Introduction

Two defining moments for Seventh-day Adventism in the twentieth-century were the two world wars—World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45). With the large loss of life, changes in world politics, and countless other disruptions most Seventh-day Adventists—like the population at large— found it difficult to escape the realities, and travesties, of these two brutal conflicts. This paper argues that not only were these external conflicts for Seventh-day Adventism, but that they had a profound impact upon Seventh-day Adventism, particularly for eschatology but also in many subtler ways that largely have largely remained unexplored.

This paper is divided into five parts. First is the build-up to the war, especially with the rise of Fundamentalism and the prophetic conference movement; this led to a second section dealing with the war and an Adventist prophetic conference; a third section deals with Adventist theology in general between the wars; and a fourth and final section examines World War II where once again eschatological expectations are heightened once again. A fifth and final part briefly examines the 1952 Bible Conference, which in many ways follows a similar pattern of having a major Bible Conference a major world conflict while once again showing the ways in which Adventist theology has changed.

Fundamentalism and Bible Conferences

The time period leading up to World War I is an important one in American religion. At the time some of the major denominations began to embrace modernism—a religious form of accommodation to some broad philosophical changes. Some Christians began to argue, for example, that God worked through evolution. Many more share broad optimistic hopes that society could transform itself—which within Christianity took the form of the Social Gospel movement of people like Walter Rauschenbusch. Such liberal or modernist tendencies made deep inroads in the Protestant establishment, particularly in many seminaries.

Such accommodations also brought forward an equally strong reaction by a group that by 1923 Curtis Lee Laws coined as the Fundamentalists (while this term is very broad, we are speaking right now about a specific historical movement).¹ This group largely centered around the publication of a series of pamphlets published from 1910-15 titled “The Fundamentals.” This series of 12 matching books (collections of pamphlets) received widespread distribution thanks to two conservative Christian oil tycoons (Lyman and Milton Stewart). With seeming unlimited funding, three million copies were sent free of charge to every pastor, professor, and student of theology in America. Lyman stewart described the authors as “the best and most loyal Bible teachers in the world.”² The motivation behind the volumes is clear: they perceived their faith as under attack. Their first priority was that such attacks should be withstood, and even opposed.

Some of the ways that they saw their faith under attack through The Fundamentals include the following issues. The first two essays of The Fundamentals affirm the virgin birth and death of Jesus Christ. In many ways The Fundamentals was the Protestant equivalent to the Roman Catholic condemnation of “modernism” in Pope Piux X’s earlier 1907 encyclical. Now Protestants wondered in what ways have they let their guard down. How should they affirm firm and incontrovertible truths? Modernists threatened to undermine faith through simple ways that they questioned God’s ability to do miracles. Terms like “liberal” became extremely negative terms because they threatened well-established Christian beliefs. As a consequence, The Fundamentals contained attacks on socialism, modern philosophy, and of course, Darwin’s theory of evolution. “For the contributors to The Fundamentals,” Dunn observes, “it was not just the answers that were the problem; even to ask the question, or to think that it was appropriate to subject fundamental matters of faith to questioning, was unacceptable.”³ The eminent historian, George M. Marsden, as a “symbolic point of reference for identifying a ‘fundamentalist’ movement” and therefore these booklets “retain some usefulness in tracing the outlines of the emerging movement.”⁴ Many of these positions in The Fundamentals were still somewhat soft and fluid, and would take much more hardline stances after the war. What is clear is that fully one third of the articles defended Scripture, another third dealt with a range of theological questions, and finally, the last third dealt with an eclectic group of topics that range from personal testimonies to polemical attacks on various “isms” including Russellism, Mormonism, Eddyism, Modern Spiritualism, and of course, Catholicism (incidentally “Adventism” almost was included but Lyman Stewart warned them not to attack Adventists because they knew their Bibles too well). What Marsden highlights was the crucial issue was the perception that the authority of God in Scripture was being replaced with the authority of modern science, particularly in the area of “higher criticism” of Scripture itself.⁵ This began with the liberal prejudice against all things supernatural and miraculous. At first the battle lines were not firmly drawn, but as time went on, Fundamentalists would increasingly drift toward the dictation theory in a pattern that would later be emulated by Adventist thought leaders.⁶ Similarly, the battle lines during this formative period were not firmly fixed against every form of biological evolution.

Where there was a large amount of attention concerned a series of prophecy conferences. While prophetic conferences were not new—a number of them had occurred in the late nineteenth-century from the time period of the American Civil War onward (especially among holiness or Keswick groups, or those with affinities toward Dispensationlism) now in the buildup to the war attention rapidly turned once again to Bible prophecy. It is important to note that American involvement in the war did not really take place until 1917, so in the period from 1914 to 1917 was a crucial time period as the war raged in Europe. Most Americans, with Woodrow Wilson winning on the ticket of peace, were still hoping that they could avoid the conflict. Thus it is important to note a series of prophecy conferences that began in 1914 and continued through until the end of the war by many of the same people who were actively involved in the publication of The Fundamentals. They held large meetings in which thousands of people gathered. It drew forth national attention in newspapers and the proceedings were published again in a series of books. Elsewhere I have catalogued in another paper in detail how a variety of Seventh-day Adventist thought leaders attended these conferences and saw them as some of the “greatest events” in Christian history—right up with the Luther nailing the 95 Theses on the castle door in Wittenburg! They saw these men in general as having the truth by standing up to liberal trends within Christendom, and that they were doing a work by gaining the attention of society to the Second Coming that Adventists should be doing—only that they needed a little more truth about the seventh-day Sabbath and our understanding of the state of the dead and they could be won for the truth. While Adventists were largely infatuated with these prophecy conferences, it set the stage for them to hold a prophecy conference of their own.

Adventists and the Great War

Adventists found themselves intersected by the largest, most terrible war the world had ever seen up until that point. The “Great War” (stylized World War I later) suddenly during the summer of 1914 took church leaders by surprise as they suddenly lost contact with their counterparts on the European continent. The status of the church remained largely a mystery that would not emerge until after the conflict was over. The war took on a much more tangible evidence when Homer R. Salisbury, a missionary to India, perished when the British liner Persia was sunk by torpedo in 1915. Adventist evangelists did not lose any time in associating prophetic significance to the conflict. Church president, A. G. Daniells, like most Adventist evangelists found prophetic significance in the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Many Adventists evangelists, like Daniells, found their greatest success in holding evangelistic meetings during the war as they explicated the prophecies of Daniel 11 about the defeat of the King of the North. While this debate predated the war, it certainly took on new meaning. By this point the Ottoman Empire had been in decline for a century or more and was struggling to hang on to its Balkan possessions. By early 1914 Ottoman rulers found themselves stripped of most of their European territories. The threat of revolt loomed throughout its territory. The “Eastern Question” was followed with great interest by Adventist interpreters. Turkey had been identified by the stalwart Uriah Smith as the “King of the North” in Dan. 11. The fall of “the king” was understood to be the eviction of the Turks from Europe and the establishment of a new capital in the “Holy Mountain” meaning Jerusalem. These events would mark the immediate time period right before Christ’s return. As Adventist historian Benjamin McArthur observes, “Adventists evangelists found a new hook for their message.”⁷

Church president A. G. Daniells did not waste any time with a 25-part series on Daniel 11 that was published in the period leading up to the war (1913-14). In it he displayed his passion both for history and Bible prophecy as twin themes. Such startling claims about Daniel 11 in light of World War I clearly gave people reason to pause. His evangelistic lectures were developed into two booklets: The World War: Its Relation to the Eastern Question and Armageddon (1917) and A World in Great Perplexity (1918). Both were replete with numerous war photographs. Turkey was in fact unable to avoid the war as Adventists evangelists hit the sawdust trail. “War and prophecy” were their twin themes.⁸

As the war drew to a close, and as the British took control of Jerusalem, such claims about Daniel 11 were quickly discredited. Review and Herald Editor F. M. Wilcox rebuked such sensational claims: “it seems strange that such admonition should be required for the sake of the influence of the movement they represent,” Adventists evangelists must avoid “wild statements, fanciful interpretation of the Scripture” or anything that might encourage the “spirit of excitement and sensationalism.”⁹ If that were not enough the 1918 Annual Council passed a resolution expressing caution about “sensational methods” of evangelism. Adventist historian McArthur cautions that even more problematic was their proof-text method by which they arrived at these conclusions.¹⁰

Immediately after the war Adventist leaders began plans for a prophecy conference of their own. While plans for such a meeting stemmed back to as early as 1914 (paralleling the Fundamentalist prophecy conferences) it was not until after the conflict that plans could now move forward to hold a meeting of their own. Clearly, at the outset both church president Daniells and his compatriot, W. W. Prescott, saw these prophecy conferences as the reason for having a similar meeting of their own. They believed that if they could settle their differences over matters of eschatology, including their embarrassment over interpreting Daniel 11 during the war, that they could then move forward in unity. While they did not realize the significance at the time, this 1919 Bible Conference (as it came to be known) would become a major watershed moment in the development of Adventist theology.

The reason for the significance of the 1919 Bible Conference was it shows the broad intersection between mainstream American culture and religion, the rise of Fundamentalism, and Seventh-day Adventist theology. It furthermore shows the fissures of polarization as cracks began to show between two sides—the so-called “progressives” versus the stalwart “traditionalists.” While both sides within Adventism remained firmly against any and all forms of modernist or liberal theology, within Adventist theology the theological cracks centered on how to interpret Bible prophecy (especially Daniel 11). As they both agreed on some basic hermeneutical “rules of interpretation” one might expect that they might all quickly agree. In actuality, the cracks between the two sides (even though they were much closer than they might like to admit) only widened. Much of this widening of the gap centered on issues related to hermeneutics, authority, and how to correctly interpret inspired writings. Interestingly enough, Daniells at the outset of the meeting saw the Fundamentalist prophetic conferences as the model for Seventh-day Adventists. He averred that Adventists should be the “Fundamentalists of the Fundamentalists.”¹¹

Many of the gaps centered on how to interpret inspired writings. As time went on an appeal was made to the writings of Ellen G. White who had passed away only four years earlier (1915). In four pivotal discussions church leaders discussed her writings, especially in two meetings held just for the Bible and history teachers in a post-conference meeting. These teachers recognized that the rising Fundamentalist emphasis upon inerrancy was problematic for understanding Ellen G. White. Although they recognized such concerns, the fact that church leaders and Daniells were eventually removed in 1922 or largely marginalized meant that those who had the ability to extend a more moderate influence seemed to be losing out as a new generation took hold of the reins of leadership. Adventism would largely embrace a rigid view of inspiration during the 1920s that once again mirrored the broader American culture, at least in terms of mirroring Fundamentalism.

The Interwar Years

The interwar years for Seventh-day Adventism were an important time period with three major theological turning points: the development of resources on Fundamentalism (and by extension, about an increasing tendency toward inerrancy); the rise of debates over creation/evolution; and finally, the theology of M. L. Andreasen. Each one is briefly reviewed here.

Tendencies Toward Inerrancy

While this paper can only briefly trace, several important works during the 1920s highlighted an Adventist affinity with Fundamentalism and a push toward inerrancy. The most visible were books by William G. Wirth, a young Bible teacher at the College of Medical Evangelists, who wrote a booklet titled, The Battle of the Churches: Modernism or Fundametnalism, Which? The cover shows a liberal knocking at the foundations of Christianity. “The battle is on. It must be decided whether Christianity is to accept the Holy Scriptures as the rule of faith, or have its way charted by the rationalism, theories, and speculations of men…. There can be no neutral ground in this controversy.”¹² Similarly, Carlyle B. Haynes wrote a similar book: Christianity at the Crossroads: Modernism or Fundamentalism? The cover depicts a bewildered Christian faced at the intersection between two crossroads with a signpost showing two choices: modernism or fundamentalism. “The Christian Church is being shaken to-day with tremendous force. It has become necessary to examine its foundations in an effort to determine whether it can stand.” Now within Christianity are new enemies “in the guise of its defenders.”¹³

Adventist historian George R. Knight observes that the message of these two books is “crystal clear.” The authors “saw only two options in the struggle—fundamentalism or modernism. No middle ground existed, just the two polar extremes on the central issue of biblical authority and other doctrinal concerns.”¹⁴ Both books demonstrate that Adventist fusion with Fundametnalism. Other books, such as Outline Studies of the Testimonies and similar works published during the 1920s show a steady embrace of inerrancy among Adventist thought leaders. [elaborate with more examples if time allows]

Battle Against Evolution

During the 1920s another major focal point for Fundamentalists was the battle against evolution. While views were much more fluid as evidenced in The Fundamentals by the 1920s there was no middle ground. The climax would take place in the infamous Scopes Trial debacle of 1925.

At the forefront of this debate within Seventh-day Adventism was the work of George McCready Price (1870-1963) who would advocate a divine castrphism, or the idea that the deluge of Noah’s flood was largely responsible for much of the rock formations found on earth. In a series of books he gained growing international fame. Eventually, although Fundamentalist leaders were hesitant and even considered Adventists to be one of the “isms” mentioned as abberant forms of Christianity in The Fundamentals, they came to recognize in the teachings of Price a friend and ally who could benefit their cause. In this way Seventh-day Adventists became recognized, or at least Price became accepted, as making a significant “scientific” contribution to help defend their faith. Price was unfortunately in England and unable to provide support to buttress the arguments, but did write a series of letters helping to support the defense during the Scopes Trial. The fact that the Scopes Trial received such notoriety is a main reason why most historians observe how Fundamentalism largely went underground and retrenched into its own insular institutions after 1925 up through World War II. Seventh-day Adventists would largely follow a similar pattern. With its own separate educational institutions, camp meetings, and healthcare it could follow a similar course.

M. L. Andreasen

As Fundamentalists largely retreated from society at large, this created new opportunities to reassess and regroup theologically. The same thing was true within Seventh-day Adventist theology. This void was filled in large part by a rising new Adventist theologian who would become the dominant voice within Seventh-day Adventist theology, particularly from the 1920s up until World War II. This theologian was Millian Lauritz Andreasen (1876-1962). The extent and influence of his theology has only gradually come to be recognized in recent years, most notably by a dissertation by Paul McGraw.

Of central importance to Andreasen’s theology was his understanding of Last Generation Theology. Andreasen pointed to the final mediatorial work of Christ during which time Christ’s final generation will stand without a mediator. He also pointed to the quote by Ellen G. White that once Christ’s character is perfectly reproduced in his people that then He would then come (COL 69). While others have extensively analyzed the impact of Last Generation Theology—most notably with a major new book on the topic edited by John Peckham and Jiri Moskala—it does appear that such ideas coalesced closely with Fundamentalism that became so prevalent within Adventism during this interwar period.

World War II and the 1952 Bible Conference

If Adventists were excited about the “King of the North” during World War I, they were just as exuberant about “Armageddon” during World War II. During the interwar period a growing struggle between East and West became obvious. Increased aggression and instability in China (particularly during the late 1920s and early 1930s), the rise of a militant Japan, and the rise of Russian Communism all helped to realign global politics. Now a power struggle between East and West seemed obvious. Don Mansell observes that such discussions particularly during the 1930s up through World War II became “sometimes heated.” By the time World War II broke out this seemed to be a natural fulfillment of Armageddon, the battle that would unfold and lead into the Second Coming of Christ.

Once again church leaders would circle the wagons just after the war with another Bible Conference. This meeting with 550 delegates was much larger than the 1919 one with only approximately 65 persons. The presentations were this time open to anyone who wanted to attend, and each public presentation was carefully reviewed by the planning committee. And once again, similar to 1919, the main focus was on Adventist eschatology and the need for unity within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in order to focus on proclaiming the Adventist message to the world. Noticeably absent this time was M. L. Andreasen (who would remain conspicuously absent through other major church developments such as Questions on Doctrine later on that decade). What does stand out is that at the 1952 Bible Conference W. E. Read gave a series of presentations about Armageddon in which he argued for a return to the early view of the pioneers.¹⁵ He insisted that instead of grabbing on to every world conflict as a fulfillment of prophecy, that a much safer interpretation was that this was a spiritual conflict between the followers of Christ and Satan. This would remain the normative position of the denomination up to the present.

Perspective

Seventh-day Adventists faced a pivotal period during the twentieth-century as it grappled with two World Wars. In the build-up to this time period Adventists largely found themselves aligned with Fundamentalism. Interestingly enough, after each world conflict the Seventh-day Adventist Church found themselves holding a major Bible Conference. Each time the war raised issues in eschatology, particularly as Adventists evangelists tried to interpret current world events in light of Adventist eschatology. At times this could be somewhat embarrassing, particularly when such speculations led to questionable interpretations about Daniel 11 or Armageddon that later turned out to be wrong.

Of particular significance is the Interwar period, which proved to be a delicate time for the development of Seventh-day Adventist theology. As the older generation of pioneers, many of whom had worked closely with Ellen G. White and held to a much more moderate view of revelation and inspiration (avoiding the rigid view of inerrancy), it is concerning that some Adventists moved toward adopting such views of inerrancy within Adventist theology. This became particularly obvious in the way in which some people tried to interpret Ellen G. White. While this was not a new struggle, as Adventism gravitated toward Fundamentalism (with a common enemy in Modernism/Liberal varieties of Christianity) there were unseen dangers for Adventist hermeneutics as Adventism drifted toward a much more rigid hermeneutic. This would remain a struggle that would continue to be played out through the rest of the twentieth-century, and some might argue, even up to the present day within Adventism. It should be noted that the denomination has never officially endorsed inerrancy while at the same time maintaining a firm stance against the inroads of historical-critical methods of interpretation. Adventism needs to continue to tread carefully in this area to avoid either extreme.