Who is Dr. Reluctant?
For what it’s worth, my name is Paul Martin Henebury. I am a native of Manchester, England and am a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (M.Div., Ph.D). I have been a Church-planter, pastor, and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. I was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology prior to leaving that post). I am now the President of Veritas School of Theology.
Dr Reluctant is a pseudonym given me by my friend Thomas Pryde – a.k.a. Neofundy. Not surprisingly, coming from Tom, it has a double meaning, but as related to the subject of dispensationalism it has to do with the fact that I am a committed yet oft uncomfortable advocate of what might be called normative dispensational theology.
Though it is easier to say than do, I think the whole movement needs a big kick in the rear! For instance, some dispensationalists give the impression that their system is not a full theology at all, but just Reformed theology tethered to a consistently literal hermeneutics. They cannot envisage building up dispensationalism on its own terms, and seem to be blithely insensible of their obligation to do so, preferring to attend prophecy conferences and issue their paperback books with an assortment of fiery dragons and solar eclipses on the covers. And many of them really think the “Left Behind” phenomenon was a boon to the cause of truth.
Then there are others who focus so much on the promises given to Israel that they seem to have forgotten that today God is dealing with the Church, wherein there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Hence, that is where dispensationalists need to be focusing! Believe it or not, I have been branded an anti-Semite for teaching this plain fact.
My main reason for being “reluctant” to be a dispensationalist is that it has not been developed as a theology in its own right for many years. While I respect much of what theologians like Chafer, Walvoord and Ryrie have written, I do not hold with the Cartesian foundationalism so prevalent in the first; or the differentiating of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven found in the second; nor the dispatching of the New Covenant into the Millennium taught by the third. Also, I cannot for the life of me see how the doxological purposes of the Creator are part of the sine qua non of dispensationalism. And as I have tried to tell people over the years, good theological and philosophical thinking from dispensationalist authors today (apart from Messrs Merrill and Hoehner) is as scarce as rocking-horse droppings, with little prospect of coming improvement. Dispensationalism is a theology in its own right and it deserves being treated as such.
The wife of a well known prophecy teacher once asked my opinion about why so many young dispensationalists quit the team and sign up with the Reformed camp. I answered by putting this question to her: what would you rather hear about, the antichrist or the Lord’s Christ? I might have asked several others, like “who writes all the best theology books? or the best apologetics books?” “Who do you have to read if you want to study beyond the Master’s level?” “Where are the next crop of young dispensational scholars going to come from?” “Who today is developing dispensationalism as a theology in its own right?”
Let’s face it, dispensationalism needs an overhaul. The PD’s changed it into something else, but at least they didn’t sit still and hand the reins of the movement over to Tim LaHaye or the GES. We need to take our theology (not ourselves) seriously. We need to work on it. By all means, let us learn from the Reformed guys. We can and should reference their books and articles and be enriched by their rich lore of Reformation and Puritan giants. But please, let’s not piggy-back on Reformed-covenant authors as if we only need to alter their eschatology. We need to build from the ground up, taking the Doctrine of God (as I believe) as determinate of every other doctrine, leaving eschatological concerns for their later, subordinate place in the theological corpus. Let us explore and improve dispensationalism in every direction. If we don’t do it, I suppose people like me will have to watch the movement collapse in on itself. And I believe that would be tragic.
