Although precise statistics are not available, it is undeniable and commonly recognized that the majority of American believers calling themselves “Fundamentalists” today are also dispensationalists. For instance, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, the World Baptist Fellowship International, the Sword of the Lord, Pensacola Christian College, Hyles-Anderson College, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Central Baptist Theological Seminary (MN), Central Baptist Theological Seminary (VA), Maranatha Baptist Seminary, and the state independent Baptist associations of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois all explicitly affirm dispensational eschatology in their doctrinal statements (or in addenda to the same). This list could be extended considerably but already represents a large number of self-styled Fundamentalists who differ widely on a significant array of doctrinal and practical issues. Nevertheless, they are all dispensationalists.
Of course, no claim is being made here that all Fundamentalists are dispensationalists or that all dispensationalists regard themselves as Fundamentalists. Both statements are demonstrably false: one could compile lists of Fundamentalist organizations that do not explicitly affirm dispensationalism and dispensational organizations that are reluctant to be considered Fundamentalist. The observer must be careful, therefore, to avoid overgeneralization.
Historically, the proto-Fundamentalists[1] who gathered at the Niagara Bible Conference were deeply committed to premillennialism, but one cannot characterize them as predominantly dispensationalist. Similarly, the assortment of anti-Modernists who allied together between 1918 and 1930 reflected a variety of eschatological perspectives (reflecting a variety of hermeneutical approaches to Scripture). The “Fundamentalists” associated with Machen founded Westminster and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, both of which repudiated dispensationalism and, quite quickly, the Fundamentalist label (which Machen had never particularly valued). The National Association of Evangelicals, although including many Fundamentalist stalwarts at its founding in 1942, left the hermeneutical question open. Not surprisingly, perhaps, it was on the vanguard of Evangelicalism as the great rupture with Fundamentalists occurred in the 1950s and ’60s. In general, after 1930 many institutions and organizations left dispensationalism concurrently with leaving Fundamentalism or became non-Fundamentalists once alliance with dispensationalists was deemed no longer necessary.
These observations bring us back to the original issue: why does Fundamentalism find itself today largely dominated by dispensationalists?
Sea Cliff and Scofield
When the Niagara Bible Conference began to fragment in the late 1890s, the primary source of disagreement was the timing of the Rapture. Robert Cameron and Nathaniel West led the contingent that argued for a posttribulational Rapture. On the pretribulational side were C. I. Scofield, A. C. Gaebelein, and others. Dispensationalism drove the logic of the pretrib side. In the first decade of the twentieth century the dispensationalists launched the Sea Cliff Bible Conference, which considered itself the successor to Niagara, and Scofield began working on his great reference Bible. In short, the dispensationalists organized and perpetuated their beliefs in popular literature more effectively than did their “historic” premillennial brethren (the rather optimistic title assumed by many posttribulationists).
Oxford Press issued the Scofield Reference Bible (SRB) in 1909 (first edition) and 1917 (second edition) and discovered that it had a bestseller on its hands. Over the next half century, the SRB became the principal Bible for Fundamentalists, and the SRB embodied the classic dispensationalism developed in systematic form by the Plymouth Brethren and popularized in the writings of Scofield and L. S. Chafer. Of course, this history suggests a “chicken-and-egg” problem: did Scofield’s Bible rise to popularity because of the dispensational hermeneutic already reigning within Fundamentalism, or did the SRB shape Fundamentalism in a dispensational direction? The increasingly homogenous dispensationalism of Fundamentalists as the twentieth century progressed suggests that to some extent the latter is the more significant factor: Fundamentalists imbibed and institutionalized the dispensationalism of their favorite study Bible.
BJU and DTS
The rise of key institutions also contributed to the triumph of dispensationalism in Fundamentalism. While enforcing a standard fundamental creed and having at times a mix of dispensational and covenant professors, Bob Jones University (founded as Bob Jones College in 1927) has consistently maintained allegiance to a premillennial, pretribulational eschatology that makes the most sense in a dispensational context. Quantifying the influence of such an institution is difficult, but the sheer number of graduates it has sent into Fundamentalist churches worldwide suggests that this influence has been substantial.
While less visibly associated with the Fundamentalist movement, Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) has been committed to dispensationalism since its founding by leading dispensationalists Chafer and W. H. Griffith-Thomas in 1924. During the presidencies of Chafer (1924–52) and John Walvoord (1952–86) Dallas exerted enormous influence on both the Fundamentalist and broader Evangelical communities through its graduates and publications, especially Bibliotheca Sacra, which it took over in 1934. Prominent among the Dallas graduates who contributed to the dispensational direction of Fundamentalism was Charles Ryrie. DTS influenced Moody Bible Institute (MBI) to move decisively in a dispensational direction in the 1930s and ’40s, and MBI has been a leader in dispensational training and publishing since that time. DTS and MBI have belonged to a broader religious spectrum than Fundamentalism throughout their histories, but their influence on Fundamentalism has been undeniable.
Fundamentalists in the twentieth century established a number of Bible colleges and seminaries in addition to BJU, and the great majority of these schools have espoused dispensationalism (several of these institutions are mentioned in the first paragraph above). As Fundamentalists drew away from denominational and Evangelical schools, they received dispensational teaching in the Fundamentalist schools. Thus, the dominance of dispensationalism in the movement was perpetuated and reinforced.
Also contributing to the sway of dispensationalism is the fact that Reformed Christians, many of whom were willing to ally with dispensational Fundamentalists in the culture wars of the 1920s, saw no further value in working with dispensationalists after 1930. Their commitment to Reformed orthodoxy and the Westminster standards was far more important to most of them than the separation issues that came to define the Fundamentalist movement. When the great Fundamentalist/New Evangelical divide occurred in the 1950s, most Reformed Christians were simply spectators. While many were skeptical of the Arminianism implicit in ecumenical evangelism, they did not have a separatist tradition that would cause them to draw ecclesiastical lines such as were drawn by leading Fundamentalists. Hence, Fundamentalists viewed most Reformed Christians as simply part of broader Evangelicalism. Reformed elements have never disappeared from Fundamentalism—one thinks of the Faith Free Presbyterian churches, for instance—but Fundamentalist separatism has never been a hallmark of the Reformed tradition.
A Deeper Reason?
All of the reasons just given, however, seem to cry out for some deeper reason. Why did the heirs of the Niagara Bible Conference turn primarily to dispensationalism in the early twentieth century at a time when they were combating liberalism in the denominations and American culture? Why did the Scofield Reference Bible become so popular among these Fundamentalists? Why do dispensationalists find Fundamentalist separatism more appealing than do Reformed Christians, by-and-large?
As a Fundamentalist and a dispensationalist, answering this question is tricky for me because my commitment to each has contributed to my adherence to the other. It would be easy for me to overstate their congruence. Clearly, there is nothing in either label that necessitates that one adopt the other label, as previously noted. Nevertheless, it may be that central tendencies in both make their convergence reasonable and not unexpected.
Dispensationalism has often been accused of having a basic pessimism about contemporary culture. Premillennialism, in general, and dispensationalism, in particular, argue that Christ’s reign will be realized on this earth only during a future ideal kingdom. Believers should invest in earthly cultures with the constant mindset that the return of Christ is imminent and that this earth will experience devastating judgments during the Tribulation period. Such a perspective does not necessitate total disengagement; indeed, most dispensationalists believe they can impact their culture in various ways to the glory of God. Nevertheless, they stand in marked contrast to most Reformed Christians, Lutherans, and Catholics in their attitudes regarding cultural involvement.
When Modernism/theological liberalism began to sweep through the American denominations in the late nineteenth century, the Modernists believed they were advancing modernity. That is, they sought to wed their theological thinking with the reigning paradigms of modern culture. When Matthews, Fosdick, and other liberals slandered the conservatives, their favorite charge was that the old orthodoxy was out of touch with the times, backward-looking, and irrelevant.[2] In rejecting naturalistic evolution, materialism, pragmatism, and other philosophies that appeared to be gaining the ascendancy in the West in the early twentieth century, Fundamentalists appeared to secular and liberal observers to be opponents of modernity. Indeed, many Fundamentalists perceived themselves to be the guardians of earlier, simpler times, as is evidenced by their strong preaching against various social sins. This opposition of Fundamentalists to the perils of modernity correlated quite well with a dispensational eschatology that held little hope for the rescue of modern culture.
What is, perhaps, most surprising is that dispensational Fundamentalists joined hands for a while with nondispensational Fundamentalists in the 1920s to fight a great culture war against evolution and theological Modernism. Historian George Marsden highlights in Fundamentalism and American Culture the basic incongruity of the kind of cultural engagement carried on by the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, for instance, and the dispensationalism of most of the leaders of the WCFA.[3] Once these battles were lost, the Reformed and other nondispensational combatants went their own way, and the dispensationalists were left to ponder a more effective way of reflecting their theological commitments. Fundamentalist separatism and focus on evangelism and local church ministry thrived thereafter in a dispensational context.
Graham, FTS, NEA, and New Evangelicalism
When the New Evangelicalism emerged in the 1950s under the leadership of Billy Graham, Fuller Theological Seminary, and the National Association of Evangelicals, parallel trends began to become apparent. The New Evangelicals desired more tolerance and openness to varying eschatological positions and were embarrassed by what they deemed extreme dispensationalism. Second, they desired more cultural and academic impact; they eschewed the isolationism of their Fundamentalist brethren. Carl Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) explicitly linked premillennarian “despair over the present world order” with Fundamentalist loss of “social passion.”[4] In other words, he feared that Fundamentalists were retreating into an exclusively evangelistic mindset because of their eschatological commitments and abandoning their prophetic voice relative to the great social issues of the day. Hence he offered his famous advice:
Contemporary evangelicalism needs (1) to reawaken to the relevance of its redemptive message to the global predicament; (2) to stress the great evangelical agreements in a common world front; (3) to discard elements of its message which cut the nerve of world compassion as contradictory to the inherent genius of Christianity; (4) to restudy eschatological convictions for a proper perspective which will not unnecessarily dissipate evangelical strength in controversy over secondary positions, in a day when the significance of the primary insistences is international.[5]
This quote foreshadows the gradual trek of large segments of the Evangelical world away from dispensationalism that has occurred over the intervening sixty years. During this time, Fundamentalists have been ever more marginalized in a culture sinking into secularism. Not surprisingly, then, Fundamentalists have retained or embraced the dispensationalism many Evangelicals have been jettisoning.
Speaking quite broadly, Eevangelicalism has sought to transform or, at least, to infiltrate culture, an effort far more conducive to less dispensational theologies. Social consciousness flourishes when the kingdom is viewed as having primary reference to the present.[6] Fundamentalism has been far more discriminating in its critique of culture, separating from any aspect of modernity (such as evolution or feminism) that appears to stand in opposition to the authority of God’s Word. Such separatism flourishes when the kingdom is viewed as primarily future. Fundamentalists are not trying to build a kingdom now; hence, they need not blur lines of distinction either ethically or ecclesiastically. Again, dispensationalism is a hermeneutic that serves the Fundamentalist community admirably.
Perhaps such reasoning at least partly explains why the majority of Fundamentalists today are also dispensationalists. It also may help explain another modern trend. When young Fundamentalists follow after progressive dispensationalism, new covenant theology, or traditional Reformed theology because of the social implications of these theologies, they usually abandon Fundamentalism in the process.
It is this author’s hope that Fundamentalists will strive to explore the proper balance between cultural engagement and the specific task of world evangelism while maintaining a strong allegiance to the blessed hope of Christ’s imminent return and to the normal interpretation of Biblical prophecy, i.e., while remaining committed dispensationalists.
A professor of church history, writer, and speaker, Dr. Dave Saxon has taught in Christian colleges for over twenty years. He and his wife, Jamie, have four children.
This article originally appeared in the July/August 2010 issue of FrontLine magazine. Click here to subscribe.
[1] “Proto-Fundamentalist” refers to late nineteenth-century conservatives who opposed modernism and generally espoused premillennialism. They laid a foundation in American Christianity upon which the self-styled Fundamentalists built in the years immediately after World War I. The title “Fundamentalist” first appeared in 1920 among Northern Baptists.
[2] For instance, Fosdick’s predecessor Cornelius Woelfkin scornfully wrote, “The whole world-view has changed since the Bible was written, and we cannot make the modern and the ancient world-views correspond. . . . Our conservatism threatens to become the winding sheet of death. . . . If men prefer to become octogenarian before their time and sink into religious lotus eaters and dream dreams of the past, let them at least grant to youth their heritage and permit them to see visions, new visions, and follow the Lord who goes before them” (Religion: Thirteen Sermons [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1928], 42, 50, 51).
[3] George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 128.
[4] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 29.
[5] Ibid., 57.
[6] See, for instance, Russell D. Moore, The Kingdom of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), who argues for a progressive dispensational view of the kingdom and then affirms “the church cannot address only personal ‘spiritual’ matters, but instead witnesses to the whole counsel of God and to the justice of the Kingdom, through the internal discipline of the Body and through the external witness to the state and the societal structures” (167).
No comments:
Post a Comment