Review of Dispensational Modernism
Pietsch, B. M. Dispensational Modernism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 262, $100.84, Hardcover.
It is not an overstatement to say that this book is a must read for any scholar or serious Bible student who wants to understand the phenomenon of dispensationalism’s popularity in America.
Theological works that deal with the subject of dispensationalism from a biblical and theological perspective are certainly not lacking. From academic works like Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come and John Gerstner’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth to sensational works like John Hagee’s Four Blood Moons and David Jeremiah’s After the Rapture, the topic of pre-tribulational-premillennialism has been written on extensively. Numerous works have been written in defense of and in opposition to this theological system. Yet, very few works have examined dispensationalism from an historian’s perspective. That is what B. M. Pietsch seeks to do in Dispensational Modernism.
Pietsch’s work is a rarity in that it avoids both the theological and exegetical considerations within traditional dispensational argumentation. He seeks to analyze the explosive beginnings of dispensationalism in America between 1870 and 1920. His thesis is that dispensationalism was “built upon modernistic epistemic foundations” comprised of “a pervasive system of attitudes, assumptions, and methods that gave prophecy belief its meaning, traction, and popularity” (p. 2). In other words, dispensationalism’s roots are not primarily grounded in theological conversations, but in modern cultural trends. Pietsch relentlessly makes his case while intentionally avoiding the doctrinal and exegetical arguments that are ubiquitous in dispensational discussions.
Chapter 2 demonstrates that amid the rise of specialization in both the workplace and the academy, dispensationalists were in danger of losing their credibility. Their previous claims of scholarly authority were being undermined by those with higher levels of academic standing. They realized that “they must specialize, enforce methodological homogeneity, and bathe their work in scientific jargon, or perhaps even abstruse sophistication” (p. 59). Chapter 3 details the dispensational understanding of biblical authority which was grounded in the linguistic structures of the text which could be discovered through classification, quantification, cross-referencing, and intertextual typology (p. 76).
Chapter 4 deals with the hermeneutics of dispensationalism. Pietsch asserts that the pervasive accusation that dispensationalists were anti-intellectualists who despised science and modern epistemological methods is quite incorrect; rather, dispensationalists readily utilized modern technological practices and “argued that their methods of reading the Bible were the most scientific, and best revealed the true meaning in the Bible,” particularly concerning future events (p. 96).
Chapter 5 examines the dispensational conception of history and time which utilized contemporary engineering principles to create a complex system of time’s progression while chapter 6 considers how this understanding of time was used to map out an intricate theology of the future based upon God’s predetermined plan revealed through prophetic texts. Chapter 7, perhaps the most laborious chapter, considers the creation and distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible (with its vast amounts of mathematical calculations, precise quantifications, and detailed maps) and its influence on the widespread acceptance of dispensationalism.
Pietsch’s work is groundbreaking because in each chapter he shatters the notion that dispensationalism was born out of an anti-scientific and anti-modernist mindset and instead demonstrates that dispensationalism has consistently and readily embraced a modernist taxonomic framework.
It is not an overstatement to say that this book is a must read for any scholar or serious Bible student who wants to understand the phenomenon of dispensationalism’s popularity in America. To be clear, this work is not for everyone. It was originally written as a PhD dissertation for Duke University and was then published as a book and without question, it reads like a dissertation. Some sections are unnecessarily detailed. For example, chapter 7’s analysis of the Scofield Reference Bible could have been cut in half and still accomplished its purpose. Chapter 3’s examination of Common Sense Realism in Princetonian thought could have been reduced to a few pages and then supplemented with a substantial footnote.
Furthermore, this work is for those with a wide grasp of deep theological issues, without which, Pietsch’s claims cannot be assessed appropriately. For example, Pietsch’s analysis of Charles Hodge seems to perpetuate the dubious claim that Hodge was a captive to Common Sense Realism and used that epistemological method as the sole ground of biblical interpretation. Though this claim is pervasive among scholars of American historical theology, it should be reconsidered. Paul Helseth’s work, “Right Reason” and the Princeton Mind (2010) has dealt a significant blow to this assumption. Helseth convincingly argues that the Old Princetonians, including Hodge, were not enslaved to Baconian thought to the point that it controlled all of their theological assumptions. In any case, the point is that this work is not for the theological novice.
Nonetheless, Pietsch’s work is groundbreaking because in each chapter he shatters the notion that dispensationalism was born out of an anti-scientific and anti-modernist mindset and instead demonstrates that dispensationalism has consistently and readily embraced a modernist taxonomic framework. Dispensationalists were confident that their epistemological and hermeneutical methods were “more scientific than the speculative hypotheses of higher critics” and therefore, their conclusions should be viewed as scholarly and trustworthy because they were built upon the best contemporary assumptions (p. 8).
He also argues convincingly that the epistemological method of dispensationalism is not based upon Common Sense Realism or Baconian inductive methods; rather, it is based upon republican perspicuity— the idea that each individual has an absolute right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit (p. 97). He notes, “Common Sense implied that all minds could arrive at common interpretations; republican perspicuity implied that common minds could discover remarkable new biblical truths, or recover old ones” (p. 97). Pietsch writes, “Despite their occasional use of Common Sense rhetoric, dispensationalists were more firmly rooted in the traditions of republican perspicuity than Scottish Common Sense reasoning” (p. 121). This is demonstrated, not through an arbitrary concatenation of persons and events, but through extensive historical and reasoned analyses which reinforce a coherent apologetic for his thesis.
Now, if you are looking for a doctrinal and exegetical interaction with the theology of dispensationalism, look elsewhere. If you are seeking a textually critical examination of Daniel’s 70 weeks as they relate to the tribulation, this book is not for you. If you want to examine an historical-grammatical analysis of I Thessalonians 4:13-18, this work will greatly disappoint. You will find in this work no examination of dispensationalism’s understanding of the biblical covenants, the relationship between Israel and the church, or the exposition of prophetic texts.
Yet, Dispensational Modernism constitutes a significant assessment of the origins of dispensationalism and its modernist epistemological, taxonomical, and hermeneutical methods. Theologians and well-studied pastors can benefit greatly from interacting with this work of historical theology. Though not nearly as dramatic as Hal Lindsay’s Late Great Planet Earth or John Walvoord’s Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis, its historical analysis of dispensationalism is arguably much more illuminating and profitable for the student of biblical studies and historical theology.
Nathan R. Herrmann
Flint Reformed Baptist Church