The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle over the End Times Shaped a Nation. By Daniel G. Hummel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2023. 382 pp. $29.99.
Daniel Hummel writes as a historian. In The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism, he concludes that dispensationalism has fallen in the sense that it is no longer considered a viable option among most Christian leaders or institutions. He does not argue the Biblical merits, or lack thereof, of the theology, but wants to describe why dispensationalism lost a formerly exalted position in the American religious culture.
Hummel correctly traces the history of dispensationalism to its Plymouth Brethren roots in Ireland and England (p. 6). It was connected to a new premillennial eschatology. This eschatology maintains that there is an imminent Rapture of the church, that there is a distinction between Israel and the church, that we are currently in a parenthesis before Daniel’s 70th week, and that there will be a Tribulation after the Rapture.
Dispensationalism says that the Church is to be heavenly-minded, looking forward to the coming kingdom. There is a dualism between heaven and earth. We are not in the kingdom now. The Scriptures are to be interpreted literally, including the book of Revelation and the OT prophets (pp. 20-24, 43, 70-71). History is to be divided into different dispensations, each of which has ended in failure.
In the 1800s, some people adopted certain dispensational views, such as the Rapture and the soon coming of the Lord, but rejected other aspects. D. L. Moody popularized such teachings (pp. 39, 85). For many, revivals and global missions were emphasized, with the desire to see as many people spiritually saved as possible before the Lord comes (p. 98).
Lewis Sperry Chafer, a disciple of C. I. Scofield, promoted a scholastic dispensationalism. He wanted to systematize the theology and teach it to men and pastors, who would spread it in various denominations. He founded Dallas Theological Seminary for this purpose, and this led to many other seminaries and Bible institutes. These institutions provided a large number of pastors, seminary professors, and Christian leaders (pp. 180, 200). Scholastic dispensationalism flourished through the 1950s (p. 251). It was bolstered by prestigious scholars like Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, S. Lewis Johnson, and Zane Hodges (p. 253).
Scholastic dispensationalism was spread to the masses through the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible (1909). Missionaries used this as a textbook in the field. Many books were published teaching a dispensational and premillennial framework. All of this emphasized interpreting the Bible literally (pp. 130, 133, 142).
At the same time, The Fundamentals (1915), a series of popular articles by different theologians, was published. These presented new premillennialism as the dominant position of evangelicalism (p. 148).
Hummel lists a number of reasons for dispensationalism’s fall from popularity. A major reason was the rise of what he calls pop dispensationalism. Hal Lindsey, the author of The Late Great Planet Earth, made millions of dollars using dispensational themes but with little scholarly background. Many followed in his footsteps (pp. 239-40).
Pop dispensationalism was conquering America, but scholastic dispensationalism went into free fall (p. 265). Dispensationalists began to get involved in political issues, predicted the date of Christ’s return, and developed fanciful interpretations of the Scriptures while tying them to current events (pp. 234, 256). Pop dispensationalism opened scholastic dispensationalism up to critique and mockery. Hummel not so subtly suggests that even some of the scholarly proponents of the system took advantage of its consumer success. Dispensationalism lost almost all credibility among serious theologians.
Hummel says that a resurgent reconstructionist postmillennialism attacked the dispensational view that the kingdom is a heavenly one. Dallas Theological Seminary was unwilling (or unable?) to respond. Many within the ranks of dispensationalism defected. Many graduates of DTS renounced the theology of dispensationalism. Some of the younger scholars at the school promoted progressive dispensationalism, which Reformed theologians praised, claiming it was nothing more than covenant premillennialism (pp. 312-17). Most seminaries rejected dispensational teaching and did not hire dispensational teachers (p. 262).
Hummel gives the reasons why he thinks scholastic dispensationalism has fallen on hard times from a historical perspective. He obviously thinks this is a good development but does not specifically address whether the fall of dispensationalism is the result of a faulty interpretation of the Scriptures.
While I am sure he does think that is the case, one could also conclude from his book that it was because of the greed, laziness, and weaknesses of dispensational scholars. One could also argue that the dispensationalists were right all along. Dispensationalism has fallen from favor because the world is becoming worse and worse. It only stands to reason that the world would reject the proper handling of God’s Word! The reader and the Bible student will have to decide how to interpret the history of dispensationalism.
A couple of points Hummel discusses will be of interest to most readers of the JOTGES. Hummel states on many occasions that dispensationalism, along with new premillennialism, are most attractive to white conservative Christians (e.g., pp. 187, 263). He implies that the emphasis on a totally future kingdom excuses the believer from being concerned about social injustices. For this reason, dispensationalism has not appealed to black churches. Dispensationalists have almost always supported conservative Republican policies.
In this reviewer’s opinion, Hummel feels that a strain of racism runs through dispensationalism and at least some of its adherents. The reader of this book will need to decide if racism indeed played some part in the development of dispensationalism. In this reviewer’s view, it is obvious that one can see the kingdom as completely “not yet” without being a racist.
Throughout the book, Hummel connects dispensationalism and new premillennialism with Free Grace (FG) theology (pp. 11, 148, 156, 193-94, 309-12, etc.). He claims that this is another reason dispensationalism was attacked and eventually collapsed. He discusses John MacArthur’s opposition to FG views and how it drove him to dissociate from much of dispensationalism’s teachings and move fairly strongly towards Reformed beliefs, especially in the area of soteriology.
Hummel, however, seems to have a defective view of the FG movement, at least as it is held by GES. He uses the usual pejorative language, such as “cheap grace” and “mental assent,” and claims that FG allows believers to keep on sinning. But he also mistakenly says that FG theology asks the unbeliever to say a sinner’s prayer or invite Jesus into one’s heart.
In this reviewer’s opinion, he does not make it clear that being a dispensationalist and being FG are not synonymous. In addition, he does not understand that FG proponents, such as GES, do not teach that it is of no consequence if the believer “keeps on sinning.” In all of Hummel’s discussions of FG theology, there is not a single mention of rewards or the discipline of God in the life of the believer who sins.
This book is full of historical information about the religious culture of the United States in which practically all readers of the JOTGES have taken part. He discusses institutions that many of us have attended and individuals many of us have known. As a historian, Hummel must interpret this mountain of data. None of us will agree with how he does so in some cases, but every reader will learn something about his history from this book. I highly recommend it.
Kenneth W. Yates
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
