Is the kingdom of God coming? Has it already come? Is it the church? Is it in heaven? Many questions still abound in regards to the nature of the kingdom of God and I’ve argued that I think it’s important for those of us in the Vineyard to have a robustly informed understanding of our theological framework because it provides the contours as to why we “do the stuff,” as John Wimber used to say.
In this post I want to briefly (ha!) explain some things about Inaugurated Eschatology, specifically as understood in “classic” Vineyard values, and why it is incompatible with Classic Dispensationalism (CD). I, and many others, have been surprised to find that there are some in the Vineyard who appear to either be unaware of the in’s and out’s of how the Vineyard has, via the influence of George Ladd, understood the kingdom or are unaware of what Classic Dispensationalism teaches that undermines the very foundation of our values and praxis (previously I stated that I was shocked to learn this and that feeling still stands).
Let’s back up for a second though. Before explaining why CD is incompatible with Vineyard kingdom theology, I want to talk a bit more about our understanding of the kingdom of God, which I’ve previously called the Upside Down and Now Not Yet.
If you want to have a better understanding of the theological foundation for the Vineyard’s understanding of the kingdom, you must consult Ladd’s The Presence of the Future or the earlier written The Gospel of the Kingdom. Ladd’s work is pretty technical and scholarly, especially in The Presence of the Future, but this is our theological heritage (if you want to read Ladd’s theology for “normal-every-day-non-theology-geek-users-of-big-words,” check out the absolutely excellent book by Robby McAlpine, The Genesis Cafe). The Vineyard movement, along with all of Evangelicalism, stands on the shoulders of George Eldon Ladd (cf. A Place at the Table).
George Ladd (and Geerhardus Vos before him; cf. Pauline Eschatology) lived in a time when the dominant theological system/framework in American Evangelicalism was Dispensationalism. Thus, most of Ladd’s theological work was spent pushing back against many of the dispensational viewpoints concerning eschatology, the kingdom of God, and theological method. Ladd’s work was critical of Dispensationalism and challenged the dispensational sine quibus non of his day.
Classic Dispensationalism, because it views a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, envisions the kingdom of God as something that will only be “experienced” or “realized” during the Millennium. This understanding of the kingdom, in keeping with the dispensational commitment to Premillennialism, understands that the kingdom of God is a future concern and primarily focused toward ethnic Israel. It has little to nothing to do with the Church (cf. Sam Storms’ “The Dispensational Premillennial View of the kingdom of God”). Let me rephrase that: according to this type of Dispensationalism, the kingdom of God has nothing to do with the Church and has no purpose in the here and now.
This undermines core values of the Vineyard. Within CD, there is no now there is only not yet. That is why the early advocates of CD were, by their very nature, Cessationists. According to CD, the “kingdom of God” was offered by God to Israel at Jesus’ first coming but they rejected it and so the “signs” and “evidences” of the kingdom of God have been put on hold until the end of the church age. This is standard within CD (cf. Ryrie’s Dispensationalism or the Scofield Study Bible). Notice that this is radically different for how the Vineyard movement has approached the kingdom of God. If CD places the kingdom of God as completely future and the Vineyard understands the kingdom as inaugurated at Jesus’ first, there’s a radical difference. Yet there are some who do not see a problem with integrating a dispensational hermeneutic with a Vineyard hermeneutic. Houston… we have a problem.
We need to understand, quite frankly, that we are talking about hermeneutical approaches to the Bible. Dispensationalism is a way to read Scripture, as is a kingdom hermeneutic (cf. a Vineyard hermeneutical approach here). Dispensationalists, like all other interpreters, start reading Scripture with ideas or, as Anthony Thiselton writes, start at “horizons.” The issue is that the lens by which CD advocates read Scripture undermines and actually rejects the way that the Vineyard has historically viewed the kingdom.
As I’ve observed what others are saying about Dispensationalism and Vineyard theology, I’ve come to realize that there are still many who do not quite understand the historical context in which the Vineyard came out of. Prior to John Wimber having his theological world awakened to the kingdom of God, Ladd had essentially taken on Dispensationalism and rescued Evangelicalism from it’s tight grasp (cf. A Place at the Table). That way when Wimber started reading Ladd, not only was it allowable to be a non-dispensationalist, it was actually encouraged by many with Evangelicalism!
Classic Dispensationalism and the the Vineyard’s value of the kingdom of God are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible. Derek Morphew writes:
“Dispensationalism and cessationism combine to reduce what people expect today when they pray, “Your kingdom come.” If signs and wonders ceased with the apostles, then we do not expect them to happen in answer to this prayer. If the church is going to escape from the world, then we have a reduced expectation of world evangelism when we pray that prayer. We need to allow the full revelation of scripture to enlarge our expectation until it is a truly kingdom expectation.” (Breakthrough, p. 97)
and
“Dispensational thinking and kingdom theology are not compatible.” (p. 164)
I could provide many other quotes from different theologians and biblical scholars that suggest the same but I think you get the point. Though not a Vineyard theologian, N.T. Wright tackles many of the same issues in Surprised by Hope.
Some have suggested as evidence that Dispensationalism and Vineyard theology are perfectly compatible by pointing to the early Pentecostals. They suggest that since many of the early Pentecostals were also Dispensationalists, Vineyard theology fits with Dispensationalism too. However, a couple of responses are in order:
First, while there are some very important similarities and affinities between the Vineyard movement and Pentecostalism, it must also be noted that there are differences. While we are all committed to a pneumatic approach to our theology, our theological and practical commitments are not identical. This is covered in Jackson’s The Quest for the Radical Middle.
Second, while the early Pentecostals held to dispensational eschatology, Pentecostal scholars (and historians) now acknowledge that this was a mistake and simply indicative of the fact that Pentecostalism was a tradition that developed out of previous theological commitments (cf. Matthew Thompson’s Kingdom Come; William Faupel’s The Everlasting Gospel; as well as work by Amos Yong, Allan Anderson, etc.). The early Pentecostals were Dispensationalists because they didn’t know any better.
In fact, in the Spirit Filled Life Study Bible, edited by Pentecostal Jack W. Hayford, the following statement is made in the section “In Studying the Book of Revelation”:
“Interestingly, many of Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition interpret Rev’ and Daniel from this dispensational view, even though such an interpretive approach anywhere other than in prophetic scripture would dictate a denial of the ] manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit.”
Make sense?
*****************************************
- I’ve left out other issues with Classic Dispensationalism. What would you add?
- Who do you think is the most influential theologian to challenge Classic Dispensationalism besides George Eldon Ladd?
- Why were early Pentecostals apt to incorporate their pneumatic experiences (and theology) along with Dispensationalism?
- Why do you think Pentecostals should abandon that commitment?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
Excellent work Luke, however I see the further forces of erosion at work in VCF. Classic Dispensationalism being argued as compatible with Kingdom Theology? My, my, my.
Aside from that, can I ask you for another discussion? In this article you pointed out how Ladd’s perspective made allowance for Wimber’s paradigm shift into the place of ‘Doing the Stuff,’ with the ‘Stuff’ being defined as supernaturalism manifesting in the natural, or as you put it, ‘Now/Not Yet (I really like the update BTW).’
My question is, how much ‘stuff’ is actually still happening in Vineyard’s matrix? This isn’t criticism, it’s genuine inquiry, particularly with the backdrop of your excellent arguments against Classic Dispensationalism.
Incidentally, I consider myself to be a true Dispensationalist, which consists of two (2) and only two (2) dispensations or time frames that address the LORD’s dealing with humanity, angels, demons, etc. there is this age (dispensation) and the age (dispensation) to come. The rules that pertain to engaging the supernatural in the natural have never altered, as our God doesn’t alter. I’ll stop now, as I’m preaching to the choir.
Blessings bro. Keep up the good work!
All my Vineyard friends are seeking the empowerment and experiencing the Spirit’s work, so that is all I know 🙂
I wish there was a LIKE button here. I agree with this statement, Luke. I think it would be very boring to try to be Vineyard and NOT seek “empowerment and experiencing the Spirit’s work”.
What is VCF?
Great article Luke. Thanks for defining which type of dispensationalism you are talking about. I highly doubt there are classic dispensationalists within the Vineyard. You are right to say they are incompatible.
Coming from a Pentecostal tradition I can attempt to answer your last 2 questions. Early Pentecostals believed that the present outpouring of the Spirit they were experiencing was fulfillment of prophecy that would bring in the pre-millennial return of Christ. As such, there was less emphasis placed on how it fit into a grander theological matrix and more emphasis on preparation for that return. It was not until a few decades later that they had to start dealing with the implications of their pneumatology.
I do not know many Pentecostals that hold to classic dispensationalism. They hold to a modified dispensationalism if any. As revbolin pointed out concerning 2 ages, most Pentecostals would hold to his broad dispensations of now and not yet, but would then further break down the “now”. They would modify the classic dispensationalism definitions of the age of grace which had the 2 components of the age of the apostles and church age, to the church age or spirit empowered age which is synonymous with what we call the kingdom now and not yet.
Should they abandon “any” form of dispensationalism? I recently reread Ladd’s book on the gospel of the kingdom because of this conversation. Personally I still do not see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people got some ages wrong or saw them through their cessationist paradigms.
I think there appears to be a difference in what you see as normative for Pentecostalism and what Pentecostal scholars and historians are now suggesting.
The modified Dispensationalism you refer to is still very similar on a hermeneutical level as Classic.
Thankful Pentecostals still practiced the “stuff” though, regardless of the inconsistency 😉
Luke, that may be. As we both know, I am not a theologian, I am a practitioner. (Not that theologians do not practice or that practitioners do not have theology) I just know what I have seen and read over the years. Pentecostalism started with a classical dispensational bent. Their theological training was weak in the early years with many laypeople becoming pastors and teachers and their only source of information was contained in their Dake’s Annotated Bible, KJV version.
By the time I entered the scene, Jack Hayford was already influencing the conversation and a change was happening. It was under His leadership that we learned to re-examine classical dispensationalism and most came to a conclusion that it had to be modified. (I had the privilege to sit down with him on a couple of occasions and be a sponge.) Now I don’t know if this is true with the AofG or CofG (Cleveland) or the smaller Pentecostal denominations, but at least within Foursquare, it was so.
Nice job, Luke. I think its important to point out this also covers the piopular ‘left behind’ brand of dispensationalism that many, many evangelicals in the Vineyard and elsewhere hold to. As Morphew says, we aren’t waiting to escape from the world (through some kind of raptutre) nor do we await some terrible tribulation. We already experience that tribulation, along with increasingly frequent breakthroughs of the Kingdom. I also love when he says we cannot fragment the Kingdom. ”First coming and second coming are not Biblical language”. There’s just one kingdom, undivided, that has come and will come and is coming.
Luke, part of the issue is that your classic Pentecostal church bodies come from only two basic ecclesiastical/eschatological orientations. Both of these, the
Baptist/Northfield (Moody) “Higher life” movement and the Wesleyan-holiness
movement, were heavily influenced by the teachings of Schofield in his wildly
popular study Bible, and the Niagara Bible Conferences. These Conferences were
a series of linked regional conferences, repeating the themes of the main Conference,
which focused primarily on biblical exposition and biblical theology. They were
hugely popular among fundamentalist/evangelical people from all denominations
and set the tone for much of late nineteenth century evangelical belief. The
conferences became overwhelmingly dispensational, so much so that by the end of
the 1920s people like J. Barton Payne – a historic premillennialist, but not a
dispensational (pre-tribulational) premillennialist – were simply never invited
to speak. So, both the “Baptistic” and the “Wesleyan-holiness” wings of the
Pentecostal movement pretty much adopted classic dispensationalism with their
mother’s milk.
Where Hayford got “Kingdom now, but not yet” has never been settled (even Pastor Jack does not seem to know). He may have heard Ladd’s ideas second/third hand without attribution. He was –I think—also trying to counter the Latter Rain emphasis on Kingdom Now as well as attempting to articulate an eschatology of the Spirit. I agree with you that Dispensationalism does not seem to allow the Holy Spirit’s work. BTW this is why the Spirit-Filled Life Bible has TWO sets of notes for all the apocalyptic literature, one from a CD perspective, and one from a “historical premillennialist” viewpoint.
Excellent article, Luke. Interestingly to those of you reading this, the conversation that Luke is referring to happened on an online forum. Unfortunately we all filter things through our own understanding. I was in the conversation that Luke was involved in. He may have come to the conclusion that some see CD as compatible with Vineyard theology by some other sources than that discussion; I am not sure. But I do know that that discussion influenced his thoughts here.
What I can say is that CD is indeed impossible to hold to as someone in the Vineyard. But CD is equally incompatible with ANY Pentecostal/charismatic theology. As Luke referred to, many early on established a modified dispensationalism that included the gifts in this “dispensation of Grace”. So no one pops a blood vessel, I, personally, do not believe this is sound theology. And, as Luke has pointed out, many Pentecostal “theologians” have moved away from this.
But that is the key word…theologians. Many of the ministers, writings and everyday church goers still have influences of a modified dispensationalism floating around. And some would argue until they are blue in the face for such a belief. They indeed may pop a blood vessel.
What often attracts folks from the Pentecostal traditions to the Vineyard may not be there desire to get rid of their modified dispensational beliefs and embrace Kingdom Theology. Most likely they will be attracted to the Vineyard because of our practice of Kingdom Theology. And the practice of Kingdom Theology is often revealed in our worship, our prayer model, our exercise of the gifts. It is from this platform that many coming from other denominational backgrounds springboard into the deep end of Kingdom Theology.
And that is precisely why the question was posed to Luke in the first place. “Is there no room at the Vineyard table for dispensationalists?” And I am the one that proposed it.
Now that I understand that my question was proposed from my own traditional Pentecostal background (the entire denomination held to a modified dispensationalism by the way) I think what I intended was not what was heard. I intended it from the perspective I wrote above. That there are those that will enter our doors that have “not yet” become “now and not yet”. And my question was in response to the blanket statement that excluded dispensationalism.
Again, what you hear may not be what was intended. What I heard was “There is no room for modified dispensationalists in the Vineyard.” Not modified dispensationalism, but modified dispensationalists. For that I publicly apologize.
I, too, strongly agree that holding too a modified dispensational position will be impossible if one is to fully embrace the Vineyard Value of Kingdom Theology. And I would further say that I would have a hard time believing that a Vineyard pastor could hold to a dispensational position, even if it is modified, and be able to function with clarity and purity in Vineyard Theology.
The one thing I challenge you on here though Luke is your understanding of there being a group of folks (especially pastors) that actually hold to even a modified dispensational position in the Vineyard. I, personally, know none. I think you have a solid defense here, but very few if any to prosecute for holding a modified dispensational position and no one that is CD and Vineyard.
Overall, good article.
I actually know for a fact that there exist Vineyard pastors who hold to Dispensationalism.
Some have even written books on the topic.
And how do they justify their position? Have you engaged them to see how they manage to hold that position in tension with Kingdom Theology? That would be an interesting discussion article between the two of you. It seems that the tension would eventually push them in or out of the Vineyard, simply because it would be contradicting if they hold to a pure CD with the slight modification of the ourpouring the Holy Spirit. Do they see the Kingdom as Now? Or is that also modified. And if they are able to do that then can it be that there IS room at the table for such dispensationalists? I find this all very curious.
Well done Luke, these are deep waters to swim through whether one is a pastor or scholar. I prefer the hyphenated term, pastor-scholar. I think it’s perilous for pastors and scholars to maintain a sharp distinction between the two. The church today (and the Vineyard Movement) needs its ministers to know the word inside and out, backward and forward.
Almost no one today embraces classic dispensationalism (CD) at the scholarly level. There is still in existence what is known as Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (RD), which had been codified by J. Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie. There is a newer branch of Dispensationalism called Progressive Dispensationalism (PD), which embraces the teachings of George Eldon Ladd as evidenced by the scholarly work of Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising.
PD is the most reputable form of Dispensationalism within academic circles. Unfortunately, scholars like Bock and Blaising must deal with guilt by association. Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and Jerry Jenkins have sullied the pond for PD and its advocates. In fact because of the writings of Lindsey and LaHaye, PD will always face the task of distancing itself from CD and RD. Plus, those who embrace historic premillennialism must learn to deal with being lumped together with dispensational premillennialism.
From my perspective, the majority of up and coming ministers across all denominations have been leaving behind the “left behind” theology of the previous generations. Some land in the historic premill camp, but quite a few end up squarely in the Amillennial or Postmillennial streams. This is especially the case within the Charismatic and Pentecostal wing of the church. Those who no longer embrace any form of Dispensationalism are vocal advocates of C. Peter Wagner’s brand of Postmillennialism called Dominionism (7 mountains of culture).
Is Dispensationalism incompatible with Vineyard theology? It is with respect to both CD and RD; however, PD is a definite option. For the sake of disclosure, I’m not a dispensationalist; although, I was one for nearly two decades. Over the last two years, I’ve grown more covenantal in my interpretation (2nd London Confession) of the scriptures. I remain a convinced historic premillennialist, who operates in the gifts of the Spirit.
So much of American religious culture understands the book of Revelation through the lenses of Dispensationalism, i.e. Left Behind. I hadn’t given it much thought myself, as I’ve been an amillennialist for my entire scholastic life, but I wonder about the compatibility of dispensational reading of Revelation vs inaugurated eschatology reading of Revelation. Does Inaugurated undermine premillennialism, the rapture, etc.?