Why I Couldn't Join Most Churches

Guys like this get on my nerves. His list of essentials includes things that aren’t essential: Having a particular view of eschatology and church polity. I know plenty of pastors who are squishy on eschatology, and not because of laziness. I am not going to be as dogmatic about something like the timing of the return of Christ respective to the millennium as I would the virgin birth or resurrection of Christ. Didn’t Piper once jokingly call himself a panmillennialist-it’ll all pan out in the end? And church polity is something that the N.T. simply doesn’t give us a fully developed picture of, so one can’t dogmatic about congregational rule or board-of-elder rule. Both sides can bring Biblical evidence forward to support their view.

Also, I think it is pompous to declare “If I were not a pastor, I would have a very difficult time finding a church. I find apostasy to be almost at an epidemic level…” He obviously doesn’t think so about his church; such a statement looks like he’s patting himself on the back. But it also ignores that in the N.T. churches sometimes found themselves in deep, deep trouble, yet faithful believers remained in them and were not castigated for doing so (Rev. 3:4). I’m not saying there is never a time to separate, but an idealist like Mr. White, instead of writing churches off, needs to open his mind to getting involved in an imperfect church to see if his presence could help it. Perhaps he could help a church write a doctrinal statement, perhaps show them what sound expository preaching looks like, teach them how to faithfully present the gospel, etc.

It’s easy to be idealistic if you live in a place where you have options. It would be wrong to refrain from joining with a local gospel preaching congregation on the basis of details of eschat., polity, etc. if it’s the only option available. On the other hand, if there is a church that is closer to your understanding of Scripture, it makes sense to join with them.

“Apostasy” does not apply to congregations that uphold the fundamentals of the faith and strive to live godly lives to the best of their understanding.

… White’s post actually has a lot of good stuff in it. The quoted portion seems to be a bit of hyperbole…. but it all depends on what churches you’re looking at! (If your sample is “evangelical” and “mainline” then “most… apostasy” is pretty accurate)

He’s setting up the wrong standard for why you could join a particular church by replacing could reasons with should reasons (absent alternatives).

[TylerR]

Randy White, in the article, wrote:

I am a student of prophecy, so eschatology is important to me. I realize it is not as important to every Pastor and every believer as it is to me. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that a Pastor who has not developed his eschatology is either lazy or not yet ready for prime time.

I completely agree with this statement. Any Pastor who won’t, or can’t, explain his basic eschatological framework doesn’t belong teaching God’s people. If you don’t have an eschatology, you’re either lazy or inept. Let me throw some caveats in:

• This doesn’t mean a Pastor has to have an answer for every thorny eschatological problem. It simply means that he has a basic framework to work with.
• For example, I don’t care if a dispensational premillennialist waffles over whether the temple the Antichrist desecrates is actually Ezekiel’s temple, or perhaps an unnamed third temple. I also don’t care if he has a firm opinion on whether the New Jerusalem will be the Church’s home during the Millennium, or if he believes the New Jerusalem is properly only part of eternity.
• I’m not interested in that kind of minutiae. What I care about if whether the guy has studied enough to actually have a general position.

I think’s it’s irresponsible for a Pastor to say he’s a “pan-millennialist.’ That’s lazy. It’s deliberate refusal to deal with the prophetic passages of Scripture. It is a complicated field, to be sure; and every system does have it’s problems. The question is this - which system has the fewest problems? A Pastor who refuses to even engage eschatology is doing his congregation a disservice.

I guess I’m not ready for prime time (whatever that means). But in some ways you are right in your observation about the system which “has the fewest problems.” After over 40 years of being a Christian and a sometimes student of eschatology I am not satisfied completely with any system. And it seems to me that dispensational premillennialism does not have the fewest problems. It didn’t help (or did it?) that I studied at various institutions with different views (BJ, Calvary, Reformed, Dallas, Trinity). But this I believe - Jesus is coming again to establish His kingdom and will reign forever and ever - Whether He comes in phases or once again, whether there is a 1000 year earthly reign as a prelude to His eternal reign or whether He comes once for all to put an end to evil and establish His kingdom - I have opinions on how I think it will work out and conviction on how it will turn out.

I have many questions which won’t be answered until events happen or don’t happen. I have great difficulty seeing a rebuilt temple and reversion to animal sacrifices, whether memorial or otherwise, in the millennium with distinctions between Israel and the Church, difficulty understanding a worldwide rebellion at the end of 1000 years of Jesus’ reign, etc. My difficulties won’t prevent God from doing what He has really promised and I expect that in the end we will all be surprised. I have leanings (historical premill) yet see the value of other views and would not separate from my amillennial brethren over eschatology. Perhaps that is one reason I’m not ready for prime time. I do see some value in discussing, debating these issues, and welcome sharpening. However if one holds his view of eschatology with the tenacity and certainty of the fundamentals of the faith, the discussion proves challenging.

In my opinion, dogmatism on eschatology is not the result of a lot of study. It is the result of not enough study. As a layman, I greatly appreciate pastors who have the courage and humility to actually admit they don’t have eschatology figured out (because after all, not a one of them does). For some reason, in my past, preachers always held to the idea that you had to take a position on everything and be dogmatic even if you knew deep down that you were not sure. I asked a few about that and they told me that they worried that ambivalence would confuse their “flock.” I am glad to see that changing. I personally will respect any pastor who says he holds to a position such as pre-trib but understands that he might not be right far more than a pastor who dogmatically proclaims it will be that way.

Agreed with Greg on eschatology. I subscribe to the rapture and all, but there always seems to be something of a disconnect when one gets to the fringes of the dispensational “tribe.” “Four Blood Moons” is a great example—I’m not aware of a real Biblical justification for it, and the author is more or less doing a “search for hypotheses” statistically.

But that said, the comment “the programs are the tail that wags the dog” and “anyone could subscribe to your statement of faith” hit home, as I’ve been in churches where the programs ran everything (spiritually miserable as a result) and where the statement of faith was largely window dressing around the preferences of the key people running the programs.

Now part of “everybody agrees” is that Protestant churches at least historically have fairly common positions on soteriology, and quite frankly the baptistic evangelicals have been eating other churches’ lunches in the past 40 years reaching people for Christ, along with (semi-baptistic) pentacostals and charismatics (pentamatics?).

But part of it is the fundagelical-pentamatic alliance going fuzzy on theology to keep the programs going and “tushes in seats.”

[Steve Davis]

After over 40 years of being a Christian and a sometimes student of eschatology I am not satisfied completely with any system. And it seems to me that dispensational premillennialism does not have the fewest problems.

[GregH]

I personally will respect any pastor who says he holds to a position such as pre-trib but understands that he might not be right far more than a pastor who dogmatically proclaims it will be that way.

I agree with both Steve and Greg. Raised pre-mill/pre-trib but not convinced enough to be dogmatic. Also not convinced of another position enough to abandon pre-mill. Years ago I read Three Views on the Rapture and found each of the writer’s presentations compelling!

[TylerR]

I think’s it’s irresponsible for a Pastor to say he’s a “pan-millennialist.’ That’s lazy. It’s deliberate refusal to deal with the prophetic passages of Scripture. It is a complicated field, to be sure; and every system does have it’s problems. The question is this - which system has the fewest problems? A Pastor who refuses to even engage eschatology is doing his congregation a disservice.

Piper was joking when he called himself a pan-millennialist (it’ll all pan out in the end), I’m pretty sure he holds to a historical premillennial view of Christ’s return, yet tentatively enough to admit that he could be wrong and that however it happens it will pan out in the end.

An article from the past from this site about being a “pan-millennialist”:

http://sharperiron.org/article/defense-of-pan-millennialism

Maybe not. But a pastor who holds an opinion lightly because he realizes that other positions have reasonable Biblical support, and that no position is water-tight, is a serious pastor. He is probably more serious than the pastor who is dogmatic about a position because he isn’t willing to carefully study opposing views.

There are doctrines worth dying for. I don’t think eschatological opinions approach that level of importance. Jesus is coming back. That is a certainty! A lot of the surrounding details are not as clear. When it comes to eschatology, I am encouraged when I read that the disciples, after sitting at the feet of Jesus, didn’t understand the details of his return.

[Ron Bean]

There are doctrines worth dying for. I don’t think eschatological opinions approach that level of importance. Jesus is coming back. That is a certainty! A lot of the surrounding details are not as clear. When it comes to eschatology, I am encouraged when I read that the disciples, after sitting at the feet of Jesus, didn’t understand the details of his return.

Ron,

the disciples didn’t understand Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection, either. Should we give someone a pass for being fuzzy on the doctrine of the bodily resurrection because he’s only being like Jesus’ disciples?

Paul