Youth and Religion
An Interview with Christian Smith
by Tony Jones

Christian Smith is one of the leading sociologists of American religion on the scene today. The Stuart Chapin Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Smith is the author or co-author of several acclaimed books, including American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving and Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want. His most recent project has been the massive National Study of Youth and Religion. Over the past five years, he and his team have conducted over 3,200 telephone surveys and over 250 in-depth, one-on-one interviews with American teenagers. Many of the findings, of extreme importance for youth workers, are available at www.youthandreligion.org.

Smith's book on the study, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford Press, 2005), is an invaluable resource, and YouthWorker Journal advisory board member Kenda Creasy Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary is currently working on a book about the implications of the study for the church. Tony Jones and Chris Smith corresponded after meeting at a recent conference at Princeton.

Tony Jones: Chris, yours is by far the largest study ever undertaken of the religious lives of American youth. Why do you suppose this area of study hasn't interested sociologists in the past enough to study it, and why did it interest you enough to spend several years of your life on it?

Chris Smith: Academic scholarship has in general, until the last decade or two, tended to ignore religious aspects of life. An old secularization theory predicting religion's demise with the advent of modernity had something to do with that. So it never may have dawned on serious adolescence scholars to look at teenagers' religious lives. Scholars of American religion have tended to be interested in adult religion and religious movements and organizations. Perhaps studying teenagers seemed like dealing with 'kid stuff'—below them somehow, not serious.

Anyway, around 2000, I was considering a new research project. This seemed to be something very interesting, potentially important, and definitely understudied. The Lilly Endowment was generous enough to give us a sizeable research grant to do this, and we've been having a great time with this project.

TJ: You had dozens of conversations with Christian teenagers over the past few years. Is there one that stands out as epitomizing the findings of the study?

CS: The story about youth and religion that comes out in our findings is complex, so there's no one teenager who epitomizes the larger findings. But there are a few who represent to me some key themes we heard repeatedly. Joy and Kristen in Chapter 1 of my book are two of those, as well as Raymond, the non-religious boy, in the next chapter, and John in the Catholic chapter. Each of these did capture an essence of some key stories from our project around the potentially positive influence of faith, the spiritual and theological impoverishment of some teenagers, and the real openness of many nonreligious youth to religious and spiritual matters.

TJ: How does a sociologist go about determining how religious a teenager is?

CS: We employ a variety of standard measures, such as religious beliefs, church attendance, importance of faith, and religious experiences. Our national survey included tons of religion questions, so we were able to angle in on the religion question from many different positions. Of course, these kinds of sociological measures never get at a person's true personal spiritual condition. They're useful but limited metrics of inner states that are hard to access directly.

TJ: You found that, contrary to much that's been written, American teenagers aren't particularly influenced by postmodern-pluralistic culture, that they don't claim to be 'spiritual but not religious.' If young people are really religiously conventional, why do you suppose many of us have this false perception of seeking?

CS: Good question. This view certainly seems to have created a major impression among many observers. This is probably partly a sampling problem: journalists, book authors, and other religion commentators often base their impressions and stories on small groups of 'convenience sampled' teenagers who may not well represent all of them.

Also, my observation is that many youth ministry practitioners and thinkers are rightly struggling to get others' attention to and investment in what they themselves are pouring their lives into, and semi-alarmist stories about a major postmodern turn and teen spiritual seeking is more likely to get this than a story about teen conventionality. Partly, too, the media is often interested in sexy stories that will sell and draw ratings, however inaccurate they may be. And some authors have a personal interest not only in describing an alleged postmodern or 'spiritual but not religious' cultural change among youth but also in positively promoting it—they don't just report, they advocate.

But it's the sociologists' job to represent social reality as accurately as possible, however boring or unfashionable their findings may be.

TJ: Do you suspect that young adults between 18 and 22 (even the college students that you teach) are more influenced by postmodern cultural shifts like pluralism and globalization than the teenagers seem to be?

CS: Yes, I suspect it increases as teenagers move into young adulthood, especially among those who go to college—though we're not sure yet how dramatic that change is. Still, it's important to know that this normally isn't the case among 13-17 year olds. In the summer of 2005, we'll be re-surveying all of our teen survey respondents three years later and will know what changed as they grew older.

TJ: Overall, the findings presented in your book are kind of a good-news-bad-news report for church youth workers. Let's start with the good news: you report that most American teenagers are religious; indeed, that the vast majority are Christian. Doesn't this contradict much that we read in the press, hear from the media, and see portrayed on MTV? You imply that there are ideological forces at work that tempt people to overstate the religious pluralism in the U.S.

CS: Yes, many Americans think the U.S. is more religiously pluralistic than it actually is. Some of my college students, for example, think that 25% of Americans are Jewish, and are shocked to find out that the actual number is 2%. Some advocate-scholars who evidently wish not only to describe but also to promote religious pluralism push the religious diversity story, which isn't really accurate. Minority religions do have a cultural importance and influence disproportionate to their numbers; but when it comes to actual numbers, the vast majority of Americans, including teenagers, are either Christian—practicing or nominal—or simply not religious at all.

TJ: You also write, 'Highly religious teenagers appear to be doing much better in life than less religious teenagers.' What do you mean by 'doing much better'?

CS: Social scientists have a variety of measures of different outcomes in teenagers' lives, from doing well in school to getting along well with parents, not abusing substances, not having sex, not engaging in risk behaviors, having strong subjective wellbeing, not watching a lot of trash TV, and so on. On all of these many measures, the most religious U.S. teenagers are significantly different from the non-religious teenagers, in what is normally considered the positive direction. Eight different tables in the book reporting on scores of such outcomes show this pattern clearly.

TJ: Now the bad news. Although most American teenagers are faithful, you say the faith they practice can best be described as 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.' Can you take a sentence or two to unpack each of these terms?

CS: Yes, I am suggesting that MTD is the actual de facto functional religious faith of the majority of teenagers, regardless of their official affiliation.

By 'moralistic' I mean oriented toward being good and nice, in ways that assert certain moral claims (for example, 'You should never have sex with someone you don't really care about.') in fairly arbitrary ways without their being integrated into any larger, coherent moral tradition.

By 'therapeutic' I mean being primarily concerned with one's own happiness, good feeling, personal comfortability, and emotional wellbeing—in contrast to, say, a focus on glorifying God, learning obedience, or serving others.

Finally, by 'deism' I mean a view of God as normally distant and not involved in one's life, except (as qualified by the 'therapeutic') if one has a problem one needs God to solve, one can call on God to fix it and make one feel better. In MTD, in other words, God functions as a combination divine butler and cosmic therapist.

TJ: Another way that American teen Christianity is described in the book is 'benign whateverism.' Some might suspect that teenagers are unable (or unwilling) to be articulate about anything—that rolling their eyes and grunting is the most you can often get out of them. In the book you seem almost shocked that these kids are generally able to talk quite articulately about STDs, drunk driving, and teen pregnancy, but when you asked them to talk about Jesus, they were stumped. Is that right?

CS: Right. Teenagers aren't universally inarticulate. In areas where the adult world has made a point to get their attention and educate them, where the young people can see that something really matters, like not diving drunk or getting pregnant, teenagers can be quite articulate.

But it hit us like a ton of bricks that most religious teenagers aren't being well educated in the faith or given much practice in articulating their beliefs and why and how they matter. For more than a few teenagers, in fact, it seems like ours was the first time any adult ever asked them what they believed. Some of them said exactly that.

TJ: If you're right about this—and I suspect that you are—it would seem that Christian parenting and Christian youth ministry have largely failed to inculcate or implant a distinctly Christian identity in our 13- to 17 year olds. Would you agree?

CS: Yes. In very many cases it seems that is so. Many parents come from a generation that has bent over backwards not to 'shove anything down anyone's throat.' Consequently, their kids aren't getting much direct theological substance to embrace, revise, or reject. If so, that's a real disservice to kids.

My sense is that most youth ministers are knocking themselves out to do their best. Many also tell me they're under pressure from all sides to entertain their teenagers, which isn't a great context for sustained, solid teaching in faith. But for whatever reasons, the bottom line is that the majority of teenagers, including many evangelicals, turn out to be pretty clueless and inarticulate about their own faith perspectives.

TJ: You surmise that this 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism' isn't unique to young people, but that they're actually just reflecting the less-than-passionate faith of their parents. Many youth workers will agree with you on this; yet you caution church youth workers not to see parents as their adversaries. Why?

CS: One of the most powerful realizations I took from our research is how formative parents are in their teenagers' lives. They often don't realize it, but parents are the most significant influences on their teenage children's faith lives. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that normally the most important pastor a young person is going to have is his or her father and mother—for better or worse (often the latter).

If this were the case, youth ministers would be much more effective working with parents rather than against them. I realize not all parents want to work with the youth minister. I've picked up among youth ministers from many faith traditions a distinct sense of tremendous frustration with the parents of their teenagers—and I can understand why—but in the long run, an adversarial relationship with teenagers' parents is counterproductive. It seems to me that the more youth ministry can work with parents and be set in a larger context of family and church ministry, the more effective it will be.

TJ: In the book, you give some hints as to how you think youth workers and parents can remedy this. Help, then, to unravel this paradox. On the one hand, as you said, you found that parents are by far the most influential people in the religious lives of their teenagers; on the other hand, you write that congregations with full-time youth workers and active youth ministry programs are much better at developing young people who are decidedly religious. Yet many thriving youth ministries make a point of keeping the youth in activities that distance them from their parents. Can these two be reconciled?

CS: There's not a paradox here. Good and effective youth programs only distance youth from their families and parents for limited periods of time, which is entirely sensible and appropriate. But they don't entirely separate teenagers from parents. Surely what works best is a rhythm between youth-focused times and activities and family-and congregational-focused times and activities.

So, according to our findings, anyway, if they want the best outcomes for youth, churches should have strong, prioritized, well-funded youth ministry programs. But that in no way has to detract from the role that parents and families play. There's no reason why these shouldn't be complementary.

TJ: Have you seen this work in your own church, or in one that you've studied? If so, will you briefly describe what you've seen?

CS: Sure. Listen, young people may not broadcast this very much, but most really want to have parents they admire and are close to and model their lives on. They want strong relationships with lots of other adults whom they respect and who care for them. That's why they so often love a good youth pastor. Teenagers spend all of most days with other teenagers close to their age. They like that; but they also need, and actually want, more than that.

In my own (Anglican) church, the most committed, involved, and spiritually mature young people are also the ones who have committed, involved, and mature parents and have real relationships with other mature adult members of the congregation. This isn't rocket science—it's Basic Human Relationships 101.

The challenge, however, is what to do in cases when parents are simply out to lunch or don't care. I don't have all the answers, but I can't believe that the answer involves youth ministers being ticked off at and sustaining ongoing conflict with their teenagers' parents. There's got to be a more constructive approach.

TJ: You wrote an 'unscientific postscript' in the book for religious communities and youth workers. This seems extraordinary for a sociologist—what led you to include that?

CS: The potentially useful implications of our findings for parents, ministers, and communities of faith were too many and too juicy to simply draw the line at 'value-free' social-science description and analysis and then let readers figure out implications for themselves. Good sociology often has policy implications anyway. Why not be explicit about it? We make it clear in the book that we're not ministry consultants or anything.

In that postscript, we simply float some ideas that seem to flow from our results and let readers make of them what they will. Some readers may take offense over us being 'prescriptive' or 'biased toward religion.' Well, let them. You reach a point where you just do what you think you should do and let the chips fall where they may. If I wanted never to be criticized, I wouldn't be writing books in the first place. I mean, just cranking out more normal science is boring anyway, right?

TJ: Right. Actually, I hope that the postscript is one of the things that causes a lot of youth workers to buy the book and then read the whole thing. In that postscript, you warn against an instrumentalist view of faith, where kids should be Christian because it'll keep them out of trouble and get them into a good college. Again, most youth pastors will heartily agree with you on this, yet this is what many parents expect. Indeed, many youth pastors get in trouble with parents—at least I did—when they try to instill a more radical, demanding faith in their students. Any ideas on how to bridge that divide?

CS: Well, again, I'm not a ministry consultant, and I don't have lots of answers. But it would seem to me to be an elementary principle of any effective organization—religious or not—that the entire leadership be of one mind and vision about the organization's purpose, goals, and basic approach. So if I were a youth pastor, I'd want to make darn sure on the front end that I had a common mind with the other pastors and church staff members on key matters so I wouldn't be working at cross purposes with, or without the support of, the others. Then if parents got unhappy with me, my colleagues would back me up.

I realize this may be a luxury not all youth ministers can afford. But without such a common vision, youth ministers are often forced into 'stealth' or 'guerrilla' styles of ministry, which can only lead to frustration and conflict. The basic underlying question, then, is: What the heck are churches trying to be and do, anyway? Without having that figured out first, you'll only have problems.

TJ: You're now working on a video project that will accompany the book. How's it coming along, and how do you think you'll use it?

CS: Not everyone who could learn from our project will buy and read an Oxford Press book. So we're trying to package our stuff in video form. We're working with a great video company from California, and so far it's going great. Filming video is tremendous fun. And I think in certain ways there's a lot more potential for human impact than ink on pages, as much as I love books.

We're thinking the video will be the kind of thing that a youth minister could show parents and other key people in a congregation, hopefully as a catalyst to change priorities and generate some discussion and energy around teenagers. I expect the video to be available sometime in the fall of 2005. We'll announce it on our Web site: www.youthandreligion.org . People can sign up there for free notifications of such things.

TJ: Are you planning to run a sequel study of people in the next age group, what might be called 'late adolescence' or 'young adulthood'?

CS: Yes, we worked hard to keep in touch with all of our teen survey respondents and have been funded to conduct a second wave survey and interviews with them this summer, 2005. Ideally, we'd follow them into young adulthood and middle age, to get a solid picture of how faith and life evolves developmentally over time.

TJ: It seems to me that your larger, personal sociological project is to discern if and how religion can thrive in a postmodern-pluralistic context. In American Evangelicalism, you wrote that evangelicals have negotiated a love-hate relationship with American culture, and that this engaged, yet conflictual, relationship has allowed evangelicalism to develop a distinct sub-cultural identity within American culture. The study on American teenagers found something quite different about their religious identity, yet the 'benign whateverism' of American teen religion seems to be another way to be religious in a world of many religions. Can you comment on this?

CS: What is this, career psychotherapy analysis? It would be fair to say that most of my research and writing has focused on religion's viability and influence in the modern world. Different projects and different methods reveal different aspects of social life. The evangelical project tried, among other things, to understand and theorize how and why American evangelicals are relatively vibrant religiously (on sociological measures at least—I make no claim about how God actually views evangelicals!), despite the fact that academic secularization theory predicted their demise. Our methodology in that project focused us on the most self-conscious evangelical believers and churches, which are also the most religiously vibrant.

The current adolescent research, however, examines a cross-section of all U.S. teenagers. And the overall picture it portrays—despite our having met a minority of some very impressive religious teenagers—is rather one of religious mediocrity and debility, in some cases even pathetic bankruptcy. I viewed evangelicals as carving out a creative way to be Christians in a modern, pluralistic world. I'm afraid I view the majority of religious teenagers as engaged much more in passive accommodation to the surrounding culture. Yet, as I repeatedly emphasize throughout the book, it's not only teenagers—the teenagers merely reflect truths about our larger adult culture, institutions, and commitments. I confess that, as a result of this project, I'm more open to certain versions of secularization theory than I've ever been.

But this isn't a council of despair. After all, who would've ever thought that a mere Hobbit in the darkest of circumstances could have been used to destroy the power of Sauron? But there it is!

Christian right is split over GOP field

Jeff Reinking / Associated Press

SECURITY FIRST: Concern over security could lead Christian conservatives to overlook disagreements with Rudolph Giuliani, shown at a campaign stop in a Kirkland, Wash., cafe last month.

Doubts

click to enlarge

..> ..>

Related
-	California voter registration information
Related Stories
-	Background aside, GOP women still really like Rudy Giuliani
-	Bay Area gives Clinton a boost

The Values Test

Dr. Dobson says winning an election is important, but not at the expense of our core beliefs.

Planned Parenthood Will Close Five Michigan Clinics

Planned Parenthood of West Michigan and Northern Michigan is facing a combined 40 percent cut in state and federal funding this year, prompting the closure of five clinics. Facilities in White Cloud and Hart closed Monday; centers in Grand Rapids, Muskegon and Mount Pleasant will close by the end of the year.

"It is good news because Planned Parenthood is America's No. 1 abortion provider and promoter," said Pam Sherstad, director of public information for Right to Life of Michigan. "Women deserve better than Planned Parenthood."

The reduction stems from changes in how the state allocates money. Under the new formula, funds are distributed according to the percentage of recipients below the poverty line. This year, Planned Parenthood will receive $1 million in state and federal funds, down from $1.7 million last year.

Sherstad said there are more than 100 pregnancy and adoption centers in Michigan serving women — centers that are not run by Planned Parenthood.

"We do have the resources in Michigan to help women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy," she said.

Giuliani thumbs his nose at God and also the Roman Catholic Church calling their specific requirements for receiving communion "their interpretation". Is it just me or does Giuliani's comments on the Christian faith remind you of something you'd hear from a mindless 9th grader?

Giuliani shrugs off archbishop's criticism, says he's not running for religious office

Some lowlights from the article:

"I'm not running for religious office," Giuliani told reporters during a brief appearance at a coffee bar in a St. Louis suburb.

"I'm not going to debate the opinion of an archbishop of the Catholic Church or an official of the Protestant Church or a rabbi," Giuliani said. "That's an interpretation of religion. They're entitled to their interpretation of religion."

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani compared the scrutiny of his personal life marked by three marriages to the biblical story of how Jesus dealt with an adulterous woman.

In an interview posted online Friday, Giuliani was questioned about his family and told the Christian Broadcasting Network, "I think there are some people that are very judgmental."

Giuliani has a daughter who indicated support for Democrat Barack Obama and a son who said he didn't speak to his father for some time. Giuliani's messy divorce from their mother, Donna Hanover, was waged publicly while Giuliani was mayor of New York.

"I'm guided very, very often about, 'Don't judge others, lest you be judged,'" Giuliani told CBN interviewer David Brody. "I'm guided a lot by the story of the woman that was going to be stoned, and Jesus put the stones down and said, 'He that hasn't sinned, cast the first stone,' and everybody disappeared.

"It seems like nowadays in America, we have people that think they could've passed that test," he said. "And I don't think anybody could've passed that test but Jesus."

In the New Testament story, related in the Gospel of John, Jesus does not actually hold stones. The Pharisees bring Jesus a woman charged with adultery, reminding him the punishment for adultery is stoning. They are testing Jesus in an effort to charge him with breaking the law.

The Gospel reads: "But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.'

"... And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders."

Giuliani has insisted his family relationships are private. In 1968, he married his cousin, Regina Peruggi. They divorced 14 years later, and Giuliani obtained an annulment from the Catholic Church on the grounds that as second cousins, they should have received a dispensation to marry.

Giuliani married Hanover in 1984 and they divorced in 2002. He has been married to Judith Nathan since 2003.

Likewise, he says his faith is private, although he evokes his Catholic upbringing on the campaign trail.

He told CBN he believes in God and prays to Jesus for guidance and help.

"I have very, very strong views on religion that come about from having wanted to be a priest when I was younger, having studied theology for four years in college," he said. "It's an area I know really, really well academically.

"... And my personal view of it is I need God's help for everything, and I probably feel that the most when I'm in crisis and under pressure, like Sept. 11, when I was dealing with prostate cancer, or (when) I'm trying to explain death to people, which unfortunately I've had to do so often.

"So it's a very, very important part of my life," he said. "But I think in a democracy and in a government like ours, my religion is my way of looking at God, and other people have other ways of doing it, and some people don't believe in God. I think that's unfortunate. I think their life would be a lot fuller if they did, but they have that right."

Giuliani also addressed a cell phone call he took from his wife, Judith, last week during his speech to the National Rifle Association, an important appearance because Giuliani clashed with the group when he argued for tougher gun control as mayor of New York.

"And quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other," he said.

"Sometimes if I'm in the middle of a very, very sensitive meeting, I don't take the call right then; I wait. But I thought it would be kind of nice if I took it at that point, and I'd done that before in engagements, and I didn't realize it would create any kind of controversy," he said.

Ann on Columbia University inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak:

Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."

Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog. --from Tase Him, Bro!

Ann on liberal's use of the word "hypocrite":

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk!

Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy." -- from CRUISING WHILE REPUBLICAN

Aug. 21, 2007 – The little voice in your head that warns you not to do something you were just about to do is real, brain researchers say.

Well, maybe not the voice. But researchers now say last-minute second thoughts come from a specific part of the brain.

A different area of the brain allows us to act voluntarily. That's free will. This is "free won't," suggest Marcel Brass, PhD of Germany's Max Planck Institute and Patrick Haggard, PhD, of England's University College London.

"Many people recognize the 'little voice inside the head' that stops you from doing something, like pressing the 'send' button on an angry email," Haggard says in a news release. "Our study identifies the brain processes involved in that last-minute rethink about what we are doing."

Brass and Haggard find that a brain region just above and between your eyes -- the dorsal fronto-median cortex or dFMC -- is specifically designed to let you pull back from doing something you were just about to do.

University of Pennsylvania researcher Martha Farah, PhD, says the findings have major implications. Farah was not involved in the study.

"It is very important to identify the circuits that enable 'free won't' because of the many psychiatric disorders for which self-control problems figure prominently -- from attention deficit disorder to substance dependence and various personality disorders," Farah says in a news release.

In their study, Brass and Haggard hooked up 15 healthy young adults to functional MRI machines that did real-time scans of their brain activity. The participants were asked to decide to push a button at times of their own choosing. Some of the time the participants were asked to decide at the last minute not to push the button.

Brain scans taken when the participants actually pushed the button were different from those taken when the subjects restrained themselves from pushing the button.

This self-control came at a cost. The subjects reported feeling frustrated when they did not push the button as they had intended to do. That fit with their brain scans; a part of the brain linked to feelings of frustration (the anterior ventral insula) lit up along with the dFMC "free-won't" brain region.

Interestingly, some of the study participants were less likely to refrain from pushing the button than others. These subjects had relatively weak dFMC activity, while those with better self-control had stronger dFMC activity.

"This could be a factor in why some individuals are impulsive, while others are reluctant to act," Haggard says.

Brass and Haggard report their findings in the Aug. 22 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.

By Bob Unruh

The Twelve Dispensations

    What is a dispensation? The Greek word for dispensation, oijkonomiva – oikonomia, is defined in two ways.
The first definition emphasizes the plan of management: "The management of a household or of household affairs;
specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property. The second emphasizes the position
entrusted to the administrator: "The office of a manager or overseer, stewardship." We refer to the term of office
of an American president as an administration. We could refer to it as a dispensation.

Here is another way to understand the word.
Suppose you inherited an estate and hired an overseer, oijkonovmo" – oikonomos, to manage it.
You gave him a written document of instructions, the dispensation, and gave him the authority to spend your money
to carry out your directions. Although a dispensation is not a period of time, we can see that the directions in the
dispensation are carried out over a period of time. If you wanted to, you could replace the old administrator with a
new one. You could also change the rules of the dispensation a little, keeping most of the rules from the last dispensation.
The employees the prior administrator had hired could adapt to the minor changes easily. But if you hired an
administrator and gave him instructions which totally conflicted with the previous dispensation, there would be confusion and
probably strong resistance from the employees. That's what happened in God's dispensational program after the last change.
God set aside His nation, Israel, and started a new dispensation with the Apostle Paul.

      How many dispensations are there? That is a much harder question to answer. I could settle for as few as three if I had to.
If we had to call it a new dispensation every time God changed the instructions at all, I suppose we could have, maybe even
thirty seven. I think we should recognize a new dispensation and call it a new dispensation every time there is a significant
difference. But there's a problem with this. What is a significant difference? I hope to show you the significant differences which
cause me to affirm that there are twelve dispensations. That's the reason for this booklet.

      Most Biblicists agree that man was created in a state of innocence. Adam and Eve did not know good from evil.
The serpent told Eve, "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5).1 Therefore, because they were innocent, I believe it is right to call the first dispensation
The Dispensation of Innocence.

      The Dispensation of Innocence lasted until there was a significant change. That change happened when Adam and Eve
sinned. This is shown in Genesis 3:6-8:

      So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make
one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them
were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

They now had a conscience. Because their conscience made them aware of their sin, we call this second method of dealing
with man The Dispensation of Conscience. It appears that the conscience works in man in many different dispensations. I
believe this dispensation continues in effect for those on the earth until the end of the millennium.

      When God saw how evil man had become, He repented that He had made man and destroyed them in the flood
according to Genesis 6:5-7:

      Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his
heart was only evil continually. And the Lord repented2 that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved
in His heart. So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and
beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I repent² that I have made them."

After the flood, God changed His method of dealing with man. He instituted capital punishment and gave man every living
thing that moves for food in addition to the green plants (Gen 9:1-17). Most dispensational theologians refer to this as
The Dispensation of Human Government. This method of dealing with man will last until Jesus Christ rules in the millennium.
In the millennium, "He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron" (Rev 19:15).

      It is difficult to discern the method of salvation in the second and third of these first three dispensations. God seems to
demand sacrifices, but we do not find the instructions for the sacrifices. It appears that they would be saved if they believed
God and brought the required sacrifice. When we consider the fourth dispensation, The Dispensation of Promise, the doubt is
removed, and clearer instruction are given.

      In addition to the dispensations, God made a number of unconditional promises. We may call them unconditional
covenants. When we look at God's statement to Abraham in Genesis 15:6, we can see justification is by faith alone under
The Dispensation of Promise: "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness."

      In addition, the details of a conditional or two party covenant are displayed in Jeremiah 34:18-20a:

      I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which
they made before Me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts of it – the princes of Judah, the princes
of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf – I will give
them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life.

They passed through the split animals as they covenanted with God. The split animals signified – "If I don't keep the covenant,
I will be split like these animals." In contrast to Jeremiah 34, when we look at the details of the unconditional covenant of
Genesis 15:7-18, we see that Abram was not allowed to pass through the animals. Only God did. He took the imprecation
upon himself.

      Then He said to him, "I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it."
And he said, "Lord God, how shall I know that I will inherit it?" So He said to him, "Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a
three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all these to Him
and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two.
And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. Now when the sun was going down,
a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. Then He said to Abram:
"Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will
afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with
great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the
fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." And it came to pass, when the
sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between
those pieces. On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this
land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates."

Because God went through the covenant animals alone, we can see God's covenant with Abram was unconditional.
Abram was justified by grace through faith when He believed God in Genesis 15:6. Then, God made the unconditional
covenant with him confirming the promises of the covenant. We will call this the Abramic Covenant.

      We find the greatest change in God's method of salvation in the Hebrew Scriptures from the fourth, The Dispensation
of Promise, to the fifth dispensation, The Dispensation of Circumcision. This dispensation of circumcision was associated with
the second covenant God made with Abraham. Because Abram's name was changed to Abraham when this covenant was
made, it could be called the Abrahamic Covenant. However, it is called the Covenant of Circumcision in Acts 7:8. This is the
first conditional covenant. The promises of the Covenant of Promise were still certain, but conditions were added for Abraham
and his progeny to perform if they wanted to participate in the covenant blessings. Let's read these conditions in Genesis 17:1-14.

      When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before
Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly." 3 Then
Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall
be a father of many nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have
made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall
come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you
and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession;
and I will be their God." 9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants
after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your
descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh
of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you
shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any
foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be
circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child,
who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

This is unquestionably a two way covenant. Even retribution (v. 14) is included in this conditional covenant. This, indeed, could
be called The Covenant of Works. Under this covenant, circumcision was absolutely necessary. A person's faith had to
be shown by his faith-works. We have an illustration of this in Genesis 22. After Abraham obeyed God and attempted to
offer his son, God said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since
you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me" (22:12). When James referred to this event where God was the
only spectator, Abraham was justified before God. James wrote in 2:21-24,

      Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was
working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,
"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see
then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Abraham was justified by his faith-work of offering up his son. That was God's method of salvation just as circumcision was
necessary. The faith-work did not provide the righteousness. Only Jesus Christ's faithfulness could do that. That is shown in
Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. Let's look at Romans 3:20-22,25,26 carefully.

      Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But
now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the
righteousness of God, through faithfulness in of Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faithfulness, to demonstrate His righteousness, because
in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present
time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

      First, notice in verses 21 and 22, it is the righteousness of God which is revealed. How is it revealed?
It is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The phrase, "through faithfulness of Jesus Christ", is a
prepositional phrase which modifies the verb, "revealed." From this we can see that the righteousness of God is
revealed by Christ's faithfulness, not our belief. The word, "faith" (pivstew", pivsti") means "faith, faithfulness,
pledge, fidelity, belief." It is translated faithfulness in Romans 3:3, "For what if some did not believe?
Will their unbelief make the faithfulness3 of God without effect? Next, in verse 25, how did God demonstrate His
righteousness? Since it is God's righteousness that is demonstrated, it must be by Christ's blood and faithfulness not ours.
We can't be justified by our works of the law. They result in death. But Christ made God's righteousness available.
Man acquires by faith that righteousness which Christ provided by dying. In each dispensation, man must do by faith
what God requires. Under circumcision, God required faith-works. Under The Dispensation of Grace, He requires
faith apart from works. No Scripture could sum it up better than Philippians 3:9, "And be found in Him, not having my
own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which
is from God by faith."

      Here was a profound dispensational change. God changed from the unconditional covenant of promise to the
conditional covenant of circumcision. We will see how consistently Paul steers away from a works oriented salvation.
We will also see how consistently Peter, James, and John emphasize faith-law-works in their messages and epistles.

      If you consult the chart at the middle of this booklet, you will see that seven of the twelve dispensations are under the
influence of the circumcision covenant. We must conclude that the circumcision covenant even includes the new covenant,
for Genesis 17:7,13, and 19 all say it is everlasting.

      And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an
everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 13 He who is born in your house and he
who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
19 Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My
covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.

      We have covered five dispensations, and we're still in Genesis. The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law.
Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping. The works of
the law didn't provide anything. But when a man continuously kept God's law, by faith, he appropriated God's righteousness.
Romans 9:31,32 shows us Israel's problem: "But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of
righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at
that stumbling stone." They were too busy trying to establish their own righteousness. Instead, the law produced
death (Rom 7:7-14). What they needed to do was recognize they could do nothing to produce righteousness. They
needed to submit only to God's righteousness as Romans 10:3,4 says: "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness,
and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end
of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

      In contrast, we died to the law (Rom 7:6; Gal 2:19). We are not under the law in any way (Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18).
We have the indwelling Holy Spirit producing the law of the Spirit of life in us (Rom 8:2-4). We have a growing new
life in the Spirit as we meditate on God's word and seek to love Him with all our being (Eph 5:18-21). It is extremely
difficult to keep this focus. Most never even seem try. Many don't want to, but this is what God wants us to do
more than anything else. Loving God was the one thing that did not interest me for most of my Christian life, yet, from
Christ's lips, we hear that it is the most important commandment of all. Join me in striving to love God with our whole life.
I'm experiencing some of the blessings of my feeble efforts to allow the Holy Spirit to fill me with His love.

      The seventh dispensation is The Dispensation of the Kingdom Promised. How significant is this dispensation from the
previous one? There is no difference in the method of salvation. But there is a colossal eschatological difference. It is found
in 2 Samuel 7:12-13,16.

      When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from
your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne
of his kingdom forever. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your
throne shall be established forever.

Messiah will sit on the throne of David. This kingdom promised to David will last forever. This became Israel's hope. This
promise is temporary, but this kingdom will be established on this earth forever.

      About a thousand years later, John the Baptist was sent. The eighth dispensation began, The Dispensation of
the Kingdom Proclaimed. Shortly after John's birth, his father, Zacharias, prophesied about Christ and John in
Luke 1:68-78:

      Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 and has raised up a horn of
salvation for us in the house of His servant David, 70 as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have
been since the world began, 71 that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us,
72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, 73 the oath which He swore
to our father Abraham: 74 To grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without
fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child, will be called the prophet
of the Highest; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 to give knowledge of salvation to
His people by the remission of their sins, 78 through the tender mercy of our God, with which the Dayspring from on high
has visited us.

John's commission was to go before the Messiah and prepare the way for the Lord according to Luke 3:2-6,

      While Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
'Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill brought
low; The crooked places shall be made straight and the rough ways smooth; 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'"

His ministry was to bring salvation to the nation.

      Because it was such an important part of his ministry, we must understand baptism and its relationship to Israel. Its history
is very important. This water rite was explained for Israel under the law in Num 19:9,10,17-21:

      Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place;
and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying
from sin. 10 And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening.
It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them. . . . 17 And for
an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water
shall be put on them in a vessel. 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent,
on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave.
19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day
he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean. 20 But the man who is
unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the
sanctuary of the LORD. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. 21 It shall be a
perpetual statute for them.

Further, God told Israel in Ezekiel 36:24-27 that He would baptize them with water, cleanse them from all their filthiness
and establish the new covenant with them:

      For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness
and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone
out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My
statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

When John started his ministry, he baptized great crowds for the Lord from all the tribes (Mat 3:5,6), not just from
the priestly tribe of Levi. Because John was baptizing with authority, the whole nation of Israel went out to him.
They were expecting the Messiah (Lk 3:15).

      When we look at the Hebrew Scriptures, it is interesting to see that the priests were baptized when they
were thirty years old (Num 4:2,3,23; 1 Ch 23:3). This was in preparation for their consecration as priests (Ex 28:41-29:9).
God had promised to make Israel a kingdom of priests in Exodus 19:5-6:

      Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure
to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.

Isaiah 61:6 also says they will be priests: "But you shall be named the priests of the Lord. They shall call you the
servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast." Further, God
had promised to sprinkle them with water to make them clean in Ezekiel 36:22-28.

      Therefore say to the house of Israel, "Thus says the Lord God: 'I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel,
but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will
sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst;
and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,' says the Lord God, 'when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.
24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness
and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of
stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk
in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to
your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God."

Therefore, I believe, by his baptism, John the Baptist was preparing them to be a kingdom of priests. That's what
Revelation 1:5,6, shows:

      and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His
God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

      They were called a royal priesthood by Peter in 1 Peter 2:5,9, in fulfillment of Ex 19:5,6. John preached that his baptism
was for the remission of sins (Mat 3:1-6; Lk 3:3,8). Therefore, we see water baptism was mandated for Israel, would
result in a whole nation of priests (1 Pe 2:5,9), accompanied true repentance displayed by works (Mat 3:8; Lk 3:8),
resulted in the forgiveness of sins for them at that time (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), and is associated with the Messianic kingdom
promised to Israel (Eze 36:22-28).

      John's ministry of proclaiming the kingdom was certified by Jesus Christ in Luke 16:16 when He said, "The law and
the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."
John was also certified by Peter as a minister of the circumcision according to Acts 10:36-38,

      The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ – He is Lord of all – 37
that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which
John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing
good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

      Paul called Jesus Christ a circumcision minister in Romans 15:8, "Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a minister of
the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers." Because He was a minister of the
circumcision, water baptism was part of His program for salvation according. This is shown by at least two passages,
John 3:5, "Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God"; and Mark 16:15,16, "And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.'"

      Also, from Christ's earthly ministry, we see that endurance was expected in the believers if they were to receive salvation.
This requirement was in line with the other conditional aspects of the circumcision covenant. John 15:1-8 is the best example:

      I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;
and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the
word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless
it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in
Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast
out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide
in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is
glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

When He said, "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch", He was speaking to the apostles. Judas had
already left in John 13:30. Did He really mean that an apostle could be lost? Yes, they had to abide in Christ in order to be
saved. Otherwise "they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

      Not only did they have to remain in Christ, they also had to forgive men in order to be saved according to Matthew 6:14,15:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." We will see these conditional principles repeatedly as we continue to look at
dispensations under the circumcision covenant.

      The next dispensational boundary comes after the crucifixion of our wonderful Lord. The apostles did not understand the
significance of His death and resurrection. After His resurrection, Christ was with the apostles for forty days. What was He
doing? Acts 1:2,3 tells us, "He…had given commandments to the apostles…being seen by them during forty
days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." What were the apostles expecting? They had earlier
been sent to the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 10:6). Christ also promised them they would sit in judgment over the nation of
Israel in Matthew 19:28. They were vitally interested in the establishment of the long promised Davidic Kingdom. By now, they
knew they had a wonderful part in it. It's no surprise that Acts 1:6 tells us they asked Him, "Lord, will You at this time restore
the kingdom to Israel?"

      The signs on the day of Pentecost were to show Israel that the kingdom promised to David was about to be established.
The apostles had heard that Christ would return after the tribulation (Mat 24:21,29,30). At the end of Christ's description
of the tribulation, He related the parables of the ten virgins and the talents. These were both parables about the kingdom. Then He
said Matthew 25:31, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of
His glory." Remember, He had promised the apostles authority over Israel (Mat 19:28). This is why we must conclude that these
were signs to show Israel that the kingdom was about to be established right after the "great and terrible day of the Lord" (Mat 24:29,30; 25:31,34).
The "great and terrible day of the Lord" of Joel 2:31 would take place right after the tribulation.

      The gift of tongues given on the day of Pentecost was a sign to Israel that the kingdom was very near. This gift of tongues
was a partial fulfillment of the Joel prophecy since other portions of the prophecy would be fulfilled after the tribulation.
When Peter offered the kingdom and many responded to his message and believed, Peter commanded that they be
baptized for the remission of sins. Water baptism continued as a requirement for salvation after Pentecost because God
continued to offer Israel the kingdom (Acts 3:19-26). We call this ninth dispensation The Dispensation of the Kingdom
Offered. If they had repented, God would have sent Christ back (Acts 3:20). Before Pentecost, Christ had commanded
belief and water baptism as requirements for salvation shortly after His resurrection. Mark 16:16 says, "He who
believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Both "believes" and "is baptized"
represent aorist participles. According to Greek syntax4 , the action of these participles must precede the action of the main
verb, "will be saved." Therefore, a person had to believe and be baptized before he would be saved. When viewed in its setting
of the circumcision covenant, this is consistent with the purification rituals which were imposed on Israel.5

      After the Ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2, God still demanded water baptism for the remission
of sins. "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:38). After Paul was seized in the temple by the Jewish mob and
taken into custody by the Roman commander, he was allowed to speak to the violent mob on the way into the barracks.
He used the opportunity to recount his conversion. He spoke of "a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law,
having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there." He related how Ananias had told him about his apostolic
commission from God. What method of salvation did Ananias present to Paul? Ananias commanded, "Now why are you
waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Ananias told Paul
the only message that he knew, the message of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, the circumcision gospel with its condition of
baptism. One of the most important facts of all should be highlighted. Water baptism would be imposed on Israel until
the time of reformation (Heb. 9:10-13) when Christ would establish the kingdom for Israel (Acts 3:21 with Acts 1:6).
Therefore, from the beginning of John's ministry, through the time of Christ's death and Ascension, to the time that Israel was
temporarily set aside in Acts 7, we find that water baptism was essential for salvation.

      However, the first dramatic change took place on Pentecost in Acts 2. There, after he submitted to water baptism, a believer
would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). So, for the first time, there were two baptisms, water baptism and Holy
Spirit baptism. As the nation began rejecting Christ, the persecution of the circumcision church which had started on
Pentecost increased. When Stephen was stoned, Christ stood in judgment upon the nation of Israel, and they were temporarily
set aside.

The tenth dispensation, The Dispensation of Grace, started with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. A comparison of
Acts 22:13 and 26:18 indicates that Paul was saved when he received his sight, just as the Gentiles to whom he was sent would
be saved upon receiving spiritual sight. Paul received his sight before he was baptized at Ananias' command.

More sensational events followed the salvation of Paul. When God had separated Israel from the nations as His chosen
people, He imposed upon them a designation between clean and unclean animals (Lev. 20:23-26). Now, in a vision to Peter,
the first dramatic change was made. God abrogated the distinction between clean and unclean animals in order to show that He
had demoted Israel from their chosen people status (Acts 10:9-16). However, God did not reveal to Peter the unity and
equality of Jew and Gentile in the new man, the body of Christ. In fact, He didn't show him any of the aspects of the great
secret He would reveal to Paul. Most important of all, He did not show Peter the new method of salvation by faith alone
apart from works. Peter simply adapted the gospel of the circumcision to his Gentile audience: "But in every nation
whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:35). This was the same gospel of faith plus works
and endurance for salvation which Christ taught (Acts 10:34-42; John 15:1-8). It conformed to the circumcision covenant.

Third, the order of the baptisms was reversed. Now, Peter commanded water baptism after Holy Spirit baptism.
Now, the Holy Spirit baptism was the one necessary for salvation. Water baptism became secondary for the first time.
We're not even sure that God wanted these new Christians baptized. Peter did a number of things here only because the
Lord had previously commanded him to do them. Why did these changes take place? When Paul was converted, God
committed to him a new stewardship, The Dispensation of the Mystery, and a new gospel, the uncircumcision gospel.
What must they now do to be saved? The answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Act 16:31).

During this time, there were some confusing events that happened. Paul circumcised Timothy shortly before he wrote
the epistle to the Galatians. Yet, he severely criticized those who were being influenced by the Judaizers who wanted them
to be circumcised for salvation. Later, he even became ceremonially purified and paid for the sacrifices for four men who had a
 Jewish vow as well as himself. Yet, Paul had already written Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Romans. He
knew he was not under the law. There were other things Paul did, recorded in Acts, which passed away. These things had
to do with Israel. But Paul did not address each thing explicitly and say it passed away. Some of these things were: raising the
dead, exorcism, healing the sick, being bit by a viper without being harmed. They would cease just as baptism would cease.
These signs were related to Israel. God was in the process of showing Israel they had been set aside. God would issue a final
declaration showing Israel they had been set aside in Acts 28:28.

Soon, Paul learned that water baptism was not part of his commission (1 Cor. 1:17), and he no longer baptized. But we
must remember that baptism was an integral part of the circumcision apostles' commission (Mat. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-18).
After Paul's ministry began, he was inspired to write to the Corinthians, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body"
(1 Cor. 12:13). So, even in the dispensation of grace there were two baptisms for a while. Then, we see that as physical
circumcision gave way to spiritual circumcision, "made without hands," in spite of Acts 16:1-3, water baptism gave way to
spiritual baptism, "through the faithful operation of God" (Col. 2:11,12), in spite of Acts 16:15,31-34, and 1 Cor. 1:14-16.

Why did water baptism give way to spiritual baptism? It was because God set Israel aside in Acts 7 (Rom. 11:11,25;
Acts 28:28) when Christ stood in judgment (Isa. 3:13) at the stoning of Stephen. Part of Paul's ministry had been to show
Israel that they had been set aside. That is why the Corinthian church spoke in tongues. Their meeting place wall was
contiguous with the Jewish synagogue. They spoke in tongues in judgment upon the unbelieving Jews next door in fulfillment
of the prophecy in Isaiah 28 (1 Cor. 14:21,22).

God used Paul to pronounce to the Jews in Rome that Israel had been set aside. This occurred in Acts 28:28. After
this, the baptisms imposed on Israel, being fleshly ordinances (Heb. 9:10-13), were set aside until God would resume
dealing with Israel in the tribulation. For instance, baptism will be necessary for salvation when Peter's epistles are again
directly applicable in the tribulation period. We must look at 1 Peter 3:20,21 closely. Verse 20 shows us that the ark
and the flood of water were a type. Peter then wrote, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism."
Yes, his message was, "Baptism 'now saves us.'" Then he explained away the possible confusion that the water baptism
would be for the removal of the outward filth of the body as in Mark 7:3-5.6 This outward ritual of 1 Peter 3 in obedience to
God, was essential to perform the inner cleansing of sin in accordance with the principles of the circumcision covenant (Numbers 19).

From the time of Israel's fall in Acts 7, the book of Acts relates how Israel was shown more and more that they had
been set aside by God. Let me reiterate. This is why the Corinthian church spoke in tongues so much. The church "bordered on,"
was "contiguous to,"7 the Jewish synagogue. The Gentiles' speaking in tongues was God's judgment upon unbelieving Jews
next door (Please read 1 Cor. 14:22 in light of Isaiah 28).

Although Paul baptized some in his early ministry, we must remember that Ananias had commanded him to be baptized
to wash away his sins. But God gave him further revelations. One was 1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me
to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." Sure, the
context shows there was a division because of baptism, but would Paul really let that affect him if baptism was still necessary and
he practiced it? Read 2 Thessalonians 3:6 again, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." No,
Paul would tell them to withdraw from a person rather than deny a true teaching that was still in effect. Baptism was not part of
his message, and we have no Scripture which says he recommended it, encouraged it, taught it, or commanded it. Not one.

Finally, at the end of the book of Acts, Israel was shown for the final time that they had been set aside. This happened when
Paul spoke in judgment quoting Isaiah 6:9,10. After this judgment was pronounced, Paul was inspired to write Ephesians.
In it he wrote, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism" (Eph. 4:4,5). One baptism? If there is only one baptism, which one is it? Is it water or Holy Spirit? It is Holy Spirit! Why?
Because God has suspended the use of water baptism. It has been done away with because God is through with Israel for the
time being. Now there is only one program. It has to do with spiritual things, not carnal. So, for The Dispensation of Grace, there
is one baptism. We, who have trusted in Christ, are baptized into the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ's
body. That baptism identifies us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8). This identification justifies and frees
us from all sin (Rom 6:7,18). Water baptism has been set aside because God has set aside Israel.

      Under The Dispensation of Grace, there are many new things. There are no law-works necessary for salvation. In fact that's
exactly what Titus 3:5,6 says. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us,
through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ
our Savior." We are the only ones who have eternal security. This is emphasized by Ephesians 1:4-14. We live the Christian life by
the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. These are wonderful, awesome blessings. Let's revel in them.

      The eleventh dispensation, The Dispensation of the Tribulation, begins right after the rapture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4,
Paul wrote about this time:

      Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask
you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though
the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the departure
comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is
called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

First we must notice that the departure takes place before this day of Christ, or day of the Lord, scenario takes place. That
means we will be delivered, rescued, saved from it. We will be gone when the tribulation starts. That's what 2 Th 2:13 says:
"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose
you unto salvation [deliverance from the tribulation] through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth." Similarly,
1 Thessalonians 5:9 states, "For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."

      We can be sure that we will be gone when the tribulation starts because of the nature of the mystery. Why? According
to Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1, nothing about the mystery and the new creation, the body of Christ, was ever revealed before.
That means the many prophecies about the tribulation apply only to Israel and the unsaved Gentiles. When the tribulation starts,
we will be with Christ in the heavenlies.

      We can see from the material in the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, that endurance and works are again
necessary for salvation: Rev 2:5,7,10b,11,17 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first
works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place--unless you repent. 7 He who has
an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which
is in the midst of the Paradise of God . . . 10b Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 He who has
an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death. 17 He
who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden
manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him
who receives it. Rev 3:5,10,12 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name
from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. 10 Because you have kept My
command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those
who dwell on the earth. 12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more.

      In addition to Revelation, the conditional aspects found in the other circumcision epistles, Hebrews, James, 1,2 Peter,
1,2,3 John, and Jude, will apply at that time. All these epistles from Hebrews through Revelation will apply in the tribulation.
I will cite a few from the chart:

2 Pet 1:10,11 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things
you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
1 Jo 5:16,17 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for
those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All
unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 2 Jo 8,9 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things
we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Everyone deviating and not abiding in the teaching of Christ does not
have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

      The Dispensation of the Tribulation ends at the second coming. Christ will establish the millennial kingdom at that time.
We will call this twelfth dispensation The Dispensation of the Kingdom Established. He will rule the world with a rod
of iron (Rev 12:5; 19:5). We will be in the heavenlies. After the thousand years, satan will be loosed for a time.
Revelation 20:7-10 tells us what happens.

      Now when the thousand years have expired, satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive
the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle,
whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp
of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false
prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

When everything is subjugated to Christ, He will in turn deliver it all to the Father according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:

      Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all
authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that
will be destroyed is death. 27 For He has put all things under His feet. But when He says all things are put
under Him, it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made
subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may
be all in all.

Then, we will be with Him forever.