In the 1930s my pastor preached dispensationalism as the only way to read and understand the Bible. As a kid in the pew I struggled with the implications being drawn there that all those other churches that did not preach this were not just in error, but were deliberately misleading their people who would end up in hell. OUCH! I struggled with these implications until at age 14 I dumped the whole thing. Thanks, Scot, for this historical explanation that caused me so much misery in childhood. These teachings were not merely another acceptable way to read the Bible; they damned too many good people to hell with their exclusive "understanding" of Scripture.
My wife’s family are devout” Bible Students” , I believe is a break off of Jehovah witnesses. Their thing is just as confusing as what has gone on in the church. They believe only those that study diligently the scriptures will go to heaven, All 144,000 , that thinking made my wife and her mother great sadness and pain.
I have always wondered why Christianity was so hard to believe and be a part of. I am a Christ follower plain and simple. I appreciate your giving us a history lesson, I appreciate your writings .
Thanks, Scot. I'll probably have to read this book, since it's something of (a portion of) my theological autobiography. I feel like an escapee or survivor or some such!
While it is true that J N Darby ended as an Exclusive (and since Exclusives split, he was excommunicated by some of them), Dispensationalism came from before the Open Brethren - Exclusive Brethren distinction, from the Powerscourt Conferences of 1824 - 1826. Thus most Open Brethren were and are Dispensational. (Although in England some are Reformed as I saw in the head of my doctoral program, F. F. Bruce - and they or at least he got on well with those who were Dispensational). My own family goes back in the Brethren in England to at least the 1830’s. More significantly, my own history was Dispensational until, under the influence of a Brethren professor at TEDS I chose TEDS over DTS and in his class my first quarter was introduced to G E Ladd’s Theology (which was indeed Walter Liefeld’s own position). The interesting thing is that while Dispensationalism was transmitted by the Brethren to the Fundamentalist world, especially in North America, their core distinctive in worship, that worship is the Lord’s Supper period (preaching in the form of typical hymns + preaching was done in the evening as was called the “Gospel Meeting” and only in my youth did a morning preaching service, the “Family Bible Hour,” become increasingly common in the USA. I preached my first morning sermon on Nov 24, 1963, although I had preached in the evening a time or two in the previous months (I think). Due to Nov 22, 1963, my 16th birthday, the morning date stuck in my mind.
I mention the above because in my life experience while I could shift from Dispensationalism to something more Laddian under the influence of Liefeld and Longenecker at TEDS and then F. F. Bruce at Manchester (although S. S. Smalley was my supervisor) and became gospel-centered (rather than Paul-centered) I never jettisoned that core reality of the centrality of the Lord’s Supper, which is an important reason why I, after 34 years as an Episcopal priest who never moved in Anglo-Catholic circles much but who also did not like low-church in which Morning Prayer without communion was often the central service, ended up a Catholic priest. Of course, a conviction that the Church must be one and decades long deep interest in the spiritual tradition running from the Apostolic Fathers through the Desert Fathers and Benedict and on to the present also played their role.
Thanks for all those names - yes, they swirled around my house growing up and even in seminary (my brother-in-law went to DTS) although CHM and other Brethren “saints” were even more prominent in my father’s library. So much history and now we see more clearly - and I say “more” not just “clearly” - where those Dispensationalist themes were tending towards.
Wonderful story Peter. I was at TEDS not long after you but I read Ladd in college and swallowed inaugurated immediately. My college prof was dead-set against dispensationalism, and in fact wrote the kind of recommendation about me for DTS that I was not admitted. Ha. But, this is part of the theme of Hummel's book. He does not think dispensationalism became that until after Darby so he uses "new premill" for all the Exclusive Brethren stuff. It's hard for me not to see Darby as a Dispy but I'm trying to think the way Hummel does about this history.
I read this as fond memories of my journey from the dispensationalism of my Bible College years and through Ladd. I don't perceive that guys like Ladd and other so called "neo-evangelicals" were half way between. Right after graduating from Bible college I started reading Ladd and it was a dramatic, and stark departure from the "Dallas Bunch".
In the 1930s my pastor preached dispensationalism as the only way to read and understand the Bible. As a kid in the pew I struggled with the implications being drawn there that all those other churches that did not preach this were not just in error, but were deliberately misleading their people who would end up in hell. OUCH! I struggled with these implications until at age 14 I dumped the whole thing. Thanks, Scot, for this historical explanation that caused me so much misery in childhood. These teachings were not merely another acceptable way to read the Bible; they damned too many good people to hell with their exclusive "understanding" of Scripture.
My wife’s family are devout” Bible Students” , I believe is a break off of Jehovah witnesses. Their thing is just as confusing as what has gone on in the church. They believe only those that study diligently the scriptures will go to heaven, All 144,000 , that thinking made my wife and her mother great sadness and pain.
I have always wondered why Christianity was so hard to believe and be a part of. I am a Christ follower plain and simple. I appreciate your giving us a history lesson, I appreciate your writings .
Thanks, Scot. I'll probably have to read this book, since it's something of (a portion of) my theological autobiography. I feel like an escapee or survivor or some such!
While it is true that J N Darby ended as an Exclusive (and since Exclusives split, he was excommunicated by some of them), Dispensationalism came from before the Open Brethren - Exclusive Brethren distinction, from the Powerscourt Conferences of 1824 - 1826. Thus most Open Brethren were and are Dispensational. (Although in England some are Reformed as I saw in the head of my doctoral program, F. F. Bruce - and they or at least he got on well with those who were Dispensational). My own family goes back in the Brethren in England to at least the 1830’s. More significantly, my own history was Dispensational until, under the influence of a Brethren professor at TEDS I chose TEDS over DTS and in his class my first quarter was introduced to G E Ladd’s Theology (which was indeed Walter Liefeld’s own position). The interesting thing is that while Dispensationalism was transmitted by the Brethren to the Fundamentalist world, especially in North America, their core distinctive in worship, that worship is the Lord’s Supper period (preaching in the form of typical hymns + preaching was done in the evening as was called the “Gospel Meeting” and only in my youth did a morning preaching service, the “Family Bible Hour,” become increasingly common in the USA. I preached my first morning sermon on Nov 24, 1963, although I had preached in the evening a time or two in the previous months (I think). Due to Nov 22, 1963, my 16th birthday, the morning date stuck in my mind.
I mention the above because in my life experience while I could shift from Dispensationalism to something more Laddian under the influence of Liefeld and Longenecker at TEDS and then F. F. Bruce at Manchester (although S. S. Smalley was my supervisor) and became gospel-centered (rather than Paul-centered) I never jettisoned that core reality of the centrality of the Lord’s Supper, which is an important reason why I, after 34 years as an Episcopal priest who never moved in Anglo-Catholic circles much but who also did not like low-church in which Morning Prayer without communion was often the central service, ended up a Catholic priest. Of course, a conviction that the Church must be one and decades long deep interest in the spiritual tradition running from the Apostolic Fathers through the Desert Fathers and Benedict and on to the present also played their role.
Thanks for all those names - yes, they swirled around my house growing up and even in seminary (my brother-in-law went to DTS) although CHM and other Brethren “saints” were even more prominent in my father’s library. So much history and now we see more clearly - and I say “more” not just “clearly” - where those Dispensationalist themes were tending towards.
Wonderful story Peter. I was at TEDS not long after you but I read Ladd in college and swallowed inaugurated immediately. My college prof was dead-set against dispensationalism, and in fact wrote the kind of recommendation about me for DTS that I was not admitted. Ha. But, this is part of the theme of Hummel's book. He does not think dispensationalism became that until after Darby so he uses "new premill" for all the Exclusive Brethren stuff. It's hard for me not to see Darby as a Dispy but I'm trying to think the way Hummel does about this history.
I read this as fond memories of my journey from the dispensationalism of my Bible College years and through Ladd. I don't perceive that guys like Ladd and other so called "neo-evangelicals" were half way between. Right after graduating from Bible college I started reading Ladd and it was a dramatic, and stark departure from the "Dallas Bunch".