ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS?: 

 THE ISSUE OF MILITARY SERVICE WITHIN INTERNATIONAL ADVENTISM 









 Ronald Lawson 
 Professor 
 Department of Urban Studies 
 Queens College, CUNY 
 Flushing, NY 11367 

 Address for correspondence: 

 8 Glendale Rd 
 Ossining 
 NY 10562-1608 

 Phone (914) 941-1837 
 e-mail: rlawson@cloud9.net 


Published in the Review of Religious Research,
37:3, March 1996, 97-122




 ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS?: 

 THE ISSUE OF MILITARY SERVICE WITHIN INTERNATIONAL ADVENTISM 

 Ronald Lawson 

	Sociologists have suggested recently that the best measure of where a
religious group falls on the church-sect continuum is its state of tension
with society [Stark and Bainbridge, 1985:23]. A highly sectarian group has
high tension with society, a mainline denomination low tension. Tension has
three elements: difference, antagonism, and separation [49-50].
	When a religious group concludes that military service contravenes its
principles and rejects the call to arms, that decision invites scorn from
the public and punishment by the state. That is, it can indicate that the
group's tension with society is high--that it is towards the sect end of the
church-sect scale. Research shows that over time many sects reduce their
tension with society and move towards the church end of the scale. Such a
sect is likely to modify its deviant stand on conscription in order to
reduce tension.
	This paper examines the dynamics of the responses of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church to military conscription from the time of its formal
organization in the early 1860s until now. Since Adventism has become a
highly centralized international denomination, Adventists have been forced
to cope with the issue in many different countries, where both the political
context and the level of Adventist tension with society as measured by other
indicators have varied considerably.  Since church-sect theory has typically
focused on a single country, this study introduces a new dimension.

Research Methods
	The research reported here is part of a large study of Adventism, which
has included over 3,000 in-depth interviews with church administrators,
teachers, hospital administrators and medical personnel, pastors, students,
and leading laypersons in 54 countries in all eleven divisions of the world
church. This paper has culled its data concerning earlier decades from
secondary sources, and draws extensively on interviews and periodical
articles to explore more recent pronouncements, practices and attitudes. The
convention adopted is to refrain from citing the names of interviewees when
they are quoted except when they are major figures in the church.

Adopting a Position
	The American Civil War forced the Adventist Church to grapple with the
issue of military service just as it created its organizational structure
between 1860 and 1863. Since they expected to be persecuted by the state
before the return of Christ, an event which was itself imminent, and
meanwhile they had the responsibility of spreading God's last warning
message to the world, there was widespread reluctance among Adventists to
volunteer for service. When he discovered that they were being accused of
disloyalty, James White, editor of the Review and Herald, wrote in favor of
participating: "in case of drafting, the government assumes the
responsibility of the violation of the law of God" [Aug.12, 1862]. This
editorial initiated a debate which revealed deep divisions over the issue. 
Adventist ranks included many who had been touched by pacifism through the
Abolitionist Movement. These regarded military combat as a violation of the
Sixth Commandment and of the nonviolent teachings of Jesus. They embraced
the examples in the book of Daniel, where the three Hebrews and the prophet
defied orders from the state. On the other hand, since Adventists were at
that time concentrated in the north, and key church leaders had taken
positions against slavery, there was also considerable sympathy among them
for the Union side. Some became protagonists for active participation in the
military struggle. They found biblical support for their position in
passages in the epistles granting considerable authority to the stateBEGIN
FNOTERomans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17END FNOTE and in the Old Testament stories
in which God sent Israel to war; they also restricted the meaning of the
Sixth Commandment to murder, thus removing war from its purview [Graybill,
1978; Knight, 1992]. 
	The issue became urgent when conscription was instituted in March 1863. 
The infant church eventually took a position against military service.
However, consensus was reached primarily on practical, rather than
ideological, grounds. It was agreed that participation in war was impossible
for Adventists because it would make it unfeasible for them to observe the
Sabbath or their diet restrictions, and would expose them to a multitude of
evil influences, such as drinking, smoking, gambling, and cursing [Graybill,
1978]. Ellen White, as was her wont, helped consolidate the consensus:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"I was shown that God's people...cannot engage in this perplexing war, for
it is opposed to every principle of their faith. In the army they cannot
obey the truth and at the same time obey the requirements of their officers"
[1885 (1863):361].
END QUOTATION
	Although their position placed them, along with the Quakers, in a small
statistically deviant minority, and subjected them to some scorn and
questioning of their loyalty, it did not result in legal punishments. That
is, while it showed that there was tension between Adventists and society,
that tension was not very high--at least as measured by this indicator. If
the measure used had instead focused on the difficulties flowing from
treating Saturday as a holy day in a society where the six day week was all
but universal, or on the Adventist expectation of persecution in the near
future at the hands of the American state, then the degree of tension
measured would have been higher. Adventists escaped legal problems because
the military draft contained loopholes, some of which catered to the
Quakers, through which they could fit--and because these loopholes allowed
them to avoid military service altogether, which meant that the issues
associated with Sabbath observance in the military were not raised. 
	Adventists usually chose to avoid the draft by paying the standard
commutation fee of $300, and churches helped poor members raise this sum.
When provision for noncombatant service was passed in February 1864,
Adventists initially made no attempt to gain recognition as noncombatants
under the act because they were generally using the commutation fee to avoid
service. "Only in July of 1864, when the privilege of buying commutation was
restricted to those recognized as conscientious objectors, did the church
act to secure such recognition for itself" [Graybill, 1978:6]. In order to
accomplish this, Adventists fudged the record by declaring that their
membership had always been united in believing that war was wrong and gained
such recognition, first from state governors and then federal authorities.
Having adopted a position, Adventists then enforced it, disfellowshiping
members who volunteered for military service [Graybill, 1978:7; Brock,
1974:26]. The third annual session of the General Conference, held in May
1865, shortly after the end of the war, affirmed the new Adventist position:
it declared that while Adventists "recognize civil government as ordained by
God," they were "compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and
bloodshed" because this was inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus, the
"Prince of Peace" [Cited by Wilcox, 1936:234].

New Issues Abroad
	The questions associated with military service faded from view during
the peaceful decades that followed the end of the Civil War. Although the
Spanish-American War of 1898 did not involve conscription, the widespread
jingoism of the time drew strong expressions of pacifist sentiment from
Adventist leaders and criticism of most other churches for their support for
the war [Morgan, 1993:25,26].  Meanwhile, Adventism had begun to spread
internationally. Some of the countries where it took root were without the
tradition of concern for individual conscience that had spawned the
legislation creating noncombatant status in the U.S. However, the absence of
an immediate issue meant that Adventism had not yet wrestled with such a
situation.
	A new variation--participation in military training in peace time--came
to the fore early in the new century in several countries.  These instances
illustrated that the level of tension between Adventism and society as
measured by this dimension could vary considerably from one country to
another and over time. Because threat of war seemed very distant in America,
Adventist leaders gave little direction to these situations. In Argentina,
where there had been conscription for many years, Adventists had refrained
from requesting special privileges for fear of incurring severe
punishments--that is, they typically trained with weapons and on the
Sabbath, in effect abandoning their scruples rather than risk heightening
tensions with the state. However, in 1907, one church member there chose
instead to endure torture and imprisonment. When this drew publicity and
critical comment, Adventists were exempted from military work on the
Sabbath. Their focus on the Sabbath rather than on bearing arms pointed to
future trends. However, when the governments of Australia and New Zealand
introduced compulsory military training in 1909, the local Adventist
Religious Liberty Committee petitioned them successfully for noncombatant
status [Wilcox, 1936:367,380]. 
	Meanwhile, German Adventists conscripted in the years prior to 1914
faced considerable pressure concerning both the use of weapons and Sabbath
observance. Some who were imprisoned became the focus of scornful press
coverage. When they were taken to court, they refused to train with arms;
however, they expressed a willingness to serve in time of war. Consequently,
when war broke out suddenly in 1914, their leaders, focusing on the New
Testament passages asserting the primacy of government authority, agreed
that German Adventists would bear weapons in the service of the Fatherland.
Moreover, their announcement stated explicitly that "under these
circumstances we will also bear arms on Saturday" [Sas, n.d.:14; Sicher,
1977:12]. This decision resulted in a bitter schism, which concluded with
the members making up the pacifist opposition--the "two percent"--being
disfellowshipped from the official church and forming the Seventh Day
Adventist Reform Movement. The patriotism of the official Adventists,
together with their realization that Imperial Germany would not countenance
a noncombatant option, led them to reduce their tension with the state and
to discard those who insisted on maintaining high tension.

The American Church and World War I
	Because of the late entry of the U.S. into the war, the American church
had more time to prepare its position. This was just as well, because once
again there was considerable debate over the intent of the Scriptures
[Protokkol, quoted by Sas, n.d.:28]. In April 1917 the North American
Division, declaring that "we have been noncombatants throughout our
history," adopted the 1865 General Conference declaration of noncombatancy
as principle, and filed this with the War Department [Wilcox, 1936:113;
Syme, 1973:70-71]. However, it now defined noncombatancy quite differently:
instead of being pacifists who refused to be involved in war, Adventists
would now respond to the draft but refuse to bear arms--as unarmed soldiers,
they would do good and not kill. 
	In 1916, expecting a possible draft, the North American Division had
established Red Cross training schools at its colleges and several hospitals
and academies. The Adventist medical school established the Loma Linda
Institute of Wartime Nursing. Young men liable to a draft were thus able to
undertake training that helped prepare them for, and make them attractive
to, noncombatant medical units within the armed forces. Such postings were
considered particularly desirable because helping people medically was
defined as suitable activity for the Sabbath. They would thus provide
Adventist draftees with a noncombatant role within the military while,
concurrently, removing the difficult problem of service on the Sabbath.
	Unlike the Quakers, Adventists sought to avoid only actual combatancy.
They did not see it as a contradiction to help the wounded to recover and so
fight again: they were helping people, and what those they helped did
afterwards was up to their own consciences. Their patriotism made them proud
to offer service to their nation that was compatible with what their
consciences allowed. Adventist leaders even urged members to purchase war
bonds. 
	Once the draft was instituted, pastors of churches near military camps
were asked to take responsibility for ministering to conscripted Adventists,
and the General Conference established an office to deal with individual
problems of noncombatancy and Sabbath observance when they emerged within
the armed forces. This was later named the National Service Organization.
	The Adventist embrace of patriotism should have represented a
considerable reduction in their tension with society, even though their
noncombatant stance made them distinctly unusual. However, being part of the
military initially increased tensions when Adventist conscripts were
punished because of problems with Sabbath observance during basic training.
Church leaders were eventually successful in arranging for Adventists to be
excused from all unnecessary military activities on that day. Nevertheless,
at the end of the war there were still 35 Adventists in prison, with
sentences ranging from 5 to 20 years, for disobeying officers on this
account. They were then released by proclamation [Wilcox, 1936:151].

Further Trouble in Europe
	Once the war ended, the General Conference was faced with the problem
of how to deal with the rift in Europe, which had already spread through
several countries there. Finally, in 1923, it made an incongruous decision
to side with the official church in Germany, which had the effect of leaving
the schism in place, while, at the same time, establishing that the official
position of international Adventism towards war was noncombatancy [Wilcox,
1936:346; "Noncombatancy," 1976:979].
	However, the official position was soon breached once more by the
Stalinist crackdown on religious freedom. The beginning of this was signaled
at the church's 1924 All-Russian Congress, when its leaders were forced to
sign a statement that military service was a matter of private conscience.
This statement was strengthened considerably at the next Congress, in 1928,
with the proclamation that military service was a Christian duty, and that
anyone teaching otherwise was a heretic and should be disfellowshipped.
Meanwhile, new laws proscribed proselytizing activity and charitable work by
religious groups. By accepting these conditions the Adventist church was
able to function openly but in very compromised circumstances. 
	This situation resulted in another schism, for some of the Russian
Adventists refused to compromise with the authorities. Instead they broke
away from the officially recognized church and went underground, thus
placing themselves in a position where they attracted persecution. The
schismatics called themselves the True and Free Adventists: "true" because
they were faithful to the commandments to observe the Sabbath and refrain
from killing, which they accused the official church of breaking, and "free"
because they refused to be registered or connected to the government
[Sapiets, 1990:52-57; Alexeyeva, 1988:25]. 
	Two approaches to military service had emerged within international
Adventism. One, which was declared the official position, was
noncombatancy--now redefined as participation in war without arms. However,
it was confined largely to the English-speaking world, where it had been
secured fairly easily as a legally available option. The second approach was
utilized where governments were firm in allowing no such alternative, when
Adventists usually chose to avoid conflict by serving with arms. That is, in
both cases tension tended to be relatively low, at least as measured by
military service. Indeed, in two cases the official Adventist church had
chosen to cut off minorities which resisted government military policies
rather than risk raising tensions.

World War II
	As the international situation began to heat up again in Europe, the
General Conference reaffirmed the church's noncombatant position once more.
It issued a pamphlet in 1934, "Our Youth in Time of War," which urged
Adventist youth to prepare for noncombatant service by graduating in
medicine, nursing, dietetics or some other medically related field, or to at
least get experience as cooks, nurses aides, etc.  It again endorsed the
concept of the church providing medical training for members liable to be
drafted. It also included advice to draftees on how to approach officers
when seeking Sabbath privileges, and reminded them, if all else failed, to
be ready to stand alone like Daniel the prophet [Wilcox, 1936:383-395].
	This was followed, in 1936, by the publication of Seventh-day
Adventists in Time of War, by F.M. Wilcox, the editor of the church paper.
Here he assembled documents around which he wrote a history of the Adventist
noncombatant stance. By omitting accounts of heated debate over the position
and references to its failure and neglect in some countries, he gave the
impression that it was universally accepted.  In fact his discussion was
almost totally confined to the English-speaking world. 
	In 1939, as war broke out in Europe, the church in the U.S. once more
established a program to provide medical training to Adventists who were
potential draftees. This time, however, the program was much more
sophisticated than during World War I, for it secured the cooperation of the
armed forces: called the Medical Cadet Training Program, it was directed and
supervised by regular army officers (Dick 1974:20). The official church
paper commented: "Refusing to be called conscientious objectors, Seventh-day
Adventists desire to be known as conscientious cooperators" (Editorial
1941). The tension between the Adventist Church and society, as measured by
the societal response to its position on military participation, had been
reduced significantly.
	However, the historic noncombatant stand was already being compromised
again in Germany, where Adventists praised Hitler and his National
Socialists with enthusiasm, and many conscripts bore arms willingly even
though they had been accorded the right to opt for orderly or medical
duties. In so doing they sharply reduced the tension between their church
and the state, surviving untouched in spite of the similarity of several of
their beliefs and practices to Judaism. Their experience was in marked
contrast to that of the Reformed Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses, who
suffered greatly, often to death, because of their unswerving commitment to
their pacifist positions [Sicher 1977:14-22; King, 1982:89-119,147-179]. 
	Nevertheless, during World War II the General Conference affirmed once
more that "throughout their history Seventh-day Adventists have been
noncombatants. ...the noncombatant position taken...is thus based on deep
religious conviction" [National Service Organization, 1943]. Some 12,000
American Adventists served during World War II as noncombatants in medical
branches of the services. Church leaders were especially proud of their
military heroes such as Desmond Doss, whose bravery earned him a
Congressional Medal of Honor (Sibley and Jacob 1952:86; Schwarz 1979:443;
Goldstein 1985:2).

The Korean War and its Aftermath
	The Medical Cadet Corps, which had been allowed to lapse after World
War II, was revived at the time of the Korean War. Once again conscripted
American Adventists served in large numbers in medical units. The major
innovation during this time was the appointment by the church of military
chaplains, who were paid by the armed forces and had military careers.
During World War II the General Conference had refused to endorse Adventist
clergy for such posts, which had had the effect of keeping them from being
appointed.BEGIN FNOTEThere were two exceptions, who somehow found loopholes
in the military process [Dick, 1976:35-36].END FNOTE However, it now not
only agreed to endorse them, but also to give financial aid to some would-be
chaplains in order to help with their ministerial training and to ordain
them immediately on graduation, since this was necessary for their
appointment as chaplains, rather than having them wait several years, as was
the normal procedure with Adventist clergy. Thus American Adventism took
another step in normalizing its relationship with the military.
	South Korean Adventists were also taught during the Korean War that it
was the church's position not to undergo military training with arms--a
position that was reinforced by visiting General Conference officials.
Consequently, following the American model, the Adventist college there gave
basic medical training to those expecting to be drafted, who then asked the
authorities to assign them to medical units or other noncombatant positions
where they did not have to bear arms. But not all were able to obtain such
positions, and the unlucky ones sometimes found themselves with an
unsympathetic commander who would not respect their religious restrictions. 
Two of these were executed at the front line during the war when they
refused to bear arms, and about 100 Adventists were sent to prison for as
long as 7 years during the 1950s and 1960s for failure to obey orders
concerning arms or Sabbath activities; many more were beaten or otherwise
mistreated.  Appeals to President Park were successful in securing the
release of some of these men, but this approach never solved the basic
problem. Indeed, the prison terms to which Adventists were sentenced became
notably longer during the 1960s than they had been during the previous
decade [interviews].
	In many other countries without provision for alternatives to military
service, ranging from Franco's Spain to Communist Eastern Europe to Latin
America, Adventists would also have faced severe difficulties and even
imprisonment if they had tried to avoid training with arms. In some
countries, such as Argentina, the church provided youth with some medical
training, once again hoping that the possession of these skills would shape
their paths when they were conscripted. However, the bottom line for local
church leaders was often the preservation of Sabbath observance for
conscripts rather than the avoidance of training with weapons. They
frequently concluded that the General Conference did not understand their
situation, so that its statements reflected an American situation which
could not be applied to them [interviews]. In this way they avoided the
tension with the state over military service which the Korean Adventists
were experiencing.
	Nevertheless, in 1954, following the Korean War, the Quadrennial
Session of the General Conference, which included delegates from around the
world, voted a major statement which not only confirmed the traditional
noncombatant position but provided for it to be included in the Church
Manual as a fundamental belief throughout the world field:
BEGIN QUOTATION
	"...The breaking out of war among men in no way alters the Christian's
supreme allegiance and responsibility to God or modifies his obligation to
practice his beliefs and put God first.
	"This partnership with God through Jesus Christ, who came into this
world not to destroy men's lives but to save them, causes Seventh-day
Adventists to take a noncombatant position, following their divine master in
not taking human life, but rendering all possible service to save it. In
their accepting the obligations of citizenship, as well as its benefits,
their loyalty to government requires them to serve the state in any
noncombatant capacity...asking only that they may serve in those capacities
which do not violate their conscientious convictions" [General Conference
Session, 1954].
END QUOTATION
	However, when the next edition of the Church Manual was being readied
for printing in 1959, the General Conference Committee voted to omit the
above statement from it. Church leaders were becoming more aware of the
problems of observing noncombatancy within many portions of the world
church, and some felt it would be inhumane to discipline members caught in
such a bind--a likely result of including the position among the fundamental
beliefs of the church.
	Nevertheless, when the Executive Committee of the General Conference
voted a statement which was intended to inform military officers of the
Adventist position as American involvement in Vietnam was increasing, it
affirmed once more that "Seventh-day Adventists...are noncombatants"
[General Conference Executive Committee, 1963].

The Transformation of Adventism's Stand on Military Service
	In the U.S., the impact of their noncombatant position on the
relationship between Adventists and the broader society had changed
considerably over time. It no longer separated them, but in fact, from the
founding of the Medical Cadet Corps in 1939 and especially in the years
following the Korean War, it encouraged close relationships with government
and military leaders. On numerous occasions during these years church
leaders equated the 1-A-0 noncombatant position with "conscientious
cooperation." Signs of cooperation multiplied during this time.
	In 1954 the U.S. Army established a special camp at Fort Sam Houston in
Texas where all noncombatants could receive their basic training. This
removed them from regular units where their refusal to bear arms had been a
regular source of confusion. Over half the men who trained there were
Adventists [Davis, 1970:222]. "It was a program engineered for the needs of
conscientious cooperators" [Knight, 1992:17].
	That same year the U.S. Army Surgeon General contacted the General
Conference seeking approval for the Army to ask Adventist draftees to
volunteer for a research program designed especially for them which would
"contribute significantly to the nation's health and security." Theodore
Flaiz, Secretary of the Medical Department of the General Conference,
responded positively:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"If any one should recognize a debt of loyalty and service for the many
courtesies and considerations received from the Department of Defense, we,
as Adventists, are in a position to feel a debt of gratitude for these kind
considerations" [Flaiz, 1954]. 
END QUOTATION
The upshot was the creation of "Project Whitecoat," under which volunteers
from among drafted Adventist noncombatant servicemen participated as guinea
pigs in biological warfare research for the U.S. Army at Fort Detrick,
Maryland.  Thanks to the enthusiastic encouragement of the General
Conference, 2,200 Adventists participated in the program between 1955 and
1973 [Thompson, 1991]. In taking this position, church leaders subordinated
a church doctrine, healthful living, to cementing relations with the U.S.
military.
	During these years the church continued to urge young men at Adventist
schools to take medical training through participating in the Medical Cadet
Corps before draft age. The most enthusiastic of these did intensive field
training at a roving Camp Desmond T. Doss, which was usually located at
Adventist campgrounds. The military staffed this camp and spent large sums
setting up a field hospital [interviews]. 
	Many Adventists had become militant patriots. They scorned
conscientious objectors, who refused to be involved with the military in any
manner and opted for alternative service when drafted. Carlysle B. Haynes,
the director of the General Conference National Service Organization, was
quoted by Time in 1950:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"We despise the term 'conscientious objector' and we despise the philosophy
back of it... We are not pacifists, and we believe in force for justice's
sake, but a Seventh-day Adventist cannot take a human life" ["Conscientious
Cooperators," 1950:68].
END QUOTATION
Consequently, when the ideology surrounding the antiwar movement of the late
1960s led to a spurt in the number of Adventists choosing the 1-0
classification (conscientious objector choosing alternate service), this
caused dismay in many quarters. However, since evidence for religious belief
was vital to this classification being accepted in individual cases, the
Adventist church was obliged to deal with them. The Annual Council of the
General Conference voted in 1969 that such Adventists should be told that
the historic teaching of the church was noncombatancy (1-A-0), and urged to
consider this first; however, if they persisted in pursuing the 1-O
classification, pastors should provide the needed help if the draftee's wish
was consistent with his religious experience [National Service Organization,
n.d.:29]. 
	When disagreement and debate on the military issue persisted among
American Adventists, the General Conference formed a Study Committee on
Military Service in 1971. This large committee received and debated many
papers, and remained deeply divided [interviews]. When Annual Council took
up the matter in 1972, it chose to include both the militant patriots and
the Adventist pacifists, declaring that military service was a matter of
individual conscience. Its vehicle in this was the statement on military
obligations voted by the General Conference Session in 1954 (quoted above),
which it transformed by adding to it a new ending:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"This statement is not a rigid position binding church members but gives
them guidance, leaving the individual member free to assess the situation
for himself."
END QUOTATION
The document then interpreted this by confirming that, for members in the
U.S., the statement was best reflected in the traditional 1-A-0
(noncombatant) classification, but that the church would also facilitate
members applying for a 1-0 (conscientious objector) classification. However,
it then added:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"For those who conscientiously choose the 1-A classification (military
service as a combatant), pastoral guidance and counsel should be provided in
ministering to their needs since the Church refrains from passing judgment
on them" [Annual Council, 1972].
END QUOTATION
This decision, then, represented a break with the position that had, in
1954, been declared a fundamental belief.
	The new flexibility was tested and confirmed in Korea the very next
year. It was noted above that young men there had endured beatings,
imprisonment, and even death, rather than renege on their commitment to
noncombatancy. However, as time passed younger Koreans began to question
whether the costs were worth the stand, and increasing numbers of them opted
to violate the recommended church policy in the late 1960s. Then, as the
military situation in South Vietnam deteriorated, and Korean troops were
withdrawn from there along with American troops, the Park regime panicked
and insisted that all conscripts train with arms (which thus removed the
noncombatant alternatives previously available to some Adventists), and that
such training be included within college curricula. 
	The latter demand placed the Adventist college in a dilemma: should it
conform to the new policy or reject it and face closure? When Korean leaders
contacted the General Conference seeking advice, the latter reversed the
position it had advocated in the 1960s, arguing that it was not worth
risking serious trouble with the government:  training with arms should be a
matter of individual conscience. The College consequently conformed to the
government's demand that it train students with weapons, and left the choice
of whether they would comply to the individual consciences of the students,
not urging them one way or the other:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"If the College had refused to do the training, the Ministry of Education
would have closed it, unless the Lord performed a miracle... We decided that
the college was more important than noncombatancy" [interview].
END QUOTATION
	The result of this decision was that almost every Adventist student and
conscript in Korea thereafter trained with arms. Moreover, the church, which
had formerly had a reputation with the authorities for taking a stand on
training with weapons and Sabbath observance in the military, lost this
reputation. The church's abandonment of its noncombatant position was a
wrenching experience for those who had earlier endured prison to stand up
for it, and more than half of them have since cut their ties with it
[interviews].
	Meanwhile, Adventism in America had backed away from the serious
teaching of noncombatancy through Sabbath Schools, youth programming and the
church school system. When the U.S. switched to a volunteer army in 1973,
recruiters began emphasizing educational and vocational benefits that
appealed to lower-SES racial minorities, including many Adventists. These
began to volunteer for military service (an act which removed the
noncombatant option available to draftees) in unprecedented numbers. The
church now directed its main effort into chaplaincy, and by 1992 the
Adventist chaplaincy corps had grown to a total of 44. The National Service
Organization, which was originally staffed by pastors and evangelists and
whose object was to handle the problems of draftees with noncombatant status
and Sabbath observance, was taken over by chaplains socialized into military
values, who now tried primarily to serve the spiritual needs of the
Adventist volunteer soldiers. Its new focus was confirmed when it was
renamed the office of Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries [Interviews].

The World Church and Military Service Today
	There is considerable diversity today in how the international
Adventist church relates to conscription and military service around the
globe:
	Adventists in most of Western Europe continue to hold the traditional
"modified pacifist" noncombatant position. When conscripted, most of them
opt for the civil alternative available to them, even though this often
means a longer commitment. They frequently expressed shock in interviews at
the number of Adventists volunteering for service with arms in America.
Those in what was West Germany have reacted against their history, in common
with many of their countrymen, and are especially strongly noncombatant,
antiwar, and for disarmament, and wonder about the flow from the U.S. of
Adventist military volunteers and chaplains doing tours of duty through
their land. The church in Italy felt so strongly about the issue that it
voted to urge denominational leaders to strengthen the present position
which, by recommending that conscripted Adventists not bear arms but
treating the decision as one of conscience, removes any possibility of
disciplining a member who acts otherwise. They asked that conscripts
choosing to bear arms in countries with a legal alternative to service face
church discipline. However, their request prompted no response
[interviews].BEGIN FNOTEThe major exception to this pattern in Western
Europe is France, where the majority choose to train with weapons rather
than face the longer alternative service. However, most of them still try to
arrange release from work on the Sabbath.END FNOTE
	In contrast, in most of the countries of Eastern Europe (while under
Communism), of Latin America, and in several countries in Asia, Adventists
have abandoned the weapons issue and have limited their focus when it comes
to military conscription to attempts to gain Sabbath privileges and, in some
instances, alternatives to a pork-based diet. Church leaders fear that any
attempt by Adventists to avoid armed service would sharply escalate tensions
with governments. Consequently, there was little concern in Communist
Eastern Europe for the weapons issue, which Adventists associated with the
Adventist Reform Movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, who regularly faced
prison for their beliefs. Adventists there typically trained with weapons
but attempted the often daunting task of observing the Sabbath and securing
an Adventist diet while in the military. These problems were so great in
Romania, for example, that many Adventists chose to delay their baptisms
until after completing military service so that they would feel less
obligation towards Sabbath observance. Civil alternatives to military
service became available during the last years of Communist control in most
of these countries, and these were typically chosen by Adventists--but for
reasons related to Sabbath observance problems rather than to any conviction
concerning training with weapons. The one exception to this among the
satellite states in Eastern Europe was East Germany, where a strong aversion
to arms rooted in Twentieth Century German history led Adventists to choose
alternate service as soon as it became available in 1967. In the Soviet
Union, taking the alternative of being assigned to construction did nothing
to ease the difficulties associated with Sabbath observance until
Gorbachev's Perestroika improved the situation considerably [interviews]. 
	Adventists in Latin America also refrain from making an issue of
military service. Church leaders in Brazil explained that this enables them
to avoid conflict with the state and also the stigma and individual
penalties that accrue to Jehovah's Witnesses. The Adventist church
cultivated ties to military regimes throughout the region, often forming
exchange relationships with them [Lawson, 1991]. Students participate in
military parades and compete in marksmanship. When a missionary teacher
wanted to teach noncombatancy as part of an ethics course in the church
college in Argentina, which ceased trying to train students for medical
positions in the military three decades ago, he was discouraged from doing
so. Church leaders there explained that training with arms did not worry
them unduly, for they felt that Argentina would never fight a war. Argentine
Adventists were therefore greatly surprised to find themselves fighting, and
dying, in the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) War [interviews]. 
	In Asia, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea have
conscription.BEGIN FNOTEThe issue of training with weapons has not been
raised in many countries where conscription is not a present practice or a
recent memory. These countries include India, Bangladesh, Japan, and Hong
Kong, and also much of Africa [interviews].END FNOTE Adventists made a
formal accommodation with the government of Singapore some years ago which
granted them Sabbath privileges and the right not to use weapons. In
Thailand, most Adventist conscripts are also able to arrange to protect
their Sabbath observance, but they train with weapons. On the other hand,
Adventists in South Korea and Taiwan have no option but to bear arms, and
they also face considerable difficulties over Sabbath observance
[interviews].
	Although there is no general conscription in the Philippines, there is
considerable government pressure on colleges to include military training
within their programs. Mountain View College in the south has been under
great pressure to train with weapons. The senior Adventist college,
Philippines Union College (PUC), in the north, has avoided these pressures
because its program to train medics is recognized. Both colleges are located
close to insurgencies. There is controversy because PUC chose to hire armed
guards who, at last count, had killed four intruders [interviews].
	The most remarkable involvement of Adventists with weapons and military
conflict, however, is found among the Karen rebels against the Burmese
government, who have declared an independent state of Cawthoolie along the
Thai border. Adventists are the third-largest religious group among these
Karens, behind Buddhists and Baptists, but they provide much of the military
and political leadership. The general who heads the state, Bo (General) Mya,
three of his top deputies, and several other leading military figures are
Adventists. Since the Adventist churches and schools there cannot be linked
to the denominational structure through Burma, they have been linked instead
to the Thai structure. A missionary was stationed there for several years
until recently, and church leaders in Thailand visit there frequently to
nurture, evangelize, collect tithes and pay the salaries of clergy. Several
of them reported having been asked to pray with soldiers before battles.
Neither they nor leaders from the church's Southeast Asia Union have taken a
stance on the military issue--"We have not made bearing arms an issue at
all, have not said they should not be shooting"--but have kept their role
spiritual: "Our hearts are with them, but officially we cannot take
sides--it would jeopardize missionaries elsewhere." They have not had advice
from the General Conference or the Far Eastern Division on how to handle
this very unexpected situation, and leaders from these higher levels of the
church structure have not visited Cawthoolie. Indeed, the church leaders at
these levels seems nervous about the situation. They want to dissociate the
church from Cawthoolie, and to keep missionaries and tourists away from
there in order to prevent stories of Adventist-led armed struggle from
surfacing [interviews].
	Within the U.S. in the 1990s, "military recruiters come to Adventist
school campuses, and school and university bulletin boards display posters
advertising the benefits of service in the armed forces" [Thomas, 1991]. It
is not surprising, then, that "most young Adventist adults are unaware of
the strong pacifist thread in the fabric of Adventist history" [Zork, 1991].
In contrast with earlier generations, many young Adventists have enlisted,
thereby agreeing to kill America's enemies if ordered to do so. The office
of Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries estimated the total number of military
personnel listing Seventh-day Adventist as their "religious
preference"--that is, of Adventist background--as 6-8,000 in 1991, and that
2,000 of these participated in the Gulf War. One Adventist Marine, the son
of a conference youth leader, was the only survivor when his tank was hit by
friendly fire [interviews].
	Adventist attitudes became much more openly jingoistic during the Gulf
War: 
BEGIN QUOTATION
"Not only have [Adventist volunteer soldiers] been to the Persian Gulf and
back; they have come home to welcoming applause in Sabbath worship services
and patriotic accolades in the church's publications" [Scriven, 1991]. 
END QUOTATION
A non-Adventist church attendee wrote of being told by church members, "We
should nuke them," that "according to the Bible 'there is a time for war,'"
and that "God instructed the slaughter of women, men and children"
[Banks-Bergmann, 1991]. This mood was matched by the majority within the
General Conference headquarters. An official there who was troubled by
President Bush's decision to launch the war told of a sense of isolation
among his colleagues because of widespread enthusiasm there for American
participation, for "sending in the missiles and the bombs" [interview].
	The Adventist message concerning military service has become blurred
and confusing. Pamphlets available from Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries at
the General Conference warn that "the Adventist Church strongly counsels its
members NOT to enter military service voluntarily if they have conscientious
beliefs that they either cannot bear arms or be available for routine
military training or duty during Sabbath hours," but then they add that
views on these questions are a matter of individual conscience [n.d.].
Similarly, an article in a church periodical reviewed the biblical evidence:
BEGIN QUOTATION
	"'The attitude of the Christian should always be of loyalty to his
government,' says Charles Martin, director of the National Service
Organization of the Adventist Church. 'But when the government conflicts
with the requirements of God, he must obey God, at whatever cost.'...
	"Whether defensive or offensive, just or unjust, war means killing,
says Martin.
	"'It's hard for some to believe that a soldier who shoots, stabs,
shells, napalms, of bombs another human being is in harmony with One who
said "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also."... Many Adventists and other Christians agree
with Tertullian: Christ, in disarming Peter, ungirt every soldier.'"
END QUOTATION
But it then concluded:
BEGIN QUOTATION
	"'The Adventist church recommends that its youth, if drafted, enter the
armed forces as noncombatants. But the church also recognizes the right of
individual conscience. An Adventist bearing arms is in no way a second-class
church member'" [Goldstein, 1985: 3].
END QUOTATION
In contrast, any Adventist found to be smoking or drinking alcohol would be
at least censured and possibly disfellowshipped. But none of the Ten
Commandments bears directly on either of these!
	Advance publicity for a special Servicemen's Fund Offering in 1990,
which quoted Calvin Rock, a Vice-president of the General Conference, put
forward an unusually favorable view of the new generation of Adventist
volunteer soldiers:
BEGIN QUOTATION
"...serving God and Caesar at the same time. ...we can give our dollars to
support and supply Adventist military personnel stationed around the world.
As representatives of Caesar, they guard our borders, scan or skies, search
our oceans, protect our investments, staff our embassies, transport our
leaders and aid our allies; in short, help secure the precious freedoms we
so easily take for granted. As Adventists they preach, teach and live the
gospel of Christ... Adventists at bases, forts and camps around the
world...pledge to continue their noble and necessary service..."
["Servicemen's Fund Offering," 1990:16].
END QUOTATION
	The evidence supports the conclusion that "on the question of military
service, the anything-goes school, under the banner of 'individual
conscience', has pretty much taken over in North America" [Scriven, 1991].
Indeed, this is the case in most of the Adventist world.
	
Conclusion
	The Adventist position on military service has been transformed over
time. The change was most dramatic in the U.S., where the initial
position--pacifism--was adopted during the Civil War. According to this
measure, tension between Adventism and society has been greatly reduced and
Adventism has moved a considerable distance from sect towards denomination.
	It was noted above that tension has three elements: difference,
antagonism, and separation [Stark and Bainbridge, 1985:49-50]. While all of
these are likely to be involved in a refusal to obey the draft, this is but
one dimension of tension between religious group and society. The
transformation of the Adventist position on military service can be
understood better if it is placed in a context of other measures of tension.
	During its early decades, Adventism was markedly different from
mainstream America. Its insistence on observing a Saturday Sabbath in a
society where a six-day week was almost universal, its focus on the imminent
return of Christ and end of the world as we know it, diet restrictions,
social life-style prohibitions, a commitment to "dress reform" and
abstinence from jewelry and makeup, as well as the refusal to bear arms if
conscripted, all set Adventists apart. Its view of itself, as God's Remnant
people, the true church bearing God's final message in the last days, and
its declarations that other religious groups were "apostate" and had become
"the whore of Babylon", its brazen challenges to clergy of other
denominations in its evangelistic meetings, and its expectation of
persecution from other churches in collaboration with the state, all tended
to create bitter antagonisms. These barriers were reinforced by the close
ties that developed among Adventists, whose lives usually centered around
their church, the subculture it created and fostered, and its mission, who
attended church schools, often worked for church institutions, and were
frequently drawn by educational opportunities and economic and social ties
to live in what became known colloquially as "Adventist Ghettos" or "New
Jerusalems." They were also strengthened by rules, such as endogamy, and
practices, such as the dietary and social prohibitions, that made it
extremely difficult and/or uncomfortable to associate with others. Not only
did Adventist differences attract scorn, but their Sabbath observance caused
problems with employers and their refusal to bear arms had legal
repercussions.
	Changes that were to result in greatly reduced tension began quite
early in the history of Adventism. Adventists began building
institutions--sanitariums, schools, publishing houses, etc.--at a rapid pace
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and thus began to put
down communal roots in society.  As early as the 1880s, Ellen White began to
urge rapprochement with civil authorities in order to facilitate missionary
work; she reshaped Adventist eschatology, no longer portraying America, in
terms of the images of Revelation 13, as already in the dragon phase, but as
still lamb-like, and urged Adventists to help prolong its future in order
that the Adventist message could flourish [Butler, 1974: 192-94]. That is,
the time believed to be remaining before the second coming of Christ was
lengthening, and tension with the state was beginning to relax. The
eagerness of American Adventists during the First World War to express their
patriotism through unarmed participation in the military rather than
insisting on separating themselves from the conflict, and the willingness of
German Adventists to take up arms to defend the Fatherland, even on the
Sabbath, were not so surprising given the general trend already under way.
	The situation of American Adventists has continued to change, and at a
markedly increasing pace, in recent decades. The growth and accreditation of
their educational and medical institutions has encouraged integration into
the national economy and provided opportunities for upward mobility among
members and their participation, as professionals, in society; Adventist
medicine has become orthodox, and many of its hospitals have prospered and
won friends; the coming of the five-day week has removed most of the major
problems surrounding Sabbath observance; and Adventist dietary and smoking
prohibitions have won increasing credibility as a result of medical
research. At the same time, Adventism has lowered levels of antagonism
toward others: it has allowed its expectations of persecution to diminish,
switched its position on military service, accepted government funding for
its schools and hospitals, and begun to build better relationships with
other churches. 
	As Adventists, through their institutions, gained a stake in society,
their leaders identified increasingly with corporate executives and
professionals: for example, they moved the church headquarters to a
corporate park in Silver Spring, Maryland, during the 1980s, and at the 1994
Annual Council they proposed that the President of the General Conference be
known as the "chief executive officer" of the church (Medley 1994:6). This
was accompanied by a growing desire for broad acceptance and recognition by
the powerful. Consequently, leaders show considerable concern for the image
of their church, and have been at pains to separate it from "fanatics" who
could make it seem cult-like, such as those with too radical an
apocalyptic.BEGIN FNOTEA recent example of this was the hiring of a public
relations firm in order to divert the media from identifying the Adventist
Church with David Koresh's Seventh-day Adventist Branch Davidians (Lawson,
1994).END FNOTE At the same time they have proved increasingly eager to gain
government approval. In the U.S. the transformation of the church's position
on military service has been at the center of this campaign, as a position
which could be a major source of stigma and of tension with the state was
transformed into one of close cooperation. 
	Since the Adventist Church operates internationally, it has also
endeavored to lower tensions with other societies and to foster
relationships with governments where possible. As was shown above, military
service often had to be addressed, and here two distinct patterns emerged.
The noncombatant option was sought successfully in the English-speaking
world and, more recently, in Western Europe. Consequently, Adventists are
more different on this issue in these countries than they are today in the
U.S. However, because they are merely making use of options that are legally
available to conscripts, this indicates that tension with these societies is
not especially high--although it is higher than in the U.S. This is because
Adventists there have often remained more separate because of a lower level
of upward mobility, a small membership, which renders them politically
insignificant, especially within democracies, and minor institutions, which
leave Adventists with less of a communal stake in society.
	On the other hand, in those countries where any hesitancy to heed the
call to arms would have generated tensions (these include the formerly
Communist region and much of the developing world), Adventists rarely raised
the issue. In general, they left the high tension on this question to the
Jehovah's Witnesses and the schismatic Adventists. This does not mean that
tension between Adventists and these societies was minimal, for conflict was
also possible over such issues as Sabbath observance or interference by the
state in church affairs. But even here Adventists typically cooperated with
the authorities and took opportunities to reduce tension: they sent their
children to school on the Sabbath in several countries, established exchange
relationships with military and Communist regimes, allowed Communist
governments to control appointments to union leadership, and, when disgust
with toadying to the state resulted in schisms, the then General Conference
President twice announced that the General Conference would recognize only
the organization "recognized by the authorities" [Wilson and Lohne 1979;
Lawson, 1991; "Small Committee" Correspondence; Reiners, n.d.; interviews].
	The patterns found reveal the importance of political context:
Adventists have not been likely to seek noncombatant status where the cost
could be high. They have been wary about heightening tension, for they have
coveted comfortable relationships with rulers. When the situation has been
threatening, they have proved willing to compromise.
	How did these varying patterns impact on the official denominational
position on military service? The Adventist church was spawned in America,
its headquarters has always been here, the bulk of its income originates
here, and its leadership has been dominated by Americans throughout its
history. The noncombatant stance was formulated in America in response to an
American problem, and the church here continued to reaffirm it strongly and
to shape its programs accordingly until the Vietnam War. It is not
surprising that the General Conference, which was a creature of the North
American church, followed suit. Indeed, the proclamations of the General
Conference over the decades showed little awareness that the official church
position was not being adhered to in many countries.
	The decision by the General Conference in 1972 to become much less
dogmatic on the issue was triggered largely by divisions within the American
church in the wake of the antiwar movement of the 1960s. But a growing
awareness of the persecution in South Korea and of the failure of much of
the world field to try to implement the official policy, and also perhaps a
growing realization that the geographic balance of power within the world
church was beginning to change, were also ingredients.
	Although the General Conference Session in 1990 voted to refuse
permission to ordain women on the ground that it was essential that unity of
practice be maintained throughout the world field, church leaders have
allowed considerable diversity among Adventists concerning military service. 

 References 

Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries. n.d.
What an Adventist should know about the Military.

Alexeyeva, Ludmilla. 1988.
"The Human Rights Movement and the True and Free Adventists." Spectrum
19(2):25-32.

Annual Council. 1972.
Statement on "The Relationship of Seventh-day Adventists to Civil Government
and War." Minutes of Annual Council, General Conference.

Banks-Bergmann, Mari C.  1991
Letter to the editor, Adventist Review, June 6

Brock, Peter. 1974  
"When Seventh-day Adventists First Faced War: the Problem of the
Civil War," in Adventist Heritage, I(1):23-27

Butler, J. M. 1974. 
"Adventism and the American Experience," in Edwin S. Gaustad
(ed.), The Rise of Adventism, 173-206. New York: Harper and Row

"Conscientious Cooperators." 1950. 
Time, September 4:68

Davis, Roger Guion.  1970  
"Conscientious Cooperators: The Seventh-day Adventists and
Military Service, 1860-1945." Ph.D. dissertation, George
Washington University

Dick, Everett. N. 1974. 
"The Adventist Medical Cadet Corps As Seen by its Founder."
Adventist Heritage, 1(2):18-27.

Dick, Everett N.  1976 
"The Military Chaplaincy and Seventh-day Adventists: The
Evolution of an Attitude," Adventist Heritage 3(1):33-45

Flaiz, Theodore R. 1954
Letter to George E. Armstrong. Whitecoat File, General Conference
Archives. October 19. Quoted by Krista Thompson, "Project
Whitecoat."

General Conference Session. 1954.
Proceedings of the 47th Session of the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists

General Conference Executive Committee. 1963.
Minutes, Sept.26

Goldstein, Clifford. 1985
"Soldiers without Guns," in Liberty, 80:5, September-October

Graybill, Ron. 1978
"This Perplexing War: Why Adventists avoided military service in
the Civil War." In Insight, Oct. 10, 4-8

King, Christine Elizabeth. 1982
The Nazi State and the New Religions: Five case studies in
non-conformity. New York: Edwin Mellen

Knight, George R. 1992
"Adventism and Military Service: Individual Conscience in Ethical
Tension." Paper read at a conference on Pacifism in American
Religious Tradition.

Lawson, Ronald. 1991
"Church and State at Home and Abroad: The Governmental Relations
of International Seventh-day Adventism." A paper read at the
meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Lawson, Ronald. 1994. 
"Seventh-day Adventist Responses to Branch Davidson Notoriety:
Patterns of Diversity within a Sect Reducing Tension with
Society." A paper read at the meeting of the Association for the
Sociology of Religion.

Morgan, Douglas. 1993.  
"Apocalyptic Anti-Imperialists", Spectrum 22(5):20-28

National Service Organization. 1943.
Why Seventh-day Adventists are Noncombatants. Statement approved
by the General Conference Committee, Oct.11. 

National Service Organization. n.d.
Seventh-day Adventist Teachings on Governmental Relationships and
Noncombatancy. Washington D.C.: National Service Organization of
the General Conference

"Noncombatancy." 1976. 
Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, 979. Washington: Review and
Herald

Reiners, S. n.d. 
Betrayal in Budapest. Grand Rapids, MN: Christians in Crisis 

Sapiets, Marite. 1990. 
True Witness: The Story of Seventh Day Adventists in the Soviet
Union. Keston, England: Keston College 

Sas, A.C. n.d.
In Defence of the Law of God. Seventh-day Adventist Reform
Movement Publishing House, Roanoke VA

Schwarz, R.W. 1979
Light Bearers to the Remnant. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press

Scriven, Charles. 1991
"Should Christians Bear Arms?", Adventist Review, June 13

"Servicemen's Fund Offering." 1990
Columbia Union Visitor, May 1:16

Sibley, M.Q., and P.E.Jacob. 1952. 
Conscription of Conscience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
 

Sicher, Erwin. 1977. 
"Seventh-day Adventist Publications and the Nazi Temptation,"
Spectrum 8(3):11-24

"Small Committee" Correspondence. 1980s.  
Correspondence between the schismatic Hungarian "Small Committee"
and both the General Conference and the Euro-African Division,
Heritage Room, James White Library, Andrews University.

Stark, Rodney, and Williams Sims Bainbridge. 1985
The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult
Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press
 
Syme, Eric. 1973
A History of SDA Church-State Relations in the United States.
Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press

Thomas, Fred. 1991
Letter to the editor, Adventist Review, August 1

Thompson, Krista, 1991
"Project Whitecoat: An analysis of Seventh-day Adventist participation in
defensive biological warfare research." Unpublished history class research
paper, Walla Walla College.

White, Ellen G. 1863
"The Rebellion", Testimony #9, published in Testimony for the Church, I.

White, James. 1862
"The Nation," Review and Herald, August 12

Wilcox, Francis McLellan. 1936
Seventh-day Adventists in Time of War. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald

Wilson, N.C., and A.Lohne. 1981. 
"A Letter to Soviet Adventists." Spectrum, 11(4):45-46 [dated October 31,
1979]

Zork, Warren.  1991 
Letter to the editor, Adventist Review, June 6  


Ronald Lawson Ph.D., Dept. of Urban Studies, Queens College CUNY.
e-mail: RLawson@cloud9.net, lawqc@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu  Voice: (914) 941-1837h