As some of you already know, it has been my intention
for some time now to submit some of my 'From the Hip'
material to 'The Moody Student'. Being that time is
running out on my ability to comment on the recent
doctrinal statement fiasco and due to the fact that
Gary Witherall is speaking this week (you will
understand the relevancy of this when you read the
article), I have decided that the time is now (i.e. at
hand, at the door, very soon... all of which are to be
taken LITERALLY!). The following article is being
submitted to Trent Starnes of The Moody Student.
Email Trent at [email protected] and tell
him to have this article printed in the next issue of
TMS. Now, without further ado... I give you:
Students Hoping For an 'Imminent Return' to
Sensibility
What do Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, B.B.
Warfield, Gary Witherall, Charles Hodge, and a number
of MBI Missions Department professors (whose names
this author refuses to include in this article) all
have in common? Under the current interpretation of
Moody's doctrinal statement, none of these individuals
would be permitted to graduate from the Moody Bible
Institute! Very recently, a number of concerned
students met with various school officials and were
shocked to find that they were for all intents and
purposes being kicked out of school (i.e. prohibited
from ever graduating) simply because they held
eschatological views which do not include the
'imminent return of Jesus Christ'. Instead, these
students contend that the Bible speaks of significant
kingdom advances which shall be made by the Church
prior to the Second Coming of Christ. This view, in
some form or another, is very prevalent in two
particular evangelical circles: Reformed
Presbyterianism (where it falls under the umbrella of
postmillennialism) and the realm of world missions and
evangelization (where it is commonly held that all
ethnic groups must hear the gospel before the Second
Coming, cf. Matt. 24:14).
It appears that MBI officials have a bit of a double
standard when it comes to their acceptance of
'non-imminency' advocates. Just last semester MBI
graduate Gary Witherall spoke numerous times at
official MBI events, including chapel. In his chapel
message, one will recall, he made reference to the
fact that he believes that all nations will hear the
gospel before Christ's Second Coming. Apparently Mr.
Witherall's view did not keep him from graduating from
MBI, entering into productive Christian ministry, and
eventually becoming somewhat of a celebrity alumnus of
the Institute. Why the double standard in the case of
many current MBI students who are being forced out?
Interestingly enough, this double standard goes deeper
than Gary Witherall. Most MBI students will recall
learning about the great 'father of modern missions',
William Carey, in their Christian Missions classes.
What is not taught is that Mr. Carey, like many of the
Puritans of his day, was a life-long postmillennialist
whose eschatology of victory played a major role in
motivating him to embark on missions work. Why are we
taught to revere the father of modern missions when in
fact the father of modern missions, were he a current
MBI student, would be sent packing by the current
administration? Furthermore, there are a number of
'non-imminency' advocates teaching missions classes at
MBI as we speak! Why are they not pressured to leave
by the administration? This author is also quite
convinced that many of the speakers at MBI's annual
Missions Conference likewise hold to non-imminency.
But what about theologians? There is a popular rumor
among theology students which says that the
theological views of missionaries tend to be a bit
outlandish and should not be given serious
consideration. It is not the purpose of this article
to tackle such a blatantly unfair generalization
(except to briefly mention that historically, the
Puritans stand as an example of a people whose passion
for both missions and theology arguably led to, as of
yet, an unequaled progress in both fields.) Putting
all departmental feuds aside, it certainly adds to the
case at hand to point out a few highly regarded
theologians who, despite the fact that their writings
and innovations shape much of the theological
curriculum here at MBI, would be unable to graduate
under the current rules. Take Jonathan Edwards for
instance. Edwards is perhaps one of the greatest
'pastor-theologians' of all time. This author recalls
more than one MBI professor recommending his
literature, and even one professor assigning large
quantities of material from certain sections of his
writings for Systematic Theology II. Add to this the
fact that Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine, B.B.
Warfield, John Murray, A.A. Hodge, J. Gresham Machen,
Charles Hodge, Matthew Henry, and Greg Bahnsen, each
notable evangelical theologians (serving here as
well-known representatives of the vast number of
postmillennialists throughout the history of orthodox
Christian theology whose inclusion in and influence
upon the MBI theological curriculum cannot be
overstressed), held to the non-imminency view and you
begin to get the picture. The issue of imminency or
non-imminency has never been a defining one in terms
of Christian orthodoxy. One has to wonder why the
current MBI administration, by including it in its
core doctrinal statement, has now decided to classify
it as such.
How is a student to engage in an honest analysis of
the issues at an academic institution which on the one
hand tells him that non-imminency is anathema in terms
of his graduation, but on the other hand parades
before him a myriad of pastors, professors, and alumni
(each having the implicit stamp of 'role model' on
their foreheads) who convincingly teach otherwise?
Isn't Bible College supposed to provide an atmosphere
where one can examine and reexamine his or her
theology without having Big Brother lurking around
every library bookshelf reminding him of a stricter
than thou doctrinal statement? Is it really such a
hindrance to one's involvement in Christian ministry
for him to believe that the Kingdom of God is destined
for a certain measure of evangelistic success in this
age? If not, then why the 'Pessi-millennial' mandate?
It seems to this author that the non-imminency view,
far from decreasing a student's chances of serving the
Lord effectively, would inevitably provide the
encouragement and motivation needed to abandon oneself
to the work of the Great Commission. After all, isn't
that what happened in the lives of William Carey,
Jonathan Edwards, and Gary Witherall?
In closing, it should also be pointed out that, as far
as this author knows, the majority of those who are
being forced out came to this conclusion while
attending MBI, where the non-imminency view, as has
been established in this article, is to some degree
taught and advocated both implicitly and explicity.
Furthermore, this author was also assured by no less
than the Dean of Students multiple times over the past
three semesters that MBI has graduated advocates of
non-imminency in the past and has no problem
graduating them in the future. He also suggested that
such students would be allowed to graduate from MBI
without having to voice full agreement to the
eschatological section of the doctrinal statement.
This is undoubtedly the sort of policy that makes the
most sense. Why then are school administrators
prohibiting the graduation of students who, having
been informed of the Dean's statements concerning
graduation policy, chose to continue investing their
money in an MBI education that is now being cut short.
The negative financial repercussions of this
inconsistently articulated policy will undoubtedly be
felt in the lives of those students who stand to lose
a considerable number of non-transferrable credits.
In a day and age in which the battle for orthodoxy
seems to have surrounded the Church on all fronts
(case in point: Tony Evans' most recent book), would
to God we allow for reasonable doctrinal leniency in
matters of eschatology.
PS - Be sure to check out Dale Melchin's theology
webpage and let me know what you think.
www.geocities.com/dalemelchin