equip the Church

The way we talk about people based on their theological positions has bothered me lately. Friends and even myself are being described as “less conservative” because we don’t hold to dispensationalism. This has made me think more carefully about what we mean when we use the term “conservative” in our theological discussions. I think we need to talk about this.

My Concern

I’m uncomfortable with equating “conservative” exclusively with “dispensational.” Here’s why. First, it suggests that brothers who hold other views (Reformed, historic premillennialism, or other frameworks) are somehow less committed to Scripture’s authority. Second, it makes secondary interpretive questions (like the timing of the rapture or the relationship between Israel and the Church) into litmus tests for faithfulness to God’s Word. Third, it doesn’t reflect the broader history of conservative Christianity.

What Does “Conservative” Actually Mean in Theology?

Historically, theological conservatism has referred to those who affirm the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, believe the Bible is our final authority for faith and practice, interpret Scripture with the intent to understand what the text actually means (not imposing our preferences on it), hold to the historic creeds and core doctrines of the faith, take seriously the supernatural elements of Scripture (miracles, resurrection, Christ’s return), and apply God’s Word without watering it down or accommodating culture.

By these measures, I absolutely consider my dispensational friends to be conservative. They take God’s Word seriously. They believe what it says. They seek to apply it faithfully. I respect and appreciate that commitment deeply.

The Legalism Problem

But here’s another way we misuse the term “conservative” that concerns me just as much. Sometimes when someone is legalistic (adding extra-biblical rules as requirements for faithfulness or spirituality) we’ll say, “Oh, he’s really conservative.” And I think, is that actually what we want “conservative” to mean?

Legalism isn’t conservative. It’s adding to Scripture, not conserving it. When the Pharisees added their traditions to God’s law, Jesus didn’t commend them for being conservative. He rebuked them for abandoning the commands of God to hold to human traditions.

True conservatism means holding firmly to what God has said. No more, no less. It means taking Scripture seriously enough that we don’t feel the need to improve on it with our own rules. A conservative Christian says, “God’s Word is sufficient.” A legalist says, “God’s Word needs my additions to really work.”

When we call legalism “conservative,” we make faithfulness to Scripture look oppressive. We make biblical Christianity seem like it’s about rules and restrictions rather than about God’s gracious revelation. And we confuse people about what it actually means to take God’s Word seriously.

But Conservative Christianity Is Broader Than One System

Here’s the thing: throughout church history, conservative Christians (people deeply committed to biblical authority and inerrancy) have held different interpretive frameworks.

Reformed and Presbyterian theologians like Charles Spurgeon, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, and the Puritans were thoroughly conservative but held to covenant theology, not dispensationalism. Traditional Baptists like John Gill and many in the Reformed Baptist tradition have been conservative on Scripture while rejecting dispensational distinctives. Lutheran confessionalists maintain a high view of Scripture with their own interpretive approach. Historic Anglican conservatives like J.C. Ryle were as committed to biblical authority as anyone, yet weren’t dispensational. The early church fathers were obviously conservative in their commitment to apostolic teaching, centuries before dispensationalism existed.

All of these held firmly to biblical authority and inerrancy. They all took Scripture seriously. They all sought to interpret it faithfully. But they came to different conclusions on secondary matters like eschatology and Israel’s role in God’s plan.

Taking Dispensationalism Out of the Equation

If we remove dispensationalism from the equation, John MacArthur and most Reformed people have a lot in common. I know I have a lot in common theologically with John MacArthur. We both affirm biblical inerrancy. We both believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. We both hold to substitutionary atonement. We both proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone. We both believe in the necessity of regeneration. We both call people to repent and believe.

The differences between us are real, but they’re not at the core. They’re about framework, not foundation. This shows us something important: dispensationalism isn’t what makes someone conservative.

A Better Way Forward: The Theological Bullseye

Instead of using “conservative” as shorthand for a particular eschatological system, we need a clearer way to distinguish what’s essential from what’s secondary. Michael Reeves, in his book Gospel People, offers a helpful framework he calls the “theological bullseye.”

Reeves points out that for Paul, the gospel is:

Trinitarian: it is the good news of the Father concerning his Son, who was declared the Son of God in power according to the Spirit

Biblical: it is proclaimed through the holy Scriptures

Christ-centered: it concerns God’s Son

Spirit-effected: it is by the Spirit that the Son is revealed

Paul speaks of the gospel as:

Revelation: it is not man’s gospel, but one revealed by God

Redemption: it concerns the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ

Regeneration: it brings the radical renewal of a new creation

From this, Reeves suggests that at the heart of true evangelical theology lie three essential heads of doctrine:

1. The Father’s revelation in the Bible
2. The Son’s redemption in the gospel
3. The Spirit’s regeneration of our hearts

These three essentials form the bullseye, the non-negotiable center of Christian faith. This is what it means to be truly “conservative” theologically: holding firmly to the Father’s revelation, the Son’s redemption, and the Spirit’s regeneration.

Applying the Bullseye to Our Discussion

When we look at this framework, there are both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists who are committed to biblical authority stand together in the bullseye.

We affirm the Father’s revelation in the Bible. Scripture is God’s inerrant, authoritative Word.

We proclaim the Son’s redemption in the gospel. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ’s finished work.

We believe in the Spirit’s regeneration. We must be born again by the Spirit’s power.

Questions about dispensations, the timing of the rapture, or the millennium are important discussions to have. But they fall outside the bullseye. They’re matters where faithful, Bible-believing Christians have disagreed throughout history while remaining united on the essentials.

When we label someone “less conservative” because they hold a different view on eschatology, we’re making an outer-ring issue into a bullseye issue. We’re taking what should be a secondary matter and treating it as if it’s on par with biblical authority, Christ’s redemption, or the Spirit’s work in salvation.

Why This Matters

When we equate “conservative” with one particular interpretive framework, we unintentionally make other conservative believers feel excluded or suspect, elevate secondary doctrines to the level of primary ones, suggest that faithfulness to Scripture requires a particular system rather than submission to Scripture itself, and lose sight of the unity we share in the gospel essentials.

The conservative-to-liberal spectrum should relate to the bullseye. Our commitment to the Father’s revelation, the Son’s redemption, and the Spirit’s regeneration. Someone who denies biblical authority, questions the sufficiency of Christ’s work, or rejects the necessity of the new birth has moved away from conservative Christianity. But someone who affirms all three essentials while holding a different eschatological framework? They’re right there in the bullseye with us.

My Heart in This

I’m not writing this to attack dispensationalism or to argue for my own views. Many of my dearest friends are dispensational, and I respect their commitment to God’s Word. I want to make space for us to recognize that conservative, Bible-believing Christians can interpret Scripture’s prophetic framework differently while sharing the same foundation.

Let’s be clear about what’s in the bullseye (biblical authority, the gospel of grace, regeneration by the Spirit) and what’s in the outer rings (interpretive frameworks on secondary matters). Let’s honor one another’s faithfulness to Scripture even where we disagree on its interpretation. Let’s use language that unites rather than divides those who share a commitment to the Father’s revelation, the Son’s redemption, and the Spirit’s work in our hearts.