Born-Again Preterist - Part Two

...continued from Part One!

Part Two – What’s so Bad about Dispensationalism?

"I'm completely dedicated to preterism... even though there's really no future in it." - Vernon Klingman

SM: What drives dispensationalists? Is it just the sheer fantasy of it? Or is it a grand conspiracy by the church to keep their minions in a perpetual state of fear?

Vernon: I believe that it remains the dominant view in the Church due to its emotional appeal. It's exciting to think that you're living in the last days and might escape physical death by being taken into heaven. Who would want to give that up?

In fact, the most common response by far that I hear when I explain my position is, "Then where does that leave me?!"

It seems the majority of Christians are more concerned about what they get out of a view than the truth of it.

SM: How accepted is preterism in the Church, overall?

Vernon: It’s extremely rare.

This seems to be changing, though. Advocates of preterism have a much greater presence on the internet than they did five or ten years ago, and I'm finding that people are becoming more and more aware of the events surrounding A.D. 70. This is partly due to the increasing popularity of partial preterism.

SM: I’ve heard that term, but not known exactly what it meant.

Vernon: That’s actually how I began my journey to preterism. The books I mentioned earlier as exposing me to the preterist hermeneutic - that is, its interpretive method - actually present the partial preterist position.

The partial preterist is someone who admits that a great deal of prophecy was fulfilled in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. In fact, they go so far as to say that "a" second coming took place before that generation passed away. However, they insist that "the" second coming is still future, and this is when the dead will be raised, the judgment will take place, and the physical creation will be renewed.

Now, as much as I'd also like to have my cake and eat it too, this just doesn't work. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any of the apostles distinguishing between a second coming of Christ that was imminent, and another one that would be thousands of years away. It is also unthinkable to me that the apostles could have been anticipating a second second coming when the first second coming had yet to take place!

Anyone who is honest with the text would have to conclude that the early Church was looking for one return of Christ to complete their redemption, and they were convinced that it would take place within their lifetime.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical preclusion of the partial preterist view rests in a comparison between Christ's teaching in the Olivet Discourse and Daniel 12. In these passages, we find both Jesus and Daniel foretelling of the time of the end (Dan. 12:4; Mat. 24:3), the great tribulation (Dan. 12:1; Mat. 24:21), the abomination of desolation (Dan. 12:1; Mat. 24:15), and the gathering of the elect (Dan. 12:2-3; Mat. 24:31). These parallels demonstrate that Jesus and Daniel were speaking of the same time and events. In fact, Jesus stated directly that He was discussing the things that Daniel had predicted (Mat. 24:15).

Now, Jesus taught that all these things, along with His coming in glory and the destruction of the temple, would occur before His generation would pass away (Mat. 24:1-34), and the partial preterist believes this was fulfilled. However, Daniel recorded that all these things, along with the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, would occur by the time the power of the Jews would be shattered (Dan. 12:2-7). Clearly, both of these prophecies were delimited by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This means that all these things, including the coming of Christ to resurrect the righteous and the wicked, would occur by this time.

SM: I think we’ve established that this isn’t merely an academic interest of yours. What are the stakes, as you see them? Would you say that dispensationalism is actually harmful?

Vernon: In no way do I feel my discovery of preterism was limited to an intellectual conclusion, nor do I believe the study of eschatology in general is merely academic. As I’m sure you would agree, how we view the fate of the world impacts how we relate to the planet and our fellow human beings. So, I think the stakes here involve more than just a correct understanding, but also a correct way of life.

Ironically, dispensationlism hijacks the hope of heaven to send the world to hell.

SM: As a skeptic, I can see that as well. There was a story on NPR last year, about a couple with young children who had quit their jobs and budgeted out their money to the last penny to last them until May 21, 2011, when Harold Camping had predicted the end of the world.

That's an extreme example, of course.

But another example - and I don't think this is an extreme example at all, but generally mainstream - is the idea of interpreting current events in light of Revelation, so that you have George Bush being asked at a press conference how he thinks the situation in the Middle East ties in with the End of Days. I'd say a fair amount of his base believed that the war in Iraq and the threat of Muslim extremists is all in the Bible.

What's terrifying to me is that I think we - obviously! - need world leaders who believe that peace is possible, and is something the human race can reach towards. I don't see how you can earnestly claim to be seeking peace, while at the same time, your religious beliefs are telling you that God is bringing about World War III to usher in the end of days, and the planet is ultimately doomed. These people should have YouTube channels, not be in charge of foreign affairs.

Vernon: Dispensationalism tells people that Jesus is about to show up, so don't worry about this place. As J. Vernon McGee used to put it, "You don't polish the brass on a sinking ship." Such a perspective, as you've pointed out, can not only cause people to stop striving for peace on earth, it can even make them give up on their own lives.

While dispensationalism didn't cause me to abandon all hope for this world, it did contribute to my lack of concern for it. Caring for our resources was not a priority for me, nor was involvement in social issues.

SM: If nothing is known about the future, could we just as easily wipe ourselves out with nuclear weapons as colonize the galaxy?

Vernon: While the full preterist doesn't believe the Bible speaks to the fate of the planet or mankind specifically, he does believe it teaches that it's the nature of God's kingdom  to grow, so he generally has an optimistic outlook. However, that's not to say we couldn't experience some  major setbacks along the way.

When I became a preterist, and realized the planet was going to be around for a while, it made me want to be a better steward of the environment, and caused me to realize that investing in the lives of others, especially children, had tremendous value, as it would affect many, many generations to come.

Next: Vernon takes on C.S. Lewis, only one will be left standing!