There is something to be said for loyalty. In fact, there is much to be said for it, especially in these days of such a huge lack thereof. However, besides loyalty to God Himself, I have decided to be loyal to truth. My loyalty to truth has led me away from blind loyalty to friends, colleagues, professors, and theological labels.
Dr. Stanley M. Horton is a leading scholar within the Pentecostal movement. He has served as professor of Bible and Theology at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary for many years. He holds an impressive array of degrees . . .
-Th.D. Central Baptist Theological Seminary
-S.T.M. Harvard University
-M.Div. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
-B.S. University of California at Berkeley
Dr. Horton served as my master's thesis reader, and he wrote the foreword to first my book on Divorce and Remarriage. I appreciate and respect Dr. Horton very much.
Dr. Stanley M. Horton and Ric Walston, 1991
Are you a loyal person? To what are you loyal? Why?
One thing that no one expects, or at least no one should expect it , is blind loyalty. As Christians, we are to be loyal to God, of course, in all things. However, to our co-laborers in the vineyard of the Lord, we are to be loyal only as long as our fellow Christians live lives worthy of being loyal to, and we are to be loyal to a certain theological system as far as it aligns with truth.
George Stephanopolis has written a book about the "Clinton White House," and apparently (I haven't read it), it is not completely flattering to Bill Clinton. Some are saying that Stephanopolis has broken some sort of "loyalty." It has gotten so crazy that some are suggesting that American Presidents should make those who work for them in their "inner circles" sign a sort of political "prenuptial agreement" stating that they will not disclose personal matters until at least five years after that president is out of office!
Christian Scoundrels
Years ago the media had some some hard-hitting exposés on several well-known ministers. At a Bible study some wanted to know if we could write a letter condemning the television program that exposed these guys. I wasn't surprised by my students' knee-jerk reaction. Many have the erroneous idea that as long as another person calls himself or herself a Christian, then they must be loyal to them at all costs. I said, "Excuse me, but I am glad that the media has brought to light the shenanigans that these so-called preachers were doing." Immediately the believers were split; however, not down the middle. I was clearly in the minority.
A few accused me of being "unChristian." "Christian bothers and sisters are family, and family always sticks up for each other" one person said. "Either you are a part of the family, or you're not."
That was heavy condemnation. Implication was clear: anyone who disagreed with this guy was not a Christian. And, since I clearly disagreed with him on this issue, well you can figure out the rest.
Needless to say that with these kinds of charges flying about, very few who agreed with me wanted to speak up.
After a lengthy discussion on the subject of loyalty, the tide had turned. People were coming around to common-sense thinking. I turned to book of Galatians, and we "camped out there" for a while:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong" (Gal 2:11). "Was Paul being unChristian?" I asked. "Was he not a part of the family of God?"
Then Paul goes on to say . . . "Before certain men came from James, Peter used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray" (Gal. 2:12-13).
Hmm. Paul accused Peter of being a man pleaser, a hypocrite, and the leader of those who were going astray. Them be some pretty strong words, pard'ner.
So, just how far did Paul go in his "lack of loyalty" to brother Peter? Well, we don't have to guess: Paul said, "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs'" (Gal. 2:14)?
Yikes! He said that to Peter in front of them all! He didn't take Peter aside to the "prayer room" and have a chat with him. He just confronted him right out there in front of God and everybody.
And, just how "heated" did it get? Well, seems to me that Paul implied that Peter was nullifying the sacrifice of Christ! "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Gal. 2:21)!
Wow! This is pretty hot stuff.
Finally, one person said:
You know, I've always had a personal problem with those preachers, but I thought that since we were all Christians, we had a duty to stand up for each other. Now, I can see that if a bother or sister is not living according to the gospel, I don't have to blindly stand up for them.
My official response to this was: Bingo.
The crazy goings-on among my Charismatic/Pentecostal brethren
I am often amused by people's reactions when I do not stand up for the crazy goings-on among my Charismatic/Pentecostal brethren. Some of my brethren find my lack of "loyalty" to the Charismatics and Pentecostals appalling. And, my non-Charismatic/Pentecostal brethren find my lack of loyalty to my Charismatic/Pentecostal brethren confusing. Ya'no, sometimes I don't think I make friends very well. Sometimes, I feel like a man without a camp.
Am I a Classical Pentecostal or a Charismatic?
I have struggled over what to "label" myself. I have an Assemblies of God background (started pastoring in an A/G church in 1976), and the A/G folks are what is theologically called Classical Pentecostals. By definition, to be a Classical Pentecostal, one must hold to the idea that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Please do not confuse the Classical Pentecostals with the United Pentecostals cult. I am weary of those who lump anyone with the title "Pentecostal" into the same "batch of dough.") I held to that idea until circa 1995. Confronted with my own exegetical conclusions though personal Bible study, I had to drop that theological perspective. Oops! Now, I am no longer a Classical Pentecostal. Well, might I be a Charismatic? Nope.
Historically, a Charismatic was (1) one who came to believe in the perpetuity (continuing operation) of the gifts of the Holy Spirit but (2) who did not necessarily hold to the tongues-as-initial-evidence of Spirit baptism, and (3) were those who came from more mainline churches. So, from a denominational perspective, I can't be a Charismatic because my roots are not "mainline"; they are Assemblies of God.
However, more recently, in popular parlance the term Charismatic has come to be synonymous with the term Pentecostal. And, for those who are not Pentecostal or Charismatic, the terms Pentecostal and Charismatic have come to be identified with those who appear regularly on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network).
Well, then, I am no longer a Classical Pentecostal, and I am neither a mainline Charismatic, nor am I a "TBN Charismatic." So what am I?
I envy you Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, et al. You truly can simply state your "title." But me . . . I have to come up with a whole new term to identify myself. A friend of mine refers to himself as a Bapticostal (Baptist/Pentecostal). But, since my roots and history are in Pentecostalism, I could not rightfully identify myself with the title Bapticostal, since the emphasis is upon the Baptist part of that title. Maybe I could call myself a Pentebaptist--no, that simply sounds too weird.
A Thinking Pentecostal
Too many of my Pentecostal/Charismatic brethren simply (1) accept what their churches tell them, and (2) determine their spiritual world and lives according to their spiritual experiences.
I am different here: I have no such blind loyalty to my roots, Assemblies of God, nor can I with intellectual honesty place my spiritual experiences above the Word of God. There are a few well-known people that I would be close to in my modified Pentecostalism; Gordon D. Fee, professor of New Testament at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, is one. Though Dr. Fee is a part of the Assemblies of God (in Canada), he does not hold to the Classical Pentecostal idea that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, yet his background is in the A/G.
A Pentecostal-Intellectual: Conservative Evangelical Pentellectual
I have called myself a "Conservative Evangelical, Thinking Pentecostal," which keeps me from being identified as a Classical Pentecostal or a Charismatic.
Long time friend Tyler Ramey and I have talked at length as to what we can call ourselves. He proposed a term, which I like: Pentellectual (Pentecostal Intellectual). This is a nice abbreviated way of saying Thinking Pentecostal.
And, I would add two more important terms: Conservative and Evangelical. So, I am a Conservative Evangelical Pentellectual.
Well, I started out with the issue of loyalty and ended up with my theological label. Why? I am hoping that this will encourage you to think for yourself. Don't let others pigeonhole you.
Don't blindly identify with certain persons, churches, Christian television programs, or movements. Stand up and say, "Show me in the Word of God, our final and only rule of faith and practice."
Please don't follow the crowds.
Please don't jump on all of the latest bandwagons.
Please, be strong enough to find out who YOU are in the Lord.
If you identify yourself as a Baptist, then do so because that is where your struggle to be all that God wants you to be has lead you. Same with Reformed, Arminian, Dispensational, Classical Pentecostal, Charismatic, Conservative Evangelical Pentellectual, and all of the others.
So who are you? Where do your loyalties lie? Why?
Send comments about this, or any, Coffee Talk to Rick Walston at: CES @ ColumbiaSeminary.edu
(Please note that you will need to take the spaces out before and after the @ sign . . . this is placed this way to avoid spam emails.)
