The below is a conversation between Tom Smedley, Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr., and me regarding an inappropriate form of jesting (or ridicule, or mockery) that Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. posted publicly on Facebook.
Following is a blog post I wrote but have since removed from the blog.
Following that is further conversation Tom and I had when I "Liked" the link to my blog on Facebook.
Following is a blog post I wrote but have since removed from the blog.
Following that is further conversation Tom and I had when I "Liked" the link to my blog on Facebook.
Me:
To be honest Ken, I really enjoyed your more scholarly approach in House Divided with Greg Bahnsen (that was actually the impetus God used to switch me over from dispensational theology). While this picture certainly gets quite a few laughs, I think it's also important to remember our duty to avoid unnecessary jesting (Eph. 5:4) and that most in the scholarly dispensational camp are still our brothers in Christ. While they may be wrong - there are more loving ways to point that out. Just some thoughts from a recovering dispensationalist anyway....feel free to correct me if I need to be corrected (although please don't do it with a degrading picture... ) |
Tom Smedley:
Well, Adam, the idea that God has already decided to take a dive, and calls us to surrender without a fight is so bizarre that ridicule is the appropriate response.
Well, Adam, the idea that God has already decided to take a dive, and calls us to surrender without a fight is so bizarre that ridicule is the appropriate response.
Me:
Tom I have to say that's the caricatured understanding of dispensational eschatology. I don't know of any pre-mil dispensational scholar who would advocate that God has called us to surrender without a fight (at least certainly not with the gospel). Again, I'm no longer a dispensationalist, because I do think their system of interpretation is flawed. But at the same time, they are our brothers in Christ and are deserving of our respect as we speak the truth in love - not in ridicule. Their views are wrong to be sure, but not so wrong as to be bizarre, deserving only of ridicule - and again the scholars at DTS and others is who I'm talking about - not the guys who actually predict that in May 2012 the world is going to end, etc....
Tom I have to say that's the caricatured understanding of dispensational eschatology. I don't know of any pre-mil dispensational scholar who would advocate that God has called us to surrender without a fight (at least certainly not with the gospel). Again, I'm no longer a dispensationalist, because I do think their system of interpretation is flawed. But at the same time, they are our brothers in Christ and are deserving of our respect as we speak the truth in love - not in ridicule. Their views are wrong to be sure, but not so wrong as to be bizarre, deserving only of ridicule - and again the scholars at DTS and others is who I'm talking about - not the guys who actually predict that in May 2012 the world is going to end, etc....
Tom Smedley:
I think the cartoon fairly and accurately represents that which it claims to represent.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion! (Robert Burns)
Dispensationalism is an elaborate system that takes a great deal of disciplined study to master, and then to perpetually readjust as events demolish one reasoned prediction after another. It has its strengths, such as a respect for God's Word as truly true. When a weak point is attacked, the strong points rush to its defense. Most of us have had the experience of people questioning our walk with God when we point out the latest failed predictions. "If you got a little closer to the Lord, you wouldn't have these strange ideas ... "
Like Ptolemy's astro- nomy/logy, dispensationalism is a system that requires constant tinkering, ever-added layers of complexity, epicycles on top of epicycles, to stay afloat. Communication scholar Leon Festinger coined the term "cognitive dissonance" in his book about an apocalyptic cult "When Prophecy Fails." When the doomsday came and went with nothing happening, the cult lost some members -- but the remnant held their faith with even greater tenacity.[2]
Those inside this faith-perspective view the exertions required as valiant and erudite service to God and man. "But have you seen yourself retreating?"[3] How does it bring honor to God or to the Gospel to invest so much brain sweat in keeping a mind-numbing system limping along, producing ever-more lunatic predictions on a predictable schedule? Does not this nonsense-emitting project look like a fool's errand to those on the outside? And does it not make fools of the otherwise wise? Roe v. Wade happened in the backyard of DTS -- and they didn't even notice.
____________
[1] (hurling keys into the ground and retorting, "WHAT DO YOU THINK I'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS?" is not an effective rebuttal, BTW. But having my piety impugned thus was a blind-sided ambush!)
[2] The Seventh-Day Adventists bought Rev. Miller's explanation that Jesus had, indeed, started back on schedule, but got held up doing the paperwork before arriving.
[3] Deck your lower limbs in pants
For they are yours, my sweeting.
You look divine as you advance,
But have you seen yourself retreating? (Ogden Nash)
I think the cartoon fairly and accurately represents that which it claims to represent.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion! (Robert Burns)
Dispensationalism is an elaborate system that takes a great deal of disciplined study to master, and then to perpetually readjust as events demolish one reasoned prediction after another. It has its strengths, such as a respect for God's Word as truly true. When a weak point is attacked, the strong points rush to its defense. Most of us have had the experience of people questioning our walk with God when we point out the latest failed predictions. "If you got a little closer to the Lord, you wouldn't have these strange ideas ... "
Like Ptolemy's astro- nomy/logy, dispensationalism is a system that requires constant tinkering, ever-added layers of complexity, epicycles on top of epicycles, to stay afloat. Communication scholar Leon Festinger coined the term "cognitive dissonance" in his book about an apocalyptic cult "When Prophecy Fails." When the doomsday came and went with nothing happening, the cult lost some members -- but the remnant held their faith with even greater tenacity.[2]
Those inside this faith-perspective view the exertions required as valiant and erudite service to God and man. "But have you seen yourself retreating?"[3] How does it bring honor to God or to the Gospel to invest so much brain sweat in keeping a mind-numbing system limping along, producing ever-more lunatic predictions on a predictable schedule? Does not this nonsense-emitting project look like a fool's errand to those on the outside? And does it not make fools of the otherwise wise? Roe v. Wade happened in the backyard of DTS -- and they didn't even notice.
____________
[1] (hurling keys into the ground and retorting, "WHAT DO YOU THINK I'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS?" is not an effective rebuttal, BTW. But having my piety impugned thus was a blind-sided ambush!)
[2] The Seventh-Day Adventists bought Rev. Miller's explanation that Jesus had, indeed, started back on schedule, but got held up doing the paperwork before arriving.
[3] Deck your lower limbs in pants
For they are yours, my sweeting.
You look divine as you advance,
But have you seen yourself retreating? (Ogden Nash)
Ken Gentry:
This is an image that speaks of their eschatology, not of their Christianity.
This is an image that speaks of their eschatology, not of their Christianity.
Me:
I'm sorry Tom (and Ken). I guess I don't have the level of understanding necessary for the discussion at this point. I'm not in opposition to the *meaning* of the picture. I realize there are problems with dispensationalism (esp. in light of what you said, Tom, about Roe v. Wade - that was great insight). And while I believe sarcasm has its place at times (1 Kgs 18:27), I'm still failing to see how ridiculing our own brothers in Christ in this fashion is something of which our Lord who gave Himself up for their sins and ours would approve. Regardless if the joke is about their Christianity or their eschatology, the butt of the joke is still at their expense. And that's the part I'm having trouble seeing a Biblical endorsement of. Their theology is wrong to be sure; and yes, it's even made a mess of the church in many places. But I don't know how that then gives us the right to treat them - those for whom Christ died - in way of ridicule. That being said, I know I'm way out of my league talking with both of you. So if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I truly mean no sarcasm in this: if ridicule like this is appropriate, I really just don't have the level of understanding necessary for the discussion at this point (and I just need to grow in my sanctification). Thanks for taking the time to respond to my (mis)understanding.
I'm sorry Tom (and Ken). I guess I don't have the level of understanding necessary for the discussion at this point. I'm not in opposition to the *meaning* of the picture. I realize there are problems with dispensationalism (esp. in light of what you said, Tom, about Roe v. Wade - that was great insight). And while I believe sarcasm has its place at times (1 Kgs 18:27), I'm still failing to see how ridiculing our own brothers in Christ in this fashion is something of which our Lord who gave Himself up for their sins and ours would approve. Regardless if the joke is about their Christianity or their eschatology, the butt of the joke is still at their expense. And that's the part I'm having trouble seeing a Biblical endorsement of. Their theology is wrong to be sure; and yes, it's even made a mess of the church in many places. But I don't know how that then gives us the right to treat them - those for whom Christ died - in way of ridicule. That being said, I know I'm way out of my league talking with both of you. So if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I truly mean no sarcasm in this: if ridicule like this is appropriate, I really just don't have the level of understanding necessary for the discussion at this point (and I just need to grow in my sanctification). Thanks for taking the time to respond to my (mis)understanding.
Ken Gentry:
Sadly, we no longer have a sense of humor.
Sadly, we no longer have a sense of humor.
Tom Smedley:
Good and blessed morning to you, Adam T. Calvert ! Hold down the [Shift] key with your left pinkie, and click the [Enter] key with your right pinkie, and you can put paragraph breaks in your prose.
I think Ken is right about the "sense of humor" issue. To quote a very effective Christian witness, who being dead yet speaketh,
Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. ... pride cannot rise to levity or levitation. Pride is the downward drag of all things into an easy solemnity. One "settles down" into a sort of selfish seriousness; but one has to rise to a gay self-forgetfulness. A man "falls" into a brown study; he reaches up at a blue sky. Seriousness is not a virtue. It would be a heresy, but a much more sensible heresy, to say that seriousness is a vice. It is really a natural trend or lapse into taking one's self gravely, because it is the easiest thing to do. It is much easier to write a good TIMES leading article than a good joke in PUNCH. For solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity. (Orthodoxy, G K Chesterton)
Good and blessed morning to you, Adam T. Calvert ! Hold down the [Shift] key with your left pinkie, and click the [Enter] key with your right pinkie, and you can put paragraph breaks in your prose.
I think Ken is right about the "sense of humor" issue. To quote a very effective Christian witness, who being dead yet speaketh,
Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. ... pride cannot rise to levity or levitation. Pride is the downward drag of all things into an easy solemnity. One "settles down" into a sort of selfish seriousness; but one has to rise to a gay self-forgetfulness. A man "falls" into a brown study; he reaches up at a blue sky. Seriousness is not a virtue. It would be a heresy, but a much more sensible heresy, to say that seriousness is a vice. It is really a natural trend or lapse into taking one's self gravely, because it is the easiest thing to do. It is much easier to write a good TIMES leading article than a good joke in PUNCH. For solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity. (Orthodoxy, G K Chesterton)
Me:
I absolutely love to laugh; but sense of humor should not be equated with (or mistaken for) mockery.
I absolutely love to laugh; but sense of humor should not be equated with (or mistaken for) mockery.
Tom Smedley:
God laughs at His enemies, and mocks them with exquisite sarcasm. He is our pattern, right?
Now, what should we do about those brethren who serve as volunteer cheerleaders for Satan's team? They've built whole careers on denigrating the goodness, wisdom, and power of God. They provide the poison of prognostication to weaker brothers, and discourage us from moving confidently in our vocations.
Since these doomsayers and underminers of the church are brethren, anathemas and imprecations are too severe -- but mockery may be the PRECISELY calibrated surgical instrument for excising this cancerous teaching from the Body of Christ.
God laughs at His enemies, and mocks them with exquisite sarcasm. He is our pattern, right?
Now, what should we do about those brethren who serve as volunteer cheerleaders for Satan's team? They've built whole careers on denigrating the goodness, wisdom, and power of God. They provide the poison of prognostication to weaker brothers, and discourage us from moving confidently in our vocations.
Since these doomsayers and underminers of the church are brethren, anathemas and imprecations are too severe -- but mockery may be the PRECISELY calibrated surgical instrument for excising this cancerous teaching from the Body of Christ.
Me:
Brother Tom, I don’t know that it’s safe to venture into that field. God alone has the prerogative to mock His enemies (Ps. 2:4) – while we are called to love ours (Mt. 5:44).
As I said before, I realize sarcasm has its place ( 1 Kgs 18:27 – but notice even then it’s toward unbelievers who were subverting an entire nation into idolatry, not fellow believers). But I do not know of a single verse that calls us to mock our fellow brothers in Christ – no matter how much we disagree with their eschatology.
If our brother is in sin, we who are spiritual should restore him – in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1).
If our brother is living a public lifestyle that is doctrinally hypocritical, we should correct him publicly – in straightforward language (Gal. 2:11-14).
If our brother is in doctrinal error, we are to rebuke him – severely (though not mockingly) (Ti. 1:13), with patience (2 Tim. 4:2), and in love (Eph. 4:15), that he may be sound in the faith (Ti. 1:13).
And regarding our unbelieving opponents, we are called to be kind to them, patiently enduring their evil, and correcting them in gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
I realize I may be missing something. But when is a Christian ever commanded to ridicule and mock his Christian brother publicly, and then when it’s brought up to simply dismiss it as just having a sense of humor?
If your brother is in doctrinal error (which I believe dispensationalism is a doctrinal error), then correct him as a brother; do not mock him as an enemy of God.
Brother Tom, I don’t know that it’s safe to venture into that field. God alone has the prerogative to mock His enemies (Ps. 2:4) – while we are called to love ours (Mt. 5:44).
As I said before, I realize sarcasm has its place ( 1 Kgs 18:27 – but notice even then it’s toward unbelievers who were subverting an entire nation into idolatry, not fellow believers). But I do not know of a single verse that calls us to mock our fellow brothers in Christ – no matter how much we disagree with their eschatology.
If our brother is in sin, we who are spiritual should restore him – in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1).
If our brother is living a public lifestyle that is doctrinally hypocritical, we should correct him publicly – in straightforward language (Gal. 2:11-14).
If our brother is in doctrinal error, we are to rebuke him – severely (though not mockingly) (Ti. 1:13), with patience (2 Tim. 4:2), and in love (Eph. 4:15), that he may be sound in the faith (Ti. 1:13).
And regarding our unbelieving opponents, we are called to be kind to them, patiently enduring their evil, and correcting them in gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
I realize I may be missing something. But when is a Christian ever commanded to ridicule and mock his Christian brother publicly, and then when it’s brought up to simply dismiss it as just having a sense of humor?
If your brother is in doctrinal error (which I believe dispensationalism is a doctrinal error), then correct him as a brother; do not mock him as an enemy of God.
Now follows the original blog post.
I am not happy about the picture to the right, and I hope you're not either. It's a form of mockery against a specific (orthodox) Christian school of theological thought.
I would not be surprised to see something like this if it were coming from the unbelieving world. We're promised they will mock us (Jn. 15:18-19; 1 Pet. 4:4, 12-19). It breaks my heart though that this kind of mockery is being perpetuated by our own brothers in Christ. |
What makes me even sadder about this is that not only was this shared publicly on Facebook by another Christian, the man who shared it is in a place of leadership within Christian circles. He is a teacher. In fact, he is one from whom I have learned much and from whom I intend to learn much more. So I was severely disappointed when I saw that he shared it with the caption, "An oldie, but a goodie."
I can't vouch for how old it is (although it makes me think he's been "sharing" it for a while), but it is certainly not a goodie - at least not according to what Scripture says should characterize the Christian walk.
Now since he shared it publicly (it received over 90 "likes" and over 20 "shares" on Facebook), and since I tried addressing him in the same venue, I have no problem stating his name or the public discourse that followed.
Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. - a brilliant theologian and scholar.
That should surprise us if we know anything about the Christian life. Those who know most about Christ ought to be the ones whose character is most changed by Him. Unfortunately this was not the case in this instance.
So why do I bring this up?
For a couple of reasons: (1) to address the misconception, and (2) to uphold what ought to be our attitude toward other brothers in Christ who have different (though still orthodox) views of theology.
I can't vouch for how old it is (although it makes me think he's been "sharing" it for a while), but it is certainly not a goodie - at least not according to what Scripture says should characterize the Christian walk.
Now since he shared it publicly (it received over 90 "likes" and over 20 "shares" on Facebook), and since I tried addressing him in the same venue, I have no problem stating his name or the public discourse that followed.
Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. - a brilliant theologian and scholar.
That should surprise us if we know anything about the Christian life. Those who know most about Christ ought to be the ones whose character is most changed by Him. Unfortunately this was not the case in this instance.
So why do I bring this up?
For a couple of reasons: (1) to address the misconception, and (2) to uphold what ought to be our attitude toward other brothers in Christ who have different (though still orthodox) views of theology.
Addressing the Misconception
For a long time I viewed Scripture within the framework of Dispensational Theology. My undergraduate was from a school that teaches that view.
While I have since reached the conclusion that the system as a whole is not entirely Biblical, I am convinced that these men are still my brothers in Christ, many of them very capable scholars and deserving of great respect.
You know what though? While I have had the pleasure of learning from many able and scholarly men in the dispensational school of thought, not once did I ever come across one who thought of himself as on par with the intellect of Albert Einstein.
Does dispensationalism have a somewhat complex view of eschatology (end times)? Yes. But it does not logically follow that the adherents to that theology then think of themselves as being among the most intelligent people on earth. As a matter of fact, most of the ones I know are among the most humble (even if they are very intelligent).
Furthermore, the reason they teach what they do is because they believe that is what the Bible teaches. The same is true of Covenant Theologians as well. They do not teach it so they can feel the pleasure of being brilliant. They teach it for the sake of communicating God's Word.
Upholding What Ought to be Our Attitude Toward Christian Brothers
There was some dialogue that went back and forth between Ken and me (and another individual named Tom Smedley). And I was simply overtaken by the lack of Christian compassion, unity, and brotherly love.
I told Ken that I really enjoyed his more scholarly approach in dealing with dispensationalism, such as was exhibited in his book that he co-authored with Greg Bahsnen, House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology. But I went on to say that as Christians it's important to remember our duty to avoid unnecessary jesting (Eph. 5:4) and that there are more loving ways to point out the errors of dispensational theology.
It was then that Tom said dispensational eschatology is "so bizarre that ridicule is the appropriate response."
Really?
The three of us had some more back and forth, until Ken basically said I just don't have a sense of humor - to which Tom heartily agreed. Well, I do have a sense of humor; but a sense of humor should not be equated with (or mistaken for) mockery. And I think that is what was going on there.
Of course, it couldn't end there. Tom replied with the following:
There was some dialogue that went back and forth between Ken and me (and another individual named Tom Smedley). And I was simply overtaken by the lack of Christian compassion, unity, and brotherly love.
I told Ken that I really enjoyed his more scholarly approach in dealing with dispensationalism, such as was exhibited in his book that he co-authored with Greg Bahsnen, House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology. But I went on to say that as Christians it's important to remember our duty to avoid unnecessary jesting (Eph. 5:4) and that there are more loving ways to point out the errors of dispensational theology.
It was then that Tom said dispensational eschatology is "so bizarre that ridicule is the appropriate response."
Really?
The three of us had some more back and forth, until Ken basically said I just don't have a sense of humor - to which Tom heartily agreed. Well, I do have a sense of humor; but a sense of humor should not be equated with (or mistaken for) mockery. And I think that is what was going on there.
Of course, it couldn't end there. Tom replied with the following:
God laughs at His enemies, and mocks them with exquisite sarcasm. He is our pattern, right?
...
Since these doomsayers and underminers of the church are brethren, anathemas and imprecations are too severe -- but mockery may be the PRECISELY calibrated surgical instrument for excising this cancerous teaching from the Body of Christ.
Can we just take a moment to analyze whether or not that's Biblical?
It's not.
God alone has the prerogative to mock His enemies (Ps. 2:4) – while we are called to love ours (Mt. 5:44).
I realize sarcasm has its place (1 Kgs 18:27 – but notice even then it’s toward unbelievers who were subverting an entire nation into idolatry, not fellow believers). But I do not know of a single verse that calls us to mock our fellow brothers in Christ – no matter how much we disagree with their eschatology.
And regarding our unbelieving opponents, we are called to be kind to them, patiently enduring their evil, and correcting them in gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
I realize I may be missing something, but when is a Christian ever commanded to ridicule and mock his Christian brother publicly, and then when it’s brought up to simply dismiss it as just having a sense of humor? That is not brotherly love (1 Jn. 4:20-21).
If our brother is in doctrinal error we are to correct him as a brother; we are not ever to mock him as an enemy of God.
---
I wrote a book review once on a work of Greg Bahnsen, and ended by quoting some great words of one of his students, friends, and co-authors, Ken Gentry.
In the beginning of the book review I quoted a sermon of Greg's that he delivered during a conference. I think it's only appropriate to go on and quote another part of the second message Greg brought to that conference:
It's not.
God alone has the prerogative to mock His enemies (Ps. 2:4) – while we are called to love ours (Mt. 5:44).
I realize sarcasm has its place (1 Kgs 18:27 – but notice even then it’s toward unbelievers who were subverting an entire nation into idolatry, not fellow believers). But I do not know of a single verse that calls us to mock our fellow brothers in Christ – no matter how much we disagree with their eschatology.
- If our brother is in sin, we who are spiritual should restore him – in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1).
- If our brother is living a public lifestyle that is doctrinally hypocritical, we should correct him publicly – in straightforward language (Gal. 2:11-14).
- If our brother is in doctrinal error, we are to rebuke him – severely (though not mockingly) (Ti. 1:13), with patience (2 Tim. 4:2), and in love (Eph. 4:15), that he may be sound in the faith (Ti. 1:13).
And regarding our unbelieving opponents, we are called to be kind to them, patiently enduring their evil, and correcting them in gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
I realize I may be missing something, but when is a Christian ever commanded to ridicule and mock his Christian brother publicly, and then when it’s brought up to simply dismiss it as just having a sense of humor? That is not brotherly love (1 Jn. 4:20-21).
If our brother is in doctrinal error we are to correct him as a brother; we are not ever to mock him as an enemy of God.
---
I wrote a book review once on a work of Greg Bahnsen, and ended by quoting some great words of one of his students, friends, and co-authors, Ken Gentry.
In the beginning of the book review I quoted a sermon of Greg's that he delivered during a conference. I think it's only appropriate to go on and quote another part of the second message Greg brought to that conference:
Don’t pretend to be a Christian if you don’t bridle your tongue.
That’s a hard message for us Reconstructionists. For all of the good there is in affirming and applying the Law of God, if we ourselves don’t bridle our tongues our religion is futile – it’s empty. Because the Bible says the use of your tongue is an indication of your inner character.
[Bahnsen then references Proverbs 10:31-32]
And so how do we use our tongues? How do YOU use your tongue?
Do you speak harshly of people? Uncharitably? Do you speak with sarcasm? With reviling?
Is the literature that we have produced characteristically humble, kind, and charitable toward those who disagree? Or do we enjoy putting people down? Being harsh to our critics? And not just displaying their stupidity by refuting their arguments, but taking the time to label them as stupid as well?
You know the first is quite adequate in itself; the second isn’t needed. But there’s a whole lot of that second stuff going on...
--Greg L. Bahnsen, "Law and Wisdom" sermon, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, 1993
Dr. Gentry, I only hope you listen to your teacher and friend yet again.
Truly we should all take such an attitude toward our brothers in Christ. As John Frame also reminds us:
Engage in doctrinal discussion less polemically, seeking to do justice to the legitimate concerns of the other side, remembering that the great gulf is not between believers of different convictions, but between believers and unbelievers.
-John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion, p. 135, [emphasis mine]
If we bite and devour one another, we run the very real risk of being consumed by one another (Gal. 5:15).
May God grant us the grace to know Him more, and to speak to our brothers in Christ as who they really are, our brothers in Christ, not as enemies of God.
After "Liking" the link to the blog post on Facebook (which I have since removed from my activity log),
a little more conversation ensued. In the spirit of full disclosure, here it is:
a little more conversation ensued. In the spirit of full disclosure, here it is:
Tom:
Orthodoxy is a moving target. We are, as a collective people, growing in wisdom over the course of generations and centuries. The Westminster Confession of Faith is more detailed and precise than the Nicene Creed, which is more detailed and precise than the Apostles' Creed.
200 years ago, faithful Christians penned erudite books justifying the duty of white Christians to own black Christians. A century from now, our grandchildren will be equally aghast that dispensationalism was once regarded as orthodox. How did it glorify God, they will wonder, when we served as volunteer cheerleaders for Satan's team? When we boldly proclaimed as "gospel" the "inevitable" global triumph of evil?
The sooner we can leave dispensationalism behind us, the healthier we will be, and the better for all of our neighbors on this globe. The great missionary pioneers, with all of their shortcomings, were post-millennial in faith, and therefore willing, in the words of William Carey, to "Attempt great things for God! Expect great things from God!" This cartoon serves a good, wholesome, and godly purpose, since it ACCURATELY portrays the way "everyone else" regards the soothsayers, prognosticators, and newspaper exegetes.
Granted, the picture on the left is unfair to the great and godly men who hold the dispensational position. However, not all who hold this position are great and godly. Read the earlier works of those who aborted the Jesus Movement, and you will see that smug delight in elaborate prognostication. The world of those outside this position judge it by Hal Lindsey's ilk.
Orthodoxy is a moving target. We are, as a collective people, growing in wisdom over the course of generations and centuries. The Westminster Confession of Faith is more detailed and precise than the Nicene Creed, which is more detailed and precise than the Apostles' Creed.
200 years ago, faithful Christians penned erudite books justifying the duty of white Christians to own black Christians. A century from now, our grandchildren will be equally aghast that dispensationalism was once regarded as orthodox. How did it glorify God, they will wonder, when we served as volunteer cheerleaders for Satan's team? When we boldly proclaimed as "gospel" the "inevitable" global triumph of evil?
The sooner we can leave dispensationalism behind us, the healthier we will be, and the better for all of our neighbors on this globe. The great missionary pioneers, with all of their shortcomings, were post-millennial in faith, and therefore willing, in the words of William Carey, to "Attempt great things for God! Expect great things from God!" This cartoon serves a good, wholesome, and godly purpose, since it ACCURATELY portrays the way "everyone else" regards the soothsayers, prognosticators, and newspaper exegetes.
Granted, the picture on the left is unfair to the great and godly men who hold the dispensational position. However, not all who hold this position are great and godly. Read the earlier works of those who aborted the Jesus Movement, and you will see that smug delight in elaborate prognostication. The world of those outside this position judge it by Hal Lindsey's ilk.
Me:
Tom, I understand your point. And I apologize if I'm miscommunicating mine; so I'll try again. Regardless of their position and what history will inevitably show to be orthodoxy, we (even "we who are right") are never warranted in Scripture to rebuke fellow brothers in Christ by way of mocking ridicule. That is not the Scriptural norm. As I said earlier, we are to correct them (albeit severely if it's warranted - Ti. 1:13), with patience (2 Tim. 4:2), and in love (Eph. 4:15), for the purpose that they may be sound in the faith (Ti. 1:13). We are never commended to offer mocking ridicule as a form of rebuke, as such a form is actually even forbidden (Eph. 4:15, 5:4).
Consider what you've admitted in your above response. "Granted, the picture on the left is unfair to the great and godly men who hold the dispensational position." If it's unfair to them, then we shouldn't be perpetuating it. Or would we then advocate that in some cases it's appropriate to punish the innocent for a "greater cause"? Do the ends ever justify the means?
Would it be right for me to "unfairly" put up the exact picture, only have the caption read: "How Tom Smedley thinks of himself as he explains Christian ethics ... How everyone else sees him." Even if it was true (and I'm not saying that it is), it would not be the appropriate form of rebuke.
It would be going down the road of biting and devouring and being consumed, rather than demonstrating the one mark our Savior gave us explicitly to show to the world that we're on the same team - that we demonstrate love toward each other (Jn. 13:35).
To be clear, no I'm not at all advocating the mantra "doctrine divides." Doctrine is absolutely essential, and it's my hope and conviction that eventually the church will truly speak with one clear voice. However, the road to that path is to follow the instructions our Lord and Savior gave us, by correcting our brothers (who are in Christ) in a loving spirit and with patience - not with mocking ridicule.
If dispensationalists are cheer-leading for the other team, they do it unknowingly. In their mind, what they're teaching is what the Scriptures teach. If they're wrong they are to be corrected for sure, so that they would stop "cheer-leading for Satan" as you put it. But the way of correction is not mocking ridicule - it's sober-minded discussion, spoken with patience and in love. And that, is what I'm contending, is the issue here - that we rebuke doctrinal error in the method prescribed by our Lord.
Tom, I understand your point. And I apologize if I'm miscommunicating mine; so I'll try again. Regardless of their position and what history will inevitably show to be orthodoxy, we (even "we who are right") are never warranted in Scripture to rebuke fellow brothers in Christ by way of mocking ridicule. That is not the Scriptural norm. As I said earlier, we are to correct them (albeit severely if it's warranted - Ti. 1:13), with patience (2 Tim. 4:2), and in love (Eph. 4:15), for the purpose that they may be sound in the faith (Ti. 1:13). We are never commended to offer mocking ridicule as a form of rebuke, as such a form is actually even forbidden (Eph. 4:15, 5:4).
Consider what you've admitted in your above response. "Granted, the picture on the left is unfair to the great and godly men who hold the dispensational position." If it's unfair to them, then we shouldn't be perpetuating it. Or would we then advocate that in some cases it's appropriate to punish the innocent for a "greater cause"? Do the ends ever justify the means?
Would it be right for me to "unfairly" put up the exact picture, only have the caption read: "How Tom Smedley thinks of himself as he explains Christian ethics ... How everyone else sees him." Even if it was true (and I'm not saying that it is), it would not be the appropriate form of rebuke.
It would be going down the road of biting and devouring and being consumed, rather than demonstrating the one mark our Savior gave us explicitly to show to the world that we're on the same team - that we demonstrate love toward each other (Jn. 13:35).
To be clear, no I'm not at all advocating the mantra "doctrine divides." Doctrine is absolutely essential, and it's my hope and conviction that eventually the church will truly speak with one clear voice. However, the road to that path is to follow the instructions our Lord and Savior gave us, by correcting our brothers (who are in Christ) in a loving spirit and with patience - not with mocking ridicule.
If dispensationalists are cheer-leading for the other team, they do it unknowingly. In their mind, what they're teaching is what the Scriptures teach. If they're wrong they are to be corrected for sure, so that they would stop "cheer-leading for Satan" as you put it. But the way of correction is not mocking ridicule - it's sober-minded discussion, spoken with patience and in love. And that, is what I'm contending, is the issue here - that we rebuke doctrinal error in the method prescribed by our Lord.
Tom:
I appreciate your sincere and evident concern for my eternal welfare, as well as for peace in the church universal.
We differ in our convictions regarding the seriousness of the issue. IMnsHO, undermining the courage, faith, and joy of God's people is a heinous offense. Ten of the twelve spies who indulged in that bit of fear-mongering died for their sin. A whole nation lost a whole generation to pointless orbits around a desert mountain because of that sin. At some point, fools and dupes must be held accountable for their willingness to embrace deception. 150 years of false predictions should be enough, don't you think? The Bible presents fortune-telling and prognostication as capital offenses. Especially when the fortune-teller always gets it wrong. Should we be casual about something God takes so seriously? American fundamentalists discarded the future -- and nearly 60 million American infants were slaughtered, as the world around us took their cues from us and despised the future as well. (parenthetically, Roe v. Wade happened in DTS's back yard ... but they were too busy drawing pretty maps of imaginary futures to speak prophetically).
On a more personal level, we are all shaped by our experiences. I never regained the five years I lost to bad eschatology, at least in terms of my career, so I have skin in the game. I have seen up close, in person, from the inside, what rotten doctrine can do if embraced too single-mindedly. Speaking as a baby-boomer, I saw a mighty move of God aborted, and shunted off into imbecilic pointlessness, largely as a result of dispensational eschatology. That was 40 years ago. Have we learned nothing since?
Given the odiousness of this doctrine, in terms of its denigration of God's mercies, power, and wisdom, and in terms of its impact upon a nation, a generation, and a career, should we not do all in our power to hasten its demise? Boss Tweed complained about Thomas Nast's cartoons -- "None of my people can read, but they can't help seeing those damned pictures." Cartoons are low-browed humor, painting with broad strokes -- but should we tie one hand behind our backs as we gird up for battle with an evil that has battened and fattened upon God's dear people for a century longer than it had any right to?
I appreciate your sincere and evident concern for my eternal welfare, as well as for peace in the church universal.
We differ in our convictions regarding the seriousness of the issue. IMnsHO, undermining the courage, faith, and joy of God's people is a heinous offense. Ten of the twelve spies who indulged in that bit of fear-mongering died for their sin. A whole nation lost a whole generation to pointless orbits around a desert mountain because of that sin. At some point, fools and dupes must be held accountable for their willingness to embrace deception. 150 years of false predictions should be enough, don't you think? The Bible presents fortune-telling and prognostication as capital offenses. Especially when the fortune-teller always gets it wrong. Should we be casual about something God takes so seriously? American fundamentalists discarded the future -- and nearly 60 million American infants were slaughtered, as the world around us took their cues from us and despised the future as well. (parenthetically, Roe v. Wade happened in DTS's back yard ... but they were too busy drawing pretty maps of imaginary futures to speak prophetically).
On a more personal level, we are all shaped by our experiences. I never regained the five years I lost to bad eschatology, at least in terms of my career, so I have skin in the game. I have seen up close, in person, from the inside, what rotten doctrine can do if embraced too single-mindedly. Speaking as a baby-boomer, I saw a mighty move of God aborted, and shunted off into imbecilic pointlessness, largely as a result of dispensational eschatology. That was 40 years ago. Have we learned nothing since?
Given the odiousness of this doctrine, in terms of its denigration of God's mercies, power, and wisdom, and in terms of its impact upon a nation, a generation, and a career, should we not do all in our power to hasten its demise? Boss Tweed complained about Thomas Nast's cartoons -- "None of my people can read, but they can't help seeing those damned pictures." Cartoons are low-browed humor, painting with broad strokes -- but should we tie one hand behind our backs as we gird up for battle with an evil that has battened and fattened upon God's dear people for a century longer than it had any right to?
Me:
Tom I also appreciate you, your convictions, and your communication with me. Although while it's true that I have a general concern for your eternal welfare, I hope I haven't come across as doubting your salvation or your being in the kingdom. I certainly think of you too as a brother in Christ - and even one who I admire and respect.
I think our disagreement is on two levels though.
(1) The seriousness of the issue.
I'm a newbie to abandoning the dispensational outlook. I'm only about two years into it (it was hard to go back after reading Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics and his other works on the subject, including the one he co-authored with Ken Gentry). I do see myself growing, certainly, in my understanding of the seriousness of the issue and the devastating impact that dispensational theology as a whole has had on the church. And I truly hurt for the retreatist approach so many have taken because of that system's teachings.
But being so relatively new to this, I'm definitely not where you are in having such a pronounced disdain for that theology. Perhaps that's an area in which I need to grow.
Even if that is the case though, I think here is where our real disagreement is:
(2) How to deal with the issue.
Let us grant that your opinion is 100% correct - undermining the courage, faith, and joy of God's people is a heinous offense. I actually can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case.
However, I think there are two things to consider in this.
(a) Dispensational teachers (the class of godly men who are true brothers in Christ) are not undermining the courage, faith, and joy of God's people. They teach courage to preach the gospel even despite the world falling apart around them, faith in the salvation of the Lord and in His immanent return, and great joy at the rapture (literally, intense joy) of the church to be caught up in the clouds with the Lord and to celebrate with the Him at the marriage supper of the Lamb.
Even if it's incorrect, doctrinally, they are still advocating courage for the Lord, faith in the Lord, and joy of the Lord on the part of God's people. It may be a Biblically wrong understanding of those things. But their foundation for all of that truly is the Word of God.
This is a far cry from the spies who discouraged faith in the Lord God to do what He promised, and the entire generation that lost out on the promised land because of their unbelief. They weren't discredited because they had a misunderstanding of specifically how God would bring about their victory. They were discredited because they did not have faith in Jehovah at all (Heb. 3:17-4:2).
(b) Let us even grant that for all practical purposes, and despite their best intentions, dispensational theology really does discourage (as a net outcome) courage, faith, and joy. Does that then give us the right to rebuke them in mocking ridicule? Or should we follow the prescribed norms we find in Scripture for how to correct and rebuke our brothers in Christ?
If and when a doctrine is so odious "in terms of its denigration of God's mercies, power, and wisdom, and in terms of its impact upon a nation, a generation, and a career" I agree we should do all in our power to hasten its demise - provided that it is done in a way that Scripture authorizes and doesn't condemn. But I just don't see the Bible authorizing (and I do see it condemning) mocking ridicule of our fellow brothers in Christ.
If we really want to correct "the odious, heinous offense" of dispensational theology, then the way it ought to be done is through rational conversation in a spirit of love - because that's how God has instructed us to do it.
Do we want to prove that dispensational theology is wrong to the masses and correct the church's understanding of eschatology? Then let us first prove our own confidence in the Scriptures by not swerving to the world's view of how to correct an opposing view (by mocking ridicule), and rather put the same confidence we have in God's victory of the church into His prescribed method for correcting and even rebuking our fellow brethren.
At least that's my understanding of what the Scriptures teach and how that teaching should be applied to this situation...
Tom I also appreciate you, your convictions, and your communication with me. Although while it's true that I have a general concern for your eternal welfare, I hope I haven't come across as doubting your salvation or your being in the kingdom. I certainly think of you too as a brother in Christ - and even one who I admire and respect.
I think our disagreement is on two levels though.
(1) The seriousness of the issue.
I'm a newbie to abandoning the dispensational outlook. I'm only about two years into it (it was hard to go back after reading Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics and his other works on the subject, including the one he co-authored with Ken Gentry). I do see myself growing, certainly, in my understanding of the seriousness of the issue and the devastating impact that dispensational theology as a whole has had on the church. And I truly hurt for the retreatist approach so many have taken because of that system's teachings.
But being so relatively new to this, I'm definitely not where you are in having such a pronounced disdain for that theology. Perhaps that's an area in which I need to grow.
Even if that is the case though, I think here is where our real disagreement is:
(2) How to deal with the issue.
Let us grant that your opinion is 100% correct - undermining the courage, faith, and joy of God's people is a heinous offense. I actually can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case.
However, I think there are two things to consider in this.
(a) Dispensational teachers (the class of godly men who are true brothers in Christ) are not undermining the courage, faith, and joy of God's people. They teach courage to preach the gospel even despite the world falling apart around them, faith in the salvation of the Lord and in His immanent return, and great joy at the rapture (literally, intense joy) of the church to be caught up in the clouds with the Lord and to celebrate with the Him at the marriage supper of the Lamb.
Even if it's incorrect, doctrinally, they are still advocating courage for the Lord, faith in the Lord, and joy of the Lord on the part of God's people. It may be a Biblically wrong understanding of those things. But their foundation for all of that truly is the Word of God.
This is a far cry from the spies who discouraged faith in the Lord God to do what He promised, and the entire generation that lost out on the promised land because of their unbelief. They weren't discredited because they had a misunderstanding of specifically how God would bring about their victory. They were discredited because they did not have faith in Jehovah at all (Heb. 3:17-4:2).
(b) Let us even grant that for all practical purposes, and despite their best intentions, dispensational theology really does discourage (as a net outcome) courage, faith, and joy. Does that then give us the right to rebuke them in mocking ridicule? Or should we follow the prescribed norms we find in Scripture for how to correct and rebuke our brothers in Christ?
If and when a doctrine is so odious "in terms of its denigration of God's mercies, power, and wisdom, and in terms of its impact upon a nation, a generation, and a career" I agree we should do all in our power to hasten its demise - provided that it is done in a way that Scripture authorizes and doesn't condemn. But I just don't see the Bible authorizing (and I do see it condemning) mocking ridicule of our fellow brothers in Christ.
If we really want to correct "the odious, heinous offense" of dispensational theology, then the way it ought to be done is through rational conversation in a spirit of love - because that's how God has instructed us to do it.
Do we want to prove that dispensational theology is wrong to the masses and correct the church's understanding of eschatology? Then let us first prove our own confidence in the Scriptures by not swerving to the world's view of how to correct an opposing view (by mocking ridicule), and rather put the same confidence we have in God's victory of the church into His prescribed method for correcting and even rebuking our fellow brethren.
At least that's my understanding of what the Scriptures teach and how that teaching should be applied to this situation...
Tom:
You remind me of the old hymn by an Anglo-Catholic writer, vss. 2 and 3:
Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.
Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.
It's hard to effectively whack one another with proof-texts, when the whole picture the older paradigm defends is askew. Sometimes, as R J Rushdoony put it, "Let the dead bury the dead. The living have work to do." Perhaps the most effective "argument" is a life well and articulately lived. My pro-life prayer for 30 years, now, is that God would raise up Christians of note in the arts. The only way to overcome the culture of death is by winsomely celebrating life. In this specific case, our novels should portray believable characters living well in a setting that presupposes the victorious outlook. Such as this short story, perhaps. Or Orson Scott Card's novels, that portray Christians as worthy and believable people. (why did God have to raise up a Mormon to sing His praises in the branch of juvenile literature that so attracts the more intelligent young readers?)
http://www.tomsmedley.com/Passion.pdf
You remind me of the old hymn by an Anglo-Catholic writer, vss. 2 and 3:
Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.
Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.
It's hard to effectively whack one another with proof-texts, when the whole picture the older paradigm defends is askew. Sometimes, as R J Rushdoony put it, "Let the dead bury the dead. The living have work to do." Perhaps the most effective "argument" is a life well and articulately lived. My pro-life prayer for 30 years, now, is that God would raise up Christians of note in the arts. The only way to overcome the culture of death is by winsomely celebrating life. In this specific case, our novels should portray believable characters living well in a setting that presupposes the victorious outlook. Such as this short story, perhaps. Or Orson Scott Card's novels, that portray Christians as worthy and believable people. (why did God have to raise up a Mormon to sing His praises in the branch of juvenile literature that so attracts the more intelligent young readers?)
http://www.tomsmedley.com/Passion.pdf