My Concerns for Biblical Fundamentalism and the Next Generation (Both Doctrine and Practice)

My Concerns for Fundamentalism and the Next Generation

Several items have been churning in my heart and mind over my twenty-six years in Independent Fundamental churches.** Just for record I'm in my mid-forties and have faithfully served as a United States Army Chaplain for nearly sixteen years. I currently serve as a Command and General Staff College Instructor. I'm not a local church pastor or seminary professor so I have neither position to motivate my answers. I am however concerned (as a movement) these churches and institutions address issues which we have faced and will continue to face in the future. 

**Working definition: fundamentalism--a Christian movement which believes in the historic fundamentals of biblical Christianity and a willingness to separate from those who deny in doctrine or practice these basic Christian truths. 

First, I have been a member of or regularly attended fundamental churches in six different states (WV, SC, MI, IN, AK and currently attending a Bible church in OH). As a graduate of several of their institutions, I desire to see them both to continue and to thrive spiritually and academically. I've seen and experienced what they practice and teach.  Worst case I don't want to see any more fundamental baptist colleges and seminaries close their doors.  Who might be next or for what reason? Financial strains? Compromise? Music? Translations? Internal division? Community college competition? What might it be and how can we avoid it from happening? So for starters I'm not out to protect a school, church, movement or my source of income. I simply don't want a movement to die out or refuse to adjust applications for the wrong reasons. 

Second, having read and listened to the concerns expressed by fundamental baptist leaders these past years, several things have become more clear than before. If fundamentalism is concerned about college and seminary graduates from within our own ranks leaving then we really need to consider why or what the motives for leaving could be? And once these concerns are heard will they be acted upon? A point of clarification: they are not leaving Christianity they are leaving Fundamentalism as a movement as expressed in local churches and related seminaries. I have four children and I hope there will still be schools we can support in operation 10-15 years down the road. 

So based on my limited twenty-six years within fundamental churches and forty plus years of life I offer my concerns for fundamentalism below. I hope they are received well.  I know others have these same concerns since I've heard some of them explicitly made publicly in fundamentalists fellowship gatherings. So for sake of space and time I'm taking up one issue for each of the following articles. My guess is any of these concerns can be or have been already read on sites such as SharperIron, FBFI, or from IntheNickofTime (Bauder).

Issue one--If one camp, denomination, or group of churches is making or has made one English translation a matter of orthodoxy then as I understand it this means they are making it a doctrinal issue (not just a preference). The issue has been pushed beyond just being a secondary or tertiary issue. This throws out Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 as well.  If someone's beliefs (doctrine and practice) are now in question because of this one English translation then if fundamentalism believes this position is doctrinally incorrect then we have an obligation (for sake of consistency) to separate from these men. It is not a matter of friendship or club membership. Many seminaries and local churches have made tremendous changes in a positive directions: both in doctrine and practice. Just to be clear there are professing fundamentalist schools and seminaries on both sides of this issue. If it is simply a matter of preference, then we need to use different terms. On the other hand, if this is a doctrinal issue, then we have a greater threat for future generations than we may be willing to admit. 

If I remember correctly multiple books have been written on this subject, classes taught, and public statements made. I have a list of these here. They are useful and thoroughly academic in presenting the reader with information to make an informed and historical decision on this issue. The good thing to know is that more and more pastors are understanding the historical position on this issue, many of which are helping their churches to move away from a one translation only position or a least a translation in more modern English understandable by current and future generations. Fundamentalism must be willing to move beyond being defined by a position on an English translation. I applaud those using the ESV and NASB. May they continue to flourish and grow. 

For sake of argument only one of the two seminaries I've attended was consistent in doctrine and practice (not a crime but simply a concern).  In one seminary we used one particular Greek text in the class room but then required memorization from an English text produced from another.  See the problem. At least the other seminary was consistent if one particular Greek text was used then give liberty to preach and teach from English translations produced from it.  If not hold to another position. We have to be willing to move beyond arguments "for the sake of unity" or "people in the pew can't follow along." I'm glad to see improvements made in this area in literature produced, both textbooks and periodicals.  

This is not foregoing a liberty/right when preaching or visiting at a local church and publicly expounding the scriptures.  At least follow their policies on the issue.  Following a institutional policy for sake of consistency is not the same as imposing that position as the mark for orthodox Christianity. If you can't do that (or follow their appointed standards) then maybe you shouldn't publicly teach/preach in that particular church. Move on to another church or attend school elsewhere (or be willing to restrict yourself to that particular church's doctrine and practice). I have far more respect for those who are willing to go elsewhere if it helps them be more consistent or keep a clear conscience.

If fundamentalism, at least the portion of movement self-identified with one English translation, falls or is inflicted by unnecessary scrutiny due to the English translation issue then they have brought it upon themselves. We need to teach our people over and over. We need to be willing to withdrawal from institutions who will not paint a clear picture here. As for the institutions, both seminary and local church level, who are making changes in a healthy direction, may they be rewarded for their efforts to both teach and practice consistently on this text and translation issue. We must be willing to practice separation both directions. First, to those within broader evangelicalism who have compromised in doctrine and practice. Secondly, we must consistently extend our position to those self-professed within our own camp who are trying to redefine fundamentals of the Christian faith. In so far as they preach the gospel unhindered then great. But great error is committed attaching an English translation to one's standard of doctrinal integrity. 

In the end, I would simply ask if you are reading this and you personally don't know Christ as your Lord and Savior, then simply pick up a Bible (any Bible in any language) and read what Christ has done for you in His death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead for your sins. Any translation can give you this information.  Read a Bible and come to know the Trinitarian God of the Bible, the Creator of you and me.

Read. Enjoy. Be challenged. Comment as needed.

Fasting, Praying and Pulpit Committees (Orthopraxy in Local church decision making)

Fasting, Praying, Pulpit Committees and a Plurality of Lay Elders in Local Baptist Churches (Part Three)

As we continue our series on congregationalism (especially a subset called a pulpit committee) and a local church having a plurality of lay elders, we would be falling short to leave out Acts 13.  So it is to here we turn. The verses of primary importance are as follows,

"And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed..." (Acts 13: 3-4a).

So why are these verses so important?  Maybe we should ask who are the subjects? I've tried to highlight the important pronouns. So lets go through the context and focus on the details that might help us here.  By way of reminder, we are trying to focus on who is making decisions in the local church.  What is the combination or focus? What do the scriptures say must be our focus not what we want to see in them to defend a particular position.

First, the context is a local church in the city of Antioch.  We see this in verse one "in the church at Antioch." For sake of argument I'll simply refer to this as a local congregation. 

Second, there are actual men in the first century functioning as prophets and teachers in a local that particular local church.  Both of which appear as plural nouns.  So at a minimum there are multiple prophets and teachers functioning in that particular church.  How we determine which roles/functions continue in 2018 is another question and a much needed thread. These are two of the four gifts to the local church found in Ephesians 4:11. Yes I'm including pastor-teacher as one individual. If your highly concerned about whether it's one office or two I recommend Harold Hoehner's commentary Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (pp. 542-546).  They provide an excellent summary of the multiple views here. 

Third, verse two reads "while they were ministering...and fasting" Both verbs are plural and the only subjects mentioned so far are a list of names matching the before mentioned prophets and teachers (Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul). I think the focused subject on these men is even more clear from verse two because the original text includes the emphatic pronoun translated "they" for emphasis and remove any confusion who the subject is. The emphatic pronoun occurs again in the next verse "they" being sent out.  For reference both pronouns are masculine plural pronouns.

Fourth, the Holy Spirit speaks to this group of men to "set apart" two men from their number. See the previous list back in verse one.  Both Barnabas and Saul are in this list of prophets/teachers functioning in the local church.

Fifth, now to our main verse.  Who are the pronouns?  Who "fasted" "prayed" and "laid hands" on these two men?  Any other subjects appear?  Why the need to import the congregation into this except with an outside agenda to prove a particular form of church polity?  Who was "ministering and fasting" back in verse two?  These five men two of which are to depart. Who sent them out?  Obviously, its the prophets/teachers from the previous context.

Well known commentaries agree with this straight forward reading of the text.  Witherington writes concerning the emphatic pronoun, "they are 'set apart' for the task by this church's leaders." (emphasis mine) (Ben Witherington III, The Acts of Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary).  MacArthur likewise agrees, "the leaders laid their hands on them"  (emphasis mine) (John MacArthur Jr. Acts: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary). Consider also Peterson in the Pillar New Testament Commentary, concerning verse three he writes, "the preceding verse stresses the role of the prophets and teachers at Antioch in sending off Barnabas and Saul" (emphasis mine) (David Peterson, Pillar New Testament Commentary: Acts of the Apostles).

Sixth, lets assume for the sake of argument the congregation did this.  Did the entire local church congregation lay hands on them? You can't change the context to say only some (the pulpit committee) laid hands on them (i.e., the local church congregation).  The same subjects perform both verbs. Do we see this today? Are we even willing to consider that a plurality of lay elders is God's chosen means of accountability and leadership in local churches (and they select leaders). To be fair John Pohill, who provided the book of Acts study notes for the ESV Study Bible states, "they...probably refers to the entire congregation" (ESV Study Bible, p. 2109). Pohill's "probably" terminology matches his commentary notes, "It is not clear who laid hands on Paul and Barnabas" (John Pohill, New American Commentary: Acts, 1992, p. 290). Another more recent author Jonathan Leeman, an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, takes this to be the congregation as well, "As they [probably the congregation] were ministering..." (Jonathan Leeman, Don't Fire Your Church Members: The Case for Congregationalism, 2016, p. 108). On the other hand, please note both author's degree of certainty "probably." 

Seems pretty clear from the context.  The functioning elder/teachers (Eph 4) in the local church sent out from their number two men into the ministry outside their local congregation.  I just don't see a congregational decision or vote in this context or in a previous article.  So why the need to vigorously defend congregational polity. From my own personal experience having been in fundamental baptist churches for near 25 years, its not based on a careful exegetical handling of the texts but a collection of proof texts.  So its got to be something else. But what? Is there a balance? Are we potentially too quick to throw out texts?  

Does this product or conclusion match the biblical theology of this topic as revealed in the rest of the scriptures?  Yes. I'd more than happy to see a congregational laying on of hands but I just don't see it the NT context. It's always an elder/pastor performing this function. Let's compare: 

Acts 6:6, "and after praying, they laid their hands on them." Context seems pretty clear this was done by the apostles/elders upon the seven men picked out by the disciples. We'll revisit this text in a later thread on servant/deacons.

1 Timothy 4:15. "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." A office for service given to Timothy by these same means by a group of elders (plural) (same underlying Greek term as elder, πρεσβυτέριον).

Again 1 Timothy 5:22, "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily..." This command/exhortation was given explicitly to the head of a local church--Timothy.

And again, 2 Timothy 1:6, "I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." Who's the recipient? Timothy.  Notice who laid hands on him?  Who wrote the let? The laying of my hands.  Paul the apostle. Same man from the group in Acts 13.  Wonder where he saw that actually practiced before?

So for the congregational position to hold true.  The subjects can change within the verse despite the grammar.  The context can be avoided or ignored. Two separate emphatic pronouns can change in the same context. And the entirety of the same topic as revealed in the NT is to be ignored.  Does this fit?  If so then you have congregational decision making here in addition to references of church discipline found elsewhere (Mt 18, 1 Cor 5, 2 Th 3). Great! Then be consistent and let the whole congregation lay hands on the pastor/elder when sent out (don't forget to also fast and pray). I'm assuming this includes both the men and women laid hands on them also. 

So what's this got to do with pulpit committees?  Did you see one in the text?  That's my point. With such a strong and emphatic testimony to a plurality of lay elders making local church decisions it would not hurt to go through NT passages that actually address congregational decision making and the areas specifically given to them. If anyone has a responsibility to find other elders and call them it is the elders of the church.  They as men leading the local church have this task, responsibility, and obligation.  Sad thing is that most local church pulpit committees are filled with both men and women unqualified to serve as elders (but they are somehow qualified to know what to look for).

We will have to follow up with more texts, examples, and baptist fundamentalist history.

Read, enjoy, and comment as you fill led.

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders

Brief Excerpt on Pulpit Committees, Congregations, and the Wisdom of a Local Church Plurality of Lay Elders  (Part One)



Why does it matter?  Why now write on this topic?  Answer: as I continue to listen to my brethren within fundamentalism preach, several themes are repeating as they sound a rally cry: first, how to keep a younger generation of fundamentalist pastors in fundamentalism and two, a buckshot blast on every theological issue that may or may not be attracting the younger generation away from their fundamentalist roots.  So what are these vast repeating concerns? You'll have to listen to what they are saying to find out.  But for the sake of this current thread: congregationalism and a plurality of lay elders.

I am assuming the following are correct and biblical for the following argument:

One, the New Testament teaches a plurality of lay elders in each local NT church. Just heard a recent excellent review sermon on the plurality of elders from a church in Greenville, SC.

Two, the position of deacon and/or deacon board is not a position(s) of authority in the local NT church. It is a position of service in the local church. There are no passages in the NT giving authority to deacons.

Three, history confirms these two above positions (we are not alone on an island to make up church polity of our own making). The only way to avoid points one and two above is to simply not teach or misconstrue the biblical texts of how they have been historically interpreted.

Four, congregational polity also works in coordination with this plurality of lay elders. This is typically where many baptist church pastors stop.  I for one am glad to see the numerous books in print encouraging churches moving to a plurality of lay elders in leadership.

Please see other articles on this website for a defense of the above positions.  I have written multiple articles concerning elders and polity within the local church. See here for that earlier series.

To answer the question we need to actually start with the Bible. There is no reference or even a hint of proof texts referring to a committee within a local church which alone has the responsibility to select the next elder/pastor for the local congregation.  The  only ones I can think of that come even close would have to be twisted to make them a proof text.

Does Acts 6 helps?  At best the congregation chose the deacons (not elders) which were then approved by the existing apostles.  I get the idea you could use this one as long as you ignore the content, topic, and context.

Really what you have to do is appeal to a pragmatic argument (it works must be okay).  Perhaps a plea to we've always done it this way (could have always been wrong too).

Textually what you need is a congregation that has a sub-divided group that with the responsibility of selecting the next elder/pastor within that particular local church.

What about the other options.  The elders selecting future elders? Or an entire congregation selecting a candidate approved by the elders?

What does the Bible says?  What evidence do we have? Consider the following:

Acts 14:23 "when they had appointed elders for them"  Contexts seems to identify the "they" as the apostles who were visiting earlier planted local churches.  The second "them" appears to be the local congregation. This seems to fit the context best.  Verse 21, "When they had preached."  Not the congregation but the elders passing through. Later in that same verse "and had made many disciples."  Again this would be mishandling the context to change the subject of the verbs. Third reference, "they returned to Lystra...." The same individuals preached, made disciples and returned.  Same subject all three times.  Verse 22 includes two more participles "strengthening" and "encouraging" with same same subjects as previous verse.  Its the elders/apostles passing through the local churches.  Now to verse 23, "when they has appointed elders for them in every church."  Why all of a sudden would the subject change?

This fits with Dr. Stewart Custer's commentary as well, "We may conclude that the apostles observed the believers carefully on their return journey and chose men who had already established a good testimony..." (Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ: A Commentary on Acts).  So the subjects are not the local church but the apostle/elders themselves.

David Peterson agrees as well that Paul and Barnabas are the ones doing the ordaining/appointing.  So its not the local church at all involved in this action (The Pillar New Testament Commentary:  Acts of the Apostles, 2009).

So this understanding of the text is not new, twisted, or imaginary.  Its simply a straightforward reading of the text in its context without another motive to dodge the results.  The result is obvious: it is not the congregation making the decision. So how do those who don't see the elders reference handle this verse? Is "raising your hand" to vote in 2018 really an option? Or is this simply another abuse of an etymological fallacy?

We'll address that answer next time.

Till then keep reading your Bible.

Comments as always encouraged.

The Value of the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBFI) and English Translations, Discernment, and Christian Charity

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBFI) and the Modern One English Only Position

This organization or fellowship of Fundamental Baptists meets multiple times each year (according to region and otherwise).  They also produce a magazine entitled "Frontline" several times each year. Back in 1995, and subsequently they have produced statements concerning the English Only Position.  I personally know probably over a hundred members of this fellowship and have been a member of multiple of their churches.

Series Part One

Below in its complete form is a copy of their statement as written in the year 1995.  This statement is just as true today as it was over twenty years ago when it was written.  (The Bold headings are my own take away summary statements and should not be misinterpreted as to represent the original authors of the FBFI positional document).  You have the original statement to draw your own conclusions.

Christians should hold to their own position on English translations with love, a clear conscience, and a well-informed historical perspective (especially within practicing Fundamentalist local churches).

"In light of the considerable discussion among fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core fundamentalist belief.  Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism."

Christians should compare their English translation of choice with the original languages (whatever your choice of manuscripts may be).

"Additionally, proper evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of any particular English translation can only be done by examining its faithfulness to the original languages, not by comparing it to another English translation.  While the process of comparing it with other translations may be profitable for matters of clarity and readability, this process cannot pass as the test of doctrinal accuracy since it is illegitimate to check one copy by another; one must compare the copy to the original."

Christians should exercise great care in whatever English translation they use.  This extends to homes, local churches, and organizations.

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both the selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism."

Christians should put forth effort to study the original languages and not to rely solely on English translations.

"Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalism must be rejected."

(resolution passed at the 75th annual meeting at Faith Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Below are some additional principles I have derived concerning this issue of English translations (I apply these to myself and family, not to those outside my home).

First, I have for years memorized verses, chapters, and books of the Bible using a particular English translation.  I have no necessary or compelling reason to change this daily practice.

Second, I have been blessed to have multiple years of Greek and Hebrew seminary level training.  This enables me to dive deep into my scriptural study of grammar and syntax.  I have no necessary reason to limit myself to word studies or an English translation.

Third, I completely understand local churches and institutions set their own policies for public teaching and preaching (either by the pastor, elders, or the congregation).  Therefore, in those capacities of verbal ministry, I do restrict myself to their policies concerning English translations.

Fourth, I have not (to my knowledge) ever actually taught against (from a local church pulpit or in a classroom) against the position of that particular local church on English translations.

Finally, I (and my family) understand that both (in the past and potentially in the future) we will have to leave local churches due to the nature and manner in which this English translation only position is addressed (both in teaching and demeanor).

Historical Quote from History on Translations

"We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God....No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it....Whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" (The Translators to the Reader, p. xix)

Read, learn, be educated.  soli deo gloria

Comments as always encouraged.

Many Evangelical Seminaries still believe and teach dispensationalism

Many conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist seminaries still teach and believe dispensationalism (or at least its underlying hermeneutics).  They are also not ashamed to be premillenialists.  I am not necessarily endorsing nor promoting these seminaries.  I am simply stating that these seminaries still teach and believe this underlying theological system.  You don't have to believe in covenant theology or amillennialism to be an evangelical or a biblical scholar (although there is a growing pressure to conform to these positions).

To my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong), up to present ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) has had a Dispensationism Study Group and Clark Summit University (see below) has had a yearly Dispensationalism conference (at least up till 2014).  So even on multi-denominational and seminary levels this is still a serious issue to both believe and defend by academically trained pastors and seminary professors.  Many of these same schools produce quarterly theological journals defending these same exegetical-based positions.  

So don't walk away from these Biblically defensible positions.  There are hundreds of seminary students (future local church pastors and missionaries) who share your beliefs.  Don't get drawn into the cool and trendy positions of big name coalitions and groups.  It won't help.  In the end, you still preach the gospel.  But how the book end does determine  how you live now.  If this is your kingdom here and now then no wonder people leave these main line denominations.

I am listing in alphabetical order the positions of seminaries as I find them in printed media or online.  (The multi-changing font is because I copy/pasted them from each seminary website.  Some of them I just couldn't fix the font).

Bob Jones University

(Taken from Course Catalog for Systematic Theology)
"The application of the principles of systematic theology to the doctrines of Christ, salvation, the Church and the end times, following a biblical dispensational hermeneutic"

Central Baptist Theological Seminary

"We believe that there is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and the wicked. Those who are righteous will enter into eternal bliss with Christ and those who are wicked will be lost forever (1). We believe that the Scriptures teach that at death the spirit and soul of the believer pass into the presence of Christ and remain in conscious joy until the resurrection of the body when Christ comes for His own (2). The blessed hope of the believer is the imminent, personal, pretribulational, premillennial appearance of Christ to rapture the Church, His bride, prior to the seventieth week of Daniel (3). God's righteous judgments will then be poured out upon an unbelieving world during the seven years of tribulation (4). The climax of this fearful era will be the physical return of Jesus Christ to the earth in great glory to reestablish the Davidic kingdom (5). Israel will be saved and restored as a nation."

Clark Summit University ("formerly Baptist Bible Seminary")

"We believe the Bible supports using a grammatical, historical method of interpretation in light of the progress of revelation. Thus, we believe that the Bible is the clear, sufficient, and supreme authority for all belief, life, and ministry."

"We believe in the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church, the Spirit-baptized Body of Christ. The Church is not the collection of all believers of all times."

"We believe that God will fulfill the biblical covenants made with the nation of Israel. Though they are now dispersed among the nations, they will be re-gathered in the land of Israel and saved as a nation at the premillennial coming of Christ to the earth. At that time, Christ will begin his Davidic rule over the world for 1,000 years and continue to reign in the eternal state."

Dallas Theological Seminary

"We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive."

"We believe that the period of great tribulation in the earth will be climaxed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth as He went, in person on the clouds of heaven, and with power and great glory to introduce the millennial age, to bind Satan and place him in the abyss, to lift the curse which now rests upon the whole creation, to restore Israel to her own land and to give her the realization of God’s covenant promises, and to bring the whole world to the knowledge of God." 

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

"We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible, an approach to Scripture based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries or new revelation from God which results in various dispensations or distinguishable administrations/stewardships of God’s revealed truth, such as Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom, among others. This approach recognizes a fundamental distinction between Israel and the Church in origin, purposes, and destiny."

"We believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ that will take place in two stages. The first stage is the Rapture, or His personal, imminent, and pretribulational coming for all saints of the church age. The second stage is the Revelation or the Second Coming in Glory, which is His personal and public coming at the close of the Tribulation Period to establish the messianic, Millennial Kingdom on the earth when Israel will be restored to covenant favor with God and to her land in faith and the Church will reign with Christ for the thousand years. After the Millennium there will be a new heaven and earth wherein God will dwell eternally with His people.<sup>"

Liberty University</sup>

"It is to be understood by all through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture."

"We affirm that the return of Christ for all believers is imminent. It will be followed by seven years of great tribulation, and then the coming of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom for a thousand years."

^{Maranatha Baptist University}

"The Bible faculty are committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. In every Bible course we teach and demonstrate a normal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the text of Scripture that is the foundation of dispensationalism. This hermeneutic does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation. It does acknowledge the progressive revelation of God’s divine plan through time. Though various stewardships of revelation are acknowledged, the unifying salvific factor for all people for all time is the necessity of responding by faith to the special revelation given. The consequence of this consistent hermeneutic is a distinction between ethnic Israel and the New Testament church. Covenants established between God and ethnic Israel will be fulfilled in the literal sense in which they were given and received. The unique relationship between Christ and His Bride, the church, is acknowledged and preserved. Throughout all of eternity, the ultimate purpose of His universal plan is that of glorifying Himself. We reject covenant theology, its hermeneutic, and the eschatology of amillennialism and post-millennialism. Furthermore, we reject the progressive concept that Christ is already reigning on the Davidic throne."

Masters Seminary

"We teach the literal, grammatical historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days."

"We teach that, after the tribulation period, Christ will come to earth to occupy the throne of David and establish His messianic kingdom for a thousand years on the earth. During this time the resurrected saints will reign with Him over Israel and all the nations of the earth."

Piedmont International University

"We believe in accepting the literal teaching of the Word. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Therefore, every declaration is to be taken in its primary, ordinary, literal, and its most obvious meaning unless the facts of the context and the well-defined laws of language clearly indicate the terms either to be symbolic or figurative and not literal. Whatever is not literal must be explained in the light of other passages which are literal."

"We believe, according to Scriptures, in the sure return of the Lord Jesus Christ; that this second coming will be a literal, bodily, personal return; that His coming for His bride, the Church, constitutes the “Blessed Hope” set before us, for which we should be constantly looking. We believe that His coming will be premillennial."

So don't fret, worry or be intimidated if you can't (with a clear conscience) hold to some confession written nearly 400 years ago or longer.  I would suggest in our current evangelical climate there are many loud and outspoken adherents of both Covenant Theology and Amillennialism (chances are you already have their books on your shelf).  You are not alone in your theological convictions.  If you want to memorize a catechism then make up your own.  If it needs to be dispensational great.    

Read, enjoy, and take comfort.  You are not alone in your beliefs. 

If you know of others I can add to this list please forward me their internet address.