Useless Labels

Calvinist. Arminian. Premillennialist. Amillennialist. Pre-tribulationalist. Preterist. Dispensationalist. Complementarian. Credobaptist. Fundamentalist. Zionist. Anti-Zionist. Reformed. Cessationist. Charismatic. Liberal. Progressive. Creationist. Evangelical. Pelagian. Covenantalist.

I subscribe to none of these and I'm finding more and more that broad theological labels are useless. They are used to put others (or ourselves) into boxes, to summarize sometimes complicated points of view, but the main issue is that with a lot of these, is that the meaning of them is subjective. Some of them are straight-forward, sure, like 'pre-millennialist'...the belief that mankind is currently living in a period of time BEFORE the millennial reign of Jesus. Or how about 'cessationist'...the belief that the spiritual gifts (prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, etc) ended with the Apostles. Fairly straight-forward. But many of these have ceased to be useful terms. 'Dispensationalist' for example - you see many different definitions of this. Some people mean that label as saying that God has dealt with mankind differently at different times/dispensations. Other argue that no, the actual hallmark of dispensationalism is the idea that God has two plans of salvation, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile. To the first definition, plenty of theological systems argue that God dealt with people at different ways at different times... 'Zionist' is another one -- it seemingly means something different to everyone who uses it. Same with 'evangelical'. Politically liberal folks use the label to mean 'anyone that is politically conservative that goes to Church'.

A delightful young man called me a 'Zionist Dispensationalist' this week on Twitter/X. I guess he hadn't read anything I've written here. I support Israel, yes, but by no means do I rubber stamp everything the modern state of Israel does just because they are Israel, nor do I advocate that gentile believers move there or any of the other radical things that some Zionist promote. Rather, I pray for Israel because I recognize their continuing importance to God. I recognize that the roots of modern Christianity are Jewish and that we have a debt of gratitude to the Jews who were the ones who preserved Scripture down through the ages so that I might have access to it today. I recognize that though with respect to the Gospel they are enemies (for now), they remain beloved of God because of God's solemn promises to the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Romans 11:28). That is how I express my support for Israel. To repeat, I do not believe they can do no wrong simply because they are Israelites.

As for the 'dispensational' label - do I believe that God has dealt with humanity in different ways at different times...sort of. I believe that the Holy Spirit has been poured out in a different way since Pentecost than before Pentecost. Having said that - there is clear evidence in Scripture that the Holy Spirit was at work in/through/on people long before Pentecost. I don't believe we live in an 'age of grace' - which is to say that I don't think God is dealing with mankind differently now than He has at other times. God's mercy, coupled with our faith, has always been the thing that saves. Which leads me to the second main point -- I don't believe that God has two plans of salvation. There has and always will be one plan of salvation. By grace (mercy), through faith. I believe that Jewish believers have a special and unique role to play in redemptive history and in the Kingdom, and in it's ultimate administration, but that role is the special thing...not the rewards. The rewards are the same for everyone who bends their knee to the King. So - no, I don't really identify with the 'dispensational' label.

If I was forced to label myself, using some of the less ambiguous theological terms, I would say I'm a anti-supercessionist historic premillennialist.

Anti-Supercessionist: Supercessionists, which is those that believe in replacement theology, believe that the Church has replaced Israel. Put another way, they believe the Church is now the 'Israel of God'. I find this to be a biblically untenable position. If God has somehow either given up on, or transferred His promises from Israel to the Church, then He cannot be trusted. If he has broken His everlasting promises to Israel, then what reason do I have to believe He wouldn't/couldn't change His mind again.

Another term I could use here would be "Jewish Apocalypticism" - that is, a view of Scripture that incorporates an Israel-centric worldview. Israel (via Jerusalem) is the center and focus of God's work in the world, and that continues to this present moment. That does not mean that God does not have the Nations (gentiles) in view, but is simply a recognition that we are not the center of the redemptive story.

Historic Premillennialist: most straight-forwardly, I believe both the Kingdom, and the millennial reign of Jesus are still entirely future. Additionally, I believe that Jesus will return to assume the throne of David, in Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem he will govern the whole Earth for a 1,000 year period. The 'historic' in this label refers to the fact that this was the view of many of the 'early' Church fathers (Ireneaus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc). A more recognizable modern theologian who held a 'historic premillennialist' view is George Eldon Ladd. I read his most famous book, "The Gospel of the Kingdom" - and while I agree with him on a lot, the famous phrase that he coined, "already, not yet", is not a position I agree with. The historic premillennialist view is also traditionally post-tribulational, and I agree with that perspective. Post-tributlational meaning there is no pre-tribulation (return of Jesus, Day of the Lord) rapture of the Church. We go through the tribulation right there along with our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Even going through the exercise of labeling myself feels icky. I don't want to subscribe to, or declare my allegiance to, any doctrine of man. Yes, theology and doctrine are important, but none of this is salvific -- I believe it can help us properly orient ourselves in the narrative of history AND properly orient our discipleship, but at the same time, I don't believe we're going to get some final theology test at the end of all things to see if we held the 'right' views. And besides, Paul warned the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 1 about following the doctrines of man, or allowing those doctrines to create problems:

"Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgement. For I have been informed concerning you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am with Paul," or "I am with Apollos," or "I am with Cephas," or "I am with Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he?" (verses 10-13, NASB)

As for me, I want to know what is true. I want to know how God set things up, what He wants, what He expects and where this is all going. I don't want to be deluded - I want to be sober-minded and prepared. I want to be found ready when He returns and I want to be able to give an answer to those that wonder about the hope that I have. I hear and recognize the ubiquitous call of the New Testament to persevere and endure TO THE END. Increasingly I want my life to be an open book before God - that in increasingly measure, my conduct would be that of a devoted disciple, and that I would have the willingness to lay down my life in service of Him. I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, is actively at work in the world, and I want to be a useful vessel in His hand, unto the harvest. The rest, is noise.