Why I am a dispensationalist with a small "d"

DARRELL L. BOCK*

I. WHY ASK WHY?

More than a decade ago at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society the ETS Dispensational Study Group held its inaugural meeting.1 The goal of our meetings was to discuss various issues related to dispensationalism because those who launched the effort felt that such discussion would prove fruitful not only to dispensationalists but also to other Society members interested in eschatology. The effort began with the combined help of some who today might identify themselves either as progressive or traditional dispensationalists. The group was consciously committed not only to having discussion among themselves but also to having others participate as speakers who did not identify with dispensationalism but with other theological traditions. Talking to one another, not about one another, was and is a major goal of our meetings.

This essay's goal is similar. Why not engage in some reflection about what dispensationalism is as a movement? Why not make clear why dispensationalists identify with dispensationalism as a significant contributor to evangelical theology? What does dispensationalism contribute to evangelical theology? Why not reflect on its strengths, developments and potential weaknesses? That will be my goal. This is all the more important as some within our tradition have asked, even publicly, whether progressive dispensationalism is in fact dispensationalism at all. Some of these critics regard it instead as a troubling hybrid and an attempt to be covenant theology in sheep's clothing. 2 I think it is important and appropriate to answer this question as directly as possible. I hope to affirm the strengths of this tradition and why I identify with it.

I also want all of us, whatever our tradition, to reflect on what the meaning and limitations of such traditional labels are. What does identifying with a tradition mean in a Biblically oriented group that is quite aware of Paul's rebuke in 1 Corinthians 1 about being of Paul or of Apollos or even of Christ? This is the explanation for the small "d." It is my contention that all of us, whatever our traditional roots, need to hold to our tradition with a sense that it possesses a small-letter dimension in recognition of the fact that many points we discuss with one another are points of debate between Biblically committed evangelicals. As we face much of the world that does not know Jesus, what we have in common is far more important than our differences. How one makes this distinction of priority is what this essay and its tone are all about, even as it affirms its identification with a major tradition in evangelicalism.

II. INTRODUCTION: THINKING ABOUT TRADITIONAL THEOLOGICAL IDENTITY Identity, unlike vocation, is not always a simple thing to explain. The impact of background, events and my cultural environment play into identity in ways I probably underestimate. We are people made in God's image, and yet we are touched by God's divine work in a myriad of life's details. In my case I happened to grow up in Texas and selected Southern Methodist University for my freshman year in college because it was close to Houston, my home, and seemed a nice enough place. But God was also at work. By the luck of the draw my roommate, a Southern Baptist, lived out the great commission long before I really knew what it was. Such human details to our allegiances are often forgotten or unmentioned but also, I am sure, have a major part in determining our identity. There is a positive (and sometimes a negative), personal, human dimension to our theological identity and how we theologize. We ignore it to our peril if we do not recognize that it is there making an impact.

Identification with a theological tradition is a similar exercise. Many of us are who we are because we belonged to a church of a certain tradition when we came to Christ and have been satisfied with this association. For others, our traditional identities are a product of a reaction, sometimes quite intense, against the roots of our new beginnings. For still others it is far less shocking a transition and may not even be viewed in coming and leaving terms at all. Exposure to the body of Christ has led to reflection and the development of a sense of strength and weakness about the tradition or traditions with which we identify. In other words, some of us are who we are because we have been that way from our second birth, while others became who we are in conscious comparison to other traditions. Being good theologians and regardless of the route we take, we justify the associations we take with the claims and convictions that we are Biblical in holding to what we believe.

This is not to suggest that those who have stayed within a tradition all their Christian life have not been reflective. Unless one lives in a hermetically sealed church it is impossible in our era not to be exposed to a variety of traditions, Biblical or otherwise. The simplest and least taxing answer to our exposure to this variety is simply to say that our tradition is Biblical and be done with it, satisfied that how we read the Bible is the way it should be read. We defend the association using whatever plausible reasons we can raise, not the least interested in how or why others see it differently. We all know in our hearts that this approach is not only inadequate but also unBiblical. If theological exercise is to be anything, it is called to be reflective about Scripture and the world with a worshipful integrity in pursuing the truth, wherever it lies. That means being fair not only about what I believe but about what others believe as well. It may mean seeing truth in things said outside of my tradition.