Those Sinful Premillennialists?
A recent, widely-circulated sermon took aim at pastors who lead their congregations to adopt premillennialism as an article of faith. The sermon posited that, by instituting premillennialism as a doctrinal test, those churches were unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ. Addressing pastors who encourage their churches to adopt premillennial confessions, the preacher said, “You are sinning.”
This sermon raises an important question. Is it a sin to implement a particular millennial view as a test for church membership? Or is every church obligated to grant eschatological latitude? The question may not be as easily answered as the sermon assumed.
Perhaps the place to begin is by recognizing that some doctrinal and practical tests are essential, not merely to church membership, but to any Christian fellowship. The basis of all Christian fellowship is the gospel. Those who deny the gospel should never be accorded Christian fellowship or recognition at any level. Therefore, any proposition that is essential to the gospel is also essential to Christian fellowship. No level of Christian fellowship, including church membership, is ever proper with those who deny the essentials of the gospel.
Historically, most gospel-affirming churches have required more than simple affirmation of the gospel for membership. Their requirements have usually included some level of Christian obedience. Baptism provides a convenient illustration. Most Christians have thought that baptism, while not essential to salvation, is essential to obedience for those who have been saved. Since one function of a church is to foster obedience in its members, most churches have typically required baptism as a precondition for membership. Other Christians, however, believe that baptism, while advisable, is not essential to obedience. Their churches do not require baptism for membership. A very few Christians even believe that water baptism should not be practiced at all.
Since believers disagree rather strongly about the necessity of baptism, their options are limited. If they intend to remain together in one congregation, one side or the other must agree not to press its understanding of Scripture. Alternatively, if they all intend to act and teach according to their understanding of Scripture, then they must form separate congregations. In short, they must either limit their message or else they must limit their fellowship. Either a church will require baptism or it will not: it cannot respect every Christian’s conviction.
The same is true of Christians who disagree about the biblically-authorized subjects of baptism or the biblically-required mode of baptism. It is also true of Christians who disagree about certain aspects of church order. A church cannot be governed congregationally, presbyterially, and episcopally at the same time. Not every Christian’s conscience can be respected in the order of every congregation.
When Christians disagree about biblical teachings, then they must limit either their message or their fellowship. Obviously, some differences are so marginal that they should not significantly affect fellowship. In the face of such differences, Christians ought to agree to limit their message. For example, making a particular view of the authorship of Hebrews into a test of fellowship would be unnecessarily narrow.
Other differences are more serious. These differences are likely to create divisions if both sides are taught enthusiastically within the same congregation. If the differences are sufficiently important, it is wrong to deny believers the right to express, rejoice in, and propagate their convictions. For such issues, the best way to unity may actually be to organize separate congregations in which members have full liberty to explore and proclaim their understanding of God’s will.
How can Christians distinguish those areas that must be made tests of fellowship, those areas that may be made tests of fellowship (but also may not), and those areas that must not be made tests of fellowship? Two criteria are helpful. First, the more important a doctrine or practice is, and the further it reaches in its effect upon the system of faith, the more likely it becomes that disagreement over this doctrine or practice will cause serious disruption in Christian fellowship, and the more necessary it becomes to limit fellowship in areas that are affected by the doctrine or practice in question. Second, the more directly an area of doctrine affects Christian practice and obedience, the more likely it becomes that Christians will be unable to remain in fellowship at levels where the doctrine manifests its influence.
What about the doctrine of the millennium? How far-reaching are its implications, and how immediate is its influence upon conduct? Is it a doctrine over which Christians should limit their message, or is it one that requires them to limit their fellowship?
Of course, most Christians permit and expect some level of fellowship among those who hold differing theories of the millennium. Very few would limit their personal fellowship to Christians who held identical millennial views. Even fundamentalists, those most notoriously separatistic evangelicals, have allowed for some levels at which premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists can work together.
Church membership, however, is one of the more restrictive levels of Christian fellowship. Joining a church is not like joining a club. Church membership is a covenant relationship. In becoming members of a church, believers submit themselves to the discipline of the congregation and take responsibility for one another’s wellbeing. Not everyone who qualified for personal fellowship or even parachurch collaboration will necessarily qualify for church membership.
The fact is that one’s millennialism (or lack thereof) never occurs in a theological vacuum. On the contrary, one’s view of the millennium is part of a complex of doctrinal problems that are pretty far-reaching in their implications. Millennialism is tied to one’s opinion about the present and future status of national Israel. It influences one’s understanding of which biblical promises and blessings can be claimed by the church. It affects one’s perspective on the integration of Mosaic Law into Christian living. It is a direct consequence of and contributor to one’s hermeneutic. To varying degrees, it carries implications for the definition of the Kingdom of God, the present status of the New Covenant, the concept of People of God, and a variety of other biblical and theological constructs.
Millennial views also appear to exert some influence upon conduct. Premillennialists have been blamed for escapism and a lack of social ethics, and they have often charged their opponents with a lack of urgency for evangelism and missions. While these accusations are certainly overblown on both sides, they probably do indicate some connection between theology and practical emphasis.
Another practical concern is the frequency with which amillennialism and postmillennialism have been used to excuse anti-Semitism. This is not to suggest that every amillennialist or postmillennialist is an anti-Semite, nor is it to suggest that premillennialists have been entirely exempted from this particular sin. Nevertheless, in a post-Holocaust world, many premillennialists fear that the denial of a future kingdom for Israel is almost intrinsically anti-Judaistic. They are keenly aware of a long history, beginning with Augustine, in which supercessionism (the denial that Israel can expect a future kingdom) has been used to excuse or even legitimate the persecution of Jews.
A greater problem concerns the trustworthiness of God’s promises. The apostle Paul ends the eighth chapter of his epistle to the Romans with marvelous promises to believers. He then launches into a three-chapter exploration of God’s future plan for Israel. Premillennialists believe that these two things (God’s promises to church saints and God’s future for Israel) are connected. If God did not have to keep His promises to Israel, or if God could fulfill those promises by giving them to someone else, then God does not have to keep His promises to Christians, or He might fulfill those promises by giving them to someone else. To many premillennialists, the future security of believers and the future security of national Israel are inextricably linked.
The above considerations are intended neither as a defense of premillennialism nor a refutation of post- or amillennialism. Defense and refutation would require much more detail and much more careful and balanced consideration of the arguments. The point is not that premillennialism is right and other eschatologies are wrong. Rather, the point is that the choice between these views is freighted with theological and practical implications. Premillennialism is not some isolated theological backwater. It is a rushing river with currents that sweep through many doctrinal and ethical pools.
Is a church obligated to incorporate premillennialism into its doctrinal statement and to make premillennialism a test of membership? Any church that allows for eschatological diversity should be aware of the differences that it will have to manage. If it gains members who are seriously committed to divergent millennial views, it will certainly find itself challenged. Any view of the millennium affects broad stretches of faith and conduct. What would be the consequences for a church that included both Douglas Wilson and Thomas Ice in its membership?
On matters of so much importance, a church cannot rightly expect God’s people to remain silent about their convictions. Before God they must have liberty to teach, exhort, and conduct themselves according to their understanding of the Word of God. Churches that enjoy very skilled leadership and a high level of maturity may be able to navigate this kind of diversity. Most churches, however, will experience a significant degree of tension. This tension will not arise from malice or from factious behavior. It will arise from the significance and implications of the alternatives.
Because the choice is so important, millennialism is not an area in which God’s people should agree to limit their message—certainly not within the local church. If a church can tolerate the enthusiastic proclamation of multiple messages, then it certainly may practice eschatological diversity. If people take their convictions seriously and express them enthusiastically, however, this difference may well create significant division within individual congregations. For that reason, churches that choose to adopt a single millennial view as a criterion for membership are not necessarily sinning. Their approach may actually be the one that best preserves the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Peace
Samuel Speed (d. 1681)
I sought for Peace, but could not find;
I sought it in the city,
But they were of another mind,
The more’s the pity!
I sought for Peace of country swain,
But yet I could not find;
So I returning home again,
Left Peace behind.
Sweet Peace, where dost thou dwell? said I.
Methought a voice was given:
‘Peace dwelt not here, long since did fly
To God in heaven.’
Thought I, this echo is but vain,
To folly ‘tis of kin;
Anon I heard it tell me plain,
‘Twas killed by sin.’
Then I believed the former voice,
And rested well content,
Laid down and slept, rose, did rejoice,
And then to heaven went.
There I enquired for Peace, and found it true,
An heavenly plant it was, and sweetly grew.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 27 views
While premillennialism is not a fundamental of the faith alongside the gospel, it is still a teaching of Scripture that I believe in, and therefore I must pay honor to it and stand by what the Bible teaches as truth. I can’t minimize it, ignore it, sweep it under the carpet, or say that it doesn’t matter.
And in reference to supporting missionaries, why wouldn’t I want to support missionaries that believe like I do? There are certainly enough of them out there. I want my money going to support someone who believes the same things I believe the Bible teaches. Certainly some latitude is given, but I don’t think premillennialism is a “doesn’t matter” type of doctrine. I think that is the real debate - does your millennial view matter - and it certainly does.
Thank you for your candor. I understand that you are choosing to limit your fellowship and not your message, because of your conclusions. I don’t know that Dr. Bauder necessarily drew any conclusions about which millennial view matters (the most), nor how much it could or should influence either the practical operation of a church inwardly, or the conduct of its members outwardly. I read that it is certainly something that the leadership needs to ask itself about, think about, plan for and continually assess. Regarding conduct, I read it is “part of a complex of doctrinal problems”; is “tied to”; “influences”, “carries implications to varying degrees”; and “appears to exert some influence on”:
What about the doctrine of the millennium? How far-reaching are its implications, and how immediate is its influence upon conduct? Is it a doctrine over which Christians should limit their message, or is it one that requires them to limit their fellowship?
Of course, most Christians permit and expect some level of fellowship among those who hold differing theories of the millennium. Very few would limit their personal fellowship to Christians who held identical millennial views. Even fundamentalists, those most notoriously separatistic evangelicals, have allowed for some levels at which premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists can work together.
Church membership, however, is one of the more restrictive levels of Christian fellowship. Joining a church is not like joining a club. Church membership is a covenant relationship. In becoming members of a church, believers submit themselves to the discipline of the congregation and take responsibility for one another’s wellbeing. Not everyone who qualified for personal fellowship or even parachurch collaboration will necessarily qualify for church membership.
The fact is that one’s millennialism (or lack thereof) never occurs in a theological vacuum. On the contrary, one’s view of the millennium is part of a complex of doctrinal problems that are pretty far-reaching in their implications. Millennialism is tied to one’s opinion about the present and future status of national Israel. It influences one’s understanding of which biblical promises and blessings can be claimed by the church. It affects one’s perspective on the integration of Mosaic Law into Christian living. It is a direct consequence of and contributor to one’s hermeneutic. To varying degrees, it carries implications for the definition of the Kingdom of God, the present status of the New Covenant, the concept of People of God, and a variety of other biblical and theological constructs.
Millennial views also appear to exert some influence upon conduct. Premillennialists have been blamed for escapism and a lack of social ethics, and they have often charged their opponents with a lack of urgency for evangelism and missions. While these accusations are certainly overblown on both sides, they probably do indicate some connection between theology and practical emphasis.
Now, what influences it exerts and “how immediate is its influence upon conduct action”, seem to be open questions that the article raises. In light of this, further questions have been raised in this thread: in particular, are some examples of conduct that we traditionally attribute to the influence of our millennial view, in fact legitimate results of a correct understanding of the implications of that view? (eg. US National foreign policy). Is other conduct cited as reason for reproaching a particular millennial view actually a legitimate concern (apparent lack of zeal among amillenialists for numbers and quick conversions). Either way, another post raises the point that whatever the conduct a cherished doctrine may lead to one way or another, be that as it may, that is not a reason for holding or not holding a particular millennial view: rather, is it Biblical? You are persuaded that yours is, and that is why you hold it.
However, I don’t think the article necessarily answers all the questions for you, just like that. It is still not clear that limiting fellowship over the message is required or even desirable, in the case of differing millennial views within one church membership. Certainly, it “makes sense”, in one way, to limit fellowship. Why, all memberships are easier to run when everyone is on exactly the same page in all matters. Some of the considerations just come down to convenience. Hence student rule books at universities.
But what would really happen in a church where “an opposing millennial view was allowed to grow and eventually dominate”? Would the gospel fail to be preached? Or, would some members or other just be a little uncomfortable? Certainly, in many churches, there will be those who want to make a stinky issue of it — just as there are those who make issues of music style. What does one’s millennial view, in the final analysis really say about specific instances of one’s conduct. You might be surprised. If nothing else, it might be nice to have around a few people who do have a little different take on things, and for whom this might actually affect some of their actions in different ways than you are used to. This is called diversity (not “false unity”), and it really is something to be strived for in some limited ways. Of course, maybe the opposing view won’t be so generous if it does gain a “dominating position” ;)
If your view really is important enough that it leads to your conclusion that you must withhold membership from those who hold opposing views; and that is your view of preserving unity; and that kind of unity is a real value and goal for your church: I can understand, but disagree. But in a way, I think one of the implications of premillennialism is that you are going to feel this way.
[rrobinson]Mr. Robinson, I agree with your assessment that an overly narrow unity is false in its own way. One of the reasons that I am glad to be Presbyterian is that our doors are as wide as Christ’s arms. Anyone who can make a credible profession of faith and agree to the membership vows can be a member in my PCA church. On the other hand, elders are required to hold to the Westminster Standards. In this way, we have quite a diversity of people, but unity of teaching. Congregationalism, on the other hand, seems to lead inevitably either to schism or laxity. If a Congregational church considers a doctrine important, they must separate over it. So, the only way to avoid separation is to declare many doctrines unimportant.
To go to a foreign field, and to wear a certain set of glasses with a predisposition to cater to or to look for one type of person only in order to build a local church of the same order of homogeneity and disposition as the sending church, could be akin to creating a false unity within a body, before the work is even begun. Yes, we speak about churches “reproducing” themselves. But I certainly don’t want my children to be exactly like me. Sometimes I wonder if some American missionaries to hardened places (in Europe for example), give up and leave the mission field after 12 years and a church membership of two, because they have placed unduly narrow strictures on church membership and fellowship? Is this not a false unity — often presented as a unity with the gospel? If the missionary’s sense of unity (or more likely, his American supporting churches’ sense of unity) corresponded a little more closely to the senses of Christian unity we see in scriptures, perhaps the missionary could retire with a stable church of 20 members instead of 2 (stable because the full complement of members really do reflect a complete body with different body parts and not all heads or hands). I would be curious to hear about the missions policy of Mr. Bradley’s church, and whether a supported missionary would be allowed any latitude in “non-fundamental” areas and be able to use his own discretion according to the field and the individual individuals he there encounters and brings into his church.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
The great body of believers are united in expecting both an age of glory and a personal return of Christ. As to many related events they differ ; but as to the one great precedent condition of that coming age or that promised return of the Lord there is absolute harmony of conviction: the Gospel must first be preached to all nations (Matt. 24:14). The Church must continue to “make disciples of all the nations… even unto the end of the age” (Matt. 28: 19, 20).
This is therefore a time, not for unkindly criticism of fellow Christians, but for friendly conference ; not for disputing over divergent views, but for united action; not for dogmatic assertion of prophetic programs, but for the humble acknowledgment that “we know in part;” not for idle dreaming, but for the immediate task of evangelizing a lost world.” Charles R. Erdman, “The Coming of Christ, The Fundamentals: A Testimony of the Truth, vol. 11(Chicago: Testimony Publishing, n.d.), 98
On the basis of the first question I suspect it would be easier for an amillennialist to include premillennialists and postmillennialists than the other way around.
On the basis of the second question I think that large churches - especially if they have a top down government have the luxury of being able to tolerate more diversity in their membership. In small congregationally governed churches there is no such luxury. Factions over ANYTHING damage the pastor’s ability to minister, the spiritual health of the people, and the church’s testimony in the community. Have you ever had the experience of a member gathering a group for a study in which he presents views diametrically opposed to what you have been preaching or teaching? It does nothing for your ministry and can ultimately threaten the life of the small church. I think it is different in large churches - but I’ve never been pastor in one of those. :)
(Titus 3:9-11) But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
It seems to me that making your millennial view a test of fellowship is a way of avoiding divisiveness down the road. When I meet with new member candidates I go through our doctrinal statement in some detail. I tell them that they do not need to understand everything completely or affirm everything without reservation, but that they must not be in complete disagreement with any part. Questions are fine - we can deal with those.
[rrobinson]… In this context, however, the only “false unity” that I can imagine is one in which the membership of a local church is so homogenous in convictions, personality, training, background, personality, dress, looks, speech, etc. that he it is actually a little creepy.Wait, I’ve been at that church!
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
I think a church should be flexible with these issues when it comes to church membership, but in leadership - especially in what is to be taught - there needs to be conformity or there will be many possibilities for confusion in the church.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[MShep2] I think one of the biggest problems in having NO position on Eschatology would be attempting to fulfill Paul’s goal to preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). When you get to Daniel or Revelation, which view do you preach? One month Premillennial, the next month Preterist, the next Amillennial, etc.??? Or does the pastor teach one thing from the pulpit while other church leaders/members teach another view in the Sunday School classes or small groups?I believe you have touched upon a legitimate concern. I am also in partial agreement with you, since I think that having “NO position” on eschatology would indeed be highly problematic. However, I really don’t think that’s the case for the majority of people who are at all involved in this discussion. Dever, for example, (remember the original cause of this article) has a position - he is amillennial. He teaches from an amillennial standpoint, and he has preached through the entire Bible, at least in summary. You can buy his sermons on each book of the Bible collected in two books, entitled The Message of the Old Testament and The Message of the New Testament.
I think a church should be flexible with these issues when it comes to church membership, but in leadership - especially in what is to be taught - there needs to be conformity or there will be many possibilities for confusion in the church.
Since in expository preaching the main point of the text is the main point of the sermon, we have to ask how often the areas of disagreement actually constitute the main point. Although many passages mention the future, I would daresay that very few of them are primarily intended to teach when or even how the Lord will return, but rather that he will. Beyond that, all conservatives agree in a bodily return, his reign over all the Earth (either millennial or restored), the ultimate judgment and separation of redeemed and lost, and that all Christians eagerly await when we shall “forever be with the Lord.” It seems to me that only when we are “charting” do the differences really look that big. I’m sure that on this board and probably in our close circle of friends, we have disagreements about about the precise import of some of the Lord’s parables, or the meaning of some miracles, or how to resolve certain problem passages or interpret certain events in the Old Testament. We might even preach these passages in a different way. I don’t think that we would let those differences stop us from fellowshipping or being in the same church. Why let a few prophetic passages separate us?
So, I think that what most people are pleading for is the acknowledgment of the orthodoxy of other views within the boundaries of a congregation, association/denomination, and school/seminary. For example, most of the Professors at my seminary seem to be post-mill, but George Knight III teaches there and is historic pre-mill. I have been in churches where the elders differed, and our Church standards (WCF etc.) do not address the issue directly (though some interpret them as being against pre-mill). People actually can disagree on prophecy and still serve together well!
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion