Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
59 Jay Beaman, Pentecostal Pacifism: The Origins, Development and Rejection of Pacific Belief among the Pentecostals (Hillsboro, Kansas: Center for Mennonite Brethren Studies, 1989), 142 pp. $10.00 paper. Reviewed by Murray W. Dempster Even though Jay Beaman came from a Pentecostal background, he was surprised when, as a student at North American Baptist Seminary in 1980, he first learned .about the pacifism that was part of his own religious tradition in its formative years. His curiosity to discover the facts about this forgotten heritage led him to an independent study which expanded in short time into an M.Div. thesis written under Professor Stephen Brachlow. After completing the thesis in 1982, Beaman’s academic interest in pacifism was further fueled by his faculty appointment at Tabor College in Hillsboro, Kansas, a Mennon- ite Brethren liberal arts college closely associated with the publisher of this book. Pentecostal Pacifism is the slightly revised publication of Beaman’s masters thesis. The substance of the book benefits in targeted areas from Beaman’s conceptual refinements and his use of secondary stud- ies published subsequent to his thesis, particularly the work of Roger Robins on pacifism in the Assemblies of God and of Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. on the thought of Frank Bartleman. Aside from these updates and a stronger, more engaging literary style, Beaman has left the overall conceptual framework, chapter divisions, content and main argument almost entirely intact from his earlier thesis. The publication of Pente- costal Pacifism, therefore, represents a culmination of Beaman’s own personal and academic association with Pentecostal, Baptist and Men- ‘ nonite Brethren institutions and traditions over the past decade. The purpose of Beaman’s study is to trace and interpret the change that has occurred during this century in the Pentecostal view and prac- tice of pacifism. After sketching the story of “the origins, development and rejection of pacific belief among the Pentecostals,” Beaman addresses the critical question that rests at the heart of his inquiry: “… have Pentecostals altered their pacific views as a result of new Biblical insights or cultural accommodation?” (viii). In light of the lack of an explicitly developed biblical rationale to justify the shift in position concerning military service among Pentecostals and the presence oi historical factors which can be identified to account for this change, Beaman gives the nod to cultural accommodation as the better expla- nation for the loss of Pentecostal pacifism. Beaman deserves high praise for this pioneering and thought-provok- ing interpretation of Pentecostal pacifism. The careful documentation from the original sources of the various forms and expressions of early . 1 60 Pentecostal importance divided among views-provides sources, Beaman’s study seling young people science, or being humiliated during Wilson declaring.the that the A/G position whole, pacifist Pentecostal pacifist in and of itself, the long-term scholarship. A bibliography- letters, minutes and inter- refusing to use church church was “officially” a which it was not. Such of early qualifications, Beaman’s pacifism should establish, of this study for Pentecostal books, articles, pamphlets, a goldmine of sources for the reader. From these makes clear that many early Pentecostals, both at the levels of leadership and at the grassroots, paid a steep price for their uncompromising pacifistic convictions at the hands of their own governments. The details of Pentecostals facilities to sell Liberty Bonds to support the war effort, or preaching from the pulpit against an unqualified American patriotism, or coun- about the moral obligations of Christian con- in the military camps because they refused noncombatant service are culled out of the archives of history and brought to life in a compelling manner. The facts uncovered are captivating and Beaman also narrates the story well. Balance is another virtue of Beaman’s study. Beaman rightly points out that from the beginning the Pentecostal attitude toward a Chris- tian’s participation in military service was not a unified one. Even World War I when the Executive Presbytery of the Assemblies of God (A/G) sent its now famous resolution to President Woodrow A/G to be a pacifist church and later indicated represented the Pentecostal Movement as a Beaman notes that a pluralism of positions existed among Pen- tecostals on the morality of participating in the war. Beaman thus distinquishes the fact that the Pentecostal church from the fact that the Pentecostal church was a mono- lithic body of pacifist churches and individuals, a distinction instructs his readers to develop an understanding sentiment that is properly nuanced and appropri- ately qualified. the backdrop of these balanced for the loss of pacifistic belief among Pente- costals makes good sense. No doubt, as Beaman argues, the rise in social and economic status among Pentecostals, surrounding World War II, the leadership role of the A/G and its mem- in the National Association of Evangelicals, chaplaincy changing the attitudes and beliefs about the church’s earlier “official” no future studies explaining in the position will be considered without addressing that Beaman has so skillfully brought together. Not only has Beaman’s interpretation shed new light on the nature of pacifism, but as John Howard Yoder notes in his foreword Beaman has also laid the foundations for important future analyses. The greatest contribution of Beaman’s study may turn Against sociological explanation bership tionalization of the Pentecostal pacifism. Certainly church’s factors pentecostal to the volume, the “moral” aura and the institu- all played major roles in this change adequate the 2 61 out to be the future research into this subject which his work hopefully will stimulate. Three such areas which arise out of Beaman’s exami- nation can be readily identified for further investigation. First, the question of the origins of pacifism among Pentecostals needs more in-depth and broader exploration. Beaman locates the origins of Pentecostal pacifism in two major religious movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: the Holiness Move- ment and the Reformed Evangelical Movement. Given his purpose, Beaman properly restricts his analysis of the roots of Pentecostal paci- fism only to the essential background information necessary to contex- tualize his study historically. As a consequence, the causal connections between Pentecostal pacifism and its twin roots in the Holiness and the Reformed Evangelical Movements are suggested largely on the basis of ideological compatibility. Critical work that traces these pacifistic roots historically remains an important task. An analogous task suggested by Beaman’s study is to identify the similarities and differ- ences between Holiness pacifism and Reformed Evangelical pacifism and to demonstrate how these two sources converged together, if they did, to influence the adoption of pacifism among Pentecostals. Other candidates that need to be investigated as potential sources of Pentecostal pacifism are the broader Fundamentalist movement- Beaman’s “Reformed Evangelical” category only includes the . ‘ Plymouth Brethren church and its offshoots as well as the thought of D. L. Moody-the Quaker movement and the populist movement. The Quaker connection, while probably the most enigmatic to track, may shed some light on the content and the language-use found in the 1917 pacifism statement, a statement which was subsequently justified by the claim of the A/G leadership that “from the very beginning the movement has been characterized by Quaker principles” (Weekly Evangel, 4 August 1917, 6). A Quaker source for pacifism may have moved imperceptively into Pentecostalism through the personal religious histories of several of the more influential Pentecostal leaders. Frank Bartleman, the most prolific writer on pacifism among Pentecostals, had a mother who nurtured him in the Quaker faith. Charles Fox Parham had his earlier pacifism reinforced and deepened by his marriage to Orah Thistlewaite who had a sturdy Quaker family heritage. Arthur Sydney Booth-Clib- bom in the third edition of Blood Against Blood traced his own pacifist heritage back to the conversion of John Clibbom to the Quaker faith in 1658 (Appendix C, 166-176). Booth-Clibbom’s book, as Beaman him- self notes, was constantly promoted for Pentecostal consumption in both Word and Witness and The Weekly Evangel. Arthur passed on his Quaker-based pacifism to his son Samuel H. Booth-Clibbom whose own Pentecostal pacifistic writings-not cited by Beaman in his book-appeared in The Weekly Evangel (“The Christian and War,” 28 – . 3 62 April 1917, 5 and 19 May 1917, 4-5) and in his booklet, Should A Christian Fight? An Appeal to Christian Young Men of all Nations (Swengal, PA: Bible Truth Depot, n.d., circa 1918). These biographi- cal details, when coupled with the explicit reference to “Quaker prin- ciples” in the justification for pacifism formulated by denominational leaders, suggest that the feasibility of a Quaker origin for, or at least a shaping influence on, Pentecostal pacifism stands in need of further research and investigation. . Second, the question of how representative pacifistic belief was of the early Pentecostal movement as a whole needs reassessment. Beaman’s main thesis presupposes the veracity of his assertion that pacifism was the majority view in Pentecostal circles through World War I and the interwar years. On the face of it, Beaman’s assertion appears incontestable. The general consensus of Pentecostal scholar- ship concerning the truthfulness of this grants it a prima facie status. Further, the 1917 pacifist Statement by the Executive Presbytery of the A/G was later justified on the basis that pacifism was the position of the Pentecostal movement as a whole. Moreover, the literature of the period demonstrates, as Beaman adeptly shows, that pacifism pervaded all branches of the Pentecostal movement. But even so, something is not quite kosher in this portrayal of a majority pacifist movement shifting to a non-pacifist movement within such a short period of time, especially in light of the intensity with which the pacfists held their convictions on this matter. Here are but a few problems. The claim by the A/G leadership that its 1917 statement represented the pacifistic character of the Pentecostal movement as a whole is demonstrably hyperbolic based on Beaman’s own research into the broad range of perspectives that existed on this issue at the very time the statement was issued. Under both the press of deadlines imposed by the Federal Government and the conditions established by the Congress for religious denominations to qualify their members for Conscientious Objectors status, the A/G executives registered the denomination as a pacifist church. This action, therefore, was politi- cally necessary to protect those Pentecostals who were pacifists from military service. Accordingly, the statement itself, and the rationales developed to justify it, may not provide faithful measures to determine the degree of pacifistic sentiment which characterized the movement as a whole. . , More critically, the pacifist writings which Beaman exposits exude an advocacy character. They were written to persuade their readers to adopt a pacifistic point of view not to elucidate an accepted position. The character and function of this corpus of pacifist literature, not merely their contents, should not be glossed over lightly. When these factors are coupled with Bartleman’s eyewitness accounts of how the war spirit invaded the Pentecostal churches during the war, a fresh ” – . 4 63 appraisal of whether pacifism was ever a position held by a majority of Pentecostals may seem more warranted that at first suggestion; Bartleman minced no words once the war was over to declare his view that the war had robbed the church of her “pilgrim role” [“Christian Citizenship,” tract (circa 1922), 2] and that during the war “the Pente- costal failed to stand by the Lord” [“War and the Christian,” tract (circa 1922), 4]. Perhaps the change of pacifistic belief in the Pentecostal movement, particularly in the A/G, should be conceptualized differently from the way Beaman suggests. Given the political nature of the 1917 state- ment, the advocacy character of the pacifist literature and the eye- witness appraisal of pacifists like Bartleman, the change in the Pente- costal position on military service may make more sense if explained in terms of the loss of a prophetic minority of pacifists who were not able to sustain their numbers due to the very factors of cultural accommodation cited by Beaman. With the demise of this prophetic minority over time, sustaining the “official” pacifist position became a mute point. Because the data on early Pentecostal pacifism are mixed and fit reasonably within different frameworks of interpretation, the issue of whether or not pacifism was the position held by a majority of Pentecostals needs further evaluation. Third, the question of whether a distinctive “social reality” called “Pentecostal pacifism” ever existed needs to be addressed. A meta- ethical analysis aimed at articulating the theological grounds used by the pacifist leaders to justify their views might demonstrate that there was no unified set of theological and ethical ideas which can be meaningfully labelled as “Pentecostal pacifism.” Arthur Booth-Clib- bom’s “ethical humanitarian” pacifism grounded in the doctrines of Creation and Redemption is radically different from the “sectarian” pacifism of Stanley Frodsham grounded in an other-worldly eschatol- ogy. Samuel H. Booth-Clibbom’s “dispensationalist” pacifism, reflec- tive of Fundamentalist thinking, shows little theological affinity with the “populist” vision encapsulated in the pacifism of Charles Parham, which echoed a view of human history more characteristic of Social Gospel thinking. In a uniquely strident tone, Frank Bartleman’s “pro- phetic” pacifism, grounded theologically in an understanding of human sinfulness and of the universality of the Gospel, provided a moral critique of the structural evil that war represented and perpetuated. Although overlapping ideas among these pacifists can be found, the diversity of the theological frameworks, doctrines and ideas which they used to justify their respective types of pacifism may suggest that there really was no ideological configuration held in common among them which can be meaningfully designated as “Pentecostal pacifism” at all. Perhaps, then, in addition to the factors of cultural accommoda- tion cited by Beaman, pacifism disappeared among Pentecostals 5 64 because these pacifists never established a theologically-informed ethical heritage to perpetuate their pacifistic beliefs to subsequent generations. Their eschatologically-driven world view, which Beaman succintly outlines, may have been chiefly responsible for this inatten- tion to theological reflection. Beaman’s book provokes such crucial questions, lays the foundation for further academic work and provides a creative interpretation of pacifism among Pentecostals. Without question, Pentecostal Pacifism will become the standard benchmark for future study on this subject. I heartily recommend it to anyone looking for a comprehensive over- view of this fascinating chapter of Pentecostal history. Murray W. Dempster, Professor College, Costa Mesa, California. of Social Ethics, Southern California 6
