YEC (vs. TE) demographics

[jereth]

Judging by some recent polls (and allowing for the unscientific nature of said polls), a YECist is also likely to be:

- Baptist
- American
- dispensationalist
- premillennialist/pretribulationist
- lacking in tertiary science qualification
- self-labelled conservative-fundamentalist
- Pro-Israel
- a fan of LaHaye & Jenkins

http://www.christianforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=11233
http://www.christianforums.com/t3122417-origins-theology-and-geographical-location.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t3115223-education.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t3297662-origins-and-end-times-beliefs-connected.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t3040279-classifying-yourself.html
http://www.christianforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=10941


On the other hand, a TEist is probably:

- anything but Baptist
- of many possible nationalities
- amillennialist
- non-dispensationalist
- tertiary science qualified
- anywhere from conservative to liberal
(and last but not least)
- not a TE

http://www.christianforums.com/t3116819-which-denomination.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t3120559-the-definitive-te-poll.html


I guess the only thing we still haven't analysed is age group.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I guess the only thing we still haven't analysed is age group.

That might prove interesting, actually. I have a pet theory about the relevance of fundamentalism to young adults.

 

[vossler]

That pretty much describes me. Except I can't say I'm much of a LaHaye/Jenkins fan and the dispensationalism stuff is something I haven't spent much time on to have an opinion one way or the other.

 

[jereth]

That might prove interesting, actually. I have a pet theory about the relevance of fundamentalism to young adults.

Do tell!

That pretty much describes me. Except I can't say I'm much of a LaHaye/Jenkins fan and the dispensationalism stuff is something I haven't spent much time on to have an opinion one way or the other.

It's possible that you are dispensationalist by default, just as many people are YEC by default -- i.e. because they've never been taught anything different.

The easy way of knowing is to answer the question:
Is the millennial reign of Christ the time when God will restore the earthly fortunes of the Jewish people?

If you answer yes, you are a dispensationalist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do tell!



It's possible that you are dispensationalist by default, just as many people are YEC by default -- i.e. because they've never been taught anything different.

The easy way of knowing is to answer the question:
Is the millennial reign of Christ the time when God will restore the earthly fortunes of the Jewish people?

If you answer yes, you are a dispensationalist.

actually a traditional premillennialism would answer it the same way as a dispensationalist.

just a few terms so interested people can google and study more.


dispensationalism is opposed to covenantal theology
the issue is if the Church is a continuous way that God has interacted with mankind from Adam to Jesus.
or if there are various 'ages' where God operates with different rules and ways of doing things.
Adam, Moses, Israel, Christ, the Church,
it sees the Bibles covenants as being discontinuous


the easiest question to separate the two groups would be about the continuity of the covenants.

is the covenant with Adam, with Abraham, with Moses the same covenant that God has with Christ? is the church the same way of God operating as the church? or is Israel rightly referred to as the OT church?


millennialism has a bit more potential answers.
if you are talking before the reformation you have two answers chiliasm and achiliasm.

evolving from these mostly in Protestant theology is:
historical premillennialism
amillennialism and postmillennialism
since the mid 19thC dispensationalism introduced dispensational premill.
they in turn introduced terms like pre, mid and post tribulation.

there are at least 3 other more historical ways of looking at it:
futurism, preterism, and partial preterism.
some mixtures are possible.
i'm a hopeful amill with substantial partial preterist tendencies for example.


it is this issue that the question quoted above tries to separate. although it is lending towards separating historical and dispensational millennialists rather than all the forms.....


just an aside for more research., google the names of off you go to read...*grin*

 

[Rin4Christ]

Judging by some recent polls (and allowing for the unscientific nature of said polls),

Some very interesting observations. What they outline though is the demographics of thoes prone to arguing over YEC vs TE. Most people don't care or know enough about the subject to come to this forum (actually, I am getting my PhD in biology, and as a TEist I tend to avoid such discusions). I think alot of non-science people who fall in the TEist catagory probobly don't feel qualified to aparticipate in these discussions.

Your observations actually make alot of sense given that limitation.

 

[laptoppop]

The only comment I would have is about "Baptist." I believe a much more accurate description would be "Conservative." There are LOTS of different flavors of Baptist (Southern, American, Fundamentalist, etc.), including a number of Baptist congregations with extremely liberal viewpoints and lots of TEs. There are also a large number of conservative non-baptist churches (many non-denominational) that hold quite conservative positions. For example, the Calvary Chapel group of churches come to mind -- with multiple tens of thousands of attendees.

 

[Pats]

Some very interesting observations. What they outline though is the demographics of thoes prone to arguing over YEC vs TE. Most people don't care or know enough about the subject to come to this forum (actually, I am getting my PhD in biology, and as a TEist I tent to avoid such discusions). I think alot of non-science people who fall in the TEist catagory probobly don't feel qualified to aparticipate in these discussions.

Your observations actually make alot of sense given that limitation.

I wish more people did participate more in Origins discussion without having to feel there should be a prerequisite in theology or science.

 

[Rin4Christ]

I wish more people did participate more in Origins discussion without having to feel there should be a prerequisite in theology or science.

from experience in other boards, people tend to get shot down rather quickly if they say something inaccurate or even not well spoken. Others don't see a purpose in arguing it because it doesn't really make a difference and it is a controversial issue. Why make people mad at you. And the arguments tend to be endless. after a few pages all the usual arguments are made and people start repeating themselves. no ones minds change.

I have only been on this thread and the "teach me" thread because it wasn't set up as a debate. I may be oversimplifying because I have not read the other threads on this board. I am actually just assuming that the board runs similar to other boards in CF.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

ncluding a number of Baptist congregations with extremely liberal viewpoints and lots of TEs.


thanks i had no idea. personally i am still working on the 19thC and seldom read modern theology. reps for the info.

 

[Melethiel]

ncluding a number of Baptist congregations with extremely liberal viewpoints and lots of TEs.


thanks i had no idea. personally i am still working on the 19thC and seldom read modern theology. reps for the info.

19th century IS modern.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

19th century IS modern.

you'd never know it given the hundreds of hours of microfilm reading i've done recently....

i just don't understand why that 1810 book is not just out of print but ONLY on microfiche.

*grin*

 

[jereth]

The only comment I would have is about "Baptist." I believe a much more accurate description would be "Conservative." There are LOTS of different flavors of Baptist (Southern, American, Fundamentalist, etc.), including a number of Baptist congregations with extremely liberal viewpoints and lots of TEs. There are also a large number of conservative non-baptist churches (many non-denominational) that hold quite conservative positions. For example, the Calvary Chapel group of churches come to mind -- with multiple tens of thousands of attendees.

That's why I said "YECists are likely to be...". It just seemed a very interesting correlation to me -- in a pool of ~50 voters every single baptist was YEC.

I have been quite amazed at the relative uniformity of YECs. Of course there are always exceptions, but judging by my experience on this forum and the various polls, it seems that YEC is a marker of a fairly specific sub-culture within the church. OTOH, TEism is broad and all-encompassing. For instance, if you are non-American and amilennialist, it is almost certain that you'll be non-YEC. Why is this?

 

[Alchemist]

That's why I said "YECists are likely to be...". It just seemed a very interesting correlation to me -- in a pool of ~50 voters every single baptist was YEC.

I have been quite amazed at the relative uniformity of YECs. Of course there are always exceptions, but judging by my experience on this forum and the various polls, it seems that YEC is a marker of a fairly specific sub-culture within the church. OTOH, TEism is broad and all-encompassing. For instance, if you are non-American and amilennialist, it is almost certain that you'll be non-YEC. Why is this?

Hi Jereth,

Likely, someone a little more knowledgable of American church history could answer this, but as far as I have read, it is common in America simply for the way the church started there. From the beginnings of American Christianity, there was a big emphasis on reading the Bible "literally", largely due to what was seen as bad theology coming out of ecclesiastical communions such as the Anglican and Catholic churches. Also, with the large group of Irish settlers, dispensationalist theology became popular (under influence of Darby), despite its near universal rejection in Europe.

As for the YEC connection, it really comes from this literalist view of the Bible. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have no problem with evolution, not as is commonly believed because they view the Bible as myth, but because they believe that a relationship with God is only for man, and so anything pre-Fall which happened to animals is not relevant to our salvation. Most Anglicans, whether conservative or liberal, have little problem with evolution. Some conservative Lutherans as YEC, as Luther himself was, but many have no problem whatsoever reconciling evolution with Scripture.

But as the new American churches (in general) rejected the theology of their parent churches in favour of interpreting the Bible "literally", as they saw it, the most obvious way of seeing how old the world was was to add up the generations, and there is the age of the Earth - giving a date of around 6,000 years. And in a new country with little scientific data available, or perhaps in some cases, an unwillingness to trust science for similar reasons to rejecting European theology, a young earth date was uncontested, and so became "standard" in American churches.

As for why many American churches still teach YEC today, it is really just a classic case of tradition: it is believed because its what your parents believed!

Peace,
Nick

 

[jereth]

Likely, someone a little more knowledgable of American church history could answer this, but as far as I have read, it is common in America simply for the way the church started there. From the beginnings of American Christianity, there was a big emphasis on reading the Bible "literally", largely due to what was seen as bad theology coming out of ecclesiastical communions such as the Anglican and Catholic churches. Also, with the large group of Irish settlers, dispensationalist theology became popular (under influence of Darby), despite its near universal rejection in Europe.

As for the YEC connection, it really comes from this literalist view of the Bible. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have no problem with evolution, not as is commonly believed because they view the Bible as myth, but because they believe that a relationship with God is only for man, and so anything pre-Fall which happened to animals is not relevant to our salvation. Most Anglicans, whether conservative or liberal, have little problem with evolution. Some conservative Lutherans as YEC, as Luther himself was, but many have no problem whatsoever reconciling evolution with Scripture.

But as the new American churches (in general) rejected the theology of their parent churches in favour of interpreting the Bible "literally", as they saw it, the most obvious way of seeing how old the world was was to add up the generations, and there is the age of the Earth - giving a date of around 6,000 years. And in a new country with little scientific data available, or perhaps in some cases, an unwillingness to trust science for similar reasons to rejecting European theology, a young earth date was uncontested, and so became "standard" in American churches.

Thanks for that really useful analysis, Alchemist. As an Aussie, I find the American-YEC-dispensationalist-Republican connection intruiging and fascinating. In Australia there would be very few churches (if any) which actually teach YECism officially. The Catholic, Anglican, and Uniting (the 3 biggest traditional denominations) have pretty much accepted TEism. Baptists are becoming more and more liberal, and thus would also be leaning away from YECism. Hillsong has endorsed Intelligent Design, which is possibly an indication of the direction Pentecostals/Charismatics in general are heading.

So you would only find YECism taught in some ultra-conservative Presbyterian, Baptist, SDA and independent churches.

Eschatologically, very few Australians are dispensationalist -- most haven't even heard of it.

Politically, Australian Christians span the entire spectrum from left to right. There is no strong association with a single party like in America.

Interestingly, Australian Christianity is much more strongly influenced by Europe than by America. Which fits with your analysis.

 

[laptoppop]

That's why I said "YECists are likely to be...". It just seemed a very interesting correlation to me -- in a pool of ~50 voters every single baptist was YEC.

Just to finish up dissecting this extremely minor point -- The first statement does not follow logically from the second. If you can say:
Most Baptists are YEC.
You cannot deduce from that
Most YEC are Baptists.

For example, you could say:
Most male american voters are human.
It does not follow logically that
Most humans are male american voters.

Again, this is a minor point- but I just want to be clear that the link is more "conservative Biblical interpretation" than it is "Baptist". It is reasonable to say that most Baptist congregations are conservative - but most is the operative word. There are a number of Baptist churches that are quite literall - the denomination gives a wide lattitude to the local congregation.

edit - I meant "liberal", of course in the last sentence!

 

[Calminian]

Just to finish up dissecting this extremely minor point -- The first statement does not follow logically from the second. If you can say:
Most Baptists are YEC.
You cannot deduce from that
Most YEC are Baptists.

For example, you could say:
Most male american voters are human.
It does not follow logically that
Most humans are male american voters.

Again, this is a minor point- but I just want to be clear that the link is more "conservative Biblical interpretation" than it is "Baptist". It is reasonable to say that most Baptist congregations are conservative - but most is the operative word. There are a number of Baptist churches that are quite literall - the denomination gives a wide lattitude to the local congregation.

I disagree! I think it's a major point!

 

[kenrapoza]

But as the new American churches (in general) rejected the theology of their parent churches in favour of interpreting the Bible "literally", as they saw it, the most obvious way of seeing how old the world was was to add up the generations, and there is the age of the Earth - giving a date of around 6,000 years. And in a new country with little scientific data available, or perhaps in some cases, an unwillingness to trust science for similar reasons to rejecting European theology, a young earth date was uncontested, and so became "standard" in American churches.

Just one clarification (in an otherwise insightful response), the young earth date was arrived at not in America, but actually in Ireland. James Ussher (Archbishop of Armagh) calculated a creation date of October 23rd, 4004 BC by adding up all the ages in the geneaologies and then correlating them to known historical events described in the Bible. His work was originally published in 1650. Many others undertook the same task and arrived at similar dates, give or take a few hundred years. The reason why Ussher's chronology endured is because after 1700 it began to be included in the notes of the King James Bible.

 

[jereth]

Just to finish up dissecting this extremely minor point -- The first statement does not follow logically from the second. If you can say:
Most Baptists are YEC.
You cannot deduce from that
Most YEC are Baptists.

Yes, you're right. Thanks.