A Chronology Of Peace

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

| PentecostalTheology.com

A CHRONOLOGY

3

OF PEACE:

A CHRONOLOGY OF PEACE:

Attitudes Toward War and Peace in the Assemblies of God: 1914 – 1918

by Roger

Robins*

The

present

early

Assemblies of God attitudes trajectories,

one

primary trajectory

consists in

following emerged

in the official

periodical God from the

beginning

article aims to secure a clearer

understanding

and the other

of toward warfare

by tracing

two

secondary.

The first the

war/peace dialogue

as it organs

of the Assemblies of

and

secondary trajectory

of the

organization up

to and

including the first World War. The

second,

of relevant allusions to the

question

consists in an examination in the General Council minutes

excerpts

during

this time.

An

auxiliary

sources can we

aim of this

paper

is to make available to a wider

reading public

of

primary

materials which are not

readily

accessible. Only by

constant reference to the

primary

feel the

pulse

of

early

Assemblies of God

thoughts

genuinely on war and

peace.

document

Evidence of

pacifist dialogue

in Pentecostal circles is hard to

prior

to 1914 and the Assemblies

fact is not due to

any peculiar theological

touched off

by

the formation

of God era. That

or ethical

dynamics of the Assemblies of

God,

to be

with

sure. Rather it is due to the coincidence of that formation the outbreak of what was at that time called “the

European

of

pacifism

was not a

primary Early periodicals

Articles

usually

dealt

War.”

Presumably,

the

question concern for Pentecostals such as The Apostolic

to testimonials

with

questions

with this new “Latter

questions

were indeed marriage, adultery,

prior

to this time.

Faith (Azusa

St., LA.) were largely

devoted

and

missionary reports.

about the charismatic manifestations associated

Rain.” Other

discussed,

and the

sacraments,

pacifism

seems

rarely

if ever to have been raised.

theological

and ethical such as divorce and re-

but the

question

of

1

4

Even with the outbreak of the

European interest in the war did not focus around

legitimacy

or of the

legitimacy European

War was first understood purely apocalyptic/prophetic

War,

Pentecostal

questions

of the war’s of Christian

military

service. The

by American

Pentecostals in

terms. The

looming

clouds of war were taken to indicate the imminent Great Tribulation and the rapture

of the saints. An article

by

E.N. Bell in the

September

Evangel’

Coming

War.” So

great

was the faith of

many

in this

prophetic

1914 issue of The Christian

vision pouring

(certainly

understandable

Given this conviction,

was

entitled,

12, “The Second

in

light

of the recent out-

in the October

10,

1914

in reference to the

war,

to

escape

all l

nigh.” to see how American

of the

Spirit)

that an article

issue of The Christian

Evangel

exclaimed

“Thank God. His

people

will have the

opportunity

those

things

and to be with the Son of Man while on earth is in pains

of

travail, for

the

coming

of the Lord draweth

it is

easy

Pentecostals could fail to consider the war within the framework

at the war’s outset. A certain

allowed

vivid cosmic

metaphor

quality

of

American Pentecostals to If the war was

personalized

as

for the Christian’s

spiritual

of

personal

ethics

“apocalyptic

detachment” avoid concrete ethical

questions. a particularly

warfare

against

sin and Satan.2

Significantly,

Evangel

which

probed personal

terms

originated editorials

reprinted

Confidence. The editorials of The Christian

Evangel Justifiable?” European afforded the ethical detachment parts enjoyed.

The editorials head-on,

the first article to be carried

the

morality

in

Europe.

from the British

Pentecostal

ran in the December

under the

title,

Pentecostals,

and were almost

unanimously supportive war effort. One of the first editorials

the conflict and concluded:

help.

editorial

in The Christian

of the

European

War in

It was a collection of

newspaper,

12, 1914

issue

“is

European

War

of

course,

were not

which their American counter- confronted the ethical

question

of the Allied

absolved the British side in

Awful as war is, it would be worse to stand

by and make no

effort to

protect

the weak. Better to fall as a nation than to

stand

by and see those crushed whom we have our promised

to

We can

pray

for dear sailors and soldiers with a

clear conscience in God’s

sight.

We will

pray

for

victory. A following was more

While the

powers

from below are manifesting

pacific:

in this war, the

time has come for the Church of God to get the full spiritual

armour of God and rise out of her

sleep

and

get ready

for

2

waiting… country,

5

Spirit. The

remaining

Christ’s

coming,

and

bring

in the souls for who the Lord is

While

many thousands give up their lives for their we

may

rise above this and

yield

ourselves so to God that he can use us at this time to

preach

the

Gospel

of the

Kingdom

of God in manifestation and ‘

power

of the

Holy

editorials, however,

To say “war entirely gations

picked up

the militaristic

,

theme of the earlier editorial:

is of the devil and in principle and

practice

is

anti-Christ,” is to take (refuge) from one’s obli-

behind a generalization which is half a truth and half

a lie. To ask “Should a Christian

go

to war” is to raise a

of considerable

importance,

but one which too

often is answered within much too limited an area of thought

question

Another

editorial

objected insisting

that:

scope

Yet another

to the

pacifistic

use of the sixth

‘

The

polemical British Pentecostals debate

regarding war.

commandment,

The

application

to the

present

situation of the command,

“Thou shalt not kill,” shows a singular inability to judge the

of a passage, when it is remembered that all the wars

of Israel, under Divine sanction and

command, were carried

out after that

injunction

was The sixth command-

ment, therefore, does not apply to warfare without distinction

given …

or reserve.

Every case must be judged

on its own merits ….

editorial concluded with this scenario:

If a wild

hooligan

entered

my house,

and

began

to beat

my

child and assault

my wife, in my heart I would cry to God,

but

I would do something more. I would

what

might happen

in a house has happened

go for the brute. Now

on a continent;

and there are some

people wondering

if the nation

ought

to

do

anything.

tone of these editorials demonstrates that

were at the time involved in considerable

the

appropriate

Christian

posture

toward the

This collection must have served as a kind of

testing

of the

Pentecostal Christian

waters

in America.

It is indeed

striking

that The

Evangel’s

first direct treatment of the

morality

of the war should so

heartily

endorse the Allied

article in no

way discouraged war.

The first

published appeared just

Pentecostal

military campaign.

The

youth

from

going

to

response

over a month later in the January

The Christian

Evangel.

The

article,

written

by

Burt

McCafferty

Fort Worth, Texas, was entitled, Whereas the

European

articles had

evidently presumed

to the

European

editorials

16, 1915

issue of

of “Shall Christians Go to

War?”

that the

3

6

heart of the

pacifist objection decalogue, McCafferty

countered New Testament

called attention to Luke 22:49, military question,

then

appealed

place.”

For

McCafferty,

and the

teaching

weapons

,

against up thy

to war was rooted in the by

a trenchant

appeal

to the

of

Jesus. McCafferty first where the

disciples

ask the

“Lord, shall

we smite with the sword?” He

to

Jesus’ reply:

“Put

up again thy

sword into his

this biblical

exchange

to himself and his

This is what God is contemporaries: saying to the Christian of

today,

“Ye

followers of the Prince of Peace, disarm

yourselves”

for “the

of our warfare are not carnal”… And we are not

contending

with flesh and blood. Our warfare is

the host of spiritual darkness … Oh

waged

Christian, “Put

sword into his place, for all they that take the sword

shall

perish

with the sword.” Matt. 26:52.

McCafferty

which he built his wider

argument against

warfare and violence:

Lord, shall we smite with the sword? Thou art weak,

shall we

Throughout

the article homiletical

motif,

around

teaching

leaving

used Luke 22:49 as a

defend thee

against

the

strong?

Thou art in the

right,

shall we defend thee the Shall we smite with the sword? The

against wrong?

argument

that we must

go to war in behalf of the weaker nation because of its

being

in the

right,

is not consistent with the doctrine of Christ. It is also

of

against

the

Christ to

fight

in self-defense. “For even hereunto were we called, because, Christ also suffered

us an example that we should follow his steps, who did no sin (violence, Isa. 53:9) who, when he was

reviled, reviled not

again,

when he

suffered, threatened not, but committed himself to Him that judgeth

righteously.”

McCafferty completed Christians to

recognize ative to

reject

carnal warfare.

his

their

heavenly citizenship

argument

by calling upon

as an

imper-

rebuttal

to the earlier

non-pacifist

editorials. which

McCafferty’s persuasion

relegated McCafferty’s

front and center,

soliciting new

printing plant. By

contrast enjoyed prominent

The article itself stood as an effective

Yet there were

telling

conditions under

article

appeared

of the editors. First of all, editorial

article to a side column

page,

where it was somewhat obscured

contributions for the

newspaper’s

which

gave insight

into the

decision had

on the front

by

a bold

advertisement,

the

European

editorials had

The

McCafferty

article

small

front

page billing.

was made even less

conspicuous by

virtue of its

relatively

this

again

in stark contrast to the

large print headlining

caption, the

European

editorials.

More

importantly,

the

McCafferty

4

7

article was followed The disclaimer

necessarily represented rather had been

published many

of the brethren Nevertheless,

the editors European

editorials:

up

on

page

three

by an editorial disclaimer. first stated that the

original

the views of the editorial

because “it showed the attitude

in

England

are

taking

toward

betrayed

a certain

article had not

staff,

but

that

the war.” sympathy

for the

entirely hostil.ities

It is one thing to be away off here in America and look on the situation in Europe and say what ought to be done… and it is

a different matter to be located

right on the scene of and then to find the

right thing

to do under the circumstances.

The disclaimer went on to

express

the

pacifism

the editors’ resolute controversy

from

causing After

stating

a commitment

intention to

prevent

dissention

among

the

readership.4 to

harmony and toleration, critique

of

McCafferty’s

article:

the editors offered a brief

theological

example captured

living

There is a

question

whether

Jesus can be used as a

of non-resistance, as Jesus was foreordained to be good

and offered

up as a lamb without spot

or blemish. What if Jesus had been foreordained to live and

and monarch on earth… and

reign

as a

righteous

the soldiers had come to take him… ? Of course, the

question

cannot be answered, as that was not

in the

purpose

of God….

It is evident that the

European

the reaction to the

European editors’ interest

perspective

editorials

had created

quite

a

However,

it

especially

in light of the

Yet, by way

of

schism over this

.

proportions

the “new issue” (the

baptismal trinitarian

controversy). Indeed,

stir

among

Pentecostals on this side of the Atlantic.

is difficult to

gauge

either the extent or the

precise

character of

editorials,

in

subduing controversy.

we can note that efforts to

prevent

issue were successful. This in itself indicates that even in the face of the World War the

pacifism

of the sanctification debate or of the debate over

question

of

pacifism

position

debate never attained the

formula and the

subsequent the role of these other issues

Both the absence of and the fact that the

a

clearly

articulated pacifism controversy zation

must not be overlooked in our evaluation of the

place

which ..;-¡e

would come to hold in the

theological/ ethical forum of the A.G.

during

this

period.

on

pacifism

did not threaten the

unity

of the

organi-

may

be due to the

great expenditure

of

spiritual

and

5

8

crisis.

by

these and other

issues,

in

Evangel began

to move

guardedly

of

pacifist/militarist debate,

The

toward a

pacifist

The

February 27,

1915 issue

Breaking

to

intellectual resources exacted particular the “Jesus-only’

After this initial

exchange Christian

witness in its editorial

policy. carried an article

entitled, Down?”

It was

primarily

a prophetic of all the nations involved, recompense.

This

prophetic most Pentecostals

exhibited in the

European the war was an occasion Europe, including England. conclusion, go beyond specifically pacifist

statement. ed the

“Christianity

“is Christian Civilization

The article was a “safe” one for the editors, to be sure.

condemnation of the moral offenses

for which the war was seen as a just

theme was

readily acceptable

during

this time. Even the militaristic voices

editorials had

readily

conceded that

of

judgement against

Yet the

present

this theme of

judgement

the whole of

article did, in its

to make a Earlier the author had comment-

has not broken down, but men have failed to be Christian.” He then went on to

ask,

Who would dare

say

that this is Christian Civilization?

Where between the covers of the Word of God… is there

those

one word of warrant for attaching the name of “Christian” to

such a society and to such a state? On the other hand, our

Lord Jesus Christ

taught

the blessedness of the

peacemaker,

that violence should not be resisted with violence, that

who take the sword shall

perish

with the sword. That

is Christianity, and

only a civilization

built

upon

the basis of

the

teaching

of Jesus Christ can bear the name “Christian.” No other article

dealing

with the moral character of the war

appeared newspaper Missouri,

in the

newspaper

and had

changed

until

June.

By

this

time,

the

had moved its offices from

Findlay, Ohio,

to St. Louis,

its name to the

Weekly Evangel.5

On June S, 1915,

The

Weekly Evangel

carried the first of three

which would run over the course of the next two months. Bartleman was a well-known and

highly

articles

by

Frank Bartleman

regarded

Pentecostal

pioneer with among

which was his

vigorous tendencies in the

young tendencies the Assemblies respect

to our

purposes Bartleman,

while

deeply blies of God fold.

Evangel

was a testament Bartleman and to the

openness

Pentecostal movement

of God was a

prime example).

it is

important

respected,

That his articles

to the

reputation

uncompromising

convictions opposition

to

organizational

(of which

With

to

recognize

that

was not one of the Assem-

appeared

in the

Weekly

and character of and interaction within the

6

Pentecostal movement.

The June

5 article, entitled, to be circulated

statement,

parties implicated

in the fashion Bartleman recounted

9

“Present

Day Conditions,”

no

explicit

(later pacifist

war. In true

prophetic

forget

God. The Congo atrocities, Germany hypocrisy, bullyism whelming pride.

in tract form) contained

but was

primarily

a scathing judgement against those

European

the offenses of the nation: The wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that

nations are

being judged. Belgium for her

France for her infidelity and devil worship,

for her materialism and militarism,

England for her

over weaker nations, and her over-

outrage

American The

ship

had been

Bartleman

marked

Bartleman went on to denounce the

hypocritical

over the

sinking

of the Lusitania.

carrying

ammunition from the United States “for the destruction

when it was

torpedoed.

struck the American

ammunition,

exploded.

It turned into an American

of the Germans”

the

irony.

A German

torpodo so that “The ammunition torpedo.”

Bartleman’s

was

epitomized

apocalyptic-prophetic perspective by

the conclusion

Belgium

whiskey

inequality

on the war of his

litany

of

judgement

against

the nations:

is an atheistic nation,

practically

without

marriage

rites or religion. France is even more

guilty than Sodom

and

Gomorrah. She is more

responsible.

has almost

ruled

religion

out of her

churches,

and the admission of God Germany

out of her schools. The German babies are

brought up

on

beer in the bottle. The

English

children are

kept

alive on

mixed with

strong

tea. Extreme

poverty

forbids

sufficient food for

poor

children even in peace times. The

betweem the rich and the

poor

is simply awful.

And so the world

groans

under the

oppression

of sin. It

to be delivered. The earth is heaving in war throes to

rid of its tyrant and

oppressor

man.

To be

sure,

this framework of

categorical, prophetic

translate into

pacifism.

did,

but it is

very (ikely

that his readers could have

groans get

nation did not

necessarily it

certainly

acknowledged

his

judgement

condem- For Bartleman.

as correct without

did.

drawing

the

same

pacifist

conclusions that Bartleman

Two weeks later the

Weekly Evangel

devoted its front

page

to an article

British Pentecostal.

the

paper

from which the notorious

editorials in 1914 had been

reprinted.

headlines and

copy space known

non-pacifist of Confidence,

by

A.A.

Boddy,

a well- Boddy

was the

publisher

collection of The headline

read,

“A.A.

7

10

Boddy

Goes to the Front.” one contained

evangelistic report

of the work

I n contrast to the earlier

article,

this no endorsement of the war. It

simply gave

an

Pentecostals were

doing

in wartime

evangelism.

fear of

reprisal

led the editors to

print

a disclaimer

the article. The editorial was

entitled,

to

War,”

and was the clearest

pacifism

that would ever be made

by

the editorial staff of the

following Saints

Opposed

It read:

opposed

knowledge people…

Boddy

and other

European

Nevertheless,

immediately

“Pentecostal

statement of

The editorial Blood,

a book written absolute

pacifism.6 you purchase

contents,

in a

complete the

shedding

of blood.”

The

importance mining

the

general

Weekly Evangel.

The Pentecostal

people,

as a whole, are

to

uncompromisingly

war, having much the same spirit as the

early

Quakers,

who would rather be (sic) shot themselves than

that

they

should shed the blood of their fellowmen. Because

we have this bit of war news is no reason that we are in

favor or given war, but rather that our readers

may

have some

of how the war is

actually

some have already

affecting

our own

Indeed, urged us to arrange for

a great

peace

council

among

the Pentecostal

saints,

to

ourselves record as

put

on

being opposed

to war at home or

abroad.

closed with an advertisement for Blood

Against

by

A.S. Booth-Clibborn which called for

The editors advised:

it and become involved with the

spirit

of its

opposition

“We recommend

that

and

protest against

war and

of deter-

the articles

which had

appeared to

represent

the

opinion segment

of the

Evangel’s presumed

to

speak

of this editorial for the

purpose

convictions of

early

Assemblies of God constituents should not be overlooked. Unlike

to this

time,

the editorial could not be said

of an individual

readership.

for Pentecostals “as a

whole,”

composed by

editors who had

previously

author or of a limited

Rather,

the editorial

and was

shown

great personal Indeed,

if

anything

their

.

reluctance to endorse

any position. sympathy

with the Confidence non-pacifist leanings.

ment

emerged

in the wake of that Confidence

Three weeks

article

appeared.

It was

entitled,

reprint

of 1914 would indicate

We can be sure that this editorial state- out of the editors’

dialogue

with their

readership

reprint..

later

(July 10,

1915)

the second Bartleman “The

European War,”

and in it

in the war and to contradict

Bartleman

sought

to

expose

the

duplicity

of the nations involved

their

propoganda:

8

.

11

Each one is after

spoils.

There is no honor or principle in the

matter… How shallow and

hypocritical

are all their

at honor and

principle. They gull

the

with such

simple

nonsense.

In this article Bartleman also took the United

pretensions people

for its economic

States to task

in the war:

flag

Hence we are a nation complicity of hypocrites when we claim to be neutral. Our

neutrality

does not deliver us from our for the dollar. We are

greed

willing

to receive these millions of blood

money.

We had better

pluck

out the stars from our

and instate dollar marks in their

place.

passion upon

glorify development

the

tragic absurdity

of warfare:

Bartleman went on to

Patriotism has been fanned catalogue into a flame. The

has been

religious

invoked, and all the national gods called

for defense in each case. What

blasphemy!

Men who

before lived in peace and satisfaction now hate one another

into murder. It is simply wholesale murder… and

it… all beautiful

yet they

Truly,

theories about the

rapid

of the human race

through

their own efforts

are now fallen.

They are using all progress

and development

in science, etc., to blow men into hell…

It is all madness. Man cannot save himself. The Prince of

.

murdering They

.

,

Peace must do it. There is no possible excuse for the murder

of these

people.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent ones

are

being

slain on the battlefields of Europe

today.

Men are

one another with

absolutely nothing

to

are

gain.

losing all.

have no

and one another. They

possible

reason for

hating

killing Why

should

and

they

create widows

orphans

for one another? What crimes have all these

innocent ones committed? None whatever.

blinded and controlled

They are simply

by their leaders.

Bartleman’s third article aired

August 7, 1915,

and with its

as if the editors of the

Weekly Evangel

behind the

pacifist

resistance to the

war. There would soon be evidence

of the first two articles.

that the facts

“What Will the Harvest Be?”

Only here, to Whom Honor is Due,” as he By this he meant to show that

was victim to a

publication

it

appeared were now

wholeheartedly European

were not so

simple.

The third Bartleman

article, elaborated the

points Bartleman

sought

to

give “Honor titled a section of his article. Germany, although

supremely

effective

interests.

According

controlled

by

these

interests,

she was not

blameless,

propaganda ploy supervised by

British to

Bartleman,

to tell her side of the

story

to the American to a recent return from

England commented,

the American

press

was so that

Germany

was not allowed

public.

I n reference

“When I reached

9

12

London.”

Throughout

New York and read the

morning papers

the article

Germany than her enemies. It was

England

criticism.

Bartleman

concluded

consequences.

I thought

I was back in

fared much better

which drew the harshest his third article with a fervent

call to

repentance: We are

living on blood money today

and

trying

to wash our

hands in innocency in the matter. But it will not come off.

Sin has blinded our nation. Yet, we

hope

to

escape

the

It is madness. Whom God would

destroy

he

first renders foolish… there is no

seeming escape

but

by

to God, through the narrow

gate

to a true

repentance.

fleeing

The

response coming.

to Bartleman’s

The

very

next week the editors for their

having

carried the article.

“What Will the Harvest Be? Article

Just

Criticism.” In it the editors

third article was not

long

in

printed

an

explanation

The editorial was

captioned,

in Last Week’s

Evangel

apologized

for explaining

that

they

had

recog-

and its

Receiving

printing

the Bartleman

article, nized the article’s

antipathy

educated,

had

published wanting

Secondly,

the editors

explained Flower

using

the editorial

“strong leaning

to German

sympathy, to

England

and her

allies,”

but that

they, being

British-

it in the interest

to discard it on the basis of their own British bias.

editors

stated

previously perspective

of fairmindedness,

not

(the

plural may

be the

singular

“Brother Bell was still

away

Finally,

the

the article out of concern

since

they

had

portraying

the

“we”),

from the office and we could not advise with him.”

that

they

had

printed

“to be

just

to all sides of the

controversy,”

carried the

reprint

from Confidence

of British Pentecostals toward the war. The editorial next

quoted

from one of the letters of

complaint

received. The letter criticized the Bartleman

and for its almost total lack of

“spiritual application.”

concluded with this comment:

my

undoubtedly

The letter was rendered so

regarded

which had been article for its bias

It

of course, and was

The article is a gross injustice to our own

government

at a

critical time when it is honestly

striving

to DO RIGHT and in

humble

judgement

IS doing right to be

impartial

and

offer to sell to ALL alike,

being

in NO WISE responsible for

the fact that the Germans cannot

buy war materials as they

would do if they could.

in all

seriousness,

by

the editors. The editorial closed with an

appeal to

neutrality, urging

that Christians

lose their national

preference

and

prejudices.

citizens of this world, but citizens of a better

country…

We

made a mistake in publishing the aforesaid article which was

should:

We are not

10

‘

13

decidedly

not neutral in character, and we purpose to keep these articles out of our column in the future

by the Lord’s

help.

pacifism

did not

represent

response,

the reaction

to

Bartleman was

considerably to the Confidence

reaction to Bartleman ortionate condemnation was not

simply

a

question article would have offended leaning

reveal

something

It was

clearly

evident from this that the Bartleman mode of

the views of the

Weekly Evangel’s readership. Judging by

the editorial

more vociferous than the reaction

reprint eight

months earlier. It is true that the

was

primarily

a reaction to his

disprop-

of

England

in

respect

of

pacifism.

to

Germany.

It

Certainly

Bartleman’s many pacifists

of a more

patriotic

to Bartleman does

than Bartleman. Yet the reaction

concrete about the

way

readers of the

Weekly Evangel

were

beginning

to view the war. Whether

of the

Weekly Evangel readership

tive of the allied cause in general and of U.S.

policy

toward the

a strong segment

war in

particular.

pacifist

or not, was

suppor-

The next issue of the

Weekly Evangel

to touch on the war

question gave,

in

my opinion,

a quite accurate reflection of the

status of the

question among

the Assemblies of God

constituency.

The headline of the

September devoted to the

reproduction distributed

11,

1915

Weekly Evangel

was of a tract which was

being

It

began:

among

the soldiers in

Europe.

ARE YOU OFF TO THE FRONT?

We are all very proud of our soldiers and our sailors, and of

all those who have so nobly responded to their

country”

call

to arms; but have

you forgotten, young man, that it may also

mean for you a call into

eternity…

”

The tract and the

accompanying

article were

honest, straight- And,

to be

sure,

if

you

want a

ear it is better to flatter his vocation than to condemn it.

was that “God’s children should take of every circumstance to

preach

the

gospel

of Christ.”

later a

strongly

worded interacted

forward

evangelistic

efforts. soldier’s

The conviction

expressed advantage

Yet two

pages

written

by Stanley Frodsham, editorial

article:

apology

which had followed Bartleman’s

neutrality

pacifistic article, directly

with the

third and final

In a recent issue of the

Evangel

it was emphasized that the children of God should

preserve

an attitude of strict

to the

warring

nations in Europe. But it seems to the writer that the Word of God teaches

something deeper than that.

11

14

The article went on to

develop

a clear

pacifist position

on the

basis of the believer’s suggested.

In addition though

heavenly

citizenship,

as the title had

war,

it

flatly

condemned the

European less

vehemently

than Bartleman:

When seen from the

heavenly viewpoint,

how the

present

conflict is illuminated. The

policy

of our God is

plainly

declared in the Word, “Peace on earth,

goodwill

toward

men.” The nations who have drawn the sword to kill those of

against

Scripture,

the same blood in other nations… are not

merely fighting

one another, but with their

policy

of “War on earth

and ill will toward men,”

they

are… the

“The

again fulfilling

Kings of the earth set themselves and the

rulers take counsel

together, against

the Lord and

against

His annointed.” Is any child of God going to side with these

belligerent kings?

Will he not rather side with the Prince of

Peace under whose banners of love he has chosen to serve? While it is true that the first and third

pages

of this issue need

not be

regarded

as

altogether sharp

thematic disconsonance alence,

evidenced in

capsule

Weekly Evangel,

would seem to

capture

Pentecostals in the Assemblies nearer to its involvement hand, a definite pacifistic predominant

contradictory,

there is at least a

being

sounded. This ambiv- here within a

single

issue of the

accurately

the mood of of God as the United States drew

have been but which

there was

present

an

evangelistic take

every opportunity

available

in the First World War. On the one

sentiment seems

within the Assemblies of God ranks.

Alongside this there coexisted a strand of

patriotic

was not

necessarily

ization.

to have been

of

sentiment which

may

pacifistic. Finally, vision which wished

only

to to win souls for Christ.

for the

fledgling organ-

would have to

In

particular,

it

issue came to boil.

At the 1916 General

1916 was to be a

year

of

upheaval

During

this

year

the

pacifism controversy

take a back seat to

other,

more

urgent agenda.

1916 that the

“Jesus-Only”

had fallen

through.

the battle lines were drawn

by

the formulation

of Fundamental Truths. 7 The Statement

schism,

it alienated

Assemblies of God constituents

Statement was a much

feared “creed,”

was

during

Efforts at

diplomacy Council

meeting of A Statement

finalized the

“Jesus-Only” “orthodox”

back into the

religious carnality movement had

emerged.

The

priority granted General Council

during this

to the

pacifism time is witnessed

not

only

a number of other

as wel I. To them the

and was seen as a

step out of which the Pentecostal

controversy by

the to

by the complete

12

absence

15

of

any

recorded discussion of the

topic

in the Minutes of the 1916 General Council

meeting,

and it is here that we

may

trajectory,

General Council

consisting

in the General

issue was recorded in the Minutes

they

had discussed

pick up

this

secondary

Council Minutes.

The two

doctrinal

statements, resolutions. It is not so

surprising pacifism

meetings.

Indeed

rights,

and

marriage

and

divorce, of reference

however,

a doctrinal statement

to

pacifism

was not

overly conspicuous.

had been drawn

up,

and not one item was devoted

meetings

had not drawn and had

passed only

a few

then that no mention of the

covering

those

eating

meats, women’s

but nevertheless the absence

In

1916, involving

some

twenty points

to the

subject Ironically, although questions periodically

since 1914 in the

on the

during

this time. In the

of

pacifism

or

military

service. posed by

the war had aired denominational

newspapers, subject

following year developments contrast between the treatment versy

in the denominational

nothing

had ever

appeared in the General Council Minutes

would accentuate this

paradoxical

his

“Questions

and Answers” into war, could a Christian Both the

question

passed through

afforded the

pacifism

contro-

(and elsewhere) and

Bell

replied:

newspapers

that

given

to it

by

the General Council.

In the

April 14,

1917 issue of The

Weekly Evangel

(the “the” seems now to be a part of the official title), E.N. Bell was asked

in

column,

“If the United States

gets

go

to war and hold his

experience?”

and the answer are

revealing.

War is wrong, and no Christian should

and

lawfully keep

out of it.

go who can honorably

It is very difficult to live for God

in the

army.

Most who start in Christians, backslide. But

Daniel lived for God in the lion’s den and the three Hebrew

children did the same in the

fiery

furnace. A few have

the wars true to God. God has some

bright

Pentecostal soldiers in both the British and German armies

today.

It is possible, but

very, very

unsafe to try it. I would

not join the army until

compelled

to do so, either

by law or in

defense of our mothers, wives, and children.

and the answer are concerned

ability

to “hold his

experience”

Both the

question Christian’s

point

that one

might

kill another

with the

in the

army.

The human

being

is never belabored.

Pentecostal soldiers”

each other

Rather,

one could backslide. That

“bright

in the British and German armies

might

be

shootingat

as

long

as a! “pass through the war true to God.”

Evidently,

sin in the barracks was considered

is no cause for

soul-searching

to be

13

16

by

law.

Secondly,

“mothers, wives,

and children.” called

pacifistic.

more fearsome than sin in the battlefield.

Finally,

there are at least two conditions under which one may join

the

army.

First of all, one

may join

if compelled

one

may join

if called

Bell’s

response

to do so upon

to defend could

hardly

be

The

Weekly by

S.H. Booth-Clibborn

which would

appear

carried

April 28,1917,

Too Late?” Within this article dispensational

of the writers who had

appeared time:

Two weeks after Bell’s answer to this

question,

Evangel

carried the first of two articles

over the next month. This first

article,

was entitled,

foundation for

pacifism

John

morally ment where Christ

“The Christian and War. Is it Booth-Clibborn

developed

a

more

carefully

than

any in the

Evangels prior

to this

Booth-Clibborn

dispensation

cheek

also,”

and listed

scriptures

We find recorded in the 17th verse of the 1 st Chapter of

that “the law was given

by Moses,

but Grace and Truth came

by Jesus

Christ.”

God ordered Israel to

wipe

out in direct

judgement

the

rotten Canaanites; but find me in the New Testa-

ever sent his followers on such a mission? On the

contrary,

He sent them out to save men – not to butcher them like cattle.

went on to stress that the

“eye

for an

eye”

had

given place

to that of “turn to him the other

sation of Israel with that if the Church.

Clibborn answered a hypothetical in human form attacked

which contrasted the

dispen-

Following

this Booth- objection: “Suppose

a brute

your

wife and children. Would

you stand

by

and allow it?” (Note that this is

precisely

reasons for which Bell would allow Pentecostals

Booth-Clibborn

spectators reaping

one of the to

go

to war.)

response:

these latter with the “neutral”

In the second

place…

“An

English

Conscientious

a three-fold

In the first gave

place,

the illustration does not fit the case at all

(of war)… A more fitting picture of the situation would be

found in a

Spanish

American

cock-fight,

where the

birds scatter each other’s blood and feathers at poor

their owner’s benighted

pleasure – all the

profits…

thousands of humble Christian homes have never

yet

been

broken into

by a criminal of any

sort: God His

own

according

to their faith: for their trust in him protecting they put

rather than the

police. Thirdly,

if it should come to actual

violence- Matthew 5 and Romans 12 would still remain true,

and God’s Word would still have to be

obeyed.

Two

pages

later the

newspaper

Objector,”

carried a testimonial from

as it was entitled. The

14

17

account of a Pentecostal

corps.

testimony

C.O.’s

experiences subsequent

service postscript

was a simple,

straightforward

before the

military

Tribunal Court and his

in the non-combatant

indicated that the testimonial was

published belief that it would

“help many

of our

young

men in the stand

they

will take at this time.”

An editorial

in the

editorial caution.

Romans 13:1-7

sounded a

warning against

The

May 19, 1917

issue of The

Weekly Evangel

was a study in

The cover

page

was devoted to a quotation

under the

heading,

temper

the second Booth-Clibborn

.

page

four. There the

question previous

article was

completed

war:

though

pride.

of

“To All Their Due.” This insubordination and served to

article,

which was carried on and answer format

begun

in the with a statement

strongly

critical

of the

European Could

anything

be more

pitiable

than the

slaughter

of

thousands of gallant

young

Frenchmen in the vain attempt to

save the old Roman Catholic cathedral of Rheims; – as

God dwelt there! No!

Beloved, “The

Lord of heaven

and earth dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” Nor is

the

young

Christian called to spill blood in defense of God-

forsaken churches and nations, with all their

pomp

and

To them Christ is saying, as to the Pharisees of old,

“Behold

your

house is left unto

you desolate!” …

But there

is another

way

in which the

temple

can be destroyed,

viz.,

into it the

present

horrible hatred,

pride,

and

“Know

ye

not that

ye are

the

Temple

of

God, and that

the

Spirit of God dwelleth

in you? If any man

(R.V.) the temple of God, Him shall God destroy!”

by dragging bloody butchery!

destroy

It was

page eight, however, news. There “An

Explanation” been

unfolding

question

within the Executive

passed by

which carried the

truly significant was

given

of events which had

Presbytery regarding

the

of

military

service:

There has been

recently

issued from the office of the General Council, a letter

accompanied by

a Resolution

the Executive

Presbytery.

The letter has been sent to all our Ministers. It deals with the matter of our attitude toward

military

service or the

taking up

of arms.

The editorial

explanation

was

carefully

reaffirmed the General the Government:

alluded to the

pacifist position

of the resolution.

Council’s

willingness

worded,

and

only

In addition, it to

cooperate

with

The

purpose

of the Resolution is to

interpret

as

clearly

as

what the

Scriptures

teach

upon

the

subject…

The

matter does not include

any

new

thing.

It

in

simply

words what we have before found it unnecessary to

possible subject puts

15

18

say… unwilling

Prior to this

statement,

of the resolution:

We are not

opposed

to the Government and not

to serve in any capacity that will not

require

the destruction of life.

the editors commented on the limits

may exemption taking

was

composed

conscientious

objection within the Assemblies

of

securing conscientious

and it the

right

to objectors”

and

purpose It is not

intended to hinder

anyone

from taking up arms who

feel free to do so, but we

hope

to secure the

from such

privilege of

military

service as will necessitate the

of life for all who are real conscientious

objectors

and

who are associated with the General Council.

In other

words,

the resolution was not to be

enforced,

for the sole

purpose

for “real

of God ranks. 8

It was two and a half months after that

before the resolution referred to there

appeared

4,

1917 issue

foreword,

the General Council

.

May

19

“Explanation”

in The

Weekly

published

at

length

the and

significant correspond- and the State

Department

Evangel.

The

August resolution,

an editorial ence between

regarding

the resolution.

The editorial foreword stated

categorically

which introduced the that Pentecostals

everywhere

resolution had

always

been

pacifists: From the

very beginning,

the movement has been character-

ized

by Quaker principles.

The laws of the

Kingdom,

laid

down

by our elder brother, Jesus Christ,

in His Sermon on

the Mount, have been

unqualifiedly adopted,

the movement has found itself

consequently

opposed

to the

spilling

of

blood of any man, or of offering resistance to any

branch of the

aggression.

movement, whether

in the United

Great Britain or

Germany,

has held to this

Every States, Canada, principle.

of,

that the General

The foreword went on to

explain

that:

It had not been

seriously

considered

Council of the Assemblies of God… would find it necessary

to

interpret

its attitude toward war, until the war clouds

gathered

and actual war was declared. Neither the General

Council, nor any other wing of the movement that we know

have ever written a creed, therefore it was found

necessary

for a number of the official members of the

Executive

Presbytery

to assemble

together

and draw

up

a

resolution

interpreting

the established

principles

or creed

of all sections of the Pentecostal Movement..

important

items to be

gleaned

from this

There are several foreword.

Pentecostal movement

For one

thing,

the writers were

quick

to associate the

with an historical Peace Church

position.

16

19

and certain to

qualify

for

served as a kind of

Pentecostals

The

Quakers

exemption

if

anyone reference

their

position intelligible became

Quakers

influence

of the Confidence

pacifist

insisted that all Pentecostaldom in its absolute non-resistance.

were well established

did. The

Quakers

by

which the authors of the resolution could make

to the State

Department.

by

association. And to be

sure,

the

Quaker among

Pentecostals was not small.

Secondly,

reprint

revealed

Pentecostal sentiment in

Europe

service.

In addition,

in

spite

a substantial strand of non-

at

least,

the writer had been one monolithic

body

quoted

here shows that the

of Furthermore,

the “General

without

precedent

statement on

military to

speak

for “all sections of

The second

part

of the foreword

“General Council” was

pressed

into action

by the expediency the

day.

The war forced their hand.

Council” was

working, by

its own

admission,

in their efforts to draw

up

a Pentecostal

they presumed

the Pentecostal Movement” with their resolution. What makes this

particularly striking

is that the resolution

up by

“a number of the official

because the Executive

of five

men, and the

part

of the foreword above

clearly suggests

that not all of the five were

present

Presbytery.” only

consisted

This is

striking

the resolution was drawn

up.

was not on the Executive

There is yet more interest

was

actually

drawn

members of the Executive

Presbytery

quoted

when It is also

noteworthy

that the

correspondence surrounding War

Department

“Claims for

read:

resolution was drawn

up during

the brief

period

when E.N. Bell

Presbytery

regarding

resolution’s formulation. Also

published

the resolution was a section of the

board.

the circumstances of the

among

the

significant

Discharge”

conditions.

The

deserve our attention.

working

certain criteria, dictated meet. The second

. primary

condition

That you are a member of any well-organized religious sect

or organization and existent

May, 1917,

whose then

creed or

existing

principle

forbade its members to participate in war

in any form…

There are two

things

in particular which

One is the

simple

fact that those who framed the resolution were

in the face of such a condition. The resolution had

by the

War

Department,

point

of interest

of the date

given

in the “Claims for

Discharge”

that

posted

with the resolution

April 28, 1917,

had been “then

existing”

which it had to emerges

from a comparison

condition with itself. The

resolution,

dated

for

twenty days

when

17

20

the deadline came due.

The limits and

purpose stated in the

reaffirmed

the resolution.

of the

resolution,

May

19 issue of The

Weekly in a letter sent to the

President,

The letter assured

which had been

Evangel,

were

which

accompanied the President that:

The resolution,

quoted lution. Furthermore,

regardless the resolution’s

formulation, the

predominant

sentiment certainly

the Executive

It is not the

purpose

of this Resolution to weaken the hands of the Executive, nor to

discourage

enlistment of any, even of our own

people,

whose conscientious

principles

are not involved. We

only pray that we,

whose

religious

tenets will not allow us so to engage, be allowed to obey God according to our constitutional

rights.

below,

is

certainly

a

pacifist

reso- of the conditions

surrounding

if not

you

know are not

pacifists. conditions which attended show that its real

objective doctrinal

discipline.

Conscience resolution reads as follows:

it must be taken to

represent,

of Assemblies of God

constituents,

Presbytery’s

iment. You

simply

do not write

pacifist

Nevertheless,

the formulation of the resolution

assessment of that sent-

resolutions for

people

the

qualifications

and

was not to

impose any

kind of

was to be the final

guide.

The

Resolution

Concerning

the Attitude of the General Council of the Assemblies of God Toward

any Military

Service which Involves the Actual

Participation

in the destruction of Human Life.

‘

While

recognizing

Human Government as of Divine ordi- nation and

affirming

our

unswerving loyalty

to the Govern- ment of the United States, nevertheless we are constrained to define our

position

with reference to the

taking

of human life.

Resoluti.on adopted

at the

WHEREAS, in the Constitutional

Hot

Springs

General Council,

April 1-10, 1914,

we

plainly declare the

Holy Inspired Scriptures

to be the all-sufficient rule of faith and

practice,

and

WHEREAS, the Scriptures

deal

plainly

with the

and relations of

obligation

humanity, setting

forth the

principles

of “Peace on

Earth, good

will toward men.” (Luke

2:14);

and

20:13);

WHEREAS, we,

as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, believe in implicit obedience to the Divine commands and

precepts

which instruct us to “Follow

peace with all men,” (Heb. 12:14); “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exod.

“Resist no evil,” (Matt. 5:39); “Love

your enemies,” (Matt. 5:44); etc. and

WHEREAS these and other

Scriptures

have

always

been

18

21

by

our churches as

prohibiting

.

accepted

and

interpreted

Christians from

shedding

blood or taking human life;

THEREFORE we, as a body of Christians, while

purposing

to fulfill all the

obligations

of loyal citizenship, are neverthe- less constrained to declare we cannot

in

conscientiously participate

war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human

life, since this is contrary

to our view of the clear

teachings

of the

inspired

Word of

God, which is the sole basis of our faith.

coming person belongs

and

Three weeks

later,

E.N. Bell was asked in

Answers” column if it was to in the war. He his “Questions

It is evidently the

right help replied:

duty

of all to uphold the law and

of our

authority

government

and for all to

respond,

if drafted to war,

in an orderly way to the

authority designated.

If any

to

any well recognized religious body

that

cannot

conscientiously engage

in actual

warfare,

he should

come to his

exemption

board and

put

in a

respectful

and

on this

ground

to be

legally excused,

as the law

three weeks after the

publication

was couched in conditional

of

orderly plea

permits.

Bell’s

reply, coming just the non-combatant phrases

objection.

resolution,

and was somewhat short of a call to conscientious

The

story

of the 1917 resolution

what we have seen.

.

According

Presbytery”

,

is not

completed simply by to the

foreword,

the resolution

to President

Wilson. The

Council boards had

evidently

had been

formally approved “by

the Executive and General

before

being

forwarded

urgency

of the moment had demanded that the resolution be drawn

up mid-year, considerably prior

to the General

Hasty approval

of the

Presbytery

yet

it would

only

seem reasonable to

expect

the

to have been reaffirmed or ratified

representative body

at the General

meeting. been

secured, resoluton

by

the

larger

Council

assembly

later that of the General Council of the

no mention of the resolution

two resolutions

passed

year. However,

the Minutes Assemblies

whatsoever.

by

the General Council enthusiastically

endorsed

of God,

1917,

contains

There

were, nevertheless,

relative to the war. The first resolution

Raymond

Richey’s

work

among

the

soldiers and vowed “to become all

things

to all men that

by

all

means we

may

save some.” General Council’s

The second

resolution affirmed

the

A.P. Collins loyalty

to the

followed and said we were on government: 10 Bible grounds in

the

government,

and said that the

flag stood not

for civil freedom but also for religious

liberty;

and that at the Texas District Council

they

had

purposed

to cancel

honoring only

19

22

the credentials

government.

represent In

large part, then,

in the 1917 General

of

any preacher

who

spoke against

the

This

body agreed

that such radicals do not

this General Council.

developments

Council sessions served furtherto moderatethe 1917 resolution

That the resolution itself was never

by

the General Council seems

inexplicable.

Presbytery

to the General

there were less uniform on the

subject.

For the Executive

on conscientious

objection. discussed

only

wonder if the Executive ing

the resolution

record in

Washington. evidently enough.

No

attempt popular support

Assemblies

of God members

We can

refrained from

present- Council because

opinions

The resolution was on

Presbytery

that was

it was

clearly

seems to have ever been made to secure broad

for the measure. In

addition,

stated that no effort would be made to

impose

the resolution on 1

it seems reasonable to assume that the resolution

within an

organization

insure

harmony

and freedom less than uniform on the

topic. protect

the flock.

our

picture of God

during the

in tract form.

“Destroy

This

Tract,” Bell

explained

who were less

pacifistic.1

was intended to

which was It was a measure

designed

to

Day Conditons,”

the

admonition.

on hand.

beloved President

The second

Answers” column in the October Evangel,

a

questioner

There are three items from 1918 that will serve to round out

of the

type

and status of

pacifism

in the Assemblies

first World War. “Present

first of the Bartleman articles

quoted above,

had been

circulating

In the

August 24,

1916 issue of The Christian Evangel

E.N. Bell (once

again

editor) called

upon

his readers to

as he entitled his editorial

that the tract was unsuitable for wartimes and that he had

already

burned all of the

copies

which he himself had

He then exhorted readers to “stand

in this hour of crisis to our civilized world.”12

item also involved

behind the

Bell. In his

“Questions

and 19,1918

issue of The Christian

asked,

“Would it be murder for a child of God to

go

to war and shoot men as do other soldiers?” The

as we have

seen,

had been

put

to Bell twice

previously

This time the

question

the moral ramifications of killing in warfare had to be confronted.

question,

in different forms.

Bell answered:

was so

phrased

that

Our faith leaves this with the conscience of each man. We have never

opposed

the

going to war of our members whose conscience allowed them to

go.

But everyone must

keep

hatred out of his heart. The sheriff who

hangs

the

personal

20

heart,

Bell’s

response participation

in warfare

23

For

Bell,

active

Council

meeting.

combatant resolution

appeared, cation of an

open

discussion resolution

criminal as commanded

by law need have no hatred

in his

and he is not a murderer when he obeys his country in

executing just punishment

on the criminal Hun.

was

blatantly non-pacifistic.

did not need to be considered sinful. The final item is found in the Minutes of the 1918 General

Once

again,

no reference

to the 1917 non- nor was there

any

other indi-

There

was, however,

a

of

pacifism.

passed

which reaffirmed the

loyalty

stance taken the year

before:

Resolved, that

the General Council

hereby

declares its

unswerving loyalty

to our Government and to its Chief

Executive, President Wilson, and that we hereby restate

our

fixed

purpose

to assist in

every way morally possible,

consistent with our faith, in

bringing

the

present

“World

War” to a successful conclusion.

It is evident from all of the above that the 1917 resolution

did not

uniformly represent practice

the

majority

on

conscientious

objection

and

opinion

within the Assemblies the resolution

represented irregular

circumstances involved and ratification,

the ambivalent

early years testify

resolution

stituency.

The

early Assemblies

in spirit.

of conscientious

objection, service. In such columns,

the conditional statements

nature of the

war-peace

to a somewhat tenuous among

the Assemblies of God

leadership

check the other questions

person’s

of God

membership. Surely

sentiment,

but the in the resolution’s formulation

appended

to

it, and

dialogue throughout

the

standing

for the

and con-

leaned toward

pacifism

ask

questions

about

Assemblies Confidence pacifistic spondingly, God

organs

of God

certainly

If not, readers would have asked Bell about the

morailty

not about the

morality

of

military

people generally

what

they

think

might

be

taboo,

or about what

they’ve

been told is taboo and want to

prove

otherwise.

orthodoxy. Generally speaking,

asked of Bell arise out of a

religious

context

warfare and violence were censured.

istic stand was ever taken

by

a

representative

of God

during

this time.

reprint

stand as the

only originators

statements of

any

kind in our literature.13 Corre-

the bulk of literature

Or,

often

they

ask to

the

in which Furthermore,

no militar-

body

within the In

fact,

E.N. Bell and the

of

clearly

non-

on the

topic

in Assemblies of

was

decidedly pacifistic. Finally,

the 1917 reso- lution,

even if it was not so representative

of Pentecostal

opinion

21

24

an

expression

foreword to the

resolution,

nantly, though

As Pentecostals

The claims of the

are not without The overall

picture

of

from

which was

predomi- in its convictions.

to

as its ambitious foreword would

suggest,

still must be viewed as

of

majority opinion

both in the Assemblies of God and in the Pentecostal movement at

large.

while

overstated,

some basis in the

reality

of the

day.

Assemblies of God attitudes toward warfare which

emerges these documents shows an

organization

not

uniformly, pacifistic

we are now no less than then called discern what it means to be faithful to God’s Word on this issue. As we

carry on

the

dialogue,

with ourselves

we would do well to notice a remarkable

Where there is

argumentation

and it

frequently appeals

as well as with

others,

pattern

evident in these

in favor of is

biblically rooted,

eschato-

to the work of the

and in the creation of a new

is

to our self-under-

early

documents.

pacifism,

that

argumentation logically informed,

Spirit

in

sanctification, conversion, people

or of a new

age. characterized

by qualities standing

as Pentecostals. against pacifism

is characterized

That is to

say

that the

argument which are central

On the other

hand, argumentation

is characterized

by

elements which we have

generally determining

by political

considerations,

as

adequate

traditions sources for

rationalism and humanism. That is to

say

that the

argumentation

drawn from intellectual

not

regarded

doctrinal or ethical truth. At the

very

least this should make us

carefully

consider the

way

we

argue

as much as what we

argue

for. We have to

ask,

for

instance,

Just War tradition are

really

to a stance of Pentecostal

presuppositions

of the appropriate

corresponding presuppositions

case,

we do well to look

again

to our Pentecostal

examine how those Pentecostal

Spirit

which we claim as an

inheritance,

of war – a question contemporary

if the

logical

more

discipleship

than the of Christian

pacifism.

In either

roots,

and to pioneers,

moved

by

the same

dealt with the

question

to both their world and ours.

22

25

Roger

Robins received the M.Div. degree from Harvard Divinity School in June, 1984.

1. The editors were E.N. Bell and J.R. Flower.

2. See

especially Albert Weaver, “The Crucial Hour,”

The Christian November

Evangel,

28, 1914.

3. In this particular editorial, the author also gives his view of

It would seem that

military history:

every few centuries God has a national stock- with a view to

taking breaking up some proud power or bringing to some

judgement corrupt principle.

4. The editors also gave their editorial

We wish to

philosophy:

say here that many things are permitted

to enter our

column with which we do not wholly agree, because this paper is a

religious newspaper and not an individual organ to advance some pet

A newspaper must be broad and be willing to look on all

sides of a question, hence we have

theory…

above which takes an

published the article under the

heading opposite

view to the editorial in

allow. As soon as a question becomes controversial, we reserve the

question. However, there are some limitations to this liberty we

to throw the article of this nature in the wastebasket, or return it

to the writer. We right

propose

to maintain the sweet

spirit of love,

fellowship, tolerance, and respect…

5. The editorship remained in the hands of Flower and Bell.

6. See Jay Beaman, “Pentecostal Pacifism; The Origin, Development, and Rejection of Pacific 8elief Among Pentecostals,” unpublished Masters Thesis, North American Baptist Seminary, 1982, pp. 34-40.

7. Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1916.

8. It is important to recognize, then, that the doctrinal resolution was not framed in the interest of making an formulation of the denomination’s belief. Whether or not a resolution objective drawn up under such “objective” conditions would have differed from the one at hand is another question. The fact remains that the expressed

intention of those who framed the resolution was “to secure the privilege

of exemption from…

military service.”

9. E. N. Bell. “Questions and Answers,” The Weekly Evangel, August 25, 1917, p. 9. 10. It is noteworthy that this loyalty resolution constituents from Texas. In

1915, it had been Burt evidently originated among of Fort Worth who had written the January,

McCafferty

from Confidence. McCafferty’s

article must have set off a furor in

pacifist rebuttal to the

Texas. This General Council

reprint

resolution may well represent the vindication of McCafferty’s foes.

11. In fact, the only war-related threat of sanction which I have found was that suggested by

the Texas District Council, and there the sanction was to be invoked for opposing the government’s military policies too vigorously not for failing to

. oppose them vigorously enough.

12. Quoted from Beaman, p. 51.

13. The loyalty resolutions passed in 1917 and 1918 are expressions of

not

patriotism

militarism, and although they certainly act to moderate the tone of A.G. pacifism, they

do not nullify it. These resolutions could have been affirmed

and

by patriotic pacifists patriotic non-pacifists

alike. Indeed, the resolutions probably

meant very different things to those two groups.

23