Related articles and links |  1 of 5

I am a dispensationalist. And that means I've got a bad reputation with many evangelicals. And what's worse it's a reputation undeserved because it is based on misinformation and misunderstanding.

Here is the cloud I live under: Some say dispensationalism proposes two ways of salvation. Or, they say that under a perverse commitment to grace, dispensationalism tolerates the absence of law and ethical constraint (a charge formally called antinomianism). Still others charge that dispensationalists are not interested in ministry in the wider culture; they are pessimistic in their approach to history; that all they care about is the future, Israel, and the pretribulational rapture; and that they teach the kingdom of God (or heaven) is strictly future.

Any one of these views, or some combination of them, might be found in some pockets of dispensationalism, but they do not fairly characterize the tradition as a whole.

Fortunately, a group has mobilized for greater understanding. We first met on a fall day in 1985. Twenty-four dispensationalists from several Bible colleges and seminaries gathered in the faculty lounge at Biola University and did more than discuss grading curves and the latest textbooks. We talked about personal frustrations. We were committed to dispensationalism, yet we observed how many in the evangelical community, even some of our personal friends, misunderstood and stereotyped us.

Critics tend to treat dispensationalism as a monolith, but we knew better, since dispensationalist thinkers have long articulated differing views of the people of God, the kingdom "program," and the covenants. Indeed, a new and discernibly different "progressive dispensationalism" is emerging. (More about that later.)

That afternoon we asked, How can we be heard for who we really are today? After all, dispensationalism had contributed so mightily to evangelicalism in the twentieth century, popularizing the prophetic message of the Bible, standing for the trustworthiness of God's Word in an era in which criticizing the Bible had become commonplace within the church, and providing many leaders to churches and parachurch organizations.

We also believed we had much to learn from other traditions. After a half-century of heated polemic, especially between dispensationalism and covenant theology (a Reformed tradition that stresses the continuity of a covenant of grace through every era), maybe there was a way to change the tone of evangelical dialogue between traditions.

The group that met that afternoon launched the Dispensational Study Group. It has met at the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) ever since. What has emerged is unprecedented discussion between covenant theologians, historical premillennialists, charismatics, and the dispensationalists who invited them to the table. From the 24 who first met almost a decade ago, the group regularly hosts over 200 at the annual meeting, and its mailings go to hundreds of theologians of varying persuasions. Replacing the bellicose spirit of earlier eras, and even among some today, has been a climate of respectful exchange.

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY

Whatever one's theology, dispensation is a perfectly good theological term. It appears in well-known Reformation creeds and the writings of figures such as John Calvin. It simply refers to an administrative arrangement in the plan of God.

Dispensationalism as a theological system attempts to discuss the nature and relationship of the different administrative arrangements within God's plan, "to rightly divide the Word of God." It seeks to explain how the Bible fits together. Every evangelical tradition recognizes at least two such periods: Israel (the era of the Old Covenant) and the church (the era of the New Covenant). Dispensationalists discuss three periods: Israel, the church, and the period of Christ's rule on earth after he returns, also known as the Millennium. That much can be said in broad strokes about the tradition.

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

September 12 1994, Vol. 38, No. 10