I hope you enjoy this post. It is a part of a bigger project I am working on about the pacifism of the early pentecostal movement, it’s heritage, it’s hay day, and it’s decline. (Please comment)
The early days of the Pentecostal tradition were years of constant reformation. Many issues separated them from their Holiness foundations, resulting in splintered divisions within the movement itself. Amid the most prominent points of controversy in the early Pentecostal movement, such as sanctification, the nature of God, and the nature of the church, another salient theme was the issue of pacifism. Despite their rhetorically militant posture concerning spiritual matters, Pentecostals widely maintained a pacific attitude towards physical violence.[1] Some Pentecostals would not even participate in civil government due to the corrupt and violent nature of the kingdoms of this world.[2] The Pentecostals enjoyed this unifying theme against war and violence until about 1914 when the realities of a world at war in WWI caused them to rethink their cultural identity, resulting in the decline of Pentecostal Pacifism and the alteration of other core beliefs and methods.[3]
The roots of the pacific ethic of early Pentecostals were entangled with many of the beliefs that characterized the movement as a whole. Pentecostal’s Biblicist hermeneutic allowed them to take antiviolence verses such as Matt 5:39, 44, and John 18:34, literally. The populist notion that WWI was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight” was congruent with the Pentecostals disposition to side with the poor over the rich and contributed to their pacific stance.[4] The aspect of their theology that made their particular expression of pacifism unique was undoubtedly eschatological. The Pentecostal understanding of Dispensationalism allowed them to remain detached and interpret the global political scene as a “grand cosmic metaphor,” rather than as historical events that would ultimately affect them.[5]
Their Pacifism provided a lens by which Pentecostals could view the world, a way of understanding the turbulent times in which they lived. It also provided a hope that there was a better life for them if they would not conform to the ways of the world. Ultimately the mark that Pacifism has left on the Pentecostal movement is evident today, especially amongst the groups of Pentecostals who resist cultural conformity.[6] Rooted firmly in the Holiness movement and lightly in the Reformed Evangelical tradition Pentecostals drew on a literalist hermeneutic and dispensational eschatology to maintain their strong commitment to nonviolence; Pentecostals remained largely pacifist until the problems presented by WWI and eventually WWII proved overbearing and forced them to soften their stance against war.
Definitions: Pacifism- an attitude or policy of nonresistance, Pacific -having to do with pacifism, Hermeneutic- method of interpreting scripture, Populist- a political party claiming to represent the common people, Eschatological- having to do with the “end-times,”
[1] R.G. Robins, Pentecostalism in America 38-40
[2] A.J. Tomlinson, Answering the Call of God, (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House, ca. 1913). 9-10
[3] Jay Beaman, “Pentecostal Pacifism: The Origin, Development, And Rejection of Pacific Belief Among Pentecostals” (master’s thesis, Northern American Baptist Seminary, 1982), 2.
[4] R.G. Robins, Pentecostalism in America, 52
[5] Ibid
[6] Jay Beaman, Pentecostal Pacifism, 1

Good Article Colten,
Several thoughts come to mind after reading:
1st. Pacifism, and it’s effect on the Post Exilic Jewish Community, namely that portrayed in 1Macabees. A certain group of Jews who retreated to the mountains were slaughtered on the Sabbath due to their legalistic mindset that seemed to foster/embrace the ideas of Pacifism; their unnecessary deaths, As you may know, gave rise to the Macabean Party which turned the tide of the Jewish people in regards to their “extinction.” Seems to suggest that Pacifism is a fine and lofty idea until it hits home, and that to a certain extent God expects us to defend ourselves in such circumstances.
2nd. I am a little unsure about the nature of the pacifism of the early pentecostals, i wonder if they were totally opposed to war, or if they simply were agains initiating war, yet in favor of “self defense”. Though I am not Catholic, The articles of Vatican ii seem to address this idea pretty in-depth.
- “Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms (Pacifism), provided however, that they agree to serve the human community in some other way…. ”
- “Those too who devote themselves to the military service of their country should regard themselves as the agents of security and freedom of peoples. As long as they fulfill this role properly, they are making a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace.”
and lastly
“Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”
3rd. If Jesus had come to earth in modern times, I wonder what his attitude toward war would look like? We as Christians often superimpose our patriotic loyalties onto our faith and assume that they are united as such… a dangerous assumption in my opinion. I think we need to really evaluate and rightly distinguish our feelings of patriotism and our loyalty to Christ, huge issues that can really go either way & have been HOT topics for debate.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks again for the post.
Thanks for the comment Clay!
In regards to your first point, I don’t mean to sound polemical, but it seems a bit too Machiavellian to fit within the Christian paradigm to me. I understand that Christian nonviolence can lead to extreme suffering and even death. I also believe that if we take our faith seriously we may have to come to terms with the reality that we may have to suffer for being faithful to Christ. I believe that what it means to be faithful to Christ includes embracing the Cross and not the Sword. Trusting in God no matter what plights come our way.
In regards to your second point, I assure you that the early Pentecostals were thoroughly pacifist. Many were repudiated by their national communities for taking this stance. This is actually the topic of my senior paper and this blog post is a part to the introduction. Therefore, it does contain any of the evidence of this, it just makes the claims that the rest of the paper fleshes out.
Overall, the point of this blog was not to argue for Pacifism, it is a historical report about a specific groups beliefs during a specific time in history. The rest of your concerns might be better addressed by two of my other blog posts, “The conviction of Christian Pacifism: Part 1 and 2.”
It would love to continue in the more general discussion about the merits and problems with Christian non-violence on one of those threads but I want to keep this one dedicated to the historical aspect of the Pacifism of early Pentecostals.
Thanks so much for reading my blog and engaging in dialogue with me about it. I value your opinion and hope we can continue this on another post.
Sure thing, it is nice to dialogue with people who have studied and have a good reason for what they believe, it keeps things interesting.
Because I want to respect the genre of your posting & senior paper,I will try not to deviate off course, and will be brief in trying to stick to the topic at hand.
Reply:
I could see how my point might come across as Machvellianism, however I am not so sure we can “throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak” simply because it appears to not fit the christian paradigm.
It is often possible that our paradigms are impartial, or even obscured.
I think Paul (the Apostle Respectively) would concur that from this angle of life we do not yet see the full picture “we see through a glass dimly….” The fact that God has not only authorized & supported war in Jewish history, but is himself a king, with a Kingdom has a type of eschatological-war that has already be waged & won at the cross, seems to me at least to point toward a God who is pro-war to the extent of establishing peace via his kingdom, yet that war “is not as we war.”
Regarding the quotation about “He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword” you may find St.Thomas Aquinas commentary regarding this subject most interesting: Here is as snippet, see link below for full text.
“Whether it is always sinful to wage war?
-Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punish- ment, according to Mat. 26:52: “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Therefore all wars are unlawful.
- Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): “To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of su- perior or lawful authority.” On the other hand, to have re- course to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to “take the sword,” but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.”
http://www.op.org/summa/letter/summa-II-IIq40a1.pdf