David and I have spent considerable time thinking through what we actually believe about end times theology over the past several months. Over the years, I had basically landed in the pan-millennial camp (where it will all pan out in the end). I didn’t find it pressing enough to spend time on it in the midst of my life’s demands. I was also deterred, I confess, by the fact that it seems like an unsolvable problem. This is not a good fit for an INFJ who sees every side to every argument. However, a variety of circumstances pushed us to finally decide we should probably be more firm in what we think.

In that time I spent studying, another “issue” popped up that I started thinking about. What was it? It became very apparent to me that while David and I have the freedom to change our mind about points of theology, many pastors and teachers do not have that freedom. 

Why?

If your job or position of influence depends on agreeing with a particular creed or confession, you are not free to change your mind without significant personal loss. 

For my part, I’ve dug into the teachings of partial-preterism and preterism. In my research, someone brought up a story about R.C. Sproul, probably the most well-known partial-preterist of our time. The story goes that someone asked Sproul if he had become a full preterist or come close to becoming a full preterist. His response? “No, I have too many mouths to feed.”

I could not find an original source for the story, but let’s assume it is true because I do think it illustrates my point with other people not named Sproul. What did Sproul mean by that? I assume he meant he couldn’t change his theology in such a significant way because it would cause too many problems for Ligonier Ministries. Too many people depended upon the ministry he founded for him to make such a significant change to his theology. Partial-preterism is accepted. Full preterism is not. Full preterism puts you outside of the “acceptable” fence in the eyes of many Christians at the moment because it is a very different approach to the Book of Revelation.

Please note Sproul didn’t say he rejected full preterism. He said he didn’t have the luxury to change his mind. 

It is a significant leap to go from patrial-preterism to full preterism. It would, indeed, cause problems for ministers who must agree to the Westminster Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism or the 1689 London Baptist Confession in order to be ordained in their particular denomination or church. A Baptist pastor could possibly have an easier time. He would “only” have to convince his congregation of the change. It would be a much bigger issue for a Reformed pastor in a denomination that heavily controls what is considered “acceptable” theology as found in the confession to which they subscribe.

This doesn’t apply just to end times theology. To go from paedo-baptism to credo-baptism or vice versa would also cause significant problems for someone in ministry.

I’ve thought about this a lot lately. When we were members of two different Christian Reformed (CRC) churches, I was always uncomfortable with the entire Synod thing. As someone who spent most of her life up to that point in Baptist circles, it was difficult for me to accept that a bunch of delegates from churches that I wasn’t a part of would “officially decide” what I was expected to believe and agree to simply because I was a member of a particular local church. I never liked that and found even the thought of it spiritually suffocating. 

However, even if you are in a Baptist church you are expected to affirm and function within the doctrinal statement of that church. 

I recognize that some people find comfort in having everything organized for them theologically. A systematic theology brings structure to their faith. And I do understand why it has been historically important for these to be developed.

But I personally find it difficult to believe that any particular confession has it all figured out correctly. In fact, we know no one has it figured out because the most important confessions don’t agree with each other on some important points of theology such as baptism. The same holds true for how to interpret things related to the Second Coming and the last things. They cannot all be correct when they disagree.

I don’t have some big conclusion to this. I’ve simply been doing a lot of thinking about the idea of whether confessions and covenants and constitutions can sometimes and somehow bind our conscience. If your job depends on you not changing your mind about a significant point of theology, but you do change your mind then you are in a difficult position. If you are a pastor, you will be forced to continue to teach what you no longer believe in order to keep your job in your denomination. But you are not being honest with the congregation God has entrusted to your care. 

I also wonder how many pastors simply stop learning about certain doctrines because they have “settled” on what they believe and so it’s a done deal. But there were doctrines I thought were a done deal for me when I was younger that I have been persuaded to reconsider. It seems odd to me that a man who is ordained in his twenties will never change his mind about anything as he grows and matures in the faith. It doesn’t just seem odd. It seems impossible. But how many are trapped in a particular theological grid for life? 

I understand why we have the confessions and creeds. We want unity in a local congregation so everyone is on the same page about important doctrines.

And yet there is something about it all that troubles me.