The Rise and (Fall) of Dispensationalism

 Putting "Fall" in quotation marks is an addition to the title of the book, by Daniel G. Hummel, which is the topic of this post. The subtitle of The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is "How the Evangelical Battle Over the End Times Shaped a Nation." 

I'm not writing a review. For that, I point you to Pastor Gary Gilley's review of the book. It was his review that brought the book to my attention. Having read the book and then reread Gilley's review, I think he does a good job. Instead, what I am doing, here, is sharing some, somewhat random, thoughts about the book and what the book, intersecting with my background and current place in life, raises.

I grew up spiritually in an environment in which the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, were second only to the Bible itself, in authority. I was surrounded by pastors who were graduates of Moody Bible Institute. Both D. L. Moody, and the Bible Institute he founded take up a lot of Space in The Rise and Fall . . . (R&F). I graduated from a Bible Institute that was, in many ways, a smaller clone of Moody. It's Founder and first president was a graduate of Moody. My Theology prof received his doctoral degree at Dallas. He had actually heard Lewis Sperry Chafer lecture. Dwight Pentecost's book, Things to Come, was assigned reading. I also spent two years at a Bible College that was thoroughly Dispensational. The President of that school, at the time I was there, is quoted in R&F.  My post-graduate studies were in a school that wasn't particularly known for being dispensational, but it clearly welcomed Dispensationalists on the faculty. Buildings are named after Tim Lahaye.

I still claim Dispensational Premillennialism as my Theological House, but as John MacArthur is widely quoted as saying, my Dispensationalism might be a bit "leaky." It's not that I have come up with a system of Ecclesiology and Eschatology (in my humble opinion, those are the two areas of Theology where Dispensationalism makes the most difference), rather in my book of Things to Emphasize Dispensationalism doesn't take up as many pages as it once did.

Some years ago another Pastor and I attended a conference on Dispensationalism. It was one of those conferences in which experts/serious scholars presented papers to their colleagues, who would then ask questions and give comments. We got to listen in. One of my teachers and a schoolmate were among the presenters. The experience could have served as an illustration for the latter portion of Hummel's book. This was a small gathering. While the presenters were brilliant men, with the possible exception of the President of Dallas Theological Seminary, none of them were at risk of being interviewed on national TV. The Theologians at the conference occupied a narrow strip of Biblical real estate between the up-and-coming more reformed scholars and institutions, on one side, and the "Left Behind"ers on the other. I detected the smell of holding-on-for-dear-life.

Reading the book reminded me of, and strengthened an observation that has informed my ministry for the last thirty or thirty-five years. I heard the point made by a college roommate of mine, who was, ironically enough, working for Moody Bible Institute at the time he made the comment, that no system of trying to systematize the whole flow of Scripture is sufficient to take it all in. Not long after I heard, essentially,  the same statement made by a nationally known pastor. At about the same time, I spent a considerable amount of time working through and preaching from the Sermon on the Mount. That series changed me. For reasons I won't go into here, I came to decisively reject the old, extreme, Dispensational "truth" that I had been taught, that the Sermon on the Mount was "Kingdom truth;" it didn't directly apply to the Church. With D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and others I concluded that Jesus most famous sermon was every bit about the here and now.

I sort of channeled a concept that I had heard powerfully expressed by an old-time preacher from West Virginia. B. R. Lakin began his career riding a mule to speaking engagements. He became a successful pastor and popular revivalist. The experience he spoke of was during what Hummel would call the "Rise" phase of Dispensationalism. I'm paraphrasing, but the old preacher, speaking from the platform of that thoroughly Dispensational Bible Institute said something like.

I attended a Bible Conference and saw a man with a bed sheet and fishing pole [Lakin was obviously referring to one of the Dispensational Charts that Dispensational prophecy preachers were famous for. The charts developed by Clarence Larkin are probably the best known]. He told me that this part of scripture applied this time and this other part of the Bible applied to another time [what old dispensationalists often referred to as "rightly dividing the Word"]. I went home and tried to do that for myself but finally gave up in frustration. I simply took of all of the Bible as God's word to me and sought to apply it to my life in my time and place. 

To any who may have been present at that Chapel service or who know Lakin better than I do, I emphasize again that I am working from memories of an incident more than fifty years ago. I also know that good preaching is often hyperbolic. I'm confident that Lakin's hermeneutics were more sophisticated than this anecdote implies, but the mule-riding preacher's words have haunted my mind and heart for most of my life.

I'll leave tracing the impact of Dispensationalism on a national/international scale to better minds, like Hummel's. I'll just say that too many pastors and Bible teachers approach Scripture and ask, "From a Dispensational point of view, what does this passage mean?" I know that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere," but I do believe that trying to adopt a less prejudicial perspective is important. Approach the text with the necessary agnosticism. After you see what the text means, you may find that it aligns with your overall view of things, be that Dispensational, Covenental, or whatever. Fine. Just be sure you let the text speak. Don't put words in its mouth.

Apparently, I'm an outlier. The fact that I see nothing in the New Testament that indicates that I should bring a lamb to church tomorrow, indicates to me that there are at least two ways of doing things presented in Scripture. A straight-forward (literal, with a right understanding of the word) indicates that Israel is not the same as the church and the church is not the same as Israel. In fact, the tenses of the New Testament in reference to the formation of the church indicate that it didn't even exist in Old Testament times. I do live in a time in which the residents of the planet, except for those saved by grace, are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3), the world itself is in the power of the wicked one (1 John 5:19), and that this wicked one apparently has a lot of freedom to do his anti-God work (1 Peter 5:8). I could go on, but all that I am saying is that when I take God's word for what it appears to me to say, I see what has come to be called Dispensationalism. On the other hand, some of my go-to commentators would be insulted to have their name associated with Dispensationalism. I go to their books because they deal honestly with the text. I will enjoy telling them if I live until the Rapture, "See I was right." In the meantime, they are a help to me. If we both live to some one-size-fits-all general judgment day I'll say, "Well, what do you know?" 

I'd like to finish this before the Rapture, so I'll stop.

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, #3, Some observations from an Observer:

From the schedule of this year's CDH, which focused on issues involved in the discussion of secession or continuation of sign gifts you can see that there were over a dozen papers that were presented at the conference (Dr. Emory Johnson of Dallas Theological Seminary presented a paper at the Chapel session, 9:00 on Wednesday).  As one would expect, the presentations varied in viewpoint, clarity, and persuasive content. As I indicated in the last post, these papers are currently undergoing revision and will be posted on the Council's website in the near future.  I will honor the desire of the presenters and the CDH, and not share the papers which were provided to us.  I will, however, share some of my observations about several of the papers, including some brief quotations, and the discussion which flowed from them.

Cessation & the Miraculous:
Dr. Johnson's, DTS presentation was not only significant for it's content--he chose to center his thoughts in the book of Hebrews--but for it's location in the Council's program.  His was the first presentation of the conference.  He appropriately opened his remarks with these words, "Since this is a Chapel message, I would like to challenge us in our ministry as well as to address the subject of cessation of sign gifts."
While the rest of his presentation was well done, I was particularly intrigued with the following comments at the end of his message.

As sign gifts were given according to the will of God, so God’s will could change where His purposes are served again by signs. It is a question of God’s purposes and not any imposed necessity. So when the two Witnesses will prophesy concerning Christ’s appearance a
second time for salvation, their message will be validated by signs and wonders (Revelation 11: 3-6).
While the progress in revelation is determinative in recognizing any change in God’s purposes, Scripture is not necessarily explicit declaring all instances of change. There may be circumstances within the dispensation of grace in which God’s purposes may change. We suggest such possible circumstances in which a change in purpose appears to be plausible:

• a population which has never heard of the truth of the historical Jesus confirmed --- would God provide sign gifts to validate the Gospel message as true from God? (Muslim ministry, ministry among unreached peoples).

• a post-Christian generation who have rejected the confirmation of truth present in Scripture. . . . 

It appeared to me that Dr. Johnson was seeking to raise a point of discussion.  He added some anecdotal comments to the above words, copied from the print version of his paper.
It was clear at the outset of the conference that at least one Council member was open to the possibility that the reports of miraculous phenomena among Muslims, for example, might very well be Divine.  I was concerned that Dr. Johnson's gauntlet was going to remain on the carpet of the meeting room.  I actually looked for an opportunity to raise the matter in the discussion times.  Toward the end of the conference someone else did.  As I remember there were three presenters on the platform at the time the question was raised.  Memory might fail me here, so I'll simply say that one of the three said something to the effect, that he saw no reason to call these reports into question, that certainly we should not be found questioning God's ability or His sovereignty.
It struck me that a conference that obviously was defending cessationism (as a reminder, that is my position) had just gone on record that cessation does not mean all things miraculous had ceased.  According to the straw-man definition of cessationism that many continuationists seek to hang on us, this group had just denied cessationsim.
Take note of something that this council did not say, and they did not say it quite loudly.  Cessationsim--at least the variety represented at the CDH does not deny the supernatural.  At this point these are my words (If any of the Council members are observing this observer they are certainly welcome to weigh in.):
Believing that the sign-gifts are not for the church today does not mean that one denies the possibility of the miraculous.  The fact is, I prayed today that God would heal one of the members of this Council who is currently dealing with a life-threatening disease.  I believe God heals.  I agree with Dr. Johnson's words quoted above.  I don't see any contradiction between what I just said and saying that I am a cessationist.  I believe God heals.  I am open to the possibility of His communicating in supernatural ways in extraordinary circumstances (and He judges what is ordinary).  I don't believe God is specifically gifting individuals with the sign gifts today.  I find my situation like what I observe at the chronological end of the New Testament.  Now I have several Doctors who say I'm not necessarily a schizophrenic for holding those beliefs.

1 Corinthians 13 & Cessationism:
Several of the papers dealt with 1 Corinthians 13, in particular verses 8-12.  Many regard this passage as the Holy Grail of cessationism.  Dr. Robert Dean, West Houston Bible Church, did a credible job presenting the evidence for, and arguing the conclusion that the reference to "the perfect," in 1 Cor. 13:10 refers to completed canon.  While his argument was much better, he essentially presented the view that I grew up on.  Of the choices available for identifying "the perfect," I may agree with Dr. Dean.  I was not, and am not convinced that it is convincing argument to use in persuading the unpersuaded.  When the paper is published I do encourage reading it.
Dr. William Arp, BBS presented a paper in which he studiously, and somewhat annoyingly to one fellow Council member, avoided drawing any conclusions.  What he did share, rather convincingly, are the questions that have to be asked and answered in order to draw a clear interpretation of the 1 Cor. 13 passage.  If I were dealing with 1 Corinthians in a message, I'd use Dr. Arps paper as a checklist.
The longest paper of the conference is one presented by Dr, Rodney Decker, BBS.  This was a paper that Dr. Decker had previously written which is germane to the issue at hand.  I'll content myself with giving the title and a few lines from the conclusion.  They speak clearly.

A History of Interpretation of “That Which Is Perfect” (1 Cor 13:10)

With Special Attention to the Origin of the “Canon View”

The preceding survey [about 66 pages containing 238 footnotes]  has demonstrated that the vast majority of biblical commentators throughout the history of the church have understood the expression τὸ τέλειον [the perfect] to be related in some way to the eschaton [The second coming of Christ]. Both the canon view and the mature body view are relatively recent interpretations that have developed out of the controversy over contemporary manifestations of the miraculous gifts. Both can be traced only to the mid or early twentieth century, though there were apparently some antecedents to both in the nineteenth century.  The recency of a view does not necessarily disprove its hermeneutical legitimacy, but it should serve as a caution to the interpreter to be sure that there is an adequate and valid exegetical basis for it. Too often views have been adopted because they provide the “right answer” to controversial issues.

 Obviously, the Council reflected the divergent views found in the Evangelical community concerning 1 Corinthians 13 and cessationism.  I came away with a strengthened confidence that one need not maintain a strained exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:10 in order to maintain a cessationist position.  Or to put it in another way, the fact that some continuationists turn to 1 Corinthians 13 to support their position doesn't concern me.

Again I need to respect the time-limit.
Go get some coffee.  I'll be back with some Apostles and Prophets--or not.  It depends on your view..

My foray into the world of scholars--The 2013 Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics.

The subject up for consideration at the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, that I attended last week, is "Has Cessationism Ceased? (or Do the Sign Gifts Continue?)."  I say "is," because the discussion is still ongoing.  In spite of the impression my rather cavalier decision making process (see last post) that led to my attendance at this event might have given the reader, the subject is one in which I am interested.  In the interest of full disclosure, I'll say for the record that I consider myself a cessationist.  To those of you who immediately have a negative reaction to that, I issue an invitation to stay tuned.  Here are two reasons for hanging in there with me:  I've been convinced for some time that cessationsits are a misunderstood breed.  Listening to my scholarly brethren, who read their papers at the conference, confirmed that.  Furthermore, as is often the case, many of the ideas put forth in the meetings are of value beyond the realm of the cessationist - continuation discussion.  Bottom line, these are people who think the Bible really has something to say.  They have devoted their lives to understanding what the Bible says, and helping others to do so.  That ain't bad.

You can look at the schedule to see who is involved in this current project.  As I mentioned in the last post, I know a couple of these men.  Rodney Decker and I together attended Baptist Bible College, and Osterhout Bible Church, where his dad was my pastor.  Bill Arp taught a class I took at BBC.  Mark Soto is a graduate of Appalachian Bible College, as am I; he and I took a couple of classes together at Liberty Seminary.  A couple of the institutions these men represent have influenced my life.  I spent two years at Baptist Bible College.  Though I didn't attend Dallas Theological Seminary, graduates of the school, through books they have written, classes they have taught, and movements they have championed, have had a major impact on me, .  Generically these guys take a high view of scripture.  In the sane sense of the word, they are Fundamentalists.  (For example King James Only-ism came up in discussion.  It didn't get a good press.)  They are Dispensationalists.  At least some of them describe themselves as "Classic Dispensationalists."   It is a narrow--I don't mean to say narrow-minded--group.  The names and topics that brought "cheers" and "jeers" (Offered in a gentlemanly sort of way) revealed the pedigree of the group.  As to the level of scholarship of the participants, I will refer you to my friend, Dr. Decker's credentials, here, & here.  

As I understand it, the procedure at the CDH meeting is similar to other scholarly gatherings.  Official delegates write papers.  (I got the idea that some of the topics were more or less assigned, at least the writer was urged to write on a particular aspect of the subject at hand.  It was obvious from the response of the rest of the council that some of the papers were rather a surprise.  At least one of the papers was one that had been written some time ago, but which was judged to be germane to the topic at hand.)  The author of a paper would "read" his paper at the assigned time.  There was a thirty minute time limit.  One of the papers was near a hundred pages, so the reading consisted mainly of the introduction and conclusion.  Most of the readers read a truncated version of their paper.  At least one choose to talk through his paper rather than read it.  The full text of all the papers was made available to all the council, and even to "observers" like me.  As is true about readers of bedtime stories, some readers were better than others.  If there is a revival of Ferris Beuller some of the presenters might be able to supplement their income.  Some, however, presented their papers in a very effective manner.
At the conclusion of the reading (in some cases readings were grouped together because they dealt with similar topics) there was time for questions and comments.  As is appropriate, council members were given priority.  The plan is for the presenters to consider the input of the council, as they prepare their papers for final publication on the council's website.   (Papers from past councils are posted on the site.)  This process is to be completed in thirty days.  I was surprised that the question and comment time was not more vigorous and cut-throat.  Maybe the heavy-duty criticism takes place behind the scenes.

Listening to, or reading, any one of the papers is a bit like looking at a part of an automobile.  Unless you are a real aficionado you probably don't have much interest in examining a transmission or a fuel-injection array.  You just want to get behind the wheel of a high-performance vehicle.  These papers mostly correspond to components.  They have to be assembled before they have much practical value.  Since I am interested in the overall system--both Dispensationalism, and Cessationism--and I regard sound Bible interpretation as absolutely essential, I was interested in most of the papers.  I look forward to reading the revised version of several of them.

Before I exceed the thirty minute time limit, I need to bring this post to a close.   I am planning to share a couple more posts about the Council.  I hope to comment on:

• I was looking for consensus on some broad themes.  At least in part, I observed that.
• While there is no official doctrinal statement that one needs to sign in order to call one's self a "Cessationist," I am assuming at this point that this group is representative of the position, or maybe I should say they "represent the thinking wing of those who self-identify as believing that certain of the New Testament gifts were temporary in nature."  It is important to hear what they did not say.  In some cases they didn't say it rather loudly.
• A couple of the papers clearly have implications beyond the discussion related to the continuation of sign-gifts.

Stay tuned.