response, The. Statement issued by the United States Catholic Bishops, 1983: http://www.osjspm.org/cst/cp.htm.

    Clouse, Robert G., ed. War: Four Chris-

    tian Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991).

    Cole, Darrell. When God Says War Is Right: The Christians Perspective onWhen and How to Fight (Colorado Springs, Colo.: Waterbrook Press, 2002).

    Fargo, Marilyn A. Training Young Peacemakers, Journal of Adventist Education 64:3 (February/March 2002), pp. 10-17.

    Flowers, Ronald B. War and Peace: A Christian Response, Liberty 98:2(March/April 2003), pp. 3-5.

    Grossman, Lt. Col. Dave and Gloria DeGaetano. Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie, and Video Game Violence (New York: Random House, 1999).

    Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1996).

    Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in ChristianEthics (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).

    Just War Theory, Internet Encyclope-dia of Philosophy: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm.

    McCarthy, Colman. I'd Rather Teach Peace (Mary Knoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2002).

    The Peace Making Commitment of the Mennonite Central Committee:http://www.mcc.org/peacecommit.html.

    Stassen, Glen H. and David P. Gushee.Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

    Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vol.(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992).

    Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars:A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

    War, Terrorism, and Conflict Resources:http://circle.adventist.org/browse/? browse_node=270.

    Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd-mans, 1994).

    War and Peace in the Christian Heritage

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 21

  • should be patriotic, ready toserve their countrys welfare atpersonal sacrifice. To that end,he suggested that they acquirespecialized training as medics orin some other field that wouldequip them for efficient noncom-batant military service. Neff de-nounced pacifists as advocates ofpeace at any price, conscien-tious objectors for refusing allforms of military service, andantimilitarists for their disre-spect for our uniforms and flag.Adventists inclined toward paci-fism protested, but Neff's ap-proach and spirit prevailed.25

    Meanwhile, Adventists orga-nized a program of pre-inductiontraining. As world tensions in-creased, veterans of World War Iexpressed concern that the difficulties Adventist soldiershad experienced in that war not be repeated, should an-other one break out. Everett N. Dick, a historian at UnionCollege in Lincoln, Nebraska, who initiated what later be-

    came known as the Medical CadetCorps (MCC), wrote that the pur-pose of the program was give theAdventist recruit, who wouldotherwise be entering the serviceof his country at a handicap, anorientation enabling him to fitinto a place where he could serveGod and his country conscien-tiously. In 1935, the GeneralConference recommended that allAdventist colleges and academiesprovide MCC training similar towhat had been instituted at UnionCollege. After the war began inEurope in 1939, the programspread rapidly.26

    When the Selective ServiceAct was passed in September1940, those refusing to bear armswere classified as conscientious

    objectors. Carlyle B. Haynes, head of the National ServiceCommission (the organizations name was returned to WarService Commission after the United States entered thewar), took pains to show that despite this classification, the

    22 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003

    In a sermon preachedat the Battle CreekTabernacle 12 days

    after the United Statesentered the war with

    Spain, General Confer-ence President GeorgeA. Irwin declared we

    have no business what-ever to become arousedand stirred by the spirit[of war] that is abroad

    in the land.

    In many wars, Seventh-day Adventists have bravely served as medics and in other noncombatant roles.

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 22

  • Adventist position wasquite different from otherforms of pacifism. Pickingup J. P. Neff's line of argu-ment, Haynes wanted awell-defined separationdrawn between ourselvesand war resisters, pacifists,conscientious objectors towar, and all others whorefuse service to theircountry. As noncombat-ants, he declared, we donot oppose war, we do notagitate against war, we do not organizeagainst war, we make no protest againstwar, we are not unwilling to serve in themilitary organization when drafted, we arenot opposed to saluting the flag, and weare not opposed to wearing our country'suniform.27

    A 1941 Fort Worth, Texas, newspaperarticle on an MCC camp described Ad-ventists as conscientious cooperators,and church leaders quickly adopted thephrase.28 Adventists arrived at their uniqueaccommodation by viewing the ethicalproblems raised by war in strictly individu-alistic terms. As Haynes put it, Christiannoncombatancy concerns itself only withthe individuals accountability and relationship to God.Adventists took no responsibility for the corporate policiesor actions of the state; thus participation in the military es-tablishment posed no problem so long as the acts they per-formed were ethically proper.29 As seen in a brief book byReview editor Francis D. Nichol, the main question that con-cerned Adventists was not, How can we avoid complicity inmaking war? but rather, In view of our conviction againsttaking human life, How then shall we make a direct contri-bution in relation to the armed forces?30

    During World War II, American Adventists enthusiasti-cally embraced the national consensus about the rightnessof defending freedom against the aggression of ultra-nation-alist dictatorships. Noncombatant military service, renderedmore useful by the MCC, offered a way to prove their patri-otism.31 Moreover, their distinguished service demonstratedthat noncombatancy was not cowardice.32 Desmond T. Doss,with his bravery in winning the Congressional Medal ofHonor in 1945the first ever awarded to a noncombat-antprovided compelling evidence for that point.33

    Adventists and the Military in EuropeWhile going to impressive lengths to put noncombat-

    ancy to the service of patriotism, American Adventism atthe end of World War II remained generally firm on the re-

    ligious duty of refusing tobear arms. In Europe,however, during the era ofthe two world wars, non-combatancy as a norma-tive ideal suffered ir-reparable damage.

    As World War Ineared, Germany had thelargest Adventist member-ship of any European na-tion. Ludwig R. Conradi,who played a major role inestablishing Adventism in

    Europe, led the German church. Drawingon Ellen Whites favorable comments fromBasel in 1886 about Adventist participa-tion in military drill exercises, Conradi ba-sically repudiated noncombatancy. Underhis leadership, the German church tookthe position that during wartime, Advent-ist draftees would not only bear arms, butalso not make an issue of Sabbath obser-vance. Conradi insisted only on Sabbathkeeping by Adventist military personnelduring peacetime.34

    The General Conference condemnedthe German course after World War I,though Conradi argued that he was onlyfollowing guidelines given him by church

    leaders. At a meeting in Gland, Switzerland, in 1923, Euro-pean church administrators agreed upon a statement closeto the American position, affirming that Adventists shouldrefuse all combatant service as well as any non-humanitar-ian Sabbath work. The German church leaders admittedthey had erred. However, the statement also included a pro-viso that each church member had absolute liberty to servehis country, at all times and in all places, in accord with thedictates of his personal conscientious conviction.35

    Thus, the European churchs between-the-wars standwas relatively flexible, leaving believers with plenty of roomto work out for themselves the tensions between nationaland religious loyalties. In the post-World War II era, Amer-ican Adventism followed a similar course.

    Noncombatancy Becomes Non-Normative, 1950- After World War II, the American Adventist church

    continued a strong program of support for Adventist sol-diers, promoting the effectiveness of their service throughthe National Service Organization (NSO), though it did notrecommend that members voluntarily join the military. TheNSO functioned as liaison between the church and the Pen-tagon, dealt with problems faced by servicemen in followingtheir religious beliefs, conducted centers and retreats, coor-dinated MCC training, and published the newsletter For

    Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 23

    Left to right, Terry Johnsson, first Seventh-day Adventist in the U.S. AirForce Honor Guard, and Desmond Doss, recipient of the CongressionalMedal of Honorthe only conscientious objector to receive this award.Photo taken about 1988-1991.

    Rear Admiral Barry Black, Chief ofChaplains, U.S. Navy.

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 23

  • The accompanying articleand its references andsidebars can form thebasis for discussions aboutwar and noncombatancywith students. These docu-

    ments will help young people appreci-ate the complexity of the moral issues,as well as the courage of those whohave stood up for their convictions.But what are teachers to advise ifyoung people ask them directly,Should I join the military?*

    As a former military chaplain, myconcise response to young people whoask me whether they should volunteerfor the army, air force, navy, or mar-ines is this: Look at the whole picturebefore you make a decision. This in-cludes Sabbath keeping, weaponstraining, and the issue of control.However, I find that I get their atten-tion when I describe in some detailwhat they can expect if they voluntar-ily enter military service.

    Two questions will usually grab theattention of most students consideringjoining the military. They are:

    1. Would you rather give orders ortake orders? Most 18-year-olds I haveencountered have no difficulty answer-ing that one! I can then point out thatif they join the military right out ofhigh school/academy, they go in at thelowest rank and will be taking ordersfrom everyone they encounter. If, onthe other hand, they would rather giveorders, then they should finish collegeand enter the military as an officer.

    Then they will be dealing with superiorofficers who generally have a more en-lightened worldview than those whocommand enlistees.

    2. Would you rather have a startingsalary of $1,500 per month or $3,000per month? Get a current pay chartfrom any military recruiter or online,and show it to students. Point out thatthe enlisted persons pay starts atabout 50 percent of what an officer re-ceives. Even if the enlisted person hasa two-year associate degree, he or shewill earn much less than an officer(college graduate) with the same timein service. Further, use the chart toshow students that if they choose tomake the military a career, there is abig difference between the pay scaleat the 20-year mark for an enlistedperson (E-7) and an officer such as alieutenant colonel (O-5).

    Even if the student must take outloans to get through college, he or shewill be much better off in every way tohave a degree. Students may arguethat they can get money for college ifthey enlist and even receive a bonusfor choosing certain fields. However, acomparison of income differentialsfrom the pay chart quickly reveals thatthose who enter the military with a col-lege degree are better off from day oneto retirement.

    The student may counter with,But I can get college classes while Iam on active duty! That depends onthe assignment. People in a unit thatdoes lots of field training will not be

    able to attend night classes. They willbe in the field, on the ship, or in theairplane. The militarys mission is toprepare for conflict,not to provide a col-lege education. MIS-SION comes first. Ifthere is time leftover, members of themilitary may be ableto get some collegeclasses, but thechances of that arevery slim.

    The basis for myasking these ques-tions is not to en-courage young peo-ple to join themilitary, but to (1)urge them to delaymaking this decision,which will give themtime to mature intheir thinking and life experiences sothey can make better choices, and (2)urge them to get their education first.However, even students who do nothave the grades or inclination to at-tend college will understand the impli-cations of these two questions: Do youwant to give orders or take them? Areyou willing to take 50 percent less payfor the same work?

    Sabbath AccommodationIt is not true, as some have alleged,

    that by joining the U.S. military yougive up all of your rights. You can re-

    Teaching Points for Students

    God and Country.36 NSO materials tended to encourage con-tinuance of the conscientious cooperation stance, avoid-ing critical scrutiny of national military or defense policy..37

    However, the church was not immune to the growing skep-ticism in American society regarding the military, whichpeaked during the Vietnam War era. While the influence ofthe conscientious cooperator model remained strong, theconsensus regarding it was breaking down.38

    Responding to young Adventists who felt their faithcompelled them to resist all forms of military servicecom-batant or otherwisechurch leaders in 1969 somewhat re-

    luctantly went on record supporting those who chose a paci-fist stance, thereby making available the 1-O classificationfor members. While the church had never made militaryservice a test of membership, the 1972 Autumn Councilmade clear that those who accepted 1-O or 1-A (combat-ant) classification would not be denounced or excluded. De-nominational leaders still recommended noncombatant mil-itary service for Adventist draftees (1-A-O classification)but tacitly recognized that thoughtful Adventists might alsochoose to be pacifists or even to carry arms.39

    Consequently, as the Vietnam conflictand the U.S.

    24 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:45 PM Page 24

  • quest noncombatant duty (that is, mili-tary duty that does not require trainingwith or use of a weapon). Usually, thisis restricted to assignments in the med-ical field for enlisted personnel, orserving as a chaplain or doctor in the

    officer corps. Not all services offer thisoptionthe U.S. Marines do not haveany noncombatants. Other forms ofduty will require weapons training anduse. You can also request Sabbathprivileges.

    However, once again, there aresignificant differences, basedon whether you enter as anenlisted person or an officer. If stu-dents join the military as officers, theywill work with peers and superiors whohave a wider view of life and thereforewill be more likely to gain accommo-

    dation on Sabbath observance. En-listed men and women usually have su-pervisors who are younger, less edu-cated and experienced, and thus lesslikely to allow Sabbath privileges.

    The important point to stress isthat for the military, MISSION takesprecedence over all else. If the mis-sion, or training for the mission, de-mands Sabbath duty, the commandercan give a legally binding order for alltroops to be at their assigned posts, re-gardless of whether that goes againsttheir conscience or usual practice. Andsome tasks must be performed on acontinuous or emergency basis: Peopleneed to be fed, to be cared for when ill,etc. In wartime, military action maycontinue seven days a week, 24 hours aday, and no one is exempt from com-mands given during a battle.

    One major change in the U.S. mili-tary relating to Sabbath accommoda-tion has occurred in the past decade.Until recently, Sabbath-keeping sol-diers had to show why the unit com-mander should accommodate their re-quest for Sabbath privileges. Now, thecommander must justify to his or hersuperior officer why the accommoda-tion cannot be made.

    All basic training programs, in allservices, officer or enlisted, schedulerequired training on the first few Sab-baths. Military persons will probablyhave more freedom after the first fewweeks of basic training, but keepingthe Sabbath can still be a serious chal-lenge.

    Sometimes, recruiters tell prospec-tive enlistees that they can have timeoff to worship. But in basic training, no

    one is routinely given a 24-hour periodoff for any reason. The recruiter maynot understand that a Sabbath keeperwants more than an hour off once aweek to attend church.

    As with other accommodations forconscience, it depends on the assign-ment and the mission of the group towhich one is assigned.

    Church Support for Members of theMilitary

    The church, through AdventistChaplaincy Ministries, provides litera-ture, Bible kits, devotionals, a newslet-ter, and mediation for North AmericanDivision church members serving inthe U.S. military. For additional infor-mation, call 1(800) ACM LIST, sendan E-mail to [email protected], orcheck the following Web site: http://www.AdventistChaplains.org.

    Richard Stenbakken iscurrently Director of theAdventist ChaplaincyMinistries Department ofthe General Conferenceof Seventh-day Adventistsin Silver Spring, Mary-land. He retired from the

    U.S. Army in 1994 as a full Colonel (Chaplain)after nearly 24 years of active duty. He holds adoctorate in education and four Masters de-grees. _________________________________

    * Facts in this sidebar relate to the U.S.military. Teachers in other nations shouldinvestigate the local situation regardingthe rights of those who voluntarily enterthe military, as well as information aboutrequired military service, and advise stu-dents accordingly.

    draftended, the noncombatant principle the church hadrepeatedly advocated for more than a century had officiallybeen rendered non-normative. The substantial number ofAdventist combatants in the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-1991 suggests that the recommendation has carried minimalweight in practice.

    Through the NSO, now under the umbrella of AdventistChaplaincy Ministries, the church continues to providehigh-quality resources for guidance on how to be a faithful,Sabbath-observing Adventist while in military service.Whether the principles of Adventism call into question the

    wisdom of entering the military in the first placeparticu-larly when one is not compelled to do sodoes not cur-rently seem to be a prominent issue in church pulpits andpublications.

    Nonetheless, careful consideration of the moral issuesinherent in peace, war, and combat remains vital to theworldwide Adventist community, heightened of course byincreased world tensions. A Seventh-day Adventist Callfor Peace,40 approved by the General Conference SpringCouncil in 2002, reflects this concern and makes specificrecommendations for peace education in the denomina-

    Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 25

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:46 PM Page 25

  • tions schools and churches.Unanimity on this complex and

    momentous issue will likely con-tinue to elude the AdventistChurch, as it has the ChristianChurch as a whole. Yet it toucheson matters so central to the gospelmessage that no serious believercan avoid addressing it. Doing sowith intelligence and integrity willrequire recovery of a history thathas to a large extent faded from ourcollective consciousness.

    Douglas Morgan,Ph.D., is Professorand Chair of the De-partment of Historyand Political Studiesat Columbia UnionCollege in Takoma

    Park, Maryland. He previously taught atSouthern Adventist University in Col-legedale, Tennessee, and served as Edito-rial Director of the Collegiate Quarterly(Sabbath School) and College Peoplemagazine. He holds a doctorate in the His-tory of Christianity and a Masters degree in Religious Studies from theUniversity of Chicago; and a B.A. in Theology from Union College, inLincoln, Nebraska. He is the author of Adventism and the AmericanRepublic: The Public Involvement of a Major Apocalyptic Move-ment (University of Tennessee Press, 2001), as well as a number ofjournal articles.____________________________________________________

    NOTES AND REFERENCES

    1. Similar resolutions were voted at the 1865 and 1868 sessions.General Conference Session Minutes at General Conference Office ofArchives and Statistics, http://archives.gc.adventist.org/ast/archives.

    2. For God and Country (April-June 2002), p. 2. The number of Ad-ventists serving in the Persian Gulf War was estimated to be 2,000-2,500, a large majority in combatant roles (Adventists in the Gulf,Spectrum 21 [March 1991], p. 7).

    3. For a detailed and insightful study of Seventh-day Adventistviews of war and military service through World War I, see PeterBrock, Freedom From Violence: Sectarian Nonresistance From the MiddleAges to the Great War (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp.230-258. See also Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington,D.C.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 1973), Noncombatancy, pp.978, 979.

    4. James White, The Nation, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald[hereafter cited as Review] (August 12, 1862), p. 84.

    5. Brock summarizes and gives key quotes from the debate in thepages of the Review in Freedom From Violence, pp. 234-236.

    6. Joseph Clarke, The War! The War! Review (September 23,1862), p. 134.

    7. Henry E. Carver, The War, Review (October 21, 1862), p. 166.8. Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View,

    Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1948), vol. 1, pp. 357-361.9. J. N. Andrews, Seventh-day Adventists Recognized as Non-

    combatants, Review 24 (September 13, 1864), pp. 124, 125.

    10. Report of the Third Annual Ses-sion of the General Conference of Sev-enth-day Adventists, Review 25 (May 17,1865), pp. 196, 197.

    11. On European Adventism and mil-itary service in the years between theAmerican Civil War and World War I,see Brock, pp. 246-256.

    12. Ellen G. White, Ms. 33, 1886,published in Selected Messages (Washing-ton, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ.Assn., 1958), Book 2, p. 335.

    13. Brock, p. 250.14. Ibid.15. Doug Morgan, Apocalyptic

    Anti-Imperialists, Spectrum 22 (January1993), pp. 20-27.

    16. The Gospel of War, Review 75(May 3, 1898), p. 351.

    17. George A. Irwin, The PresentCrisis, supplement to Review (May 3,1898), p. 1.

    18. See Douglas Morgan, Adventismand the American Republic (Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press, 2001), p.89.

    19. Roger G. Davis, Conscientious Co-operators: The Seventh-day Adventists andMilitary Service, 1860-1945 (Ph.D. disser-tation, George Washington University,Washington, D.C., 1970), pp. 113-115.

    20. Ibid.

    26 Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003

    A resolution voted bythe General Conference

    session of 1865 de-clared: While we thus

    cheerfully render toCaesar the things whichthe Scriptures show to

    be his, we are com-pelled to decline all par-ticipation in acts of warand bloodshed as being

    inconsistent with theduties enjoined upon usby our divine Master to-ward our enemies andtoward all mankind.

    At Camp Desmond Doss in Michigan in 1956, Medical Cadet Corpsmembers learn how to transport the wounded as part of their train-ing for military service.

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/4/03 2:46 PM Page 26

  • 21. Francis McLellan Wilcox, Seventh-day Adventists in Time ofWar (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 1936), pp.109-134.

    22. F. M. Wilcox, Are Seventh-day Adventists Loyal to TheirGovernment? Review 95 (July 18, 1918), pp. 3-5.

    23. Wilcox, Seventh-day Adventists in Time of War, pp. 149-159;Davis, pp. 142-159.

    24. Ibid., 168-176.25. A portion of the pamphlet is reproduced in Wilcox, Seventh-

    day Adventists in Time of War, pp. 383-385. Neffs polemic againstother positions was not published in that book but is discussed byDavis, pp. 174, 175.

    26. Everett N. Dick, The Adventist Medical Corps as Seen byIts Founder, Adventist Heritage 1 (July 1974), pp. 18-27.

    27. Carlyle B. Haynes, Conscription and Noncombatancy, Re-view 137 (October 10, 1940), pp. 16-18.

    28. _________, Conscientious Objection or Conscientious Co-operation, Review 138 (February 13, 1941), p. 18.

    29. _________, Conscription and Noncombatancy, p. 18.30. Francis D. Nichol, The Wartime Contribution of Seventh-day

    Adventists (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn.,1943), p. 7.

    31. Ibid., p. 57.

    32. Haynes, Conscription and Noncombatancy, p. 18; F. D.Nichol, Medical Corpsmen the Bravest, Review 128 (March 22,1951), p. 15; and The Present World Crisis, Review 139 (November 8,1962), pp. 12, 13.

    33. Heber H. Votaw, A Noncombatant Receives the Nation'sHighest Honor, Liberty 41 (First Quarter 1946), pp. 15-17.

    34. Brock, pp. 252, 253.35. Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A His-

    tory of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific PressPubl. Assn., 2000), p. 365.

    36. J. R. Nelson and Clark Smith, Directors Recount Work ofWSC After Four Years of Ministry, For God and Country 11 (ThirdQuarter, 1962), pp. 3, 4, 7; Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washing-ton, D.C.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 1976), p. 946.

    37. Clark Smith, Character Guidance Studies for the Seventh-dayAdventist Medical Cadet Corps, chapter on Privileges and Respon-sibilities of Citizenship, p. 2; and chapter on Noncombatancy andGovernmental Relationships, p. 1 (unpublished syllabus, n.d.).

    38. See, for example, the debate in Spectrum 1 (Winter 1969).39. Review 146 (December 18, 1969), pp. 16-18; Recommendations

    of General Interest From the Autumn Council, 19721, Review 149(November 30, 1972), p. 20.

    40. See http://adventist.org/beliefs/main_stat52.html.

    Journal of Adventist Education Summer 2003 27

    Project WhitecoatIn one of the most intriguing episodes

    in the history of American Adventist in-volvement with the military, more than2,000 Adventist draftees fulfilled their mili-tary duty between 1954 and 1973 by par-ticipating in a program testing defensesagainst biological weapons. With the newlevel of threat from biological weapons inthe early 21st century, the story becomesall the more relevant.

    SourcesAll Things Considered, National Public

    Radio (October 13, 1998). Audio at http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/ archives/1998/981013.atc.html.

    Henderson, LaVerne. The Operation Whitecoat Story, Columbia Union Visitor (March 1, 2002), pp. 4, 5.

    Morgan, Douglas. Adventism and the American Republic: The Public In-volvement of a Major Apocalyptic Movement (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001), pp.156-158.

    Project Whitecoat: The Adventist Con-tribution to Biowarfare, The Winds:World Internet News Distributary Source: http://thewinds.arcsnet.net/ arc_features/religion/whitecoat11-

    98.html.Smith, Krista Thompson. Adventists

    and Biological Warfare, Spectrum25 (March 1996), pp. 35-50.

    Turner, Martin D. Project Whitecoat,Spectrum 2 (Summer 1970), pp. 55- 70.

    The Nazi SpecterThe tragedy of Christian complicity

    in the militarist, racist, and genocidal ex-tremes of Nazi Germany looms as theultimate warning over all subsequentChristian involvement with the state andthe military. The story of Adventismstravail under Nazism is bound up withthe controversy about military service inGermany emerging out of World War I.As the following list of sources sug-gests, Roland Blaich, now retired pro-fessor of history at Walla Walla College,has made the greatest contribution touncovering the painful truth about theextent to which Adventism succumbedto the Nazi temptation.

    SourcesBlaich, Roland. Divided Loyalties:

    American and German Seventh-day Adventists and the Second World War, Spectrum 30 (Winter 2002),

    pp. 37-51._________. Health Reform and

    Race Hygiene: Adventists and the Biomedical Vision of the Third Reich, Church History 65 (Septem-ber 1996), pp. 425-440.

    _________. Nazi Race Hygiene and the Adventists, Spectrum 25 (Sep -tember 1996), pp. 11-23.

    _________. Religion Under Na-tional Socialism: The Case of the German Adventist Church, Central European History 26 (September 1993), pp. 255 280.

    _________. Selling Nazi Germany Abroad: The Case of Hulda Jost,Journal of Church and State 35(Autumn 1993), pp. 807-830.

    Patt, Jack M. Living in a Time of Trou-ble: German Adventists Under Nazi Rule, Spectrum 8 (March 1977), pp.2-10.

    Schwartz, Richard, and Greenleaf, Floyd. Light Bearers: A History of theSeventh-day Adventist Church(Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publ.Assn., 2000), pp. 372-374.

    Sicher, Erwin. Seventh-day AdventistPublications and the Nazi Tempta-tion, Spectrum 8 (March 1977), pp.11-24.

    Information and Sources for Further Study

    JAE_v65_issue4 6/10/03 1:31 PM Page 27