Mainliners and Evangelicals: What’s In A Name?
Photo by Andrew Moca on Unsplash
The Religious News Service (RNS) recently reported on a “sweeping and exhaustive” survey by PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute). The headline of the RNS article reads, “Survey: White mainline Protestants outnumber white evangelicals, while ‘nones’ shrink.” This intriguing headline will surely pique the interest of many readers. Unfortunately, neither the article nor the survey tells us very much about the actual beliefs or practices of Americans.
Slippery Semantics
The definition of the “religiously unaffiliated” in the survey methodology is straightforward. It includes “those who claim no religion in particular, atheists, agnostics, and spiritual but not religious Americans.”
Once we get to the distinctions between mainline Christians and evangelicals, things get a bit dicier:
All respondents who identify as Christian are then asked: “Would you describe yourself as a ‘born again’ or ‘evangelical Christian,’ or not?” Respondents who self-identify as white, non-Hispanic, Protestant and identify as born-again or evangelical are categorized as white evangelical Protestants. Respondents who self-identify as white, non-Hispanic, Protestant and do not identify as born-again or evangelical are categorized as white mainline Protestants.
The term “evangelical” is notoriously difficult to define, and all the more so in the context of a telephone interview. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) defines evangelicalism according to four primary characteristics identified by historian David Bebbington:
Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus
Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity
Being “born again” here falls under the larger heading of “conversion” and is only one element of evangelical identity. For identifying evangelicals specifically in research, the NAE lists four statements to which respondents must strongly agree:
The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.
In light of this more thorough description of evangelical beliefs, the sole criterion of self-identification as “born again” or “evangelical” appears quite thin. The story the PRRI statistics tell is simply not that interesting. It is the story of what people call themselves. Far more interesting, significant, and useful would be an account of what people actually believe, what their religious practices look like, and how these beliefs and practices come to bear on their daily lives.
Even accepting the presupposition that self-description provides helpful data, however, I question whether the self-description of “born again” is the best indicator of evangelical identity. Different Protestant denominations and faith communities sometimes utilize and emphasize different vocabulary from one another, even if their beliefs overlap considerably. The language of being “born again,” biblical as it is (John 3), ebbs and flows in denominational jargon. John Wesley emphasized the “new birth” that leads to a life of sanctification and “going on to perfection.” Traditional Wesleyans do believe in the new birth, but many would not first and foremost describe themselves as “born again Christians,” a descriptor that frankly sounds more baptistic. I suspect that in other traditions, such as the Anglican Church in North American or the Presbyterian Church in America, the situation is not altogether different. Put more succinctly, the PRRI survey focuses on self-descriptors that have more traction in some conservative Protestant communities than others.
This is not to say the results of the survey are meaningless, but that we should take note of its methodological limitations. For another critique of the methodology of the PRRI survey, check out this article by Ryan Burge.
Christianity and Ethnicity
It is unclear why the RNS article zeroes in on white Christians. I have no way of knowing the answer to this question, though I suspect that the support for Donald Trump among many white evangelicals is churning in the background. Yet according to the PRRI survey, 35% of black Americans identify as “evangelical” as defined in the methodology of the survey. This is a significant data point. It deserves more consideration and scrutiny.
It also points to a possible limitation in the study methodology because it does not account for the uniqueness of historically black denominations or the sense of identity that black Christians who are part of these denominations attach to them. In my own experience of working in a seminary that is about 50% African American in its student body, it has been rather uncommon for African American students to describe themselves as “evangelical.” I suspect that, for most members of AME, AME Zion, National Baptist, Church of God in Christ, or other African-American churches, their primary religious identity is not that of evangelicalism, but of their denomination or the larger family of their denomination, such as “Methodist,” “Baptist,” or “Pentecostal.”
The basic doctrinal claims of most of these denominations are not considerably different from the basic doctrinal claims associated with evangelicalism, but the political leanings and ethical imperatives of black Protestants tend to be quite different from those typically associated with evangelicalism today, and particularly white evangelicalism. In many cases these traditions are born out of the struggles of black Americans who experienced discrimination on multiple levels and formed communities of faith where they did not have to suffer such indiginties. The origins of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, for example, date back to 1787 when black parishioners, forced to sit in the church’s gallery, withdrew from St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. The AME struggle in Philadelphia parallels the events leading to the formation of the AME Zion Church after black parishioners left New York City’s John Street Methodist Church in 1796. Both the historical memory and contemporary experiences of racism play heavily in the social witness of these communities.
It would be interesting to see data indicating the number of African American Christians categorized as evangelicals by the survey who would identify as “born again” but would be more hesitant to adopt the moniker of “evangelical,” particularly in the wake of white evangelical support for Donald Trump in two elections. Only about 12% of African Americans voted for Trump in 2020, up from 8% in 2016. As with white Christians, it would be helpful to zero in more closely on what black Christians actually believe and practice, rather than on self-descriptors that have more currency in some traditions than others. Communities with overlapping sets of beliefs may nevertheless differ markedly from one another in a variety of ways, including culture, self-understanding, ethical imperatives, and worship style. In short, categorizing African American Protestants as evangelicals is, in many cases (though not all), painting with too broad of a brush.
One might make similar arguments regarding Christians in other ethnic communities. According to the survey, 28% of Native Americans and 23% of multiracial people self-identify as evangelical. Only 14% of non-white Hispanics identify as evangelical, while fully half are Roman Catholic. Among Asians and Pacific Islanders there is an even split between mainliners and evangelicals at 10% each. This is interesting data so far as it goes. It just doesn’t go very far.
The religious landscape of the United States is an important matter. It has implications for church planting, evangelism, our social witness, ongoing Christian formation, and the future of Christianity in this country. My concern with the PRRI survey is that it gives the illusion that we have more information than we actually do.
What Are the Takeaways?
In conclusion, I’ll offer a few final thoughts related to this survey. First, if it is true that mainline traditions are outpacing the “nones,” then thanks be to God. People need Jesus (as my friend Chris Ritter likes to say). A United States without the cultural influence of Christianity would be a morally and spiritually impoverished nation. I pray that those who claim no religion would find a home in some Christian tradition, both for the wellbeing of this nation and the salvation of their souls.
Second, I am skeptical of the claim that white mainliners outnumber white evangelicals in the United States. Burge’s article, “Why It’s Unlikely US Protestants Outnumber Evangelicals,” is worth a read, as is another article he wrote on the decline of the Episcopal Church. Mainline Protestantism has been declining at a precipitous rate for decades, and this decline has accelerated in recent years. Evangelicalism has been declining as well, though at a slower rate.
Third, however, it would not surprise me to learn that evangelicalism is declining more rapidly now than, say, ten years ago. Hyper-politicization, scandals surrounding high-profile leaders, repeated failures in dealing with sexual abuse, and controversies related to race and critical race theory have surely been detrimental to the evangelical mandate to bring all people to Christ. Every Christian tradition has its problems. My own United Methodist tradition is a mess right now. But we Christians need to get our respective houses in order. The integrity of our witness comes to bear on the efficacy of our witness.
Fourth, the PRRI study does not deal specifically with a Christian group that is growing rapidly around the world: Pentecostal and charismatic Christians. These were surely lumped in with “evangelicals,” but the differences between Pentecostal/charismatic Christians and, say, cessationist Reformed evangelical traditions are significant. It would be interesting to note the trends in the United States among Christians who speak in tongues, practice faith healing, expect the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and believe in modern-day prophecy.
Fifth, white evangelicals are getting too much attention these days. White evangelical support for Trump has surely prompted this, but there are interesting and important developments taking place among Christians of color that will help to shape the religious landscape of the U.S. for generations to come.
Sixth and finally, one might respond to this article by pointing out that I am asking this survey to provide information it was never intended to provide. Fair enough. I would prefer to know more about what Americans believe and practice than what they call themselves. How people of faith understand themselves is, I suppose, a fair question to ask. It’s just not that interesting.
David F. Watson is Lead Editor of Firebrand. He serves as Academic Dean, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio.