MysteriousFaith

A Disagreement Among Friends: A Review of Dispensational Theology

No one can get under our skin like our own family; even the best of friends get on each other’s nerves from time to time. It is with such a two-fold realization, first that we are family and friends, and second, that we are prone to disagreement within those same institutions, that any meaningful discussion about politics, spirituality or theological systems should develop. Saint Augustine famously said “on the essentials unity, on the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” Dialogue over systematic theologies is an area where Christians must sensitively tread, realizing that theologies develop around people’s world views and cultural contexts. As such, love and charity must characterize these intra-familial debates.

One such thorny point of disagreement is those Christians who espouse dispensational theological systems versus other systemized theologies (the most common systematic theology used to contrast against dispensational thought is that of covenant theology). Dr. Vern Poythress in his book Understanding Dispensationalists analyzes dispensational theology in a loving spirit that I, for one, desire to have credited to me in those times when I err on the side of espousing “truth” at the expense of charity. His writing is clear and logical, but he sets as the foundation to his book that those elements of dispensational theology he does not agree with are still points that can be held by fellow Christian believers. He is always loving, always on-point, and always charitable.

Dispensationalism is defined by those theologians who “divide the course of history into a number of distinct epochs. During each of these epochs, God works out a particular phase of His overall plan. Each particular phase represents a ‘dispensation’ in which there are distinctive ways that God exercises His government over the world and tests human obedience.” (Page 9) John Darby, the literary father and primary early practitioner of dispensationalism, laid out five distinct elements to this systematic theology:

1. Law and grace are sharply defined.
2. A strenuous distinction between Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly) peoples of God.
3. Prophecy must be literally interpreted - specifically all that entails the Jews.
4. A strong pre-millennial emphasis looking towards these prophecies to be fulfilled.
5. A sectarian view of the existing Church. (List from page 18)

The fundamentalism that colors much of American culture and has become an increasingly powerful force on the political front is driven by and large by dispensationalists. People behind this theology are many times of the Baptist faith, although such a distinction is not meant to be an exclusive association by any stretch of the imagination. An improved understanding of what dispensational theology is, and how it has impacted America, is an important step towards having a reasoned and balanced Christian apologetic and world view.

A Response to Scientific Thought

In 2004, it can be terribly easy to forget the progress that man-kind has made in the last 150 years. In this period we have seen empires rise and fall, societies be demolished, reborn and demolished yet again. We have seen new technologies that impact every facet of our lives; from transportation, to communication, to farming, to manufacturing, to political and social ideologies. These changes have been very stressful and have created within social institutions and religious hierarchies the need to assure believers and activists that their essential truths are still reasonable beliefs to hold. This effort has never known any greater strain than when religion has interacted with science. As science rightfully challenged myth, fable and miracle, religions from around the world responded by denying the positive effect science could have on man-kind. Religion also responded by stipulating that certain technologies were wrong. In our day and age we have seen this dialogue begin anew relative to medicine. The interaction between science, medicine and religion is threatening to many - including those who are educated on science, medicine, and religion. Why? Because change is threatening.

Within most of us is a quiet, small voice that suggests progress will not come without pain. Pain that is not known is always worse than pain that is known. It is with such a mindset that dispensationalism offered a suave to the wounds science had inflicted on Christianity. “Darwinism together with the growth of other sciences has radically undermined the previous broad Western cultural commitment to a Christian or at least semi-Christian world view. Dispensationalism has answered the challenge of the supposed exact truths of the sciences with an exaltation of the exactitude of the truths of Scripture. Scriptural use of figurative, not-perfectly-clear, or not-perfectly-precise language can easily seem like a liability. Hence there is pressure on dispensationalists to believe that the Bible has a great degree of precision in its language and to interpret its language in the least figurative way possible.” (Page 58)

I fear that dispensationalism wrongly responded to the threat of scientific thought, specifically those questions that reductionism asked of Christianity. I would suggest that it was Christianity that had over-reached, and that science was (and is) a necessary remedy to religious belief that at times did not rise above mythology or fear mongering. I say so out of the comfort that God reveals Himself to us in multiple ways - one of which is science (or so called general revelation). I fear only the abuse of science, as I also fear the abuse of religion. When I look back at the last two thousand years of human history, I believe religion has more abuses to answer for than does science. Where dispensationalism was created in response to the threats posed by science I would suggest religion again re-invented itself, not trusting in the truths about God that science would unveil.

Recognizing Dispensational Theology’s Roots in Legalism

To discuss dispensationalism without understanding the backgrounds of Darby and Scofield is to miss much of what created this highly systemized theology. “The harmoniousness of dispensationalism stems in large from the backgrounds of its exponents. Darby and Scofield, who both had legal training and were members of the bar, exercised considerable skill in logically harmonizing and arranging a great multitude of texts into a single coherent system. If their scriptural and hermeneutical foundations were correct, so much the better. But if not, they might well have succeeded in producing a very high degree of harmony even on the basis of some false premises.” (Page 57)

When we reflect on the life of Jesus we must quickly recognize that He saved His strongest words towards those employed in the religions of their day. No more caustic critic of Judaism had been seen before or since His time on this earth. And what was it that He so deplored? Their legalism. Keeping God’s moral law is an outworking of a heart of love first towards our God, second to others, and lastly to ourselves. Any decisions I make to partake or forego particular activities must be made on the basis of my love for Him, for others, and for myself. Legalism requires acting a certain way in the hopes that such action will make one holy and righteous. It makes affairs of the heart decisions of the mind; and in such an exchange love can not rightly exist.

Some who espouse legalism (also known within dispensationalism as a “plain” reading of Scripture), do so out of a desire to eliminate subjectivity. This desire is easily understood as our modern day constantly challenges us to absorb, reflect and act on enormous quantities of information - each parcel of which is heavily influenced by our media culture. Here also, dispensationalism offers a comforting ledge upon which to resist the challenges of subjectivity: “A second, related area of concern is the fear of subjectivity. Dispensationalists have seen modernists and cultists wrest the meaning of the Bible on the basis of subjective biases, biases often influenced by full-blown religious systems and world views. Dispensationalists naturally repudiate the use of these biases. An interpretation governed by subjectivity is deeply wrong, but fear of subjectivity easily leads to the rejection of explicit reflection on hermeneutics.” (Page 58)

What is missed in the effort to rightly defend against subjectivity is that of historical and cultural context. Where dispensationalists do not employ a historical and cultural hermeneutic in their faith, they do so at the expense of the fullest meaning of Scripture. This is not to say they will always miss the point; no, it is perhaps better said that they will not know and be able to live out the purest and most joyful expressions of essential Christianity.

At the least we can appreciate that a theology born of legal practitioners will be highly susceptible to charges of legalism. It has been my experience that churches wedded to this theology have struggled to forego legalism and embrace love. This is not intended to be an exclusive statement, rather a probative question relative to the heart of a particular systemized theology. Only its followers can judge their own heart, as must we all.

Misunderstanding Israel by Over-Emphasizing Nationalism

Because God is a God of love, He constantly seeks humanity out. He does this in various ways at various times. The argument of dispensational theology - that He does so in distinct epochs characterized by specific ways in which God reveals Himself and judges us - is a core assumption the whole of dispensational dialogue centers around. Were we to assume that God is simply at work in all of humanity, across all cultures and across all of recorded time, then we could perhaps identify certain stories as being particularly significant in His revelation of His character and His personality. It is with such a perspective that the role of Israel can and should be understood: Israel was chosen by God to be an object lesson to the world, as a showcase of God’s love and redemptive plan for history. Israel was not a needed part in God’s intervention, nor were they different because they had been chosen. They were chosen because they were chosen by our shared Creator; they are not unique because they were chosen, for we are all chosen and we are all potentially sharers in the fulfillment of Christ.

Because I view Israel as a beautiful and wonderful story, I tend to view allegorically those aspects of the Old Testament that describe their future, their systems of governance, their established law, and their prophecies. I look to the spiritual significance within each of these stories, asking how I am to be properly impacted by what the Scripture is telling me about how God interacted with Israel. Israel becomes the most actualized, trans-historical model for individual human life: we see within their development times of rabid fundamentalism, the joy of authentic spirituality, the expanding of personal wealth and freedom, the flirting with sensuous sin, the pain of backsliding, and the punishment of love. Do I need to view Israel as now having some unique role in human history that is shared or replaced by the Church in order to be a Christian? No - in fact, once I recognize that dispensational thought developed in response to scientific reductionism and post-Enlightenment rationalism, I become free to view Israel as a sweet object lesson of God’s love and outworking across all of time. Will Israel again play a role in the wrapping up of the cosmos, in the fulfillment of the eschaton? Perhaps. But to dwell on such a detail while missing the primacy of Israel’s story is to embrace fundamentalism and to dismiss the joy that comes from realizing what a great story God has left us with - the story of a lost sheep who is found, and the ultimate exaltation of the meek.

Frustration also comes as we begin to recognize that dispensationalism is not culturally sensitive. The primacy given to Israel is the only significant cultural sensitivity dispensational theology affords. By removing both the cultural setting from the authors of the Bible, along with the blatant tendency to interpret the Bible by today’s cultural setting, dispensationalists establish a double standard that requires a highly systemized theology coupled with a very legal manifestation in order to function adequately.

What Dispensational Eschatology Says About World-View

For me, nothing strikes more closely to home than the portion of dispensationalism that requires a particular world view. The most unique and rabidly held world view within this theology is that of their eschatology, or better known by lay-persons, as prophecy. Dispensationalists are those people who believe in the Tribulation, the Rapture, who line up to buy Tim LaHaye’s newest book, and who think that Hal Lindsay’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” is worth reading even though its claims have been magnanimously and completely false. I would seriously caution my fellow Christian believers to weigh these teachers carefully - remember that Jeremiah cautioned us to judge whether a prophet comes from God or the Devil based on whether or not their prophecies come true. We walk a very, very fine line when we predicate Christian orthodoxy on prophetic interpretations that are completely literal and are marked by high degrees of specificity. Significant damage is done to every part of the Christian faith when these prophetic fulfillments prove to be completely false.

Dispensationalism is the father of a unique eschatological system, specifically the system initially proposed by Darby, expounded on by Scofield, and allegorized by LaHaye and Jenkins. This system requires an overly literal view of prophecy, a terribly imbalanced hermeneutic, and machinations in meaning like “past-fulfillment, near-fulfillment, and future-fulfillment.” It is fascinating how much of this part of dispensationalism is non-literal whereas so much else of this system of theology rests wholly on literal interpretative means. Why is this area of dispensational thought so prone to bifurcation? I would suggest it is primarily because the hope of Christ’s Second Coming is no longer motivated by a desire to be with Christ in the new heavens and earth, but is rather because it will vindicate those people who feel threatened by the science, culture and social pressures our technological advancement have made.

The desire of too many LaHaye pre-Tribulation rapture Christians is to be vindicated by the return of Christ. It is worth pointing out that once one lays aside the anger and vitriol expressed by Christians of differing eschatological perspectives we all share one common belief: that Christ will return to this earth and that He will remake a new heavens and earth where the original plan for history can be renewed. It is, I would suggest, important to recognize that the desire for vindication on the part of the pre-Tribulation followers is an abnormality once one recognizes that those who hold this view live in the most religiously tolerant society man-kind has ever known, and that they live in the most Christian fundamentalist, evangelical culture man-kind has ever charitably allowed! I would suggest that one could establish psychological attributes to those who wed themselves to a system of theology that allows them to feel attacked when they are, in fact, powerful presences in their community, their government, and their culture. It is indicative, I believe, of a sub-culture based on fear, a large degree of guilt, and a foundation of legalism that mandates an “us versus them” view of things in order to properly stimulate followers into towing the line.

Dr. Poythress discusses his views of eschatology well: “But let us be careful to define and understand what sort of ‘physical kingdom on earth’ we envision. I agree … that the consummation includes a new earth as well as a new heaven. Moreover, I understand this new earth to be a transfiguration of the old earth, just as the resurrection body will be a transfiguration of the old body (Phil. 3:21). This new earth will be physical and material, just as Jesus’ resurrection body is palpable flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) … Doubtless dispensationalists would still not be satisfied with my view. What they have in mind is a millennial kingdom for Israel, a kingdom on this old earth, not the new earth … Their ‘new earth’ is not the same as my new earth. Instead, my new earth is practically indistinguishable from their millennial earth. In fact, I think that it is even better than they imagine. All evil is gone.” (Pages 132-133 - Postscript to the Second Edition)

What is interesting to note is that Dr. Poythress attributes the stronghold dispensationalism initially took on American culture to the unique eschatological system it espoused. The “any-moment Coming” was more attractive to Americans than the other elements of dispensationalism when it first came to America. It is important here to note, as Dr. Poythress does, that the imminence of Christ’s Second Coming was a wonderful and beautiful thing - it shows the Christ-centric (Christology) views of the early American believers.

Defending Literalism

We must now turn to the last, and perhaps most difficult issue, when discussing dispensationalism with others - that of the debate of literalism in Scriptural interpretation. The defense of literalism, an essential part of dispensational theology, is necessary when people become insensitive to historical and cultural contexts within Scripture. R. C. Sproul has argued that we live in the “most anti-intellectual age in Christian history.” I would suggest that only within such an age can a means of interpretation that denies historical and cultural settings be seriously entertained. Ignorance of history and culture may perhaps not lead to heresy, but it runs two risks: first, that those who do have such an education will not be able to accommodate what Christianity supposedly stands for and what dispensationalism argues it must. Second, that the most joyful and fullest life of authentic spiritual connection to our Creator is possible as we come to know more the essentials of the Christian faith - something possible only when we can divorce ourselves from the mandates of non-historical and anti-cultural interpretation. Let me state again what I have said earlier; I do not believe that dispensationalists are wrong about everything, but I do believe that the unique challenges of both modernity and post-modernity are going to strip away much of the potential of Christianity if we do not divorce ourselves from such one-dimensional analyses and theologies.

The concept of literalism is an easily understood and easily defended response to charges of Biblical infallibility. It removes the opportunity to ask questions of meaning and interpretation (hermeneutics) that modernity asks. “Appreciation of the symbolical depth inherent in Old Testament revelation breaks down literalistic (flat) assumptions about the nature of God’s communication. Once these assumptions are disposed of, it can be seen that the faithfulness of God to his promises is in harmony with flexibility about the exact form of fulfillment. The flexibility clears away our inhibitions about giving primacy to the New Testament’s instruction about the form of fulfillment.” (Page 137)

Let me tentatively suggest one additional criticism I have with the claims of literalism within dispensational theology. The charge of absolute literalism (”unless otherwise plainly seen” as some would argue), has had a role in the development of word of faith teaching. Word of faith teaching is perhaps one of the genuinely unique American heresies of the last 100 years. Teachers within this community go beyond the ubiquitous “name it and claim it” to believe in speaking in tongues, the “Holy Laughter” of the Vineyard movement, the Benny Hinn and TBN espoused touch-and-go faith healers, and the all too American constantly fundraising televangelists. To the extent that we can accept that dispensational theology has been a uniquely American phenomenon in its origination, we must also seriously investigate where the also uniquely American phenomenon of word of faith teaching has come from. Brutal and I would suggest deliberate, misinterpretations of passages like Isaiah 53:5 (But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.”) are accepted more easily by word of faith followers when claims of absolute literalness have taken over more grammatical-historical interpretive technique.

Conclusion

As I reflect on this book, I am left with one thought that is absolutely central to understanding the essentials of Christianity - that of the emphasis on love. Can dispensationalism, because of its roots in legal philosophy as well as its historical and on-going emphasis on legalism, ever allow for love and charity to have their proper places within Christian belief? If dispensationalism can not allow for this absolute centrality of love, or, if dispensationalism can not divorce itself from the legalism that characterized the Pharisees, what of essential Christianity is being sacrificed? More than any fine point on hermeneutics or eschatology, this question is most important for all Christian brothers and sisters to ponder. May we do so in charity and love.

previous post: A Man I Can’t Seem to Understand: Reflections on President Bush
next post: Why Do Spiritual People Object to Christianity?

• Posted in Book Reviews
• 2 comments
• Trackback
• April 9, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

2 Responses to “A Disagreement Among Friends: A Review of Dispensational Theology”

1. gary Says:
   July 31st, 2004 at 5:38 pm

   most exellent, sir. I have been trying to find a sound hermeneutical approach for this subject, and you have delivered. what books on hermeneutics do you like most? I am sure Ramm is one, but is there any recent ones you have found to be good? please let me know. In Christ, Gary

2. Ben Shobert Says:
   August 3rd, 2004 at 7:02 pm

   Gary - You must forgive me for my delay in getting back with you. As to hermeneutics, I think a good book to challenge ourselves with is Dr. William

   Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. In it he argues for a progressive-redemptive hermeneutic which can be shown to apply Biblically to

   slaves and women, versus a more cross-cultural, trans-historical hermeneutic for homosexuality. I see some shortcomings to this approach, but as with any hermeneutic approach that attempts to incorporate more forensic analysis with cultural setting, his book is a good starting point. Thank you for your kind words!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website