What is Dispensationalism? (Introduction)

Lately for whatever reason I feel like I've had alot of conversations with people where the theological system known as Dispensationalism comes up. Dispensationalism is a system of doctrine. There are alot of facets to this system, so I must admit I lack the time/energy/blogspace and the expertise to fully address it. I'm not that well read on it, but I've interacted with it enough that I feel I can at least make some introductory remarks on it to help others recognize it. I think this is somewhat significant because it is the majority view in the evangelical world, and because I find it largely unbiblical.

Now I don't think it's unbiblical like liberal theology or the prosperity gospel. Dispensationalists are Christian brothers and sisters. They hold to the inerrancy of scripture and the basics of the gospel. The early founders believed in the sovereignty of God (e.g. John Nelson Darby), though I don't think that's as widespread now. In this series of posts I will try to answer the question of "What is Dispensationalism?" by discussing what I consider its most distinctive features, why I disagree with them, and what I see as the practical impact. In this post I'll simply give a brief historical introduction, but in future posts we'll look at the Dispensational view of:

1. The Church and Israel
2. Grace and law
3. The Bible
4. Salvation/sanctification
5. The end times

The historical roots of dispensationalism as a system can probably be most reasonably traced back to the early 1800's in the Plymouth Brethren movement and the aforementioned J.N. Darby. In the United States the movement gained steam with adherents such as D.L. Moody and C.I. Scofield. With the publishing of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, Dispensationalism found a wide audience in America.

Dispensationalism has institutional support at a number of major Bible colleges and seminaries, most notably Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), which is really the epicenter of Dispensational teaching in America (so if you're one of the many people who's told me to go there, this is one of the main reasons I won't). Other institutions include Biola University, Moody Bible Institute, Philadelphia Biblical University, Baptist Bible Seminary, Liberty University, and Word of Life Bible Institute. Influential dispensational Bible teachers other than those already mentioned include Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, Darrel Bock, Daniel Wallace, and Norm Geisler. While denominational influence is harder to track it tends to have influence in some Baptist, E-Free, churches that end with "Bible church," and many pentecostal/charismatic circles (though hardcore dispensationalists tend to be cessationists as well).

So dispensationalism is alive and well in American Evangelicalism today. Though its proponents vary in a number of places, especially recently with the advent of Progressive Dispensationalism (e.g. Bock, Wallace, much of DTS today), there are a number of unifying features. I won't be dealing with all the variations, but I hope we can get a look at the things that tie them together in this series of blog posts.

An Eisegetical Interpretation of the Lost Series Finale

Eisegesis (the process of interpretation whereby we simply read our ideas into a text rather than actually seeking to interpret the author's intended meaning) is generally bad. It's especially bad when it happens with the Bible, because at that point we are wrongly interpreting God's words to suit our own agendas. In my previous post I tried to engage in exegesis (correct interpretation) of the writers' intent in the season finale of LOST. I basically concluded the writers represented a pluralistic supernaturalism in the finale, obviously antithetical to biblical Christianity. I'll now engage in some eisegesis to argue that you could interpret the finale as supportive of a Reformed Christian worldview.

SPOILER WARNING: AGAIN, I'LL BE DISCUSSING THE LOST FINALE, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, DON'T READ ON.

In the LOST finale the hero of the show, Jack, embraces his ordained role in life and willingly offers his life as a sacrifice to save others. After he willingly offers his life, the next scene in the show switches to the flash-sideways timeline and displays a statue of Christ with His arms spread out, signifying His crucifixion. The message is clear: Jack sacrificed himself to save his friends and defeat evil, embodied in Easu/MiB/Fake Locke. Sound familiar? Similarly, Jesus laid down His life for His friends (Jn. 15:13) and in doing so defeated evil, embodied in satan (Col. 2:14-15). Not only that, but in some sense Jack was resurrected, as was Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

This gospel parallel takes on a distinctly reformed flavor when you consider that Jack really does only seem to be laying his life down for his friends. In the final church scene the whole world is not represented there entering paradise, only a chosen few. Esau/MiB/Fake Locke is not there, in fact there are a number of other characters from the seasons of the show that weren't there. Despite the stained glass, the redemption Jack accomplishes does not seem to be universal. Doesn't this suggest Jack's work is less valuable, as Arminians often charge? Well, is that how you felt in watching the final church scene? Absolutely not. And why not? Why weren't we so angry that Fake Locke wasn't there? Because we know Fake Locke got what he deserved. We were amazed at the redemption for those who were there, and understood the need for justice to be carried out on Fake Locke. And it's not like the people in the church were more worthy of redemption; plenty of them had been Jack's enemies and the island's as well (think Sawyer). They didn't choose to come to the island, the island chose them. Because the island chose them and the island's purpose for Jack was to redeem those the island had chosen, they end up in paradise.

In the same way, Jesus laid down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11), not the goats. When we understand that all of us deserve divine wrath because of our sin (Eph. 2:1-3), we see that there is no injustice in Jesus not dying for everyone. We rather are amazed that He laid down His life for anyone. And who are those He died to save? Those that deserve it? None deserve it, rather, it is those His father had chosen, who it was His purpose in His life on earth to redeem (Jn. 6:35-45). He will raise them up on the last day.

Obviously I'm not naieve enough to think the writers intended to communicate this message. However in writing the story in this way I do think they acknowledge (sub-consciously or consciously) certain truths of reformed theology:

1. In order to be saved we need someone to die for us. We can't do it, we need someone else. The LOST characters couldn't save themselves, they needed Jack to do it for them.
2. It is not unjust of God to choose some and not others since none deserve to be chosen in the first place.
3. Jesus' sacrifice is not devalued because He only intended it to redeem some.

Finally Back

Hey everyone, sorry for the big delay between blog posts. I'm adjusting to a new schedule and still figuring out where blogging will fit into it. I still want to do it though, so keep your eyes peeled.

Contrary to some resistance, I am going to return with a post on the LOST series finale. Let me start by saying I was very satisfied with the finale. They didn't answer all the questions, but they did wrap up the storyline in a satisfying way. The show was about the characters, not the island, and each character's story concluded in a reasonable fashion. I loved watching the show for the years I was able to, and I'll miss it for sure. That said, I do want to level a fairly significant criticism.

WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LOST FINALE, STOP READING.

One of the great things about LOST has always been that the show is not only entertaining and addictive, but intellecutally stimulating. The writers have always been interacting with real philisophical questions (the nature of man as good or evil, free-will vs. determinism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism etc.). However they would often not show their cards as to where they stood on these issues. For instance, sometimes the island seemed to support naturalism, i.e. all the crazy stuff that happens there is really just the result of a concentrated pocket of electromagnetic energy. On the other hand, sometimes the island seemed to support supernaturalism, i.e. the island can "will" certain things or favor one person over another. The characters of Jack (man of science) and Locke (man of faith) epitomize this conflict.

While I think it's still hard for me at least to pin the writers down to one philosophy, I think the finale does reveal alot about where they stand on these questions. The trajectory of Jack's character is from the man of science to the man of faith. By the end of the show he sees himself as having some supernatural purpose in life and when he fulfills it he saves everyone. Then there's the fact that the flash-sideways turns out to be some kind of middle-ground until the characters walk into the light of paradise/nirvana/heaven. I think it is safe to conclude that the writers are communicating a supernatural worldview.

That said, they are certainly not trying to communicate a Christian supernatural worldview. They seem to be much more like universalists. Throughout the show they always borrowed from Christian traditions, but alongside Egyptian mythology, eastern religions, and so on. In the end I think they meet in a Unitarian Universalist church, where the symbols of all the major world religions are displayed in stain glass ala the popular "coexist" bumper stickers. All the characters had their own unique lives and "paths," but all ended up moving onto paradise in due time. I think this is why the writers don't take a hard line on alot of the other philisophical questions they bring up throughout the show. They present each of the characters on a journey to discover their purpose, and on the island we see various religious traditions' attempt to navigate this journey. The big philisophical questions come up, but in the end everyone goes to whatever paradise is.

I obviously did not like this aspect of the show, and in fact found it rather dissatsifying. The value of art is not only measured in its form but in what it communicates. A good painting is good not only because the artist moves the brush in a controlled fashion, but because he or she communicates something good through the painting. I'm afraid what the LOST writers communicated through the show represents a false optimism. The god of LOST (whatever it is, again the writers don't commit themselves one way or another, probably because they see all religions as various attempts to explain the same reality) seems nice because everyone goes to paradise, but the god of LOST is not good. The god of LOST seems to have no regard for the presence of sin. Maybe people are good, maybe people are evil, maybe all the characters have done wrong, but who cares? One must be left wondering just how good a paradise ruled by a god who has no concern for righteousness would really be. I for one am holding out for a better inheritance.

So I think that's what the LOST writers were communicating. It's their show, they're certainly free to communicate what they want. I really enjoyed the show, but suffice it to say the gospel is far better. While I think the LOST writers represent the pluralistic supernaturalism common throughout the world today, I think in the hero of the show, Jack, we do see something of Christ. I'll share more of my thoughts on that in a later post.

The Blind Side

I finally saw The Blind Side! I had heard so much about this movie from many others but hadn't gotten around to seeing it until a few nights ago. For those of you who haven't seen it (I can't imagine there are many left), the movie is about a boy, Michael, who grows up with absent parents in a rough neighborhood in Memphis, TN. Eventually he is accepted to a private Christian school partially because he is massive and athletic, thus making him a likely star on the football team. While attending school there he is taken in and adopted by a wealthy Christian family, the Tuohys. The mother of the family, Leigh Anne, played by Sandra Bullock, takes the lead role at least in the movie in caring for Michael. She gives him a place to sleep, food to eat, and clothes to wear. Largely because of this family's influence, Michael is able to graduate high school and earn a D-1 football athletic scholarship. He now plays in the NFL for the Baltimore Ravens.

The Touhys and particularly Leigh Anne in this movie are followers of Christ and do an amazing job of demonstrating the love of Christ to Michael. The giving of shelter, food, and clothing certainly reminds me of Matt. 25, particularly verses 34-35: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." This is to be characteristic of Christian love. But one thing kept nagging me as I was watching the movie.

The Touhys are rich. It was no problem for Leigh Anne to buy all this extra stuff for Michael because the family had so much disposable income. Surely if these acts weren't there the picture of God's love would not have been as magnificent, so it made me wonder if their riches cheapen the expression of love we see in the movie.

I don't think they do. Any love we show is ultimately virtuous insofar as it is an expression of God's love. The reality is that God is really really rich. He's not rich in the sense that He has alot of money, but He is rich in His glory. God is able to love us because He is so rich. It is because God is so rich in mercy that He can save people who are by nature children of wrath:

"among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" - Eph. 2:3-5 (emphasis mine)

Because God is rich in mercy, He has spent lavishly on us to save us. In fact when Christ comes to save us He humbles Himself to take on the form of a servant and die (Phil. 2:7-8). In this way, although Christ was rich with glory in heaven, He made himself poor for us:

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich." - 2 Cor. 8:9

The Touhys thus demonstrate God's love to Michael by using their riches to spend lavishly on him. It is an awesome picture of God's love that really touched me through watching the movie. But the Touhys don't spend to the point of becoming poor. They don't die in Michael's place. Their love is a mere sign; it points us to a far greater love. God not only spends His riches on us: He becomes poor for us! He spends the largest price possible to win us: the death of His only Son! And what is the end goal? That we by His poverty might become rich, rich in the joy that comes from knowing God (Ps. 16:11, Phil. 3:7-9).

The Freshmen

I've recently been enjoying rediscovering an old hit by The Verve Pipe called The Freshmen. I remember liking the song when I was younger but I don't think I ever really caught the lyrics. As I've been listening to it more this time around I think it really presents a vivid picture of the experience of guilt.

According to the band website FAQ and an interview with lead singer Brian Vander Ark this song is about the guilt Vander Ark experienced when his ex-girlfriend had an abortion. Though the song also tells the story of a suicide, Vander Ark suggested this was poetic license. The first verse goes:

"When I was young I knew everything
She a punk who rarely ever took advice
Now I'm guilt stricken,
Sobbing with my head on the floor
Stop a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice"

The last line is a reference to the abortion and potential marriage that never happened. Right from the beginning of the song we see the theme develop: at a younger age he thought he knew what he was doing, and now he's stuck with the guilt of his/his ex's actions. In some sense the whole human race is like this. When the human race was young in the form of Adam, we thought we knew everything and chose to disobey God (cf. Gen. 3, Rom. 5:12-19). Now each of us is born guilty as a result. Not only that, but we experience this guilt in our lives as well.

The Bible testifies that we are all born children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), foolish (Pr. 22:15, 29:15), and in sin (Ps. 51:5). Our hearts are deceitful (Jer. 17:9). There is a way that seems right to us, but in the end it leads to death (Pr. 14:12). Therefore Paul instructs us to flee youthful passions (2 Tim. 2:22). As far as I can tell from what I've read of Vander Ark, he is not a Christian. Yet it seems he has described in this song exactly what the Bible teaches is true of man: in our pride we think we can determine what's best apart from God, but it only leads to death. Vander Ark further shares in the chorus:

"for the life of me, I could not believe we'd ever die for these sins, we were merely freshmen."

When making the choices he made, he could not believe his actions would have real consquences. He could not imagine the way he was choosing could lead to death. He was a foolish kid. Now he finds himself guilt-stricken and sobbing with his head on the floor. I've experienced this so many times in my life. Throughout my life there have been a number of instances where I sinned in ways that had significant consequences. When deciding to engage in these actions I never felt like they would be that big of a deal, but afterwards I often felt this same guilt that Vander Ark discusses. I don't think Vander Ark and I are alone either. Especially poignant in the Bible is the example of David:

"Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;
according to your a steadfast love remember me,
for the sake of your goodness, O Lord!" - Psalm 25:7

What David expresses here is essentially the need of my heart and of Vander Ark's, even if Vander Ark doesn't express it in a prayer to God. We now feel the guilt of our sins and we want to be free from it! So how do we deal with it? Vander Ark in the bridge:

"I can't be held responsible
She was touching her face
I won't be held responsible
She fell in love in the first place"

We try to convince ourselves its not our fault. We try to find some way to rationalize what happened. We try to keep telling ourselves we won't be held responsible. We try to blame shift (Gen. 3:12). But that doesn't really work does it? I can almost sense as I listen to this song that Vander Ark is yelling this at himself because even he knows it's not the case. It's as if he wishes it were true but he knows it is not. Our sin is our fault. Another way we try to deal with it, verse 3 from Vander Ark:

"We've tried to wash our hands of all this
We never talk of our lacking relationships
And how we're guilt stricken sobbing with our
Heads on the floor"

We try to wash our hands of it, we try not to talk about it. We simply try to avoid and hide the guilt and shame we feel. And yet the result is the same: we're guilt stricken and sobbing with our heads on the floor. We waste away hiding our sin (Ps. 32:3-4). This is basically how the song ends. It presents a vivid depiction of the feeling of guilt and the unsatisfying ways in which we try to deal with it. The picture of guilt it presents and our attitudes in it have significant overlap with what the Bible says is true about man and what we experience. Then the song ends. But the story of the Bible does not end there. What hope do we have? What is the answer to the heart need for forgiveness and freedom from guilt expressed by Brian, David, and myself?

"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." - Heb. 9:14 (emphasis mine)

The only hope we have is for someone else to bare that guilt and condemnation in our place. How amazing is the love of God, that when He heard the guilty cry of humanity He did not sit back in heaven waiting for us to fix it, but instead took the iniatitive to enter into our mess and bare the guilt of it Himself by dying on the cross and being numbered among the transgressors. Trying to convince ourselves we won't be held responsible or simply avoiding the issue won't purify our consciences: only the blood of Christ can do that. If we've placed our faith in Christ and His sacrifie we no longer need to avoid our sin but can freely confess it in full confidence of God's forgiveness (Ps. 32:5).

I love this song. It is so true to our shared experience as sinful humans. I love Vander Ark's honesty and vulnerability to pour out his heart in this song. But the gospel of Jesus Christ is SO MUCH BETTER!!! Would you join me in praying that Brian and others whose hearts feels the same things his does in this song would take refuge in Christ and have their consciences truly purified?

Seeing Christ in Amos

For those of you who actually read my sidebar on this blog, you may know that I've been reading through Amos in my personal time with the Lord. When you saw that you may have thought, "why read Amos? Isn't that just another one of those weird judgment prophets? The New Testament is way better."

I must admit this has been my perspective on much of the Old Testament throughout my Christian life. However, as I studied more of the New Testament, I came to see that really the Old Testament is about Christ. While this idea is littered throughout the NT in the way the authors approach OT texts, two poignant examples came to me in John and Luke's gospels.

When Jesus condemns the pharisees in John he says this: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.." - Jn. 5:39-40 (emphasis mine) Jesus' charge against the pharisees is that although they read the Bible, they don't see Him in it. Jesus affirms that the OT scriptures bear witness about him, so to read them and not come to Christ is inconsistent. Further, in Luke's gospel: "Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures," - Lk. 24:44-45. Jesus says everything written of Him must be fulfilled, and he opens his disciples' minds to understand and see that the scriptures all speak of Him (cf. Lk. 24:27).

As we read the OT then, I think we can be excited to find that they bear witness about Christ. We can also pray that Jesus would open our minds to see Him in the scriptures. I've been praying this as I've been reading through Amos and I believe God answered that prayer in helping me to see Christ in chapter 8. In Amos God has been prophesying judgment against Israel largely for their oppression of the poor, idolatry, and pride. This theme continues in chapter 8 as God describes what punishment will look like for these sins:

• God will never forget their sins (v. 7)
• The sun will go black and the earth will darken at noon (v. 9)
• The mourning on that day will be like one mourning the loss of an only son (v. 10)
• God will not speak to them (v. 11)
• They will faint for thirst (v. 13)

Now right off the bat in verse 7 we have a big problem. If God will not forget our sins, what hope do we have? We've all engaged in sins no worse than Israel's (Jas. 2:10), so what hope is there for us? Well, God does actually also tell us of a day where He will remember our transgressions no longer: "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” - Jer. 31:34 (emphasis mine)

So how is this possible? How is it that God can say He will never forget our sins and then choose to forget our sins? Our only hope is for someone else to actually bare this judgment described in Amos 8. The judgment must occur because of our sin, but if we bare it the Lord will never forget our sins. Who will then bare this judgment in our place? In Hebrews 8 we learn that Christ is the mediator of this new covenant where our sins are forgotten. Christ took the curse of Amos 8 so God could remember our sins no more. I was amazed when I considered the ways in which Christ fulfilled each of these judgments:

• God will never forget their sins (v. 7) - On the cross Jesus is punished for our sins (Gal 3:13). God essentially "remembers" our sin when He punishes Christ for them, so that He can forget our sins when looking at us (Jer. 31:34)
  
• The sun will go black and the earth will darken at non (v. 9) - When Christ is on the cross the sky turns black at noon, signifying God's judgment (Matt. 27:45). Though this darkness of judgment was what we deserved, Jesus takes it on the cross so that we can step into God's light (1 Pet. 2:9).
  
• The mourning on that day will be like one mourning the loss of an only son (v. 10) - When Jesus died, God's only true son (Jn. 5:19) died. Though mourning as though one had lost their only son was a punishment we deserved, here we see God taking that punishment on Himself and mourning as His only son dies so that we will be free from mourning (Rev. 21:4).
  
• God will not speak to them (v. 11) - When Christ is on the cross, God does not speak to Him. Jesus is forsaken (Matt 27:46). Though the famine from God's words was a punishment we deserved, Jesus takes that punishment on Himself so that now we can hear from God (Jn. 10:27)
  
• They will faint for thirst (v. 13) - When on the cross, Jesus thirsts (Jn. 19:28). Though even physical ailment was the punishment we deserved, Jesus suffers that as well in our place so that one day we could be free from such physical pain (1 Cor. 15:50-53).

Hallelujah! What a Savior!

The Barbarian Way: A Review (Part 3)

It feels like a while since I last blogged what with finals and everything. Nonetheless, I do want to finish the last part in my series on the book The Barbarian Way. In Parts 1 and 2 I discussed what I liked and didn't like about the book. In the final estimation what I didn't like outweighed what I did like. In this post then I'd like to address those who had the opposite experience with the book. Among their number are some friends I respect, so I don't just want to write them off. Instead I'd like to offer some agreement, warning, and encouragement.

The people I talked to who liked the book emphasized that they felt challenged to move outside of their comfort zone and join Christ in His sufferings. I agree! I felt challenged in the same direction, and I thank the Lord for using the book in this way in my life and in the lives of others. I think these challenging parts are a big reason why many like the book.

That said, I want to offer a warning to those who liked the book: pursue discernment. I think it can be tempting for all of us when we like parts of a book to then swallow it whole. It can also be temping to assume the writer is saying certain things when he or she isn't. In the case of this book while I found sections challenging, I think the overall approach is flawed (I went over why in Part 2). Therefore I think swallowing the book whole could lead to a vague sense that we need to "be the barbarian" without knowing what that means, could cause us to look to our own inner barbarian rather than God's gospel and promises for transformation, could distract our attention from God's written Word to our own sense of the "voice of God," and give us a smug self-righteous attitude towards the "civilized" religions, among other things.

While not presuming to know anyone's heart, I feel I must include that I'm sure some liked the book for these reasons rather than the good reasons I mentioned previously. Some part of us likes looking to the inner barbarian rather than to what God has done in the gospel or having to place faith in His promises. Some part of us likes doing whatever our senses tell us to do and being able to look down our nose at "civilized" others. I think some who read the book probably liked it for the good reasons mentioned above, but I wouldn't want to suggest those are the only possible reasons someone might like it. Without discernment, I fear these bad reasons get missed. As with any book other than the Bible, we must be both teachable (Pr. 2:2-4) and discerning (Acts 17:11, 1 Thess. 5:19-21) as we approach it, lest we be led astray (Col. 2:4-8, Eph. 4:14-15). As we are teachable we can take in and praise God for the good and as we are discerning we can recognize and reject the bad.

The encouraging news is that God does call us to suffer, but not because it's the barbarian way. Instead he calls us to suffer because (to give only a few examples):

• In doing so, we share in Christ's sufferings (1 Pet. 4:12-13)
• It grows us in hope (Rom. 5:3-5)
• It grows our character (Jas. 1:2-4)
• We learn God's statutes (Ps. 119:71)
• God works it for good (Rom. 8:28-29)
• He suffered the ultimate penalty in Christ on our behalf! (Isa. 53, 1 Pet. 2:21-25)

I hope these reviews were helpful. I plan to continue doing them for other popular books I've read or for ones I'm currently working on. Let me know if there's anything that would make them better or if you have any more thoughts on The Barbarian Way.