dispensational christ & culture

8/2/2019 Dispensational Christ & Culture

1/17

TOWARD A DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH TO CHRIST AND CULTURE

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. David Bertch

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for HIS 4203

__________________

by

Michael Lorusso

April 19, 2012


2/17

TOWARD A DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH TO CHRIST AND CULTURE

Dispensational theology has certainly been no stranger to the attacks of critics.

Today dispensationalism has become increasingly unpopular as it is left in the wake of

the growing popularity of covenantal schemes. A quick examination of some criticisms

will render dispensational theology responsible for all manner of evils that exist in

evangelicalism as a whole: from shallow gospel presentations to the lack of intellectual

robustness among church members. Indeed, dispensational theology has become the

favorite whipping-boy of many within Christendom. Mark Noll, in his bookThe Scandal

of the Evangelical Mind1, places dispensation theology in the dock as he brings forth

many railing accusations against it for producing and promoting an anti-intellectual spirit

within American evangelicalism and a weak strategy for both functioning in and

engaging the culture, which produces a sort of evangelical ghetto. Postmillennialist

author Kenneth Gentry has also made a similar accusation while discussing premillennial

eschatology: This is a self-consciously pessimistic view of the future of the church, and

it has resulted in cultural paralysis whenever it has been widely believed by Christians.2

For the most part, these criticism would not sting so badly if there was not a hint of truth

in them. It is true that, historically, dispensational theology has not been known to

1

1Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind(Grand Rapids: William B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 1994).

2Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Genry, Jr.,House Divided: The Break-up of DispensationalTheology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), xv.


3/17

2

produce many cultural solutions or to apply biblical principles to every area of life. In

many ways, dispensationalists have adopted a pessimistic view of culture as they sit back

and wait for the world to come to an end. Not much thought has been given to the

development of the arts, culture, politics, or philosophy. However, the question must be

raised, does it have to be this way? Is dispensationalism being hindered in its approach

to culture by the system itself or are its adherents the greater hinderance? This paper will

seek to demonstrate that an authentically dispensational approach to the culture, that

seeks to be engaging, relevant, and beneficial, is not an impossibility.

Christ & Culture Paradigms

In 1951, theologian H. Richard Niebuhr, in his most famous workChrist &

Culture, outlined five basic positions that Christians have taken in seeking to answer the

culture problem throughout the history of the church. Since the release of Niebuhrs

book, discussion over Christian ethics and cultural issues have exploded; some Christians

have more consciously sought to place themselves somewhere within one of the five

paradigms while others have taken a more eclectic approach.

In defining different schools Niebuhr begins with two polar opposites: Christ

against culture and Christ of culture. The Christ against culture advocates see a sharp

antithesis between Christ and culture; culture is irreversibly corrupt, thus Christians are to

be governed by the new law. Here a separatist approach is typically taken.3 Examples

of this group include Tertullian, ancient monastic orders, Anabaptists, and many modern

Fundamentalists. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Niebuhr describes the Christ of

3H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ & Culture (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), 45-82.


4/17

3

culture approach. They assimilate the church to culture, says Niebuhr, identify cultural

good and law with Christian good and law; yet they also seek to interpret the cultural

ends and imperatives in a Christian fashion.4 This tradition typically takes an

accommodationist approach, separating rarely from culture except in necessary

situations. Representatives include Clement of Alexandria, early Christian Gnostics, and

modern day liberals.

After establishing these two approaches, Niebuhr seeks to define three median

type schools, which hold in common trinitarianism, a recognition of authority in both

Christ and culture, affirm both Christ and culture, and thus are two-worldly.5 These

groups are categorized as Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ

transforming culture.

Those of the Christ above culture tradition seek to establish a synthesis

between the imperatives of nature and those of Christ. Though there is a level of

discontinuity between them, it is not a firm antithesis. The new law aids natural law in

a supplemental way affirming it but also providing certain things that could not be

attained through human reason.6 Proponents include Thomas Aquinas and most modern

Roman Catholics. The Christ and culture in paradox tradition is a dualistic approach that

sees natural law and the gospel realities as diametrically opposed to each other, not being

able to be mixed together. The believer finds himself subject to both: the gospel keeping

4Ibid., xlv.

5Ibid., xlix.

6Ibid., l.


5/17

4

him from worldliness and the natural law from otherworldliness.7 Martin Luther serves as

a good representative of this position as well as many Lutherans and some of the

Reformed Tradition. The final group Christ transforming culture takes what is called a

conversionist approach as it seeks to restore corrupted culture by reinterpreting natural

imperatives, thus giving them their original meaning. This group affirms natural law but

recognizes the effects of the fall upon mans interpretation of it. The gospel makes it

possible to put everything back in its proper place. They do not see the gospel

establishing a new society, but it is working to change an existing one. Also, it sees the

need for a radical revolution which sets it apart from the Christ of culture group.8 St.

Augustine and Calvin are seen as members of this school of thought as well as most of

those in the Reformed Tradition

It is important to remember that Niebuhr never intended his categories to be

hard and fast, clean cut and tidy. A type, says Niebuhr, is a mental construct to which

no individual wholly conforms.9

Also, important to mention is that a sound theology of

cultural engagement for individual Christians should not look the same as a sound

theology of cultural engagement for the church.10 Another key point to keep in mind is

that, more often than not, people have not placed themselves in a particular school of

thought or thought through the issue consciously. Thus, dispensationalists may likely be

found in various groups.

7Ibid., li-lii.

8Ibid., lii-liv.

9Ibid., xxxviii.

10Mark A. Snoeberger, D. A. Carsons Christ and Culture Revisited:A Reflection and aResponse,DBSJ13 (2008): 102.


6/17

5

The question then arises as to which school of thought might dispensationalists

find themselves? Because of dispensationalisms longstanding association with

fundamentalism, many have sought to place dispensationalism in the Christ against

culture camp; but is this the only option for the dispensationalist? One can be almost

certain not to find a dispensationalist in the Christ of culture crowd; and, almost as

certain, that he may not be found in the Christ above culture crowd either. This leaves

only three possibilities: Christ against culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ

transforming culture.

A Dispensational Premillennialist Approach to Culture

Sadly, the accusation is that dispensationalism has somehow been labeled by

most modern theologians as a pessimistic philosophy that lacks any ability or motivation

to engage and benefit culture. The old adage, you dont polish the brass on a sinking

ship, has been understood by many to be a thorough-going dispensational excuse for a

complete withdrawal from culture and for a focus solely on the progress of the gospel to

the negation of everything else. Though there is certainly some truth in this

summarization, not all dispensationalists can be tarred with the same brush. So quickly

do those who make such comments forget the cultural achievements of dispensationalists

both past and present. Even John Frame, a covenantal amillennialist, recognizes the

inaccuracies of these attacks:

The movement in the 1970s and '80s toward greater Christian involvement in

social issues was spearheaded, not by Reformed amils and postmils, but by

Arminian premils like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. This is an embarrassment

for us: Reformed people like to think that they have a corner on Christian political

thought and action, and they tend to look down their noses at "fundamentalists" for


7/17

6

their lack of a "full-orbed Christian world-and-life view." Of course, it may

be argued that fundamentalists like Falwell and Robertson were influenced, maybe

at third or fourth hand, by Reformed people like Rushdoony, North and Francis

Schaeffer. But it was the Evangelical premils who took the lead in the actual

movements for social change, and we should give them credit.11

Other notable achievements include the various works of John MacArthur, who has stood

up in numerous settings to speak authentically Christian principles into a pagan culture.

Also, one ofthe most influential books written to encourage Christians to engage the

culture at the level of worldview, Understanding the Times, was written by David Noebel,

who is the founder ofSummit Ministries and a dispensationalist. These men are seeking

to obey the scriptural command to engage the culture in meaningful ways that go beyond

the simple dissemination of the gospel message (Gen 1:26-28; Cor 10:5-4; Eph 5:11).

However, it is not enough to simply bring up examples of cultural engagement

wrought by the hands of dispensationalists; this is not a mere matter of counting noses.

An actual dispensational philosophy of cultural engagement must be developed. In order

to bring out the cultural details of Scripture, a brief survey of the different dispensations

would be helpful. The intent will not be to describe each dispensation in detail but merely

to pull out the points relevant to the development of culture.

Innocence12

Within this dispensation is found the single most important statement for the

development of culture: the edenic covenant (Gen 1:26-28). This is often referred to as

the cultural mandate:

11John Frame, Ethics and the Millennium [on-line]; accessed 15 April 2012; available fromhttp://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993Ethics.htm; Internet.

12Innocence is likely not the best word because it fails to communicate the reality of Adamspositive holiness. See Charles Ryrie,Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 51-52.


8/17

7

Then God said, Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the

cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and

female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and

multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and overthe birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.13

The mandate for man to go out and create culture presupposes that man is made in the

image of God, thus culture is strictly a human quality (v.26). The command also

presupposes mans access not only to general revelation but also to special revelation,

both of which he is held accountable to. This means there is a natural law but also a

word from God to give more specific direction. The cultural institutions of marriage and

family are also given (Gen 2:24-25). Though man existed with a favorable disposition

toward God, due to his unconfirmed state, the potential for the fall was there.14 Thus evil

was a reality that faced him. Though evil was a potential for Adam prior to the fall, he

existed in a sort of garden utopia. There was no need to stand against culture, see it as

contrary to Gods revelation, or to transform it; only cultivation was required.15

Conscience

The time immediately following the fall is call, by some, the time of

conscience merely to communicate the idea that man is primarily held responsible to

the internal God given dictates of his conscience.16 It is important to note that the cultural

13All references to Scripture are taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwisenoted.

14Renald E. Showers, The New Nature (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1986), 21.

15Charles Clough, "A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture: Opportunities and Limitations toChristian Cultural Transformation,"Biblical Perspectives 4/6 (November- December 1991), 3-4.

16Ryrie,Dispensationalism, 52-53.


9/17

8

mandate was not abrogated with the fall. Man still bore the image of God; although,

because it was now marred by sin, it meant that the development of culture, as a

byproduct of humanity, would be inevitable.17 The introduction of evil into the world

brings certain complications into the development of culture. Man now expresses his

falleness within and through culture and Satan has been given some measure of authority

over culture (Jon 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph 2:2; 6:12; 1 Cor 10:20-21; 1 Jon 4:4; 5:19;

Rev 20:3, 8, 10). Also, both acceptable and unacceptable cultural expressions of religion

were a reality in this time (Gen 4:1-7).

Civil Government

The noahic covenant marks not only a new dispensation but establishes some

form of human government, which has tremendous cultural implications. It is not that the

institution of human government is only necessitated by sin, though after the fall that has

become that major concern of government. Human government seems to be a natural

expression of mans constitution and the cultural mandate by which man was to subdue

the creation; though, had sin not come into the picture, it might appear and function

differently.18 There is certainly a progression to be seen in the Scripture from an

unsubdued garden to a kingdom. Here particular responsibilities of judgment were

delegated to man by God, most notable being capital punishment. What we call civil or

organized government, says McClain, whether simple or highly complex, exists for

17Thomas Ice, A Biblical Basis for Social and Political Involvement Within a TraditionalDispensational Framework, (unpublished paper prepared for the Pre-Trib Reasearch Center, May 2009),[on-line]; accessed 16 April 2012; available from http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/biblical-basis-for-social-and-political-involvement-within-traditional-dispensational-framework; internet.

18Robert Duncan Culver, Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government(Chicago: Moody Press,1974), 67-68.


10/17

9

only one reason - the protection, conservation, fostering, and improvement of human

life.19 Another major cultural development that takes place within this dispensation is

the division of people into different language groups at Babel (Gen 11:9), which is the

presupposition of the table of nations given earlier (Gen 10). This divine act ought to be

considered by all those who speak favorably of globalization. God knew the great

potential for evil and injustice that would accompany such an organization, thus He

intervened as an act of grace.20 This act marks the advent of a multicultural world.

Promise

The calling of Abraham implies that God would now begin working in a

special way with a particular people that was different from his rule over man as a whole

(Gen 12:1-4). The abrahamic covenant established Abraham and his seed as a missionary

society that would bring a blessing to all the nations of the earth (Gen 12:3; 22:18).

Mosaic Law

The dispensation of mosaic law establishes Gods covenant community as a

counter-cultural society, though the missionary intention is to be maintained. The

distinction between Israel and the Gentile nations is enlarged by several of the specific

commands of God issued to assure the peculiarity of His people (Deut 14:2). Many of the

cultural elements of the nation of Israel did not originate with Israel but pre-existed the

law or even the call of Abraham (e.g. kings, animal sacrifice, capital punishment,

congregational worship). The law observed some of the pre-existing culture (some

19Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God(Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2009, 46-47.

20Ibid., 47-49.


11/17

10

practices were rejected to be sure) but recast it within a framework of Gods revealed

truth. This principle is seen in a picturesque way as the Hebrew slaves journeyed to the

promise land with the plunder of Egypt (Exod 12:25-26). The mosaic law was not

binding on the Gentile nations; however, the moral absolutes to which it pointed were the

presupposition of those prophets who addressed them. Culver makes this point clear:

Though not holding pagan nations responsible to Mosaic Law, when addressing the

neighboring nations and their rulers, the prophets assume that all these peoples know and

accept certain valid concepts of right and wrong.21 This assumes that man, though fallen,

still bearing the image of God, is able to recognize absolute moral standards.

Grace

The dispensation of grace is called so because, though grace was a reality in

times before, the display of the grace of God in Christ is so much greater (Jon 1:17; Tit

2:11-14). The mosaic law was completed by Christ at the cross, who establishes a new

law for His people (Rom 10:4-10; 1 Cor 9:23; Gal 3:22-23). Both Jew and Gentile are

placed on an equal level before God and are members together of his body, constituting a

new man that is distinct from Israel (Rom 10-11; Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-3:6). The new

testament church begins primarily Jewish, but the doors are open to the incorporation of

Gentiles on the same level, which means that the church is a multicultural institution.

However, wisdom and Christian love are to be applied to cultural practices (Rom 14-15;

1 Cor 8-9). The church, unlike Israel, does not exercise political authority or carry out

fleshly wars; for her enemies are immaterial, consisting of ideologies and spiritual beings

21Culver, Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government, 86.


12/17

11

which are all somehow related to Satan, who is her ultimate and most fearsome adversary

(2 Cor 10:1-6; Eph 6:10-17; 1 Pet 5:8). The church is to be separate from the institution

of government, which exists to establish righteous laws (Rom 13), yet function as salt and

light, as a nation of priests toward the surrounding culture with a very important

mediatorial role (Matt 5:14; Eph 5:8; Phil 2:15; 1 Pet 2:9-10). This age comes to an end

with the seven year tribulation period, during which Jews remaining on earth will be

prepared for their priestly role in the millennial kingdom (Exod 19:6). The Church,

having been raptured, will be prepared to rule with Christ (1Tim 2:12).22

Millennial Kingdom

The millennial kingdom introduces far too many social, political, and cultural

details that, to explain them all, would, by far, exceed the intent of this paper. After the

devastating effects of the great tribulation, the setting up of the kingdom will require

some sort of a renovation, to say the least. Mt. Zion is re-established as the worlds

religious center from which the Messiah will rule as He takes His seat upon the throne of

David. The long-standing separations between church and state will be abolished as the

Messiah serves as prophet, priest and king (Zech 14:9, 16-21).23 This will be a time of

absolute justice under a perfect government system. There will be no war or sickness.

Satan and all the devils of hell will not be able to exercise any influence over culture

during these thousand years, due to their imprisonment (Rev 20:1-3). Sadly, this state,

though seemingly perfect, will end in rebellion after Satan is allowed to be released (Rev

22Clough, A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture, 6.

23McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 75.


13/17

12

20:7-9). After the rebellion is put down by the Lord, God will recreate the heavens and

the earth (1 Pet 3:1-13; Rev 21). Sin will be entirely eliminated from not only human

culture but human experience, altogether.

Pessimism And Optimism

Many of the enemies of dispensationalism charge it with being too pessimistic

to engage the culture in any meaningful way.24 After all, who would feel motivated to

seek to engage culture if they were convinced that every attempt at bringing about

cultural good would fail and be destroyed in a matter of seven years? The reality is that

the accusation of pessimism is, in a sense, true; but as it is with all matters, pessimism or

optimism it depends on how you look at it.

It is true that there are dark days ahead, as well as behind; dispensationalists

believe that this is consistent with the teaching of the New Testament (Matt 24; 1 Tim

4:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-9; Rev 4-19). However, dispensationalism offers a rather optimistic view

of human history, as well, that amillennialism cannot offer without running into the false

optimism of the postmillennialist. Dispensational theology emphasizes the significance of

not only the spiritual realities of human history but also the physical as they find their

ultimate end in the kingdom.

The millennial kingdom is the optimistic expectation of history. When man

looks ahead of him, unless he is a fool, he will, almost certainly, see darkness; this is the

reality of living in a sin cursed world. However, behind the thick clouds of depravity and

just past the gates of hell, a light breaks through as the Son of Man once again intervenes

24Robert L. Thomas, Dispensationalisms Role in the Public Square, TMSJ 20/1 (Spring 2009):19-20.


14/17

13

in the affairs of man and brings with him a most suitable end to human history, which is

His kingdom. McClain makes this point well in his critique of amillennialism:

According to this view, both good and evil continue in their development side by

side through human history. Then will come catastrophe and the crisis of divinejudgment, not for the purpose of setting up a divine kingdom in history, but after the

close of history. Our only hope is in a new world which is beyond history. Thus

history becomes the preparatory vestibule of eternity, and not a very rational

vestibule at that. It is a narrow corridor, cramped and dark, a kind of waiting

room, leading nowhere within the historical process, but only fit to be abandoned

at last for an ideal existence on another plane. Such a view of history seems unduly

pessimistic, in the light of Biblical revelation. While we who are premillennial in

theology cannot, of course, accept the liberal illusion of human progress and its

profound satisfaction with human goodness.25

Dispensational theology has a very optimistic future; however, in looking forward it

never loses sight of the biblical principle of cross before crown, humility before

exultation.

Back to Niebuhr

So, which of Niebuhrs categories best fits dispensationalism? Because

dispensational theology historically developed as a branch off of reformed theology, it

seems best to place dispensationalists among the Christ transforming culture group.

Granted, most dispensationalists have taken the Christ against culture approach; but this

is not necessitated by their theology. Over all, dispensationalism seems to single out

culture as an object to be transformed; however, certainly there are also other limitations

to the quantity and quality of that transformation are recognized in order to protect

against the errors of theonomy and an overzealous Christian reconstruction.

Clearly Gods providential workings throughout human history have brought

! 25Alva J. McClain, A Premillennial Philosophy of History,Bibliotheca sacra, 113 no 450 (April1956): 113-14.


15/17

14

about significant changes and developments to culture. Those who accuse dispensational

theology, still unsatisfied, may cry out, what of the rapture and tribulation? What use is

your cultural activity if it is all to come to not? These individuals have overlooked an

important principle of dispensational theology that makes all the difference: the principle

of overlap. Certainly there is a great deal of discontinuity between dispensations;

however, there are certain things that are true of every dispensation, and the cultural

mandate is one of those things. Also, at the beginning of each new dispensation, cultural

elements of the previous dispensation where not wholly abandon; rather, they were

restructured to fit within a correct framework.26 McClain picks up on this:

The premillennial philosophy of history makes sense. It lays a biblical and

rational basis for a truly optimistic view of human history. Furthermore, rightly

apprehended, it has practical effects. It says that life here and now, in spite of the

tragedy of sin, is nevertheless something worth-while. All the true values of human

life will be preserved and carried over into the coming kingdom; nothing worth-

while will be lost. Furthermore, we are encouraged in the midst of opposition and

reverses by the assurance that help is on the way, help from above, supernatural help

- Give the king they judgements, O God. In his days shall the righteous

flourish. All nations shall call him blessed (Ps. 72:1, 7, 17)27

Obviously, there are certain changes that must await the kingdom, for they are

changes only workable by a divine agent. However, there can be no excuse for a lack of

cultural development for the Christian on the basis of the promised kingdom, anymore

than there could be an excuse for personal sinfulness on the basis of complete

sanctification at the coming of Christ (1 Jon 3:2).

! 26Clough, A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture, 7.! 27McClain, A Premillennial Philosophy of History, 116.


16/17

15

Conclusion

The sad reality is that most dispensationalists are not engaging the culture as

they ought. Their problems may be theological; however, in most instances, this is likely

not the case. It is high time that dispensationalist examine themselves to see wether or not

they could be doing more than simply waiting for the rapture, for which Paul rebukes the

Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:10). It is time for dispensationalists to develop further a

philosophy for engaging in cultural practices, to produce art, music, film, literature,

books it politics, philosophy, science, apologetics, and systematic theology. Perhaps

dispensationalists should begin by developing these thoughts further and cultivating both

an appreciation of culture and proper discernment to understand how they ought to go

about cultural transformation; there is much below the surface of this very complex

problem. Cultural engagement is not like a light switch that can turned on and off; it takes

time to build knowledge, develop the skills necessary, and generate practical strategies.

Upon the arrival of the Lord from heaven may it be that dispensationalists are found busy

doing the work of the great commission, certainly, but also seeking to do the work of the

cultural mandate, striving to make the world a better place, and taking every thought

captive to the obedience of Christ so they may not be ashamed (2 Cor 10:5).


17/17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahnsen, Greg L. and Kenneth L. Genry, Jr.House Divided: The Break-up of

Dispensational Theology. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.

Clough, Charles. "A Dispensational View of Christ and Culture: Opportunities and

Limitations to Christian Cultural Transformation," Biblical Perspectives 4/6

(November- December 1991).

Culver, Robert Duncan. Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1974.

Frame, John. Ethics and the Millennium [on-line]. Accessed 15 April 2012. Available

from http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993Ethics.htm; Internet.

Ice, Thomas. A Biblical Basis for Social and Political Involvement Within a Traditional

Dispensational Framework, Unpublished paper prepared for the Pre-Trip

Reasearch Center, May 2009 [on-line]. Accessed 16 April 2012. Available from

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/biblical-basis-for-social-and-political-

involvement-within-traditional-dispensational-framework; Internet.

McClain, Alva J. A Premillennial Philosophy of History.Bibliotheca sacra, 113 no 450

(April 1956): 111-16.

________. The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God.

Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2009.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ & Culture. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.

Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1994.

Ryrie, Charles.Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Snoeberger, Mark A. D. A. Carsons Christ and Culture Revisited: A Reflection and a

Response.Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal13 (2008): 93-107.

Thomas, Robert L. Dispensationalisms Role in the Public Square. The Masters

Seminary Journal20/1(Spring 2009):19-40.

dispensational christ & culture

Documents