A Time for War:
T h e Church of God’s
Response to Vietnam
Mitchell K. Hall”
War has always posed a dilemma for Christians. Biblical
injunctions against killing are countered by scriptural commands
to submit to the authority of the state. While compassion has been
one of the most important Christian virtues, people have also
committed many atrocities in the name of Christ. To submit totally to the state may require one to participate in or support
war. To refuse to participate in war often forces a confrontation
with the state. Christians have never been able to agree on which
path to follow.
The Vietnam War raised innumerable moral questions for
Americans. In addition to the question of killing, the legality of
the war, American intervention in Vietnamese political affairs,
the devastation of the population and land of Vietnam, and the
manipulation of the American people by their government were
all subjects of bitter and prolonged debate. Examining the way
in which the Church of God, a small Protestant denomination,
grappled with these issues sheds light on religious dilemmas posed
by the Vietnam War and on the larger American response to that
conflict.
The Church of God sprang from the teachings of Daniel S.
Warner just over one hundred years ago. Nearly 180,000 people
in the United States claim to be regular members of the church,
with an estimated 145,000 additional members in more than sixty
countries around the world.’ Within the United States the church‘s
strength lies in the Midwest, particularly Ohio, Indiana, and
Michigan, and its general offices are located in Anderson, Indiana.
Almost one third of the church’s adherents reside in the South,
* Mitchell K. Hall is instructor of history and Ph.D. candidate in the Department of History, University of Kentucky, Lexington. He wishes to thank
George C. Herring of the University of Kentucky and Jason H. Silverman of Yale
University for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.
1982 Yearbook of the Church of God (Anderson, Ind., 1982), 257-58.
286
Indiana Magazine of History
while the West furnishes one fifth of its membership. During the
Vietnam War roughly two thirds of the church population lived
in cities of fewer than 50,000 people.2
Theologically, the Church of God is part of the holiness tradition that rejects the inevitability of sin and finds in the New
Testament the cardinal teachings of the Bible. The church’s early
teachings rejected sectarianism and formal membership and
spurned rigid organization. The Church of God has purposely
avoided authoritative creeds as potentially divisive; thus, it is
difficult to attach a particular doctrinal label to it. Changes over
time have brought some structural organization, but local congregations have always been autonomous, and no individual or
organization can speak for the church in a n official capacity. National policies are carried out primarily under the auspices of the
General Assembly, a voluntary organization of ministers that
includes laymen who serve on national committees or agencies;
any pastor or ordained minister may attend assembly meetings.
The General Assembly holds no ecclesiastical authority, however.
The Executive Council, which is elected by the General Assembly,
is actually responsible for the operations of the individual
agen~ies.~
The Church of God has not dealt with the issue of war in a
consistently pacifistic manner. There has been pacifist influence
from the beginning due to an influx of early converts from the
historic “peace” churches-the Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, and Quakers4 Nor has the church consistently endorsed
military involvement in America’s wars, though a great many of
its members have chosen to participate. Prior to the Vietnam War
the Church of God consistently adhered to a “doctrine of personal
convictions” that supported individual choice, though at times
this doctrine was accepted only grudgingly by some members. In
actual practice the church’s position evolved from a balanced attitude in World War I, with most eligible men serving in the
military but strong moral support being given to conscientious
objectors, to a far more militant tone in World War I1 that barely
acknowledged the minority opposing the conflict. The church frequently has reflected prevailing public attitudes, not only in times
of war but also during the interwar peace movement. In 1932 the
General Ministerial Assembly (later renamed the General Assembly) passed a resolution that stated in part: “We will never
1970 Yearbook of the Church of God (Anderson, Ind., 1970), passim.
Let’s Get Acquainted with the Church of God (n.p., n.d.),17-19.
Interview with Robert Reardon, Anderson, Indiana, June 27, 1979.
A Time for War
287
again sanction or participate in any war. . . . We will not give our
financial or moral support to any war.775
The church’s post-World
War I1 statements show halting attempts to return to a less aggressive position, but nothing to approach the pacifist language
of the 1 9 3 0 ~ . ~
The Church of God’s response to the Vietnam War resembled
that of the American people, with some important differences.
Generally the Church of God remained neutral throughout the
war, respecting the decisions of each individual without condemnation. At the outset most members appear to have endorsed
American military involvement, and a majority within the church
probably supported the war, or a t least did not oppose it, for the
duration. Despite the prevailing attitude a vocal and articulate
opposition developed in Church of God-sponsored Anderson College and its School of Theology; this opposition produced attacks
upon the war, the nation, and the church itself. This antiwar
sentiment does not seem t o have grown as rapidly nor to have
become as extensive as it did in the nation as a whole, but, while
it was relatively short-lived, it did provoke some reaction from
within the church.
During the Vietnam War the church’s national agencies consistently supported the doctrine of personal convictions. The General Assembly, which meets annually during the International
Convention of the Church of God, showed a n increasing awareness
of Vietnam as early as the summer of 1966. From that session
came a new statement of conviction on war and peace. The introduction recognized that the United States government had
provided for those who conscientiously opposed war and offered
this statement as moral and legal sanction for Church of God men
who chose conscientious objection. While calling war the consequence of moral failure, this document left to each individual
freedom of choice regarding military service. It neither approved
nor condemned the war.7
The Division of Church Service, which is responsible for serving ministers and churches, devoted an increasing amount of time
to draft counseling as the war escalated. In addition to validating
claims of conscientious objection, local draft boards required docs “Pacifism: In the Church of God?” Peace Fellowship Newsletter (January,
1978), 3 .
Resolution Passed by the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of
God, Minutes of the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God, J u n e
18,1947, Office of the Executive Secretary of the Executive Council of the Church
of God, Anderson, Indiana.
’Annual Report ofthe Church of God (n.p., 19661, 20.
288
Indiana Magazine of History
umentation that only the Division of Church Service could supply.
Counseling took the form of making known all available options
and did not include suggesting one alternative over another. The
number of people asking for church support of their position as
conscientious objectors is difficult to ascertain, but the numbers
seem to have increased as the war progressed. From 1971 to 1973
fifty-five letters were received by the church requesting information on conscientious objection. Twenty-six letters inquired
about alternate work assignments, but only two men accepted
jobs. In addition to supplying local draft boards with information,
the Division of Church Service attempted to have the Church of
God approved as a hiring agency for conscientious objectors, but
this request was turned down by the Selective Service System.*
The issue of Vietnam also was addressed by the Commission
on Social Concerns, which proposes appropriate actions regarding
personal, social, and civic matters. The commission sponsored
several conferences on war and the draft at the church’s international conventions, made available a film on draft alternatives
which was widely used by the churches, and wrote resolutions for
presentation to the General Assembly. It generally tried to ensure
that personal convictions were safeguarded and made a conscious
effort to maintain contact with the approximately forty Church
of God men who by 1972 had fled to Canada.9
Debate on the war also began to appear in church periodicals,
reflecting the growing public concern with the war caused by
such developments as the bombing of North Vietnam, the landing
of American combat troops at Danang, and the series of antiwar
demonstrations that swept the country. The first serious discussion appeared in the January 16,1966, issue of Vital Christianity,
the primary church publication. “Viet Nam: My View,” by Robert
Hartley, a non-Church of God journalist, defended American intervention in Vietnam on moral grounds. Hartley supported the
use of military force to achieve a “fair” negotiated settlement and
rejected pacifism as “incredibly naive.” He went on to say that
“our military involvement there is morally right, just and essential. I talked to no one in Viet Nam who felt that there was a
moral alternative to our troop buildup and increasing air strikes.”l0
* Interview with Roscoe Snowden, director of the Division of Church Service,
Church of God, Anderson, Indiana, June, 1978.
Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission on Social Concerns, January 5,
1972, located in Office of the Executive Secretary of the Executive Council of the
Church of God, Anderson, Indiana.
Robert Hartley, “Viet Nam: My View,” Vital Christianity, LXXXVI (January 16, 19661, 5.
A Time for War
289
Hartley’s article occasioned the first wave of Church of God
opinion on Vietnam. Letters both supported and opposed the war,
and although editorials and letters to editors are of limited value
as indexes of public opinion, they do reveal the varying reactions
to the war. Supporters thought of themselves as realists, rejecting
pacifism and defending limited war as a means of preventing total
war. Others believed that military action in Vietnam could have
been prevented by total war in Korea, but given the reality of
North Vietnamese aggression the United States was reacting in
the appropriate manner. As one person wrote, “If our country had
listened to Gen. Douglas MacArthur in Korea we would not now
have boys dying in Vietnam.””
Those opposing the war rejected violence as a solution to
international problems and criticized the militarism of American
foreign policy. Nonetheless, pacifism did not seem to be a major
force behind this initial opposition. While few letters expressed
clear reasons for their opinions, one did state that the government
needed to provide more proof that military intervention was required. It is important to note that opponents of the war felt that
their position was in the minority, implying that the majority of
church members supported the war a t that time. As one commented, “A surprising number of people oppose our government
action, but do not want to ‘stick their necks O U ~ as
’ I do. . . .,’I2
The summer of 1967 proved to be a turning point in American
public opinion on Vietnam. Individual antiwar protests across the
nation drew over 100,000 people. In July, for the first time, public
support for the war dropped below 50 percent, and in October a
Gallup poll revealed that opponents outnumbered s u p p ~ r t e r s . ’ ~
Within months President Lyndon B. Johnson would decide not to
run for reelection in the certainty that the war had cost him his
chance for victory.
The summer of 1967 also marked the beginning of a change
in the Church of God. Political activism had never been widely
accepted within the church, a common feature of conservative
denominations. In fact, during the most intense days of the civil
rights struggle, the church was divided not so much on the need
for civil rights as on the morality of marches, sit-ins, and demonstrations to gain those rights. An article in Vital Christianity’s
1 1 Quote from letter from L.E. Lautaret, ibid. (May 1, 19661, 15. Other letters
along the same lines included those from Rolla 0. Swisher, ibid. (February 6,
1966), 15; and Walden 0. Myers, ibid. (April 17, 1966), 15.
12 Quote from letter from Mrs. Mildred Monroe, ibid. (February 20, 1966), 15.
13 John E. Mueller, “Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and
Vietnam,” American Political Science Review, LXV (June, 1971), 358-75.
290
Indiana Magazine of History
issue of July 2, 1967, however, was prophetic of more active political involvement among members of the Church of God. The
Reverend Marvin Hartman of St. Joseph, Michigan, pointed out
that many Christians of all denominations were tiring of the
church’s lack of a deeper involvement in the social problems of
the world. Hartman implied that social involvement was a moral
responsibility and was a n essential part of the Christian faith.
Interestingly, the article did not create much of a re~ponse.’~
At the end of 1967 Vital Christianity published two articles
that stimulated more response than had the Hartley article two
years prior. In the November 5 issue, in the column “Let’s Talk
It Over,” a writer asked for discussion of American involvement
in Vietnam. The reply by the Reverend W.A. Donaldson of Detroit
recognized the two opposing viewpoints on the subject and stated:
“The Christian must be opposed to war, diametrically and unequivocally.” He went on to argue, however, that although war
was to be abhorred and served God no purpose, the surrender of
South Vietnam to communism would be a greater evil. He affirmed the validity of the “domino theory,” warned of the barbarism of the North Vietnamese communists, and argued that
pacifism had helped to provoke war by giving the appearance of
weakness. He wrote that a decision to leave South Vietnam would
be a “simple-headedness that borders on the sinful.” His fear of
communism was based on the belief that institutions favorable
to Christianity would be obliterated under communist rule.15
Reaction to this article was restrained. Those speaking against
it generally asked that an alternative view be published because
many Christians could not accept the Donaldson position in good
conscience. In an attempt to present both sides fairly, editor-inchief Harold Phillips asked Maurice Caldwell of the Commission
on Social Concerns to give his views; his response was published
in the December 17 issue. Caldwell criticized Dean Rusk, Hubert
Humphrey, and President Johnson for continuing to escalate the
war. He argued that American military policy had failed to achieve
either capitulation of the enemy or peace negotiations and questioned the human and financial costs of the war. Pentagon-controlled news releases, he implied, were biased and incomplete.
Another concern was the negative effect the war had on missionary work, particularly in underdeveloped nations. Caldwell also
approved of the growing protest against the war. While his article
l4 Marvin J. Hartman, “Concerning Religion and Politics,” Vital Christianity,
LXXXVII (July 2, 1967), 7-8.
W.A. Donaldson, “Let’s Talk It Over,” ibid. (November 5, 1967), 11.
A Time for War
291
stressed the practical reasons for ending the war, a strain of morality was also visible in his support of self-determination and
his unqualified belief that no war is within the will of God.I6This
antiwar argument would soon become more prominent.
Response to this article was large in volume and generally
supported the government’s position. Writers argued that Vietnam represented a confrontation between communism and democracy and expressed faith in the domino theory. The aversion
to communism that pervaded the Church of God, and American
society as well, grew out of the Cold War mentality and was based
on two assumptions. The first was that the goal of communism
was to overthrow free nations violently and substitute a totalitarian form of government. The other was that the atheistic nature of communism neccessarily repressed religious institutions
and practices. For the dedicated Christian, choosing between this
type of domination and participation in war was often an agonizing decision.
Many writers expressed bitterness toward the peace movement. One wrote: “I read. . . that a recent Harris Poll shows that
46%of U.S. citizens are opposed to our Vietnam policy. I wonder,
Another believed that peace
how many of these are c~mmunist?”’~
efforts were counterproductive and stated: “The American in me
is ashamed that a minority of my countrymen are actually prolonging this
A third letter went even further: “We don’t
carry signs, have sit-ins, burn draft cards, or those other neartreasonous things. . . . ” I 9
Protestors often were attacked for their lifestyles as well as
for their antiwar politics. This antagonistic attitude toward the
antiwar movement was by no means unique to the Church of God.
A Harris poll taken late in 1967 showed that a large majority of
the public felt that antiwar demonstrations encouraged the communists and damaged the war effort.2oThe fury expressed toward
the peace movement may well have exceeded the eventual hatred
of the war itself. Those people supporting the war obviously were
antagonistic toward the peace movement, and many of those dissatisfied with the war actually favored increased military involve-
Maurice Caldwell, “Let’s Talk It Over,” ibid. (December 17, 1967), 11.
Quote from letter from Mrs. Harold Booyer, ibid.,LXXXVIII ( J a n u a r y 28,
1968), 23.
18 Quote from letter from Master Sergeant Louis E. Godby, ibid. (February
11, 1968), 23.
l q Quote from letter from Doug Vermillion, quoting a letter he received from
a soldier in Vietnam, Andersonian, December 19, 1967.
Louis Harris, T h e Anguish of Change (New York, 1973), 66-67.
Ifi
17
292
Indiana Magazine of History
ment in Vietnam rather than withdrawal. Much of the criticism
directed toward the peace movement also encompassed the counterculture that was often associated with the antiwar forces.
Some defended American policy in Vietnam in humanitarian
terms as the support of a legitimate government against outside
aggression, while others felt that military occupation provided a
better atmosphere for mission work.21One letter shows the growing division among Church of God people over the Vietnam War:
More than we may care to admit the spreading of the gospel has and still
does depend in part on holding the sword. If this be heresy, make the most of
it. . . . I share the concern of what is happening. However, unlike this writer
[Caldwelll, I see the source of the problem in Moscow and Peking, not in Washington.
. . . We have mission work in South Korea but none in the north. Why? Because at the line of demarcation there are some thousands of American men with
haircuts, all wearing shoes, each one of them knowing the folly of a wilted flower
held limply in an unwashed paw as a contribution to peace. What is true of Korea
is also true of Vietnam.
I feel that Mr. Caldwell’s strictures of the President, the Vice-president, and
Dean Rusk are, to say the least, in decidedly bad taste. Frankly, I find it difficult
not to use stronger terms!”’
In the months immediately following the appearance of the Caldwell article, letters to the editor supported the war by more than
two to one.
The year 1968 marked some distinctive changes in the attitudes of many Americans toward the Vietnam War. American
involvement in Vietnam became increasingly unpopular as many
became discouraged by the apparent lack of success, most dramatically demonstrated by the Tet Offensive in South Vietnam.23
As public opinion began to crystalize, it shifted away from approval of escalation and toward support for withdrawal of American troops.24In the face of growing antiwar demonstrations, some
21 See letter from Mrs. Harold Booyer, Vital Christianity, LXXXVIII (January
28, 1968), 23; letter from Master Sergeant Louis E. Godby, ibid. (February 11,
19681, 23; letter from Russell C. Wilson, ibid.
22 Letter from L.P. Krogh, ibid. (January 28, 1968), 23.
2J The Tet Offensive was a large-scale attack by the Vietcong against the
major urban areas of South Vietnam. Despite an American tactical victory, the
magnitude of the assault raised serious doubts about the credibility of the Lyndon
B. Johnson administration’s earlier claims that great progress was being made.
For more information on the Tet Offensive, see George C. Herring, America’s
Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975 (New York, 1979), 183216; Bernard Brodie, “The Tet Offensive,” in Noble Frankland and Christopher
Dowling, eds., Decisive Battles ofthe Twentieth Century: Land, Sea, Air (London,
1976), 321-34; and Don Oberdorfer, Tet! (Garden City, N.Y., 1971).
24 William L. Lunch and Peter W. Sperlich, “American Public Opinion and
the War in Vietnam,” Western Political Quarterly, XXXII (March, 1979), 30-32.
A Time for War
293
national political leaders started to question America’s intervention. While most of the opposition to the war was born of futility,
some was provoked by issues such as the indiscriminate destruction of life and land in Vietnam, the taint of imperialism, and
the lawlessness of governmental repression of the peace movement. The outcome of the war itself no longer mattered. Because
this minority perceived the war as immoral, the United States
came under attack for its continued involvement in Vietnam. As
the nation came under closer scrutiny, the war was often seen as
symptomatic of a society that was failing to deal adequately with
any of its moral crises.
This growing split in American society over the war was
reflected in the Church of God. Attitudes within the Church of
God are harder to measure without the availability of scientific
surveys, but there is no solid evidence that a majority of the
church opposed the war at this time. Though the majority of the
members of the Church of God seems to have continued to support
the war, the opponents represented a substantial and growing
minority.25Much of this opposition to the war was based on moral
grounds and went beyond the war itself. The focal point was at
Anderson College and the School of Theology, both located in
Anderson, Indiana. The enrollment of Anderson College in this
period was approximately 1,800; of the School of Theology, approximately 100. Both schools were general agencies of the Church
of God, with the majority of their students and faculty affiliated
with the church. While they maintained a significant level of
activity, the peace forces did not employ the confrontational tactics often used at other universities during the war. With the
Church of God maintaining its position of individual conscience,
a minority within the church began to see this apparent neutrality
as an indication that the Church of God was a part of the very
elements of society that they opposed. The war provided a catalyst
for critical attacks on both the country and church.
As early as the summer of 1967, a growing number of church
members, especially young people, began to voice their political
opinions publicly. An editorial in the Anderson College newspaper, the Andersonian, made this suggestion two months after
the Hartman article appeared in Vital Christianity: “Although it
might be a risky solution at best, it appears that the U.S., for the
sake of her own best interest, should start a slow but deliberate
withdrawal from her commitment in Vietnam, while encouraging
25 Mitchell K. Hall, “A Time for War: The Church of Gods Response to Vietnam” (M.A. Thesis, Department of History, University of Kentucky, 1980), 49.
294
Indiana Magazine of History
the new government in Vietnam to take more responsibility upon
itself.”26
In the March 22,1968, issue of the Andersonian, two students
expressed their opposition to the war and the draft. Robert Turner
wrote of the lack of moral choices open to those facing the draft.
Claiming to be a selective objector, he saw as his only alternatives
either committing murder in Vietnam or committing a felony in
the United States. Addressing himself to the question of whether
or not to escape the draft to Canada, he stated: “There can be no
moral exodus to Canada to avoid the draft; it must be an exodus
t o avoid the United States.”27Tony Wolfe attacked the draft as
a n outgrowth of misguided attitudes within the United States
which he found prevalent at the college. According to Wolfe, the
draft made killing the primary criterion of courage, promoted
violence as a solution to world problems, and removed society’s
2fiAndersonian,September 22, 1967; the editorial was written by Carl E.
Kramer.
27 Robert Turner in “Modern Issues Forum,” ibid.,March 22, 1968.
CROSSES AT ANDERSON
COLLEGE,OCTOBER, 1969, MEMORIALIZING
YOUTH WHO DIEDIN VIETNAM
Courtesy Anderson College.
A Time for War
295
moral agents by giving automatic deferments to ministers and
thereby preventing criticism from them. He called for America
to admit to a mistake in Vietnam or suffer continued internal
disintegration. To him, confronting the government on this point
was morally justifiable because “legality is not morality.”28
Opposition to the war a t Anderson College was by no means
limited to the young, however. The Church of God Peace Fellowship, orginally founded in the 1930s, never enjoyed much support
within the church, but it did try to keep the issues of peace alive.
The Peace Fellowship and similar groups generally met on or
near campuses and, while containing a number of students, were
not dominated by them. College instructors were often blamed by
more conservative pastors and laymen for the liberal attitudes of
the students. Some faculty members did indeed put their thoughts
on the war into writing, and the majority of these seemed opposed
to it.29
As opposition to the Vietnam War grew within the church,
it became more related to other issues in American society. Disgust and disillusionment with both the nation and the church
was apparent by 1968. Many members condemned the church for
failing t o take a Christian stand throughout the conflict. The
most remarkable words in this vein were written by Michael
Anderson and appeared in Vital Christianity just before Christmas, 1968. He looked at Vietnam as part of a larger question.
Just as student demonstrators were claiming that American society itself must change, Anderson asked for the church to change
in order to become meaningful to his generation. He wrote: “I feel
that a great many young people do not believe that God is dying
or dead, but rather that the church as an institution is the one
in danger. And only when the church begins to become relevant
to today’s world in a meaningful way will it regain its vitality
and leading role in the world. . . .”30
Dissent within the church seemed to increase during the summer of 1969, and that fall antiwar students at Anderson organized
the Student Mobilization Committee Against War in Vietnam.
Their stated objectives were to promote student opposition to the
Vietnam War, to encourage conscientious objection, to serve as a
vehicle for nonviolent dissent, and to counteract apathy through
Tony Wolfe in ibid.
For further information, see letters in Andersonian, November 10, 1967,
January 17, 1969, May 2, 1969; and Gene W. Newberry, “0Beautiful for Patriot
Dream,” Vital Christianity, XCI (July 11, 19711, 4.
‘I(] Letter from Michael Anderson, Vital Christianity, LXXXVIII (December
15, 19681, 23.
29
Indiana Magazine of History
296
organized activism.31This group had not yet received official sanction from the college, and its chairman, Gene Cupp, wrote that
it had met some resistance from the administration. Not until
February was the Student Mobilization Committee, renamed the
Anderson Peace Committee, given official status as a campus org a n i z a t i ~ n Several
.~~
other peace-oriented groups were meeting
both on and off campus. An antiwar moratorium was held on
campus that October in conjunction with the national demons t r a t i o n ~and
, ~ ~ the following month twenty-four students traveled to Washington, D.C., to participate in t h e national
m~ratoriurn.~~
At the height of the national demonstrations against the war,
opinions around Anderson College seemed to be moving in a dovish direction. The formation of the Anderson Peace Committee
indicates this trend, as do various statements issued on campus,
including the following from the Andersonian: “Because it is the
leaders and not the people who continue the policies, the insanity
will continue.”35The college still did not act in solidarity, however.
Although supporters of the war rarely advocated their position
publicly, many students, probably a majority, still backed the
administration. In a series of mock elections held during the 1968
presidential campaign, students favored Richard Nixon over peace
candidates Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy.36 In the fall
of 1969 members of the student government sent a letter to President Nixon urging a rapid conclusion to the Vietnam War. A
petition, sent in reply to this letter, was signed by more than 500
students (roughly 25 percent of the student population) and supported the president’s policies in Vietnam.37
As in other American universities in the spring of 1970, antiwar activities continued at Anderson College. Meetings of the
Anderson Peace Committee drew around fifty students, and editorials in the Andersonian remained strongly antiwar. With President Nixon’s announcement of the American invasion of Cambodia, American campuses erupted in protest. The resulting
demonstrations and university shutdowns caused campus unrest
Letter from Gene Cupp, Andersonian, September 26, 1969.
Andersonian, February 6, 1970.
83 Ibid., October 10, 1969.
34 Ibid., November 21, 1969.
35 Ibid., October 10, 1969.
36 The results of the first ballot were Richard Nixon, 66 votes; George Wallace,
59; Eugene McCarthy, 53; Nelson Rockefeller, 48; and Robert Kennedy, 37; see
ibid.,May 24, 1968.
37 Ibid., November 21, 1969.
31
32
A Time for War
297
PLANTING “TREEO F LIFE” AT CEREMONY FOR VIETNAM W A R VICTIMS, ANDERSONCOLLEGE,OCTOBER
15, 1969
Courtesy Anderson College News.
to replace the war as the nation’s number one concern for the first
time since 1965. The Anderson College newspaper responded in
a distraught and weary tone: “The Vietnam War, with all its
immoralities and divisiveness, is now the Indochina War. The
only hope is that those who were sensitive enough to protest before
will do it again and that reinforcements will be added from the
silent r n a j ~ r i t y . ’ ’ ~ ~
The response to President Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia also
indicates the strength of the prowar faction on campus. The Harris
public opinion surveys in May indicated that 48 percent of the
American public approved of the Cambodian operation, while 39
percent opposed it.39The result of Anderson College’s participaIbid., May 8 , 1970.
Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., The Harris Survey Yearbook of Public
Opinion, 1970: A Compendium of Current American Attitudes (New York, 19711,
3n
XI
1 ?A
Indiana Magazine of History
298
tion in a national referendum is also revealing. Of the 561 opinions registered, 49 percent responded yes to the question, “DOyou
agree with the United States decision to dispatch ground troops
to Cambodia?” Another 46 percent responded no, with 5 percent
having no opinion.4oThis suggests a deep and nearly even division
among students on the war issue. The rest of the Church of Gods
membership would most likely have been more supportive, given
the campus population’s leading role in war opposition.
The protests of young Americans against the Cambodian invasion ultimately resulted in death on American campuses. At
Kent State in Ohio national guardsmen killed four students and
wounded nine others in a needless burst of rifle fire. Two weeks
later police sprayed a Jackson State dormitory, killing two and
wounding several more.41The shootings at Kent State and Jackson State aroused quick reaction tinged with anger and warning.
A survey of the writings of these younger people indicated strong
alienation and polarization. For several months these attitudes
had been implicit in their expressions, but now they were breaking out with renewed intensity. Vital Christianity published this
letter from the chairman of the Peace Committee on June 14,
1970:
You, older America, wonder why your youth seem to turn away from you. But
you create “conspiracies” to justify t h e reasons for failures at home and
abroad. . . . you have been so busy amusing yourselves, waging senseless war, and
becoming a n affluent society that you have neglected your young.42
This type of reaction should not be surprising, given the deep
divisions in the United States in 1970. Many Americans felt that
the primary causes of campus unrest were irresponsible, militant,
revolutionary students and radical professors. Antiwar protests
were condemned, while Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew was lauded.
Agnew was noted for his verbal attacks on antiwar protestors,
referring to them as “an effete corps of impudent snob^.''^^ On the
other side, many college students respected draft evaders and
believed that protest would speed up social change; a full 58 percent agreed that “the United States had become a highly represAndersonian, May 22, 1970.
Student opposition to the Cambodian invasion was greatly aggravated by
these incidents. Hundreds of colleges across the nation were scenes of protest, and
a large number were closed down either by student or administrative action.
42 Gene Cupp, “A Voice from Younger America,” Vital Christianity, XC (June
14, 19701, 23.
Quoted in Jonathan Schell, T h e Time of Illusion (New York, 1976), 56.
*O
*I
A Time for War
299
sive society, intolerant of dissent.”44With such divergent opinions
prevalent in society, the Church of God could not have expected
to be isolated from confrontation.
Many individuals in the Church of God recognized that students had been among the first to take a stand against the war.45
Concerned about the morality of American involvement and worried about the draft, students and faculty kept the issue of Vietnam very much alive a t the college. According to President Robert
Reardon, who has worked a t Anderson College in some capacity
since 1947, “the most turbulent period in the history of this institution, as far as the students were concerned, was the Vietnam
War. The hostility, the anger, [and] frustration just kept building
and building. . . .”46 Despite the perceived presence of alleged subversives and radicals and incidents such as the discovery of a
bomb in one student’s car,47the Anderson campus did not erupt.
The small size and religious nature of the school contributed to
this. The administration itself was tolerant and even sympathetic
toward the peace forces.4s
The surge of antiwar activity following the Cambodian incursion eventually provoked the church agencies to face the issue.
It appears that some church leaders wanted to make a statement
on the war without alienating either supporters or opponents. In
1969 the church’s traditional doctrine of personal convictions was
reaffirmed in a booklet entitled S o This I s the Church of God,
published by the Executive Council. This statement noted that
many doctrinal issues were left to individual interpretation and
mentioned that the majority of Church of God men had served in
the military without question, while a smaller number had been
conscientious objector^.^^ This statement has been dropped from
subsequent similar booklets, implying that it came in response
to a particular need.
Many individuals in the church fell back on the doctrine of
personal convictions as a means of maintaining unity. In reply
to the outrage over the Kent State killings, a group of thirtyseven laymen, professors, and pastors wrote an open letter t o Vital
Christianity addressed t o the young people of the church. The
letter endorsed the doctrine of personal convictions and stated in
Harris, Harris Survey Yearbook, 1970, p. 315.
Interview with Hollis Pistole, Church of God School of Theology, Anderson,
Indiana, March 8, 1979.
46 Interview with Robert Reardon.
47 Ibid.
4R Carl E. Kramer to Mitchell Hall, July 28, 1979.
49 So T h i s Is the Church of God (Anderson, Ind., 1969), 26.
44
4‘,
Indiana Magazine
300
of
History
part that “we support those who take the unpopular position of
the conscientious objector to war. . . .”50 This implies that conscientious objection was a n unpopular and therefore presumably a
minority practice, lending credence to the contention that the
majority of the church continued to support the war.
Surprisingly, perhaps the most visible response, and certainly the most controversial one, came from the General Assembly in 1970. While the United States Senate was repealing the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution”’ in the summer of that year, the General Assembly was debating a resolution on Vietnam. The resolution supported the right to speak out against the war and called
upon individual members of the church to educate themselves
regarding the issues created by the war. The text was mildly
worded and contained no direct condemnation of the war. The
strongest language asked only that the General Assembly “affirm
its support of the right of individuals in its midst conscientiously
and prayerfully to write, speak, and act peacefully in opposition
to those particular injustices which they conscientiously feel have
occurred as a result of the war in Vietnam. . . .”52
This resolution had been submitted to the business committee
of the assembly by a group of some two dozen people. The business
committee, which decides what items to present on the floor,
would not submit the resolution in its original form because committee members did not agree with its position and feared it might
be divisive. The final resolution was weakened but remained substantially the same in content.53
Debate on the resolution was often emotional and was not
always directed toward the resolution itself. The general mood of
the assembly appeared hawkish. Many who spoke against the
resolution equated Christian responsibility with support for
American policies in Vietnam. One member went so far as to say
that if the resolution were passed it would give aid and comfort
to the enemy. Another mentioned hearing rumors that there would
be a peace demonstration a t the upcoming international youth
convention in Dallas. The chairman of the Board of Christian
Education declared that the rumors were unfounded. When debate was closed, the resolution was decisively defeated.54
Vital Christianity, XC (August 9, 1970),22.
A Senate resolution passed in August, 1964, giving the president broad
authorization to escalate the Vietnam War. This resolution provided the legal
basis for further military intervention in Vietnam.
52 Colloquium (February, 1971), 2-3.
53 Zbid., 3.
54 Ibid.
5o
A Time for War
301
There are several plausible reasons for this vote. Many opposed the resolution because they did not want to appear unpatriotic or antigovernment. Some probably feared retribution from
their local congregations. Still others, irritated by war resisters
and protests, voted in reaction to antiwar demonstrations.
The General Assembly’s failure to pass a mild resolution on
Vietnam at a time when the Gallup polls showed that 56 percent
of the American public opposed the war is a clear indication of
that body’s position. Some researchers have concluded that during
the war the Protestant clergy was slightly more opposed to the
war than was the general p ~ p u l a t i o nIf. ~these
~ findings hold true
for the Church of God, then its congregations would appear to be
even more hawkish than its conservative assembly.
The church’s response to the growing dissent on Vietnam
failed to appease the peace forces. The General Assembly’s defeat
of the 1970 peace resolution provoked strong reactions from several church publications. The harshest response came in the February, 1971, issue of Colloquium, a Church of God publication.
An editorial called the defeat of the resolution a mistake and
criticized the General Assembly for being preoccupied with superficial unity, fearful of and unprepared for debate, occasionally
irrational and trivial, unable to apply theory to concrete action,
and for succumbing to the “idolatry of n a t i ~ n a l i s m . ” ~ ~
Particularly biting was a n article by Richard Freer in the
March, 1971, issue of Colloquium. Speaking of the church’s position on the draft, he complained: “The Church of God has, recently, dealt with the draft as it has with other critical and controversial issues confronting it. It has come kicking and screaming
to the fray, saying and doing as little as possible then retreating. . . .”57 He went on to suggest that a strong statement on war
might split the church, thus preventing a forthright stand on any
controversial issue. Criticism of the General Assembly’s handling
of and failure to pass the peace resolution in 1970 was partly
responsible for the passage the following year of a mild peace
resolution similar to the 1966 resolution that had supported conscientious objection and opposed war in the abstract without mentioning Vietnam by name.58
As autumn arrived, the war began to recede from public view.
Although organized discussions.related to the war still drew groups
55 Harold E. Quinley, “The Protestant Clergy and the War in Vietnam,” Public
Opinion Quarterly, XXXIV (Spring, 1970), 46.
s6 Colloquium (February, 1971), 3.
57 Richard K. Freer, “Conscientious Objection,” ibid. (March, 19711, 5-6.
5* Annual Report of the Church of God (n.p., 19711, 24-26.
Indiana Magazine of History
302
of interested students at Anderson College late in the year, their
activism had been spent, as was the case on most of the nation’s
campuses. The reasons for this apparent lack of interest are not
entirely clear. With the gradual withdrawal of American troops
from Vietnam, many people must have believed that the war was
ending and that there was no further need to demonstrate. Some
probably thought that public protest was no longer effective. Others may have been placated by the recent draft reform. Many had
simply grown tired after months of confronting the United States
government. With American involvement in Vietnam drawing to
a close, the Church of God continued to de-emphasize the war in
1972. The national agencies now limited themselves to occasional
statements on draft alternatives.
How then, did the Church of God deal with the issues and
dilemmas posed by the Vietnam War? Throughout the war a
majority of members of the church probably supported the American commitment in Vietnam. While it is impossible to obtain a n
accurate measure, several Church of God leaders believe that
public expressions against the war by clergymen were rare. As
Dr. Hollis Pistole of the Church of God School of Theology commented, “I dare say you wouldn’t have found one out of ten [pastors] that would have said ‘I preached in opposition to the war in
Vietnam.’ ”59 Ministerial opponents of the war were more likely
to speak out publicly than ministers who supported the war.6o
This lack of a vocal antiwar element in the Church of God implies
that opposition was relatively minor among its ministers.
The church‘s reaction to antiwar protest varied, but disapproval was easily the most common attitude.61The few approving
remarks were far outweighed by hostile and bitter responses. Not
until late 1969 did a church publication speak in favor of the right
to protest, and this comment was more than offset by the rejection
of the 1970 peace resolution. There is also evidence that the men
who fled to other countries to avoid the draft were stigmatized
by some within the church. The predominant attitude in the
Church of God toward the peace movement corresponded to national attitudes. A significant opposition to the war did develop,
and some members shifted away from a strong supporting position
to opposition; but this shift lagged behind that of the general
public both in timing and in degree.
Interview with Hollis Pistole.
Quinley, “Protestant Clergy,” 49.
6’ For examples, see letters from L.P. Krogh, Vital Christianity, LXXXVIII
(January 28, 19681, 23; Mrs. Harold Booyer, ibid.; and Master Sergeant Louis E.
Godby, ibid. (February 11, 1968),23.
59
6o
A Time for War
303
The Church of God’s apparent support for the war derived to
a considerable extent from its constituency. The church is made
up of the very groups that pollsters found most likely to support
the Vietnam conflict; Protestants, residents of smaller cities and
towns, and those living in the Midwest, South, and West were
consistently less likely to favor bombing halts and more likely to
consider themselves hawks. These same groups also tended to be
conservative on issues such as racial integration and student
strikes, which suggests that the church’s support for the war was
part of a conservative political outlook in
Within the Church of God, opposition to the Vietnam War
was primarily centered a t Anderson College and the School of
Theology. Of the letters on Vietnam printed in the Andersonian,
75 percent opposed the war. While these letters do not necessarily
reflect campus opinion, they constitute a far greater percentage
of antiwar letters than appeared in Vital Christianity, which more
nearly represented a cross-section of the church population. Editorials in the Andersonian, particularly from 1968 to 1970,
strongly opposed the war, while Vital Christianity never took a
definite stand.
Although it was divided over the war, the Church of God
avoided major schism. This was, to a large extent, due to its
observance of the doctrine of personal convictions. The division
that did arise was manifest in the isolation felt by some of the
more liberal elements in the church, particularly students. Many
of the letters quoted above give ample evidence of this. Some of
the seminary students left school “in the rebellion against what
they thought was the Church’s indifference as well as the national
indifference.”63The comments made by many of the younger people are understandable in light of the silence of the church a t
large.
The effects of the war opposition on the church as a whole do
not appear to have been significant. The early protests no doubt
spurred debate on Vietnam, with this debate increasing as the
conflict dragged on and finally reaching significant proportions.
The concrete results of this debate were minimal; it provoked only
a handful of statements and resolutions supporting a status quo
neutrality. The church’s rapid disengagement from the war issue
fi2 Gallup International, Inc., Gallup Opinion Index: Political, Social, and Economic Trends, Report 29, November, 1967, p. 8; ibid., Report 33, March, 1968,
pp. 7, 8; ibid., Report 35, May, 1968, p. 20; ibid., Report 37, July, 1968, p. 15;
ibid., Report 40, October, 1968, p. 25; ibid., Report 61, July, 1970, p. 22.
Interview with Hollis Pistole.
Indiana Magazine of History
304
underscores its relief a t leaving Vietnam behind. The only obvious
long-term result is that the church undoubtedly lost some of its
members; aside from this, it probably was changed very little by
the Vietnam War.
When the next war comes, how will the Church of God respond? Dr. Hollis Pistole stated: “I think if we were to get involved
in . . . a Vietnam thing again . . . by and large pastors would tend
to support what the government position would be.”64This view
implies consistency in the Church of God’s response to external
conflicts, and a t this juncture it remains only speculative. Considering the church‘s response to the Vietnam conflict, however,
Dr. Pistole’s prediction is indeed a convincing one.
64
Ibid.