by Chris Oberg, senior pastor of Calimesa (CA) Seventh-day Adventist Church

This presentation was given on Sabbath, January 26, at the Mind & Spirit Conference hosted by the Loma Linda University Church, in cooperation with the LLU School of Religion. This conference convened to examine the legacy of Questions on Doctrine. In this article, Pastor Oberg discusses QOD and the future of Adventism.

In late October when the Andrews Campus took up the apprehensive and ambitious anniversary conference for Questions on Doctrine, I was among the ranks wondering why? It was the General Conference President who put me on notice, two weeks prior to the conference when, at Annual Council, he said in his Sabbath sermon that he does not “support another restudy of theological issues originally presented 50 years ago in the book QOD. Theology has the most potential for dividing the church.” Between Elder Paulsen’s comments, and the first Spectrum report from the sidelines at the conference, it was clear something of importance was happening.

So, I did what I thought other preaching pastors might do the weekend of the Andrews conference: I tucked a comment about the historical event in my Sabbath sermon and went on my homiletical way. It was a sermon about Rahab. What does QOD have to do with Rahab? Your right, not a whole lot. But I felt content knowing that someone out there, who knew about the conference, knew that I knew about the conference, and we got it out in the open. I was greeted by more than one person at the door with this reflection, “I never understood the whole Questions on Doctrine thing.”

(more…)

This presentation was given on Sabbath, January 26, at the Mind & Spirit Conference, hosted by the Loma Linda University Church in cooperation with the LLU School of Religion. The theme of the conference was “The Adventist Identity and the Challenge of Diversity: Questions on Doctrine 50 Years Later.” The conference held on January 25-26 featured presentations by Fritz Guy, Larry Kirkpatrick, George Knight, Julius Nam, Chris Oberg, Jon Paulien, and Kenneth Samples. Larry Christoffel, David Larson, and Richard Rice also participated as panelists. (Click on each name for a copy of his/her paper either from this conference or from the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference.)

“Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?” This is the question that most conservative Christians in the first half of the twentieth century could not honestly say yes to. In fact, for many the answer was an adamant no. Especially those who called themselves fundamentalists or evangelicals came out attacking the Adventist church for being a non-Christian, even anti-Christian, heretical cult. They called Adventists a group of “deluded people” who believe in doctrines that are “of Satan” and certainly “not . . . of Christ.” Their judgment of Adventism into the 1950s was based on the misperception that Adventists considered Ellen White’s writings as an addition to the Bible, that they kept the Sabbath and other laws of the Bible as a way of achieving salvation, that they did not believe in the full divinity and eternal pre-existence of Christ, and that they were an exclusive end-time sect that condemned the rest of the world-just to name a few.

Walter Martin, a young countercult specialist in the mid-1950s, was one such individual. In the preface to his book, The Rise of Cults, published by Zondervan in 1955, he included Adventism in the Big Five of the most dangerous and deceptive cults of his time-along with Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism and Unity. Interestingly, though, he also stated that Seventh-day Adventism was so close to evangelical Christianity (maybe dangerous close) that it merited full and thorough investigation, which he promised to do.

At that time, Martin was working as a contributing writer for Eternity magazine, one of the most widely read periodical for conservative Protestants in the 1950s. He approached his publisher, Donald Grey Barnhouse, about doing research on Adventism, and Barnhouse directed him to T. E. Unruh, president of the Adventist church’s East Pennsylvania Conference. Unruh, six years earlier, had heard Barnhouse’s radio broadcast on grace and had written a letter to Barnhouse thanking him for the wonderful message. This was surprising for Barnhouse who, based on his experience with Adventists growing up in Mountain View, California, did not think that Adventists believed in salvation by grace. The correspondence between Barnhouse and Unruh did not progress much further. But when Martin approached him, Barnhouse remembered that exchange, and that led Martin to Unruh, who then arranged for a meeting at the Adventist world headquarters in Washington, D.C., in March 1955.Present at that first meeting were Martin and his friend, George Cannon, a New Testament scholar from New York, and three representatives designated by the General Conference to answer Martin’s questions and facilitate his research. The three were: Unruh and Leroy Edwin Froom and Walter Read who had positions in the General Conferences. The leader among the Adventist representatives was Froom.

This meeting was in a sense a dream-come-true for Froom. For the previous two decades, Froom had been working hard to take Adventism off the lists of non-Christian cults that conservative Protestant writers were churning out regularly. He wrote letters, manuscripts, and rebuttals to each writer who attacked Adventism. At the same time, he and others who shared the same burden saw great possibilities for friendship in fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. In fact, the high view of Scripture and literal reading and application of Scripture that fundamentalist and evangelicals emphasized seemed to go very well with Adventism. But all who were attacking Adventists were coming from that conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical wing of Protestantism. It was Froom’s mission to build bridges with that wing. So this was a grand opportunity for Froom. These strangers had come right through our gates!

After the initial pleasantries, Martin got right down to business, firing off the 40-some questions that he brought. Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you take Ellen White’s writings to be an addition to Scripture? What place does Christ and his grace have in your theology? Doesn’t your emphasis on commandment-keeping, especially Sabbath-keeping, take away from the biblical teaching on salvation by grace? Doesn’t your investigative judgment teaching effectively negate Christ’s atonement on the cross?

To their credit, the three Adventist leaders did not jump to defend each criticism head-on. They paused and asked they could share with the two guests what they considered to be the heart of Adventism and what they saw as great areas of commonality between Adventism and evangelical Christianity. And then, they proceeded to provide some concrete answers. Do you believe in the Trinity? Yes. Many of our pioneers did not, but with the help of Ellen White, we fully embrace it. Do you take Ellen White’s writings to be an addition to Scripture? No, we do not. We have always considered them to be subservient to the authority of Scripture. What place does Christ and his grace have in your theology? Christ is the heart of Adventist theology and we are saved by God’s grace alone. Doesn’t your emphasis on commandment-keeping, especially Sabbath-keeping, take away from the biblical teaching on salvation by grace? No, it does not. We keep the Sabbath because we are saved, not in order to be saved. Doesn’t your investigative judgment teaching effectively negate Christ’s atonement on the cross? Christ’s atonement on the cross was full and complete, and Christ is now making available the benefits of his atonement to all who believe. The cross and Christ’s heavenly ministry are complementary and part of God’s grand plan of redemption, not in opposition to one another.

When it became clear that the Adventist leaders were repudiating many of the assumptions that Martin himself and others had made of Adventism, Martin was compelled to reconsider his position. In fact, the next morning, Martin made a dramatic announcement that he no longer viewed Adventism as a cult and extended his hand as a gesture of acceptance as fellow Christians.

From that meeting ensued, over following 18 months, a dozen meetings of exploration between the two parties. These Adventist-evangelical conferences, which later included Barnhouse himself and Roy Allan Anderson from the Adventist side, culminated in Barnhouse writing in Eternity an article “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?” His answer was a resounding yes. Though he disagreed with many Adventist teachings, he believed that Christians can disagree on many important beliefs but still relate with one another as fellow believers in Christ, if they can agree on what he and Martin called the “cardinal doctrines” of historic Christianity such as the Trinity, supreme authority of Scripture, salvation through Christ, and the literal return of Christ. That was September 1956. A year later, Adventists published Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, a book that provided answers to the 40+ questions that Martin raised.

This book was meant to establish once for all the Christian orthodoxy of Adventism, using the language and categories of thought that conservative Christians were comfortable with. However, it would take two more decades for most Christians in the United States to come accept Adventism as a Christian group. Meantime, the book ignited a great controversy within the Adventist church, something very few foresaw. But the contours and lessons from that controversy for the present and the future will be discussed this afternoon, so not now.

What are the lessons we can learn from this episode in Adventist history? Let me share with five positive lessons (leaving the “negative” or cautionary lessons for the panel time).

1. We have much to learn from Martin and Barnhouse who chose to go directly to the source to find out from representative Adventists whether Adventism was indeed a cult.

2. We have much to learn also from their courage to speak up for their new conviction that Adventism is not a cult. They paid a high price professionally and personally for their courage. Adventists have much to thank them for this.

3. We can learn from the Adventist leaders who, instead of engaging immediately in a tit-for-tat quarrel, found it important to emphasize the areas of commonality. They did not seek merely to defend, but also to befriend. Martin said many times later that that basis of understanding and the friendship forged around their common faith was crucial. The Adventist leaders, though they knew that Martin came with the agenda to write a theological expose about Adventism, extended the Sabbath spirit to the strangers that came into our gates and treated them respectfully and congenially.

4. We can learn from all of them who showed Christian maturity by agreeing to disagree, by recognizing that there is more than one way to being Christian, and in spite of their sharp doctrinal differences they can be brothers in Christ. If such friendship is possible across denominations, it certainly ought to be possible within our own community. All too often we treat of our own brothers and sisters in our own household as if they are strangers. Actually, we can treat strangers better than our own family sometimes.

5. Finally, we learn from the Adventist-evangelical interactions of the 1950s that conversation is possible and necessary, though it may be risky. Remember that this episode began when T. E. Unruh wrote a simple letter of appreciation to a stranger in a different church. When we are committed to having conversations, following the footsteps of Christ who engaged all in conversations, that will lead to conversions of heart-us to them, and them to us. And we will be strangers no longer, but fellow members of God’s household.

This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion Korean Religions Group on November 21, 2005, in Philadelphia. 

Since 2002, interest in the issue of conscientious objection to compulsory military service has arisen sharply in the Republic of Korea.  Each year, some 500 young men refuse to serve in the military for reasons for religion and conscience.[i]  Unlike other countries where compulsory military service can be replaced by some sort of civil service, Korea provides opportunities for alternative service only for those with specialized skills in technology and health care—but not for conscientious objectors.

Led by reform-minded lawmakers in the National Assembly and such progressive organizations as Minbyun Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Korea Solidarity for Conscientious Objection, and War Resisters’ International, efforts have been made to create an alternative service provision for conscientious objectors.  This issue, with the accompanying stories of the conscientious objectors imprisoned for 1.5 to 3 years, has been spotlighted by the media over the past three years.

This recent attention on conscientious objection centered on the case of Choi Myung-jin who was convicted in 2002 of refusing to perform military service due to his religious belief as a Jehovah’s Witness.  He took his case to the courts, reaching all the way to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in 2004 where his conviction was upheld.[ii]

It was not surprising that the young man whose case sparked the national interest was a Jehovah’s Witness.  After all, almost all conscientious objectors have been Jehovah’s Witnesses.  One recent report had 521 conscientious objectors in prisons as of February 2004—of whom more than 500 were Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The rest were pacifists of various stripes, and one Seventh-day Adventist named Lim Hee-jai.[iii]

Lim’s decision to declare himself as a conscientious objector in 2002 was an anomaly among Seventh-day Adventists.  Other young men from his denomination were serving in the military under the full combatant status.  Sentenced to an 18-month military prison sentence in 2003, Lim’s case brought attention to the beliefs and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which was known more for its health and educational institutions and the popular line of soy milk, but not for conscientious objection.  Though a stand-out case among Korean Adventists in 2003, Lim was in fact standing with Adventist men of the 1950s and 1960s who made the same stand en masse in response to conscription and were sent to prisons at the same rate as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If Adventist young men were refusing to serve in the military in the 1960s just like the young Jehovah’s Witnesses of today, what was it that led to the changes in the Adventist response to the draft?  What was the nature of their objection to military service?  And what can we learn from their experience with compulsory military service?    These are the questions that I am attempting to answer in this presentation.

After Adventism was introduced to the Korea in 1904 by Im Kiban who had accepted the Adventist faith in Japan, missionaries sent by the church’s headquarters in the United States arrived the next year, armed with the distinctive teachings on the seventh-day Sabbath and the end-time among others.  One of the distinguishing teachings that the American missionaries brought was that of noncombatancy.  They taught that it would be wrong for Adventists to enlist in the military since they would be required to bear arms and kill which would be a violation of the divine injunction not to kill as found in the Ten Commandments.  Furthermore, they would not be able to refrain from working on their Sabbath which would be an infraction of the Sabbath commandment.  Only in case of the draft could Adventists feel justified to serve in the military—but only as noncombatants such as medics.  Even in such a case, they were to still observe the Sabbath and not bear arms.[iv]

This position had been reached in 1865 when members of American peace churches in the North were given the option of serving as noncombatants in the American Civil War.  Though there still were internal debates on the issue of military service within the Adventist church which had been organized just two years earlier, the church filed papers with various state governments to be classified as a bona fide peace church so that its members could avoid being engaged in killing and facing challenges to proper Sabbathkeeping.[v] 

Though self-classified as a “peace church” during the American Civil War, what distinguished the Adventist church from historic pacifist churches was its halfway rejection of military service that placed its members at an awkward position between pacifism and armed combatant participation.  As George Knight has pointed out, it was “conscientious cooperation,” rather than “conscientious objection,” that Adventists were advocating.  As long as they were able to keep the Sabbath and not be forced to bear arms, they were willing to give full support to the operation of the military, even in times of war.[vi]  At the same time, Adventists never regarded this position as an official doctrinal position of the church, enforceable by church discipline.  Rather, it was regarded as a cherished tradition which individual Adventists would be expected to choose to follow.

This highly nuanced position, developed in the American context, would be met with an epic challenge during the Korean War and the ensuing decades.  Adventists discovered quickly that the American style provision for noncombatancy was simply unavailable in either North or South Korean military.  Thus, as Oh Man Kyu writes, young Adventist men suddenly “found themselves torn between loyalty to God and loyalty to country because of their Sabbathkeeping and noncombatant principles.”[vii]  The first known instance of difficulties in the South was experienced by Park Jae-shik who was drafted into the marines.  Due to the severe beating he received after refusing to bear arms, he was hospitalized for six months.[viii]  No record of Adventist encounters with the North Korean military exists, as the heavily pro-American Adventist church which was flourishing in the North prior to the war moved its headquarters to Seoul, which then resulted in the southward migration of Adventists.

Though official figures of Adventist conscientious objectors were not compiled for the three years of the Korean War, Kyohoi Jinam (Church Compass), the Adventist church’s official monthly publication, reported a number of cases of Adventists in the South being incarcerated for their conviction.[ix]  In order to alleviate the hardship experienced by Adventist men, Clinton Lee, an American missionary who was serving as the president of the Adventist church in Korea based in Seoul, sought to work out an agreement with the South Korean government in 1952 to have Adventist youth be assigned as medics.  In fact, he reported in July 1952 that the church “had received a guarantee [from the Korean government] that if [the Adventist] Youth receive medical cadet training before being drafted, they could keep the Sabbath and serve as noncombatants.”[x]  However, the expectation of fulfillment of this guarantee—apparently a verbal agreement with some higher-up in the government—proved to be wishful thinking on the part of Adventists.  The continuing problem of incarceration and mistreatment of Adventist men led Lee to lodge an official petition to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense on June 30, 1953, asking him to “exempt Adventist servicemen from the arms-bearing military training, to transfer them to the non-combat branch, and to allow them to keep the Sabbath,” explaining that Adventists were not objecting to the military but were seeking to cooperate fully without violating their principles.[xi]  However, at this point, the war was drawing to a close, the armistice agreement would be signed by the two sides in less than a month, and the Adventist petition was not one that would be taken seriously by the Korean government.

When compulsory military service became a permanent part of life in post-war Korea, the Adventist church renewed the call to its young men to continue to refuse bearing of arms and observe the Sabbath strictly while serving in the military.[xii]  In response to this call, Korean Adventists remained vigilantly noncombatant.  This resulted in three Adventists, Pak Hai-chong, Kim Eung-ho, and Kim Chang-ho (the latter two were brothers), being sentenced to three years in prison in July 1956 on the charge of refusing to bear arms.[xiii]  This marked the first time Adventist soldiers actually faced sentencing for their stands.  Previously, the problem had been confronted and either resolved or compromised in individual situations.  In December of the same year, another Adventist, Huh Seung-hee, was sentenced to six years.[xiv]

Faced with such a hardline stance taken by the Korean government, Adventist leaders renewed their efforts toward some sort of a solution to their predicament.  Even the missionaries’ connections with the American military stationed in Korea were mobilized.  Finally, these efforts seemed to pay off when, in March 1957, a letter of special order was issued by the minister of national defense, Kim Yong Woo, who ordered the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff “(1) to permit and accommodate for Saturday worship activities, and (2) to assign [Adventists] in medical corps or other noncombatant duties, if at all possible.”[xv]  However, Adventists quickly discovered that this order was completely disregarded in practice.

The monthly issues of Kyohoi Jinam over the following decade are filled with reports of Adventist soldiers being imprisoned for their noncombatant stand, their letters, and reports of visits made by leaders to them.  The following is a letter written by one of the men who had recently been released from prison:

I entered the army with the conviction that I would respond to the call of my country within the limits of serving God’s will at the same time.  Soon I was confronted with the problem of Sabbathkeeping and bearing of arms.  As an Adventist youth, I love my country and fellow citizens, but the military authorities never understood our positions.  In my interview with the commander in charge of the training camp, I was finally told that if such is my conviction, I should live thus.  After this, I was court-martialed and sentenced to five years in prison.  Upon receiving the sentence there was peace in my heart. . . .  Everything that I experienced during my 49-month prison days became a blessing to me. . . .  We must live with the firm conviction that ‘it is better to obey God than men” (Acts 5:29).  It should be the motto of all Christians that it is better to choose death than to live in shame of trespassing God’s commands.[xvi]

Between 1957 and 1970, more than 100 Adventist men were sentenced to prison terms, while many more served numerous 30-day imprisonments that did not require due process.  As time progressed and the plight of Adventist men became more widely known in the various branches of the military, some were ultimately given noncombatant duties by their superiors, though they were classified as combatants.

By the mid-1960s, Korean Adventists, weary from the continuing experience of extreme hardship imposed upon their youth, began rethinking their view of military service.  The July 1965 article by Cho Young-mook in Kyohoi Jinam provides quite a different view of military service than what had been expressed before.  Cho, director of the church’s ministry for Adventist soliders, wrote in his article entitled, “The Benefit of Military Service and Medical Cadet Training,” urging Adventists to thinking positively about military service.  He extolled military service by pointing out that it can serve as a time of character building and an opportunity to proselytize.  Therefore, he wrote, Adventist young men should never avoid entering the military, but should embrace it as a great experience.[xvii]

It was about this time that the Adventist leadership began sending conflicting signals to the membership and to the outside world.  On one hand, the church’s official statement released in November 1966 entitled “Principles, Convictions, and Attitudes Regarding Military Service” reaffirmed the traditional stance on Sabbathkeeping and arms-bearing.  This statement declared that “noncombatancy is the religion of love which is the essential spirit of Christ.  Our conscience can accept no other position.”[xviii]  However, when queried by the government earlier the same year whether noncombatancy was part of Adventist doctrines or not, the official response was that “refusing to bear arms is not our doctrine not our doctrine in itself.”  The reply to the defense ministry continued, “Seventh-day Adventist doctrines teach people to serve God according to their conscience.  Bearing of arms is a personal matter and it is a matter of conscience of the individual to be loyal to his God.”[xix]  Though this reply was technically correct and in keeping with the way the official documents of Adventism were written, it had a huge implication for Korean Adventists who understood the noncombatancy stance as a matter of doctrine as important as any other was huge.  If noncombatancy was indeed a matter of personal choice, was it worth going to prison for?  On the other hand, if “our conscience can accept no other position,” but for noncombatancy which is “the essential spirit of Christ,” why was it merely a matter of choice?

These problems were perceptibly discussed in the letter sent by Robert M. Johnston, an American missionary at the Adventist college in Seoul, to the world headquarters of Seventh-day Adventism:

Now there is a growing sentiment here among many of our people to make noncombatancy an official church doctrine, like Sabbath and tithing.  But if they do this they will be out of step with the world-wide Church [sic], the world field.

Traditionally, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has left a good many things up to the individual conscience.  There are various degrees of centrality.  In first rank there are the great landmarks of the faith. . . . Then [lastly] there are still other points, such as vegetarianism, which are urged upon members, and which are stressed in the [our historic writings], but which are not always taught to baptismal candidates, and are certainly not customarily made a test of fellowship, or even for ministerial credentials. . . .  Now apparently noncombatancy belongs more or less in this last (shall I say “lowest?”) category.  It is left up to the individual.  But the trouble is, it cannot be like vegetarianism, because the laws of the land, and our relation to the government and to history is involved. . . .  Then let the General Conference, the world church, take a clear stand.  If we do not do this the blood of many will be on our hands.[xx]

The response given by Clark Smith and C. D. Martin of the Adventist world headquarters in Washington, D.C., stated in no uncertain terms that the world church could not make decisions for Korea.  He stated that while noncombatancy is the church’s position, it needs to be handled by the local field as to how it would be carried in the country.  He wrote: “The brethren in the rest of the world, we are certain, would not wish to dictate any decision on such a matter to the members of the church in Korea.”[xxi]

Meanwhile, the Adventist young men entering the military by hundreds each year were becoming impatient with the apparent ambiguity of the church leadership.  As Wendell Wilcox, president of the Adventist church in Korea, admitted in his letter to G. J. Bertochini, an Adventist administrator in charge of youth ministry in the East and Southeast Asia, “most of our young men that have been inducted into the armed forces here in Korea have accepted weapons in their basic training, with the hope that after the basic training they could go into non-combatant service.  A few have succeeded in this, but we are losing many young men from the church because they have not taken a strong stand on the question of non-combatancy.”[xxii]  The church leadership did try to salvage the situation by holding annual retreats for Adventist servicemen and voicing the church’s clear advocacy of noncombatancy, but the men now wanted something more than “advocacy”—i.e., “a clear and firmly-held conviction that has official ecclesiastical backing” as Johnston had expressed.[xxiii]

The events thereafter turned dramatically when another letter dated April 8, 1968 arrived in Seoul from the world headquarters.  In the letter, Smith revealed that he had suggested in 1964 to C. H. Davis, then president of the Korean Adventist church, that the Adventist youth receive the weapons during three months of basic training but pursue noncombatant assignments thereafter.  This suggestion had not gone beyond Davis and a small circle of leaders.  But now Smith proposed again that the Korean leadership pursue that possibility to alleviate some of the problems that Korean Adventist young men were facing.  His rationale was that the handling and learning to shoot the weapons is in itself not a violation of the sixth commandment.  As long as the Adventist youth are convicted that they will not kill a person in any circumstance, training with the arms would be permissible for a Christian.[xxiv]

What followed quickly thereafter was a quick erosion of support for noncombatancy among Adventists and an emphasis on Sabbathkeeping during the military service.  In the June 1970 issue of Kyohoi Jinam, a very brief yet highly interesting remark is recorded.  Reporting of an Adventist servicemen’s retreat, the writer of the news article introduced some of the questions posed by the soldiers: One of the questions recorded in that issue is: “What is the proper handling of the arms?”[xxv]

The implication that this query carries is immense.  In these few words, it is taken for granted that the bearing of arms has become acceptable enough to appear on the pages of Kyohoi Jinam.  Notice that the question is put in a positive manner: “What is the proper handling of. . .” and not “How can I avoid. . .?”

Thus ended rather abruptly Adventist objection to the compulsory military service.  After 1970 until the sentencing of Lim Hee-jai in 2003, there were no more than ten Adventist conscientious objectors.  All others have essentially followed Clark Smith’s suggestion of fully participating in rifle handling and war exercises, while petitioning for the privilege of attending church and not doing work on Sabbaths (i.e., Friday sunset to Saturday sunset).

This brief overview of Seventh-day Adventist responses to conscription during the Korean War and post-war period of 1950-1970 has shown that Adventists in Korea were not pacifists in the usual sense of the term.  Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to serve in the military altogether, Korean Adventists—following the example of American Adventists—sought to seek the via media of conscientious cooperation.  Their first experience with war and conscription during the Korean War showed that they were indeed caught between their denomination’s highly nuanced position of “conscientious cooperation” and the reality in Korea that saw the Adventist position as basically an unpatriotic, even subversive, notion.  Adventists in Korea—led by American missionaries in leadership positions—accepted the position of “conscientious cooperation” without questions and even an attempt to contextualize it in the Korean setting.  Korean Adventists showed no effort to adapt or re-think the stance handed to them by Americans.  If anything, in the face of what they perceived to be persecution by the state, Adventists in Korea clung rigidly to the ideal of noncombatancy much more so than their American counterparts who regarded this teaching as a cherished tradition, but not an official, enforceable position of the church.  That is, until a letter arrived from the headquarters opening the door to the bearing of arms.

Whether in relation to Scripture or to the pronouncement coming from the denominational headquarters, the primary concern that Adventists in Korea exhibited was keeping what they considered to be the binding law.  The rationale for their conscientious objection was basically the observance of the commandments on Sabbathkeeping and killing.  Similarly, their attitude toward the denomination’s headquarters was one of obedience and determination to abide by the teachings taught to them by missionaries.  Their concern for the obeying God’s laws found in the Old Testament distinguishes Adventists from other peace churches and Christian pacifists who base their positions on Christ’s life (particularly on the manner of his death) and teachings (the Sermon on the Mount in particular).

If it was their “legalism”[xxvi] that initially led Korean Adventists to be an objecting church, it was the same “legalism” that led them out of any association with conscientious objection.  First, the Korean church felt permitted to change their stance on noncombatancy based on the re-application of the law coming from the world headquarters.  It appears that the attitude of the Korean church was such that any word that comes from the headquarters was considered a “law” that needed to be followed. Second, when Korean Adventists felt justified that the requirements of the Ten Commandments could be met while serving in the military, all forms of meaningful objection—except in rare individual cases—disappeared.

However, one cluster of problems still remains for Seventh-day Adventists.  That problem is: War.  In case of war, will it be possible for Adventist soldiers who have been trained as combatants to be able to refuse to participate in the killing of enemy soldiers during battle based on their noncombatant convictions?  By participating in the training and exercises, have they abdicated their right to conscientious objection?  If Adventists, in times of war, are planning to make a case for conscientious objection to killing, is it not disingenuous of them to serve and be trained as combatants now?  If conscientious objection is the route that Adventists are to take in the event of war, would it not have been more consistent to keep their objection alive, even if it means incarceration for Adventist young men?  These are lingering questions that the Adventists in Korea, currently with more than 200,000 members, before the next war.  While Adventists are trying to figure out answers to those questions, the larger society’s task would be to consider carefully the plight of 500-plus Jehovah’s Witnesses and other conscientious objectors who are incarcerated each year … and perhaps come to the recognition that whether one is a pacifist (who is fundamentally against wars and the military machine) or a “legalist” (who is committed to a set of religious beliefs that will be violated by the execution of military duties), their convictions and ideals must be honored, safeguarded, and protected for the overall health of society.

[i]“ Briefing Paper on Conscientious Objection and Human Rights issues in the Republic of Korea,” War Resisters’ International, http://www.wri-irg.org/news/2004/korea04-en.htm.

[ii] “Constitutional Court Rejects Conscientious Objectors’ Petition,” Korea Times, August 26, 2004.

[iii] See “South Korea: Adventist Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison for Conscientious Objection,”  http://news.adventist.org/data/2003/02/1048000461/index.html.en.

[iv] Oh Man Kyu, “Korea,” in Light Dawns Over Asia (Silang, Philippines: AIIAS, 1990), 84.

[v] The Views of Seventh-day Adventists Relative to Bearing Arms, as Brought Before the Governors of Several States and the Provost Marshal General (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865), 6.

[vi] George R. Knight, “Adventism and Military Service: Individual Conscience in Ethical Tension,” in Proclaim Peace, ed. T. F. Schlabach and R. T. Hughes (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 157.

[vii] Oh, 80.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] See “News,” Kyohoi Jinam, May 1952, 28; “Suggestions of the Executive Committee,” Kyohoi Jinam, July 1952, 48.  The articles in this periodical are in Korean.  All article titles and quotes from this periodical appearing in this paper have been translated into English by me.

[x] Clinton W. Lee, “Report of the Sixteenth General Meeting of the Korean Union Mission,” Kyohoi Jinam, July 1952, 9.

[xi] The entire text of the petition can be found in: Choi E Kwon, Freedom of Religion (Seoul: Korean Publishing House, 1959), 191-199.

[xii] Lee Ryu-shik, “The State of the Missionary Volunteer Society and Its Future Work,” Kyohoi Jinam, October 1954, 26.

[xiii] Lee Ryu-shik, “Three Men Face Court Martial,” Kyohoi Jinam, November 1956, 20.

[xiv] Lee Younglin, A History of the Korean Seventh-day Adventist Church (Seoul: Signs of the Times Publishing, 1965), 253.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Lee Hai-ryong, “Recounting Four Years of Imprisonment,” Kyohoi Jinam, May 1966, 15.

[xvii] Cho Young-mook, “The Benefit of Military Service and Medical Cadet Training,” Kyohoi Jinam, July 1965, 14, 15.

[xviii] “Principles, Convictions, and Attitudes Regarding Military Service,” Kyohoi Jinam, November 1966, 57.

[xix] See Wendell Wilcox to Gil J. Bertochini, March 18, 1968.

[xx] Robert M. Johnston to Clark Smith, February 15, 1968.

[xxi] Clark Smith and C. D. Martin to Robert M. Johnston, 7 March 1968.

[xxii] Wendell Wilcox to Gil J. Bertochini, March 18, 1968.

[xxiii] Robert M. Johnston to Clark Smith, February 15, 1968.

[xxiv] Clark Smith to Robert M. Johnston, April 8, 1968.

[xxv] Chung Nam-suk, “After the Adventist Servicemen’s Retreat,” Kyohoi Jinam, June 1970, 17.

[xxvi] My definition of legalism here is “strict, literal adherence to the law.”  Legalism in the way I’m employing it here has nothing to do with the “works-based approach to salvation” that Christian theology deals with.