I suspect what muddies the waters is the growing trend of independent churches that tend to play down their theological distinctives resulting in church members who are not familiar with basic historic Christian terminology.
This is true. I went to church recently and asked what kind of church they are. I was told they were non denominational. But they are a huge church sending money to other sister churches globally and involved in evangelism… I’d call that evangelical but I’m the new person so I could be wrong too
That makes a lot of sense. In my time on the web, I’ve come across a lot of people whose beliefs are recognisably Protestant, but who do not like to be referred to as Protestants. Such people seem to be fundamentalist/Bible-only Christians.
I think a big part that is missing is the large number of people leaving evangelical churches and joining churches who have split from the mainline protestants, such as the ACNA, LCMS, etc. Many conservative Anglicans and Lutherans wouldn't identify as evangelical because of some theological assumptions about evangelical churches.
The LCMS didn't split from mainline Protestants- they never were part of the theological trajectory of the Lutheran Church in America, in the first place, having very different origins. Today most polsters consider LCMS to be Evangelical, and I more or less agree, even though they are not Reformed/Calvinist, their trajectory fits with Evangelicals. They have become more like Baptists in many ways.
I think what’s being overlooked is the growing number of deconstructed Christians in the US. Most of these people are coming from Evangelical churches, but they wouldn’t call themselves Mainline either. Idk if they are big enough to be categorize as their own group, but they definitely need to be taken into account in these surveys.
I know millennials who are theologically rather conservative, but pride themselves on being more tolerant than their parent's churches, and are probably more socially liberal than even many mainline churches. American churches aren't prepared to handle the changing sexual mores of the younger half of the population.
I'm from Brazil, and here about 30% of the population is Protestant (I'm one of them) and here we practically don't use these 3 terms that you from the United States use. We just use the word "evangélico". I think this is because there are hardly any mainline churches around here, so we use the word “evangélico” for all Protestant churches. And just out of curiosity, the two biggest Protestant churches here in Brazil are the Assembly of God and the Baptist
They don't use term mainlineterm but they use the term historical denominations Baptist.,presbiterians,methodist, lutherans are historicals., I would say some presbiterians s lutherans and methodist are liberal like mainliine american protestants
yeah im frm mex originally, but "evangelical" is totally a political group these days, barely has to do with church anymore, its very coded and confusing language people use
Identifiying as not a "Born again Christian" is not to say you are not born again. "Born again Christianity" is a certain style of doing church. A Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican may not see their denomination as a born again kind of church and at the same time say, yes, I am born again in Christ.
What traditional Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism object to about "born again" is that they reject the notion that a person, entirely on his own, and aided only by an inner voice he fancies to be the Holy Spirit, may determine, for himself, that he is "saved," and that thereafter, he may engage in any sort of conduct without fear of losing his eternal salvation. Aside from the effects on public order that such a theology, carried to its literal and absurd conclusion, might entail, such a doctrine is condemned by the three groups mentioned as the sin of presumption. Being "born again" is a new beginning, on which we begin a new journey. It is not the end of the road. Where the "mainline" Protestants got into trouble is that they abandoned traditional moral teachings, and many white Protestants, who still believe in those values, but who reject the presumptuous "born again" theology, are in many cases left without a spiritual home.
Think the Old Light and New Light Categories of the Great Awakening shed good light on this as well. It doesn't matter what you identify as, you are not saved by head knowledge but rather by being transformed, being made new, alive by God by belief in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. The problem is there are people that (not saying anyone here) will say that's fine and well I have it, and then are cautious when Paul say that we should test ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Working out of faith with fear and trembling is a GOOD THING!
Thank you! I don’t fit into anyone of those categories either. raised missionary Baptist; graduate Dallas theological seminary; now find myself in a independent Mennonite church. (?) 👍👍👍✝️❤️🛐
Assuming "missionary Baptist" refers to a majority white church here, would you say your old church had a Landmarkist orientation, and was part of the American Baptist Association? That's what "missionary Baptist" usually means outside of the historically Black context.
I've found a common way to categorize churches is to see mainline churches as members of the National Council of Churches, evangelical churches as members of the National Association of Evangelicals, and fundamentalists as members of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. You may want to consider doing a video on those groups.
So it sounds like one survey was looking at institutional membership & attendance, while the other was examining individual identity and beliefs, and there is not a perfect correspondence between the two
Especially interesting since I think formal membership isn't as big as it used to be. Or, many people will consider themselves members of a church even without attending services.
Love your video. An atheist but appreciate your non biased approach . And thank you for bringing up the categories. Sunday is the most segregated day in the week!
It is already written up because I scripted it, but I am already running around like a chicken with my head cut off trying to keep up with the channel, so I don't think right now I can do that. Future goal, I guess. Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Thanks for your post on Mainline vs Evangelical and Black churches. One thing that caught my eye was your early listing for the Methodist Church in the 1960s. During the mid-1960s I was part of a youth group who travelled from Texas to Wisconsin to work as youth camp volunteer. When the camp closed for the summer, my group travelled to Madison, WI for some Missionary work. While canvassing neighborhoods I noticed many people in Madison were members of the United Evangelical Brethren Church. When the Methodist Church merged with the UEB Church, the result became the United Methodist Church. I see now the merger took place in Dallas in 1968 just a few miles east of my residence.
Good analysis. Of course there are subdivisions. Charismatics, Mennonites, House church cults, and dour-faced Presbyterians could all be labeled as “Evangelicals,” but they are quite different from each other in style as well as creed. Among the mainline folk, you’ll find great variety also - New Age mystics, social gospel adherents, left-over Deists, metaphysical speculators and aesthetic people who love sacred music and liturgy. These groups all have their competing perspectives.
Again thanks I needed this break down as a Catholic that's just trying to get a grip on religion today in the US it's helpful to understand the different Christian Denominations and who they are
Great analysis! I heard about this recent report and wondered how they came to this conclusion, it helps to know how they went about identifying respondents. If I'd been in the survey I would have been counted as mainline based on how I'd respond, but I haven't attended a mainline church in years.
This sounds right. It's certainly what I'm seeing in my church, which has an "Evangelical" teaching position (almost all the staff are graduates of Trinity), but many "Mainline" externals like robes and choirs. The term "Evangelical" is perceived as toxic now and many reject that label.
Why is the term toxic? I just take it to mean theologically conservative and interested in spreading the gospel. It is baffling that this does not describe EVERY Christian church.
@@sorenpx "Evangelical" is seen as toxic because many people understand the word to mean rabidly conservative trump worshippers who would do everything in their power to hurt their lgbt and racial minority friends. It's definitely a toxic word for many, largely because it's misused by the media and others. People hear it and think "bad news" not "good news".
Here is what I propose for a category system. FIRST DIMENSION: Denominations in a historic Protestant tradition (i.e. Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Weslyian, Moravian, etc.) -> Modern or New Denominations (Calvary Chapel, MCC (the only thing they have in common is that they don’t belong to a historic tradition)) -> non-denominational. SECOND DIMENSION: Theologically Traditional/Conservitive (i.e. faithful to historic Christian doctrine concerning faith and morals (i.e. divinity of Christ, inspiration of the Scriptures, traditional marriage)) -> Theologically Progressive (i.e. skepticism about or deconstructing historic Christian doctrine). THIRD DIMENSION: If needed, along race or ethnicity. For example, the African American Methodist Episcopal Church is both a black church and a church of a historical tradition (i.e. the Methodist/Episcopal tradition.) Calvary Chapel is a new (or non-historic) denomination, mostly white, theologically traditional. Evangelicalism (in its American meaning: theologically conservative, and biblical) would be a sub-category of Theologically Traditional, since historic Protestant churches such as the ACNA can also be evangelical. As Einstein once said, make things as simple as possible but not more simple than they really are. Three dimensions seems to allow for the full range of combinations of denominations. What do you think?
Interesting. The surveys tend to show about what we'd expect, and what many of us have experienced: Alot of people still maintain faith, even though they've left institutional churches. The main questions we as Christians need to draw from that seems to be these: What works to draw these people in, what do any churches that are growing have in common, and what strategies for union might be possible if certain denominational structures with historically similar theology might be willing to put aside certain differences and pool resources, clergy, and spaces, to create more unified blocks of Christianity that would prove more attractive to those turned off by perceived division within the faith? Also, theologians really need a better way to classify denominations. I think everyone can agree on that. Great video.
1:01 note here that it has "Anglican Church" as a mainline denomination, which I presume means the ACNA and the other more theologically conservative churches that split off from the Episcopal Church, but due to them being more theologically conservative they don't really square up with the typical understanding of "Mainline" churches
When I saw that article a few weeks ago I was skeptical of the claims of mainline denominations overtaking evangelicals. I saw the footnotes and laughed. I think the terms of "born again" and "evangelical" are not terms that gen Y uses and are thus making them be categorized as mainline.
I self-identify as both Evangelical and Mainline, although my definition of Evangelical may be a little different from the typical definition. The word "Evangelical" comes from the Greek word for "Gospel," and I definitely believe the Gospel! Maybe that's closer to the old Lutheran use of the word. I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't identify a specific date when I was converted because I grew up in a Christian family, and my faith grew as I grew. I never had a moment of going from not believing to believing. I've been in the Christian Reformed Church most of my life, where I remember there being discussions years ago about whether our denomination was Evangelical or Mainline. Now I'm a member of the PCUSA, which is always seen as mainline. I don't find the distinction between Evangelical and Mainline very helpful. It's divisive. It's more of a way for the media and pollsters to put us in categories.
Loved that last line! 'Who better to start one of those?'. The current categorizations definitely fail to clearly identify different protestant groups. By this report, I've been a member of one historically black (AME), two mainline (ELCA & UMC), and one evangelical church (CoC). Personally I don't identify as an Evangelical, but apparently a lot of fellow Church of Christ members do. Meanwhile, in the United Methodist Church, evangelicals seemed to have a much stronger presence than the numbers bare out. Just goes to show how every congregation is different; and, that Christianity and identity and both internally complex.
things are cyclical. names start out as edgy/trendy then become the old generation. being a baptist was once edgy, but gets overdone then a new name comes out. all the same thing.
The World Evangelical Alliance has been around since the 1840s, so evangelicals have been around for over a third of the history of protestantism. There's a little more going on than evangelicalism going out of style. There are some major shifts taking place in the priorities of many evangelicals and in how we see our place in the world.
You're right! I have recently dropped Calvinist a few years back as it was watered down and now describe myself as a Determinist. This will continue to evolve in terminology, but the ideas remain the same. People just don't know vocab and it forces people to change definitions.
@@CameronKiesser Agreed. I would consider myself a Calvinist but I would never tell people that because everyone has their own filter. All language is dynamic not fixed.
The Seventh-Day Adventist Church has had a "North American Division," which effectively is a euphemism for their Historically Black congregations. So that's a denomination that straddles categories.
You highlight the exact problem: Mainline now being defined not as historic Protestant denomination but as progressive Protestant. And a survey that lumps individuals into Mainline if they are both not black and do not report a born again experience. Deeply flawed.
There's an intentional movement by evangelicals to drop "cuckoo eggs" into UCC and UMC congregations to swing them evangelical, then pull them out of their denominations.
@@sorenpx Referring to the cuckoo bird's practice of laying its eggs in other birds' nests. It's a metaphor for how Evangelicals attempt to take over mainline churches.
@@fnjesusfreak I still don't get it though. Like, what are the tactics? It sounds well-meaning and deceptive at the same time. I've never heard of such a thing before.
Two observations on the PEW Survey chart (starting at 7:32): (1) hard membership numbers can decrease while percentage of total increases if the overall total is also decreasing year over year. (That info is missing from the chart, so remains unclear). (2) Unaffiliated (the elephant in the room) is mostly an exodus from the evangelical category, but far larger than both mainline and evangelical. IMO, the unaffiliated should not be artificially included in the mainline vs evangelical comparison by the "born-again" metric. Those unaffiliated liberals are not "mainline" simply by NOT being born-again.
Labels matter. Most people don’t think about that or reject it, and they end up misusing them. Eventually words become so convoluted and unwieldy that you can’t use them. So please, just use words correctly and stop trying to be cute (I realize many people here probably aren’t the ones who need to hear that, but maybe you know someone who does).
The problem is that a lot of words never had settled upon definitions in the first place. Especially "evangelical." Even Billy Graham wasn't able to define what it meant when asked. The Ten Minute Bible Hour has a very insightful video about it if you have 30 minutes: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ap1DBupLYeI.html
@@Alex-zs3kn I think you may have a point, but you’ve skipped ahead to a point when the word is more difficult to understand. Like Ready to Harvest said, the word Evangelical was originally used by Lutherans to identify their churches. You can argue that the term could be used to describe those who have a similar theology but do not agree with the Lutherans (there is an authoritative document, so definition should be a lot easier for “Lutherans”). By the time Billy Graham was asked that question, the word had been used in conflicting ways. I submit that words are defined and used, then misused and abused; this is the general pattern. Lutherans could no longer used Evangelical, and Lutherans who hold to the Confessions can no longer simply call themselves Lutheran. Those who want these terms, but are not what they describe, ignore the definition. It's basically lying. It may not always be malicious, but intent doesn't define truth.
Labels do matter. Labels tell a story, and it is important that we tell the right story, not just the one we find appealing. And sometimes it is necessary to tell different stories at different times. For instance, it is right and correct to assert that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are essentially one type of church: apostolic. They claim to have their authority not merely from the Bible, but from a real, sacramental succession from the apostles. Their authority structures come first and foremost comes from the bishops. Thousands of other denominations are appropriately lumped into another category: sola scriptura. They do not make use of other authorities than the Bible, and only 66 books of it. And then there are the other denominations who would properly be called prima scriptura, such as Confessional Lutheranism and certain sects of Anglicanism and Methodism. Their authority comes from the Bible first, then from other sources, particularly the Church Fathers and reason. Latitudinarian churches do not seem to stand on any authority; these include the Episcopal Church, the ELCA, and the various other denominations which reject apostolic or scriptural authority as primary. We're not even going to get into the reconstructionists. These labels are important, though, because your authorities are going to limit what you will choose to believe. Certain other labels within the Protestant community may be important for their purposes, but as a Catholic these labels seem fundamental to the problems that I encounter in ecumenism.
@@HolyKhaaaaan I think you've done a very good job outlining some specifics. I'm not entirely sure about the prima scriptura label, but we can discuss that if you'd like. I do very much appreciate your acknowledgement that labels, as a verbal representation of reality, prevent ecumenism to some extent. We believe different things, and it would be foolish to act as if we do not.
I think also of note is formal membership isn't as big as it used to be. Even with political parties, formal membershipin them is declining, even if there's a large proportion that votes for them. Furthermore, many people will consider themselves members of a church even without attending services.
I think it makes more sense for Protestantism to be categorized as "European" or "American", with the classifying factor being along the lines of whether or not the person or denomination in question believes in the doctrine of Original Sin. Along denominational lines, Protestant denominations that developed the bulk of their theology in Europe (Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, and Congregationalist) still hold to some form of the doctrine of Original Sin, along with the Catholics and Orthodox. The denominations that developed outside this sphere were disconnected from European culture, religion, and geopolitics for over a century (at the very least, from the original settling of the lands that would later become the US, up through the mid 19th century when Irish Catholics started immigrating to the US in large numbers). As such, they adopted the rugged individualism of American culture, which saw the idea that descendents must pay the punishment for their ancestors' transgressions as anathema, and therefore wholly disagreed with the doctrine of Original Sin. The biggest innovation from these disconnected denominations is that they believe that a person needs to make an informed conscious decision to accept baptism, and that a person unable to make informed decisions (children and those deemed mentally disabled) are incapable of sin, which is why these denominations do not accept infant baptisms as valid. The "born again" question that the survey used to delineate "mainline" and "evangelical" actually plays into this, because the whole "born again" movement was an attempt by this Americanized theology to interpret John 3:3 in such a way that it the actual "born again" reference isn't just towards Baptism itself. Making this distinction also allows for studies like this to categorize regardless of race, as the question at hand has nothing to do with race, but entirely with theology. Thus, that survey could then categorize black churches as either "European" or "American" as well, based on their theology.
I think what the recent survey reflects is that there are many white Protestants who adhere to traditional moral teachings but who firmly reject the notion that a person may decide, for himself, that he is “saved” and may thereafter act in any manner he chooses without fear of losing his eternal salvation.
Amazing to the number of Baptist Churches in Worcester, Mass., USA. They were some of the first Churches to Open - with restrictions - during COVID. I attended a service in a a predominately African American Fellowship. I departed and went two blocks/two turns to pick-up the main road and there i came upon another Baptist Church; The Congregation was standing on the stairs outside - after service - and they were all Caucasian. America.
Had to a scratch my head when that report came out, made no sense. Thanks for clarifying. The polling/survey industry has really lost their credibility in recent years.
The more I think about it, you really shouldn’t categorize by “conservative” and “liberal” alone. I think it should be “classical Protestant” (Lutheran, Anglican, Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist) and Restorationist Protestant (Baptist, Anabaptist, Holiness/Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, Restorationist, etc.). I know Baptists come out of Europe, but they still talk like they’re Restorationist rather than classically Protestant.
Lol I grew up singing the same song. Nice song nearly 50 years out of date by the time I was old enough to be singing it. But it really does sound very strange in the context of these surveys. 😁
Many in the ELCA and other Lutheran synods would also call themselves evangelical catholics. It's how Lutherans have always identified themselves; the term "Lutheran" was given by others.
Im a baptist but don't identify as 'evangelical' because it has become a loaded term associated with televangelism and 'feel good' religion, I would however identify as a deeply conservative christian. I hardly think I am the only one motivated by such considerations.
I have seen many churches split because of leadership or because of a fall in funding. Many church buildings are bought by other developers to turn into housing or other multi use spaces. I have even seen other religions use church buildings as a new space for themselves and sometimes redesigning the outside of the building to suit. I love how flexible Judeo-Christian traditions are in America ☺️🇺🇲❤️👍
I think that Evangelical/Liberal is a useful scale. I think that mainline should perhaps have a definition less linked to theology and more linked to history and size, and perhaps have the opposite of emerging, which should probably also have it's theological association removed. Charismatic/Non-Charismatic could also be a scale. Theology can vary across a denomination too. In the UK I might describe the Church of England as mainline, but wouldn't define it on the other axes so much. My own church would be Mainline, Evangelical, Charismatic. I would expect Vineyard to be Emerging, Evangelical, Charismatic. A local Methodist church I know has probably moved from Mainline, Evangelical, Non-Charismatic to Mainline, Liberal, Non-Charismatic over the last few years.
And you did not even touch the difference between - Fundamentalists, Neo-Evangelicals (often just shortened to Evangelical), and Modernists (Those who take a very liberal - democrat leaning approach) with the amazing amount of ground that you covered very succinctly. You appear to love this kind of study you might be interested in checking out Spencer Smith's video "Fundamentalism/Modernism/Neo-Evangelicalism Explained" Of course it is very biased, from a pro-Independent Baptist / Fundamentalist standpoint. Even if you don't agree with his theology - it is another perspective of how different churches are morphing over doctrinal viewpoints. The question many in the "Church" will be forced to answer over the next few years is what will be their stance on LGBT, CRT, and the CV jab (including making it man d@t ory) issues.
This analyst raises many interesting questions. My advice to interested viewers is: Stop the action and take a lot of screenshots, in the hope of following what he is saying, because what he is saying is too much for the little time allotted for this kind of a video.
I’m protestant in the sense of subscribing to the five solae. I’m not, however, Lutheran or Anglican. To me, one of the most important distinctions among professed Christians is between those who are or who consider themselves traditionalists as compared to those who do what my dad, when I was a child, urged me to do. He said “Read for yourself, study for yourself and think for yourself.” Perhaps that is one of the reasons I make a distinction between my religion - which I consider to be biblical Christianity - and my denominational affiliation. Among the things about which I agree with a majority of professed Christians in the United States today is the belief that no one’s Christianity should be evaluated entirely or even primarily by his denominational affiliation - or lack thereof. Yet almost all of the statistics on the subject of religion in the United States seem to be compiled from the perspective that the number of Christians in the United States equals the number of members of the various denominations! I think one of the reasons for the decline in denominational membership is partly (largely) because people who read for ourselves, study for ourselves and think for ourselves - which means that we are not much inclined to “affirm” any creed - are increasingly unwelcome (except as visitors) in the majority of ostensibly Christian congregations (of any denomination or none) OR because we are becoming less and less willing to provide tacit approval of certain doctrines and practices - an approval which tends to be assumed if we attend services where those things are taught or practiced. I’ve prayed for a long time about how to resolve these difficulties. Until someone offers a better suggestion, here is mine: If existing denominations (and existing “non-denominational” congregations) are unwilling to re-examine their dedication to creedalism, we need to create an organization that, instead of asking people to affirm a creed, creates a list of doctrines that clergy are not permitted to teach (and are obligated to avoid implying) WHILE they are employed by the organization. I think there is a need for several organizations of that type. Here’s why: 1a: Some Christians consider themselves “eccumenical” in the sense of being willing to “lay aside our differences in order to work or worship together”. These Christians are generally willing to adopt doctrines of the Roman Church that were strongly opposed by protestants even a half-century ago. 1b: Other Christians have been taught to abhor popery and, in some cases, that means being adverse to hierarchy, creedalism and dogmatism, even such trends in their own denominations. People in these two groups (1a and 1b) would, of course, need to create separate organizations. 2a: Some Christians emphasize the sovereignty of God. Not all but many who do also teach that God decided before each of us was born, who would be saved and who would be lost. 2b: Some Christians emphasize free moral agency. While not denying that God knew before each of us was born, who would be saved and who would be lost, these people deny that our destiny was predetermined before we were born. People in these two groups (2a and 2b) would, of course, need to create separate organizations. Christians argue with each other about many other beliefs and practices but my sense is that if clergy were not required to teach specific doctrines - if they were required, instead to NOT teach some specific doctrines - it would be much easier for them to encourage people to trust the Lord and his written word - including those who read for ourselves, study for ourselves and think for ourselves.
It sounds like a viable hypothesis, but you would have to back it with data in order to even begin to think about making new denominations. Also, I think that most people today are not very interested in doctrine outside of the gospel, if they are even saved in the first place and know the gospel. Most church attendees seem to go through the motions, although it could very well be the case that some segmentation occurs dividing between those who are centred around doctrine, and those that rather attend church were they feel better, thus explaining the phenomenon. On the other hand, parents deciding against passing the gospel to their children, either consciously or by default for not doing it, are arguably the reason why Christianity is on the decline. Then also you have the New Independent movement, which is explained by neither effect. Haha ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rd9oIE5UXI8.html
@@JosefFurg1611 I guess what we are discussing here is the difference between personal religion and institutional religion. Most people seem willing - some may even prefer - to merely follow a religious “leader” or a religious organization or group. I’m not willing to say that such people aren’t truly Christian. My maternal grandmother, for example, was illiterate. She didn’t have much other choice than to subscribe to someone else’s beliefs system. She couldn’t do the necessary research to be able to explain her reasons for disagreeing what whatever was being taught. On the other hand, if there are people who are loath to “belong” to an organization with doctrines antithetical to they way they understand the evidence - or practices they consider to imply other things with which they disagree, NOT teaching certain things might make it easier for those people to invite friends to participate in activities of non-creedal organizations. Anyway.....My thinking is often so far “outside the box” I appreciate that you were willing to at least try to understand my idea enough to wax analytical about it. Thanks.
Find an Orthodox church and dive in head first. Any Orthodox church will do. More than good enough. I myself worked for Unitarians. Great folks. My grandma was NY state AG treasurer. All great folks. But Orthodox get it more right and do it more better. You cannot read the flavor of that steak. Go taste some for yourself! Scripture tastes better in Greek.
Evangelicals and Mainline denominations just tell you what they want to, I see this in non denominational they say this when they are Pentecostal I know of one that says they are non denominational when they are affiliated with another Pentecostal across the state another and probably other Pentecostal. Another one says they are non denominational but they are affiliated with other Southern Baptist and this so called non denominational has eighteen different places of worship across the eastern part of the state. I also know someone who says he is Evangelical and belongs to one of the most liberal denominations and he himself is very liberal minded. Take the Coptic Evangelical started by the United Presbyterian Church of North America. Evangelical is just another word like non denominational that people will tell you what ever they want.
I'm a bit of an outlier- I belong to an Episcopal parish in Portland OR that is inner-city, and a historically Black congregation. Probably about 70% of the current parishoners are black. As to membership numbers, I think they're down across the board, which is skewing the proportions. There's also some shifting. I was raised in the Assemblies of God, left the church at 30, and came back 15 years later, to the Episcopal church. I am not the only person I know who's had a similar path. Also regarding numbers- the health of a parish isn't necessarily measured by bums in pews. We (my parish in particular, and other ECUSA parishes I am close to) are trying to focus on doing the work- feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc- regardless of whether they sign up with us. Love God, love your neighbor, and are Rabbi Hillel said, 'the rest is commentary'.
My wife grew up Lutheran and has always argued with that she grew up Evangelical. It was in the name they were Evangelical. It means something now. Anyway she’d be someone that would been a mainline church goer claiming evangelical status in those polls. I think the biggest thing is people don’t know what the terms mean.
I identify as a born again Christian .For i was born again when God became reality for me .When the realm of the Spirit came into my life and i knew for a fact that God was real THAT WAS MY BORN AGAIN EXPERIENCE
We don't use the term mainline, in this context, in the UK. We mostly go by branch name, in my experience, i.e. Anglican, Catholic, Dissenting, etc... The term Protestant is used, though I don't know how widely. Evangelical, on the other hand, is a term that is quite common in some denominations.
I see a lot of deconstructing people on tik tok who are theologically modern and politically liberal but are still evangelicals and have never set foot in a mainline church. using the terms interchangeably with politics has caused some issues
My position on Tomatoes is that Oranges are vegetables. Vegetable is a culinary term for all edible parts of plants. Fruit is a non culinary term for all mature ovaries of plants. The tomato like fruit of a potato plant is not a vegetable. Rhubarb is a vegetable not a fruit.
I’m and ex-evangelical, probably around 75% of the kids I grew up with have left our conservative evangelical churches because of social and increasingly political issues. A large chunk of those remaining left when Qanon became a thing recently. I’d interpret a lot of this data as people who while still identifying a Christian have kind of become sort of churchless. I personally ended up joining the UMC and I’m curious to see in the coming years what ends up happening to these sort of more moderately liberal Christians who kinda don’t fit into the American evangelical tradition but outside of a few nerds like me aren’t going to be interested in the distinctive of Wesleyan theology like I am.
Self identification in response to a poll is very poorly correlated with actual membership. It's sheer fantasy to say that thus marks some sort of resurgence.
I do not understand anything about terminology so if I were to ask if I identify as "born-again" or "evangelical" I would not know what to say. I am a Christian who goes to a bible church. I suppose non-denominational is the only title I would apply, but I have a conservative theology so I would probably be mistakenly put as "mainline" just because I don't label myself under any category
I grew up Missouri Synod Lutheran, and absolutely none of us would find more in common with a Baptist than a literal fellow Lutheran who happens to be ELCA. I literally can’t see an argument for any type of Lutheran being “Evangelical,” as Pew uses it.
Perhaps the divide is more on the Liberal vs Conservative theological Churches stand than on eventual Church age or solid social influence on the society. Being old line doesn't translate on being Liberal now and being a new Church doesn't translate as being conservative.
I wonder if the proportionally larger decline in evangelical Protestants is due to them switching to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In other words, a reunification of conservative theology.
Yes to Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God, Wesleyan, Bible Fellowship. Those denominations are evangelical. There are both evangelical and mainline Mennonite denominations.
As a Oneness Pentecostal I have never liked these categories either, and 40 years ago calling Pentecostals of any background Evangelical would have hotly disputed.
If a method of grouping churches/Churches leads to methodologically incoherent results (as seems to be happening) - why not change the method ? That might lead to interesting results; but that might be no bad thing. And it might even be more illuminating than the present set means categorising the various types of Christianity.
Main line is any Christianity that is not Evangelical or "Historically black" which is a necessary delineation because it is significant to the results since most of them are Democratic.
