Since no one here is really speaking in abstract terms, and everyone is argueing the differences assuming their side is right, I will be up front to say that I think both classic dispensationalist and Covenant theologians are wrong. I find myself much more inline with progressive despensationalist or New Convenant Theologians. I think both Classic Dispensationalist and Covenant theologians have faulty views of the church. But hey, so many very Godly people have fallen on both sides here so I'm not going to make it too central.
I think the difference between Dispensational and Convenant theology does make a difference in churches. How they view the law is vastly different. Convenant theology tends to lead more towards Calvinism though Dr. Bob and this thread's own Pastor Larry demonstrate that Dispensationalism also has its Calvinists. End times does make a difference because it affects whether you believe Jews today are a seperate entity or whether you believe BELIVEIVING JEWS as part of the church today in the same way you are. Convenant theology tends to lead towards Sabbarains (I don't know if I spelled that right, people who view Sunday as the new Sabbath and KEEP it as such) though ultra dispensational fundlemenalits tend to view it similar ("We belong in the Church when the doors are open" , or "I have missed a Sunday in . . . years"). Convenant Theology has a long history and has sprouted many churches that have evolved over time, so it is natural to see that liberalism will have snuck in. Dispensationalism seems to be the sole Biblical Framework of Pentelcostal chuches and charasmatics in general though charasmatics have now started poping up in other denominations (even the RC). Dispensationals usually seem more ferbent (sp) to evangelize, CTs seem more ferbent (sp) to discover and respect 2000 years of Christian history (both are needed I think, and these two sides have something to teach each other). Both sides treat the other sides name like a curse word. Both sides assume they can "blow the other side out of the water" with scripture. Both sides have completly different intrepretations (fueled by different presuppositions) about what a text means. (I direct you to a discussion Pastor Larry and I had concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and how I finally realized are enormous misunderstanding about how the other person could see his side so was due to what we though "Day of the Lord" meant.) They use the OT differently.
Now, as to Spurgeon. If Spurgeon came to my door I would let him preach in a picosecond! (1000 times faster then a nanosecond). Now I am not a pastor and so I don't have the weight on my shoulders as our boy Larry, but I assume if I was a pastor I would let this man preachs as often as he was willing. The best way to sheperd my people would be to let them be bathed by the seasoned words this godly man imparted, as they have so often strenghed,encouraged, excited and edifyed me. Same for Pink. I don't know much about Gill so I will reserve judgement. I would let dispensationals (such as my father-in-law, or Pastor Larry) preach and I would led non-dispys, like Poythress, or Walke, or Kaiser preach. Most of the Bibles meaning is not dependent on these presups and even when they are, I would want my congegration to hear and think about other points of view instead of just assuming the other side is not godly, spiritually educated or mature, and/or "honest". The only ones I would not let preach or those who do not believe the gospel as I do, namely that we are saved through trusting in Jesus Christ, in other words, anyone who adheres to othorodox Christianity.