Talk:Dispensationalism

Influence on US foreign policy
The article lead currently states "Dispensationalism has had a strong influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially with regards to the modern state of Israel." This is unsupported by the article body. The relevant section includes sourced claims that evangelicals broadly support Israel and that Ronald Reagan read a book. There are no sources demonstrating that dispensationalism has actually had an influence on US foreign policy with regard to Israel. I understand that this is considered "common knowledge" in some circles, but common knowledge doesn't belong on Wikipedia without a source. In fact, one of the sources specifically says that administration officials -- you know, the people making foreign policy decisions -- denied that they were influenced by evangelical ideology! At best, this is a controversial claim that should not be stated as fact; at worst, it's unsourced POV-pushing. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:9507:6781:DBBF:1A96 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * So really it's not so much that it's "unsourced" but rather that it really needs to be reworded/reworked to more accurately reflect what is in the article (since that's what the lead is supposed to do).  Butler Blog   (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. When I tried to reword it to "Critics claim", which I think is more accurate, it was removed due to weasel-wording, so I'm not really sure where to go from there. At the risk of WP:SYNTH, the sources seem to support two ideas: (a) evangelical leaders broadly push for political support of Israel on religious grounds, and (b) opponents of evangelicals believe that this push has had undue influence on American foreign policy. Perhaps something like
 * Dispensationalist beliefs have caused prominent Christian leaders to call for political support of the state of Israel.
 * and if you like
 * Critics assert that this has influenced US foreign policy.
 * To be honest, I'm not in love with the body of the article either... the phrasing "Israel has allied [...] to influence U.S. foreign policy" isn't present in the sources and also seems like a pretty controversial thing to just flatly state. This article should focus primarily on the beliefs and actions of dispensationalists, and the subsection is supposedly about US politics, but the text almost exclusively talks about Israel. But, well, one thing at a time. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:9507:6781:DBBF:1A96 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Opposing views
Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Anglicans neither subscribe to Dispensationalism nor Covenant theology, but to Law and Gospel. How should we go about inserting that into the article, and should we have a seperate section for opposing views? —Confession0791 talk 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The only reason that covenant theology is mentioned in contrast is that dispensationalism emerged from previously covenantal/confessional groups (such as Baptists and Presbyterians). If there is no specific relation other than "we don't teach that" then there's no reason to mention it.   Butler Blog   (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The history section could use expansion. A lot has happened since 1928. —Confession0791 talk 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Peak and decline section merely reports a blip
(1) The Peak and decline section contradicts the rest of the article, which in the lead begins by identifying the "establishment of Bible Institutes" (not "acceptance by seminaries") as a major factor of the spread of Dispensationalism. The fact that Dispensationalism was not being taught in seminaries is the raison d'être of Dallas Theological Seminary; it was necessary to found a seminary from the Fundamentalist grass-roots up. Dispensationalism only spread to other seminaries when graduates from DTS were hired. To say that Dispensationalism as a whole is "in decline" because professors in seminaries prefer covenant theology--what is this? Wishful thinking by the enemies of Dispensationalism? Totally lacks NPOV! If author Daniel G. Hummel fails to understand the grass-roots nature of Dispensationalism to begin with, he is not a reliable source about anything other than the groves of academe. (2) The history of Dispensationalism is still playing out; it's too early to say that it has "peaked" or "is in decline". (3) A proper title for this section would be Recent decline in academic circles; that, and no more. Wikipedia should not be a playground for seminary professors who are worried about Dispensationalism. The "decline" may be due to graduates of DTS only being given seminary jobs only on the condition that they agree to renounce Dispensationalism. Weasels, weasels everywhere! We are not told the reasons why these seminary professors changed views. (The "pop" of Pop prophecy is also a weasel word, but at least it alliterates well.) Vagabond nanoda (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Spread
I would like to better understand how Dispensationalism has been received in traditionally Black churches and among Hispanics (and Lusitanians) who have become Protestant. WenonahNj (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)