Such a hearing was finally granted and took place July 20-27, 1920, in Friedensau, Germany. Seventeen delegates from the Reform Movement in Europe (as the faithful had begun to call themselves) were selected to present to the Council the position of those who had been disfellowshiped. To make the discussion plain and simple, four questions were asked:
“1. How does the General Conference stand with reference to the position taken by the leaders of Germany in the year 1914 toward the fourth and the sixth commandments?
“2. What proofs are brought to us that we have not, from the beginning, taken the Biblical path?
“3. What is the position of the General Conference toward the Testimonies of Sister White? Are they inspired? Yes, or no? Is health reform still the right arm of the message?
“4. Are our message and people, according to Revelation 14:6-12, national or international?”
Elder A. G. Daniells, president of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, answered these four questions with reference to the General Conference position. To prevent misunderstandings, minutes (called the Protocol) were kept so everyone would have a complete report of all that was said and done. Here is an excerpt from the Protocol containing the answer to one of the questions.
“As soon as the war came upon Europe, we in America carefully studied the subject. We had, in comparison to you, many advantages….
“And yet, after we searched this subject carefully, we found that it confused us very much…. There were some brethren (with this I will not say: in our Committee) in the United States of America who, as soon as we took our stand as noncombatants, said that this means that I have nothing to do with war; I shall not go into the camp (barracks) when I am drafted, and so the soldiers had to apprehend them and take them to the camp; they offered no resistance…. Then we had brethren who did not go that far. When they were drafted, they went to the camp (barracks). But when they arrived there, they refused to put on the uniform. They would perform work, but they refused to put on a uniform, because this was against their opinion. Following this they were also put in jail and punished. Then we also had those who went along with everything except the military drill; only when they were handed a rifle, they refused to accept it. They accepted the broom handle or else a rod, and with it they performed the training. This was their conscience and their impression of noncombatancy. Then we had other brethren who went further, taking the rifle and partaking in all military training, in addition performing all services in the camp which they could possibly do, but they told the officers that they were noncombatants, and could not go to the front. Thus we have had all the ideas and different grades of noncombatancy. Then we had some brethren who had the spirit of love for the homeland, and they went to the front, and they fought; they came to England and France and went into the trenches, and I do not know what they did once they were there; but they served and returned when the armistice came…. The brethren in America have maintained the same temperate and tolerant position as have the brethren in Europe. We have taken the same course as our brethren in England, France, and other countries.”52
To summarize all of his explanations, Elder Daniells said the following, as quoted from the Protocol: “We have said that we will not be the conscience for other people. We have declared our position as non-combatants. We are not interested in going into the war. We deplore war, are against it. But we must grant to every citizen the right to take his position toward the government according to his own conscience. Not one of these people has been disfellowshiped from the denomination; not one of them has been treated as if he were not a Christian.”53
The separated brethren had never heard such a teaching before. It was a completely new doctrine and totally contrary to the church’s previous teachings. This new teaching–a spurious “liberty of conscience” concerning the controversial questions of the war–effectively closed the door to the return of the disfellowshiped members.