An essential feature of maintaining the health of any ideological movement, or any religious tradition, is the willingness to actively police the boundaries of that group. It is my sincere opinion that, for the health of Western and Evangelical Christianity, we must no longer accept Dispensationalism as an expression of Christianity, and begin to apply soft pressure to it so that those espousing and practising it realise that they do not occupy the centre, and must experience constant low-level resistance if they want to abide in it.
Now, let me explain, and give a caveat.
Please read this essay in the genre of Manifesto. It is dialogical, in that I am inviting discussion, disagreement, and the refining of ideas. I am putting forth a suggestion at how we could correct the course of the Christian ship. These ideas may not be perfect, and I do not defend them all absolutely. Just read intelligently, you’ll be fine.
We know that war, even when justified in origin and just in manner, is a horrible thing. The reaction of most people to the news of war is dismay, even before they hear who the parties are, and who started it. Personally, I think that is the correct ‘default’ to hearing news of war, even if upon hearing the parties and circumstances one realises they support it.
I believe that most of you, most who will read this, would share the opinion that the USA and Israel’s war with Iran was and is a disaster. Since we are not yet far enough removed from it to have great clarity, we still suffer under the fog of war with all our analysis of the merits of this war. However, regardless of whether you make an argument about the necessity of the USD as global reserve or the necessity of USA-enforced rules-based world order, it is my opinion (and so I will also say it is plainly obvious) that no one wanted this war… Well, not quite no-one, but we’ll get to that.
Let’s wind the clock back. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said to the press (paraphrased) that the US took pre-emptive strikes against Iran because when Israel attacked Iran, the US realised there would likely be repercussions for her own interests. Embarrassingly, this was Rubio saying the quiet part out loud. In other words, the US primarily started a war with Iran because Israel did something to provoke it. I say ‘primarily’ because the war-apologists will want to mention all the secondary motivations the US might have in such a course. However, the ‘but for’ test is compelling: But for Israel’s provocation of Iran, the USA would not have started that war.
Why do I mention all this? Well, let’s imagine that Trump approved the strikes, they knocked out the relevant targets, were satisfied that there was no more present threat, and ended the military campaign. Perhaps they’d have to deal with some retaliatory strikes in the region, but that’s nothing out of the ordinary. A few press cycles later and a few mealy-mouthed diplomatic calls for peace later, it really could all blow over. However.
A particular religious tradition that was invented in the 19th century is sure that Jesus will return after a cataclysmic war in which the ‘State’ of Israel is the central protagonist, and she must survive a truly horrible battle with countries ‘from the north’ identified symbolically as being akin to Babylon, Egypt, perhaps Assyria and many others. This sect really wants Jesus to return soon, like imminently, so they are highly motivated to create the circumstances in which this war occurs and Jesus returns. In case you haven’t connected the dots, Dispensationalism is this sect, and its adherents believe that by galvanising and fueling the US/Israel war with Iran, they are ushering in the return of the Messiah.
Now, if your mind and heart are so enamoured with this apocalyptic doom narrative that you’re starting to find reasons to justify this theology or attack my character or motivations, I want you to be silent and just listen to me as a human person for a second.
The inescapable implication of that perspective is that you want countless millions of Iranians, maybe even more Iranians than the whole population of Australia, to die. You, as an ostensible Christian, are motivated by the idea that real human beings who could have been evangelised, who you could have made friends with online or on a holiday, whose culture you might have come to appreciate, whose profound and ancient heritage you might have paused to thank God for, would simply be wiped out. But not ‘simply’ wiped out, either. By the destruction of infrastructure and the embargos on trade, it will always be the poorest and weakest who starve and die first. Who are exploited by the oppressors, who have to sell their dignity to eat, who have to choose between which family members to feed or buy treatments for. Listen, you fool! The whole Bible instructs God’s people to give special attention to the fatherless, the widow, the poor and the sojourner (Zech 7:10). The very first classes of people to suffer are the very ones Christ commands you to show special compassion to. When you call for bombs to be dropped and when you lionise naval blockades, those Iranians don’t just stop existing painlessly (not that even that would be a good thing).
I’ll be straight with you. I hate, yes hate the fact that when discussing this foolish war, so many Christian westerners start by arguing about its merits or numbers of munitions or alleged WMDs, when the inclination of a Christian should instinctively be reluctance that such a tragedy should occur and compassion on the innocent who will suffer. In this respect, Tucker Carlson’s practical religion (though not backed up with the most rigorous systematic theology) is spot on in his desire for the image of God in every human being to be seen as deeply valuable, and thus to be deeply saddened and reluctant at the outbreak of any war.
And, lest you begin with some anaemic pietist whining that hatred is category verboten, I must remind you that you do not love anyone if you do not hate anything. If you do not hate the sin that would destroy a loved one, if you are not willing to take up arms and lay down your life to fend off the sinful cause, you do not love them.
This strain of Dispensationalism that produces war-hungry and heartless aggression has intentionally and zealously worked towards exacerbating and expanding the war with Iran. Naturally, this has caused reasonable and fair-minded observers to judge the only form of Christianity they know (Dispy) to be immoral and ultimately subservient to areligious political goals.
This is a scandal because it dishonours the name and cause of Christ and his church. If there’s another thing I hate, it’s any movement that intentionally or otherwise brings genuine scandal and dishonour to my Lord and his Assembly. Please hear me. This is not some safe and academic argument over whether Cherubim should be classified narrowly as ‘angels’ or more broadly as ‘celestials’. I would not intentionally cause disturbance over trivial matters. We’re literally dealing with a sect that is pursuing world wars to wipe out the people we should be evangelising in the name of a God they are scandalising in the process, and all at the behest of an anti-Christian, corrupt, blasphemous, ethno-supremacist and morally licentious state. What the hell.
So, what kind of change am I calling for? Now I will explain some of the language I used in my thesis statement.
“We must no longer accept Dispensationalism as an expression of Christianity”
By this I do not mean that we should no longer accept Dispensationalists as Christians. The adherents may still be truly converted to Christ. Rather, I’m thinking about how we discuss the ‘genuine options’. When discussing Christian traditions that are true expressions of the faith, we would include the Methodists, Assemblies of God, Anglicans, Presbyterians and Baptists, but not the Unitarians, the Uniting Church, or the Mormons. In the same way, I’m proposing that when we lay out to a curious questioner what are the Christian views on the one thousand years of peace, we present them with the Historic Premillennial position espoused by Irenaus, Justin Martyr or J.C. Ryle; the Amillenialism of Augustine or Luther, or the Postmillennialism of Edwards, Warfield and Sproul. By leaving out the Dispensational option of Dispensational Premillennialism, we are judging that as not a ‘genuine option’ in Christian thought, but as some strange and eccentric blip in history that will pass.
This applies all across the board, to all the silliness about the Mark of the Beast being to do with AI or Bill Gates, to the idea that the modern secular licentious ‘state’ of Israel is in any meaningful way connected to the ancient ethnic nation of Israel, etc. If someone starts saying ‘because of my Christian faith I believe that God is only dealing temporarily with the Gentiles in the ‘Church Age’, but after the secret rapture he will resume dealing primarily with Israel, and they will resume animal sacrifices’, we can say, ‘well no, that might be your sectarian belief, but it’s not a Christian idea’.
I think you get the point.
“Begin to apply soft pressure”
Let me start by saying that this is not brash activism. This is not that insufferable and whiny racket caused by ‘Extinction Rebellion’ when they obstruct a road or deface an art gallery, like the undisciplined children they are. What’s more, this is not an incitement to commit an indictable offence.
Soft pressure is exemplified in the previous section, where my fictional speaker says ‘well no, that might be your sectarian belief, but…’. This is soft pressure. Though wicked in his motivations, means and ends, Klaus Schwab is correct when he identifies that the best way to influence a person to choose the option you want is for (a) the decision to be genuine (they really could pick either), (b) both options to be desirable (not choosing between your option and a pile of turd), and (c) your option to be just slightly more desirable/convenient. In supermarket terms, this is the difference between a product being somewhere between waist and head height (right in front of you), and being up on the top shelf (and slightly less stocked). No one is hiding the second option from you, it’s just a tiny bit less convenient.
In my argument, soft pressure would look like demonstrating disapproval with all social cues (facial and body language, laughing and nodding), and by creating situations where the Dispy person has to explain what they mean when they use their jargon: not letting phrases such as ‘the rapture of the church’, ‘God’s people Israel’, ‘this church age’, ‘wars and rumours of wars’ go by in conversation without asking them to explain what they mean by that, as if it is a foreign language. Side note: yes, I am aware that some of those words are in the Bible, but it is the dominant connotation borne by them that is the issue.
The goal is that the Christian espousing Dispy ideas is not sinned against, but that they don’t enjoy an inappropriate sense that what they believe is normal, readily accepted, based on well-known Bible proofs, or genuinely part of the Christian tradition.
“So that [they] realise that they do not occupy the centre”
The goal is for adherents of Dispy ideas to discover by themselves that their ideas are no longer in fact in the centre, and that they no longer appear to be in the centre.
What’s the centre? Basically, an idea ‘occupies the centre’ if it can be expressed without the reasonable expectation of resistance. Dispy ideas have been allowed to occupy the centre in American Evangelicalism both in fact and in appearance for far too long, although I believe that that is slowly shifting with the change in generations. The point here is not to try to convince and propagandise the Dispy person, because that is more likely to generate the defensive feelings that motivate re-centring their sectarian ideas. Simply create an environment in which they can discover that the ideas they assumed as default are no longer within the Overton Window.
“Constant low-level resistance”
This is like being left-handed in a school that has only one pair of left-handed scissors in each room. It’s manageable (true in my case!) but far from convenient. Whenever you need to cut something, you have to ask for help in finding a pair. Help will be given quickly and genuinely, but the low-level resistance of having to ask for it is the point. Placing waist-high hurdles in someone’s path is too belligerent and might motivate them to remove the hurdles. Leaving sticky cordial residue on wooden floorboards is just… annoying.
Many clear thinkers have observed the way that real change can be enforced from the outside. If the status quo is at ‘0’, and you want it to get to 20, then start by moving it to 5. When the dominant culture pushes back, retreat to 1. They have won a hugely substantial victory, and the ‘appeasers’ in their ranks have taken a ‘nuanced’ approach to incorporating the ‘redeemable elements’ of your perspective, but broadly corrected the error. Then wait till ‘1’ becomes the true centre, fiercely defended by even the staunchest member (in current day polemics, this is like the ‘Christians’ who staunchly defend ‘a woman’s right to choose’ and ‘reproductive healthcare’, which are both dysphemisms for the sin of child sacrifice (abortion)).
Then it’s a rinse and repeat. Move to 6 or 8, let the correction push you back to 2 or 3. Be patient. The Marxists know this, and they did it to the educational system. Whether or not we implement this method, there’s no argument but that it works.
In conclusion, I am motivated by the integrity of the Christian tradition to cut off the deeply errant and counter-productive ‘Dispensational’ tradition by means of soft pressure over time. I am utterly persuaded that this sect has caused deep and serious and justified scorn to come to the public face of Christianity, and for that it deserves to be cut off. I am also motivated by a desire to show actual consideration and compassion, actual interest and beneficence towards Persians, of whom the least the last and lost will always be the first victims in any war. Christ’s church will grow in her maturity for all of human history until her doctrine is holy, consistent and orthodox. At the end of that period, the whole world will have experienced Christian evangelism and maturity, and we will be able to truthfully say that every tribe, tongue and nation have come to Christ, and are ready to worship before his throne for all eternity. Meanwhile, those who rejected Christ, along with every vain idea (including Marxism and Dispensationalism) will be thrown into the lake of fire.
Image credit: cottonbro studio

