Historical and Theological Origins of Assemblies of God Pacifism -- 4

Consumption of Alcohol.

In 1985 the Assemblies of God published a seven page "Position Paper" entitled Abstinence that argued Christians should never consume any alcoholic beverages.(43) The scriptures and arguments they employed to defend this position could easily be applied to a call for abstinence from violence because the majority (except Proverbs 23) were simply applied to alcohol to prove their point. They stated that they based their position on 1) Scripture and 2) public outrage over the "high cost of alcohol in terms of human misery, death, and destruction of property." (44) They considered the results of death and destruction to be applicable to abstaining from alcohol but not important when considering Christian participation in warfare.

Furthermore, the titles of each section revealed their eisegesis and discrimination to make their point. Interestingly, each could introduce a position paper against war.

The evidence within this dissertation reveals that military evangelism has consistently garnered more articles, finances, and concern than the ethics of war. The majority of Assemblies of God constituents have unfailingly wanted to save people’s souls and this majority eventually deleted official support for pacifism and conscientious objection. In 1965 thirty-two Assemblies of God military chaplains presented the proposal to allow fighting because the peace testimony hindered evangelism.(60) They wanted to enhance their ability to convert sinners and gladly jettisoned an aspect of early Christianity that got in the way. Once the majority allied itself with the establishment, abandoned their critique of violence, and focused solely on personal sins they viewed their role as converting people within the viciousness of the military system rather than delivering people from it.

They ceased thinking the church had anything to say about the way its government conquered its enemies. The early Assemblies of God pacifists who condemned the greed, oppression, and destruction of war gave way to Assemblies of God militants who condemned the greed, oppression, and destruction of gambling and alcohol. They transformed themselves into the perfect church from an American point of view: unique on the inside, conformist on the outside; critiquing personal morals (with whom people have sex) but never challenging the morality of the state perpetuating itself through violence; defending some life (our unborn babies), but not all life (our unborn, adolescent, and adult enemies).(61)

However, the official "Theology of Ministry," which is supposed to define the Assemblies of God, leaves much room for pacifism rather than violence and for a social critique rather than mere personal evangelism. The connection between "Jesus-the model for our ministry" and his radical nonviolence has simply been forgotten and abandoned. Nevertheless, the Assemblies of God believes that Jesus "gave himself, in life and death, for others [and] the church is the extension of Christ’s ministry."(62) They link the power of the Holy Spirit to the ability to witness and insist that this is the responsibility of the entire body of Christ. Unfortunately, they limit all of this to verbal proclamation when it also provides a firm foundation for a much more comprehensive ecclesiology.

Pentecost encompassed three elements that early Pentecostal pacifists recognized.(63) First, it meant being empowered to take the life and example of Jesus very seriously, even to the point of following him in death. Second, it meant a prophetic, i.e. Spirit-led, critique of social, racial, economic, and institutional evil. Third, Pentecost provided a transforming eschatology that allowed followers of Jesus to live in accordance with the ultimate end of all things. They could embrace the peaceful Kingdom of God in the midst of a violent and chaotic existence.

These scarcely exist in the Assemblies of God any longer. Jesus’ example of suffering love has been qualified so that Pentecostals can kill their enemies for the good of their respective nations, whichever nation that happens to be. The critiques of capitalistic greed, patriotic idolatry, and the insanity of war have been replaced by joyful and divinely sanctioned participation in all three. The reality shaping eschatology of the early minority has been overwhelmed by an escapist eschatology that professes, "Jesus is coming back soon, but just in case he does not we need to kill our enemies."

The Assemblies of God has always claimed to be a (many claim to be "the") Pentecostal church that lives in accordance to the way of Jesus, "The Assemblies of God shall represent, as nearly as possible, the body of Christ as described in the New Testament."(64) But the impact of Pentecost has been limited to glossolalia and other experiences that do not confront the violent status quo. The Assemblies of God prefers to "fight the devil" by attacking state lotteries and praying for healing while participating in that which they themselves describe as "a world that is now characterized by violence, wickedness, and war."(65) They have accepted the parts of New Testament Christianity that allow them to be good Americans, but they have rejected the nonviolence of primitive Christianity. Early Assemblies of God pacifists believed that Pentecost was an empowerment to live and die like Jesus, but it has become merely an entryway into ecstatic experiences.

The loss of the pacifist minority brings into question whether the Assemblies of God can honestly consider themselves a New Testament church. Their alliance with their nation and quest for acceptability, their selective use of Scripture, and their limited ethical and ecclesiological concerns reveal that the majority has defined and applied Pentecost in ways opposite the New Testament churches. To claim to be like primitive Christians while proudly participating in violence and warfare is hypocritical.

Thus the Assemblies of God has three options if they seek to be honest.

First, they can cease considering themselves a representation of the body of Christ as described in the New Testament, for they are not. They have neither accepted nor adequately explained away the dominant primitive Christian witness to nonviolence. They have not officially attempted to deal with their own nonviolent heritage, which was an earnest attempt to restore primitive Christianity.

Second, if they insist on describing themselves as a New Testament church, then they must resurrect their pacifistic heritage and incorporate nonviolence into their understanding of Christianity and Pentecost since it was integral to the early church. Historically in the Assemblies of God, those who argued for pacifism did so from the Scriptural examples of Jesus and the early Christians, while those who argued for militarism did so from "accountability, sensibility, and responsibility," the "ideals, freedom, and national existence [of] our nation," and they never referred to Jesus.(66)

However, a third option would be for the Assemblies of God to explain how they can be "restored," "Pentecostal," and "New Testament" without reflecting the nonviolence inherent in the early witness of the church. This process could include a public discussion of the "just war tradition" and then a decision could be made following the dialogue. However, while they can cease being conscientious objectors and pacifists they must also consider the implications. The first implication is that they have redefined Pentecost to be just tongues and talk rather than a true and complete reversal of Babel. Pentecost is thus limited and incomplete, a "watered-down" and "sugar-coated" (67) version that fits well in a prosperous establishment that must defend itself against those who speak different languages. Pentecost, for the Assemblies of God, does not mean that Christians speak and live a new language given to them by God and that this is their testimony of the unity and fellowship found in the risen Christ. Pentecost instead allows Christians to speak the languages, i.e. fight the battles, of their respective nations, thus silencing and quenching the message of the Holy Spirit to the world.

A second implication is that the Assemblies of God must cease claiming that they resemble, or even desire to resemble, Jesus or the New Testament church regarding their ethics. The latter prohibited retaliation, resistance, and violence scores of times in numerous writings. However, neither Jesus nor the New Testament churches ever forbade alcohol (they actually consumed it regularly). The Assemblies of God encourages retaliation, violence, and war, while prohibiting alcohol. The loss of pacifism and conscientious objection within the Assemblies of God signaled the elimination of their claim to be a restorationist movement.