A few weeks ago, my friend Evan did something exceedingly naughty: he recommended I read Mark Noll‘s book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. For sometime, I have been trying to reconcile my uneasiness with aspects of my fundamental, evangelical roots with my novus lumen understanding of Christocentric spirituality. This book has given me the intellectual understanding, not to mention backing, for this uneasiness.

I will probably write a few more posts as I digest this book, but my first is a short one on novus thoughts on fundamentalism, and more particularly the beginning of a case of (not for…) post-fundamentalism. Because as I wrestle with the prospect of going beyond (not becoming anti) fundamentalism I am not there yet, just developing the symptoms, sort of like the beginnings of a runny nose and scratchy throat that leads to a full-fledged cold. This post will explore some thoughts surrounding my uneasiness with dispensationalism and what that has done to the mission of the Church.

Dispensationalism developed at the beginning of the 20th century, along with two other fundamentalist innovations, in response to general changes in American life. The threats of immigration to traditional Protestantism, burgeoning urbanism that began to replace small rural communities, and increased vogue for naturalist philosophy that overtook the biblicism within the universities all compelled fundamentalists of the early 20th century to defend many convictions essential to a traditional understanding of Christianity. While their defense is laudable and appreciated, the reaction to the perceived crisis of American civilization created some interesting theological innovations, dispensationalism being one of them.

In short, dispensationalism is an “understanding of the Bible that divides the relationship of God to humanity into sharply separated epochs. The Bible is taken to provide explicit divine interpretation for these epochs, or dispensations, that extend from Adam to the end of the New Testament, as well for the dispensations foretold in Scripture for the end of time. The intervening ‘age of the church’ is sometimes treated as a parenthesis, where the ebb and flow of the events serve primarily to prepare for God’s final in-breaking upon human history. The method of dispensationalism is a literalism in which great care is taken to arrange passages of Scripture from throughout the whole Bible to establish biblical truths, especially truths concerning the end of the world.” Without addressing whether I believe this “innovation” is sound theology or populist bunk, I had some thoughts as I was reading.

First, it seems like this fascination with “end times” has paralyzed Church mission for the here and now. Might this be why there is little concern for developing missional and intellectually sound responses to present-day world problems like the environment, global and local poverty, rampant social injustice, human slavery and trafficing, and international economic development and aid. If we are just waiting to check out in some X-Fileesque lift-off, why should we be concerned about what is happening in our world right now? If all that matters is “getting people saved and into heaven”, we really don’t need to worry about what is happening in our world, because it is all going to burn anyway. I think this runs counter to what God’s intentions are for the restoration of the individual AND the world, which seems to be evident in Jesus’ vision for the kingdom of heaven invading our currently, earthly reality. This vision, however, is side-tracked with a dooms-day attitude that is postured to gawk at the clouds in the sky, rather than notice the wheat in the fields.

Secondly, might this idea about simply waiting for some mystical rapture to get to heaven have influenced the drought of evangelical ideas and thinking about Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of heaven? Without any offense to my former childhood church and college experience, I can honestly say I can count on my hand (notice the singular…) the number of times anyone either preached on or explained the significance of Jesus’ concept of the Kingdom of Heaven. Sure, maybe I dosed of in chapel or bible class and maybe I was busy doodling during my pastor’s message, but I really do not remember any sermons or instruction on this very central topic. In fact, when the Passion movie came out, I was emphatic that what was depicted was the only reason Jesus came to earth and was the entirety of His ministry. Yes, while Jesus’ death and resurrection are extremely significant moments to God’s story and individual restoration, the myopic focus crowded out the significance of His earthly LIFE. Focusing soley on the death and resurrection of Jesus, while the foundation to salvation by grace through faith in both for the future, tends to say nothing about Jesus’ articulation of His vision for God’s reality to invade and restore the present.

Finally, how could this concept of an epochly divided history be reconciled with God’s own covenant with His people as defined in Genesis 12 and our kingdom-mission in 2 Corinthians 5:13-20? In forming a convenental relationship with humans through Abram, God said His people would be blessed to be a blessing to the nations. They would be blessed physically through inheriting the Promise Land and spiritually through relationship with Himself. But it didn’t end there. They were not simply called out from among the peoples of the earth to be separated so they could sit fat and happy in the land flowing with milk and honey. No, God blessed them in order that the rest of humanity could be blessed through them; God called His people as His own right now to be agents right now and bless others by loving them as their neighbor, right now. Furthermore, Paul reiterates this call as “blessing-bearers” in highlighting the fact that God desires to restore individuals and society through His people, the Ecclesia. 2 Corinthians 5:13-20 reveals that we are given the ministry of restoration, right now; we are Christ’s ambassadors right now and God is making His appeal for restoration to individuals and the world through His Jesusly restored people, right now. So I ask again, how does dispensationalism reconcile this future-centric and present-scorning doctrine with what God seems to be communicating through His covenant, the ministry of restoration, and Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of Heaven?

Again, I am not an antidispensationalist or even antifundamentalist. Rather, I think I am moving beyond these concepts as being truly real. I am thankful for what some of this focus has brought to Ecclesial discourse, but I also think such theology has damaged Church mission. If so many of God’s people are just waiting to “check-out” in some cosmic “beam me up Scotty” event, and especially if the world and all in it are simply going to be destroyed by God down the road, then what incentive or impetus is there to be actively engaged and concerned with the affairs of this world? While I certainly would never forsake the purity of evangelism for the so-called “social gospel”, I cannot help but wonder if there is a better way than simply taking one polar opposite over the other.

Maybe Jesus had something to say about this alternative in Matthew 9:35: “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness.” Here we see Jesus actively and presently teaching within the community about the Way of His Abba, sharing and explaining the good news of the present reality of God’s kingdom, and restoring people physically and spiritually. Jesus prays to His Abba to send workers into the fields to do the same and then sends His disciples into the world to do all of this! It seems like this example is a wonderful alternative to what is offered both by theological liberalism and evangelical dispensationalism.

be His,

Technorati Tags: church culture, doctrine, kingdom of heaven, mark noll, post-dispensationalism, post-fundementalism, evangelicalism, theology