Over the past several decades, American evangelicalism has moved away from the religious labels, symbols, and buildings that used to define church.
Many newer churches don’t contain stained glass, crosses, or traditional sanctuary setups. They tend to adopt contemporary names, leaving out denominational labels or other religious language. Along with those shifts, churchgoers have changed the way they speak about their faith; think of phrases like “It’s is not a religion; it’s a relationship.”
These trends have had a real impact on how younger people understand their religious identity. Evangelical Protestants have been debating for years over the definition and usefulness of the “evangelical” label. Now, it appears “Protestant” may be losing its place too.
New research shows that a significant portion of Americans no longer attach to the word “Protestant” the way older Americans have for generations—a finding that has implications for those who study and measure religious affiliation as well as for church communities themselves.
The insight comes thanks to a weekly survey called the Nationscape, which Democracy Fund began in mid-2019 and stands as the largest publicly available survey dataset in history, with nearly a half million people surveyed.
When asking about religion, survey administrators gave respondents the option to identify as Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox, or Christian, among other options for other faiths. It’s the “Christian” response that makes a difference. Surveys typically make people specify a tradition within Christianity. But when given the option to not choose the “Protestant” label, many who attend Protestant churches don’t.
The younger a person is, the more likely they are to prefer Christian over Protestant. Among 20-year-olds, 22 percent indicated that they were Christians, while 8 percent said that they were Protestants. At 40, 25 percent said Christian, and 11 percent chose Protestant. Around age 55, people are just as likely to say Protestant as Christian.
The oldest Americans clearly still identify as Protestant. About a third of 70-year-olds said that they are Protestants, with just 10 percent indicating that they are Christians.
The label “Catholic” seems to be less impacted by age; 18 percent of young folks say they are Catholic compared to 25 percent of folks 75 and older.
While it can be problematic to seek out a causal link for survey findings around religious identity, the shift corresponds to the recent history of Protestant Christianity. The rise of nondenominational Christianity and the decline of the mainline Protestantism began in the 1980s. People who are in their 50s or younger grew up in a world where Protestant terminology was falling out of favor.
How did Christian organizations respond to two of the world’s most severe disasters?
Relief organizations were glad to see 1985 come to an end. Two of history’s most devastating disasters came less than two months apart—earthquakes in Mexico City in September and a volcanic eruption in Colombia in November. More than 30,000 people died in those two disasters.
This one-two punch on the heels of mass famine in Africa tested the resiliency of the disaster-relief community. Private organizations, denominational agencies, and national governments responded. But in many cases the collective response lacked coordination. The perennial problems of large-scale relief efforts surfaced, including duplication of services and the accompanying waste of material and human resources.
Within a week of the Mexico City earthquakes, for example, Mexico’s capital was inundated with supplies that could not be used. “We saw plane after plane unloading what was, literally, junk,” said Larry Glass, director of national health programs for MAP International, a Christian global health agency.
Likewise, following the eruption of the Nevada del Ruiz volcano in Colombia, individuals and organizations sent so many clothes the government made a formal request that no more be sent. “Organizations feel an obligation to respond because their donors expect them to respond,” Glass said, “even if it’s not needed.”
This is not to say that all of Colombia’s needs have been met. An overabundance of short-term emergency supplies is often followed by a scarcity of resources needed for long-term rehabilitation. The rebuilding does not begin in earnest until well after the disaster has ceased grabbing headlines and donor interest has waned.
From a public relations standpoint, however, it is important to take action while a disaster is in the news. Thus, says Stanley Mitton, director of international disaster response for Church World Service, “there is the temptation to get something on the plane and to [publicize] … it in a news release.”
Sometimes getting something on a plane quickly is exactly what is needed. MAP, for example, rushed 0,000 worth of antibiotics into Colombia. (The drugs were not available in the country.) But in most cases donors and organizations help best by providing financial support.
Explains World Concern spokesman Craig Shuck: “Not only is it less expensive to purchase supplies in the country where the disaster has occurred, but it helps stimulate that country’s economy.” Mitton notes, however, that some donors are not content simply to give money. “People like to visualize something tangible flying into the disaster-stricken area.”
The mere climate of a disaster-stricken area works against reasoned judgment and contributes to inefficiency. “In those first few days, people are in a panic,” says World Vision’s Brian Bird. “They may not know what they need. So they say, ‘Give us anything.” But Bird says the biggest reason services are duplicated is lack of coordination among relief organizations—due largely to poor communication.
Unique Challenges
Effective communication is important because each disaster brings its own set of problems. Needs range from clean water to heavy machinery. In some countries, governments monitor relief operations more heavily than in others. Without reliable contacts in a stricken area, a relief effort can be doomed. When they do not have a staff person at the site of the disaster, it is standard procedure for organizations that can afford it to fly somebody in to assess needs and determine how to meet them.
Some maintain that this in itself is wasteful, that organizations should use information already available. But reports coming out of a country are often contradictory. Church World Service got word on November 19, six days after the Colombia earthquake, that foreign medical personnel, tents, blankets, and food were not needed. On November 25, however, World Vision sent a shipment of blankets, tents, and cooking supplies.
Bird explained that World Vision had seven projects in and around Armero, including a child-care project where 156 people were killed. He said that other organizations may have had enough supplies for their relief projects, but that World Vision’s shipments were a direct response to requests from people it knew, including its own staff.
The New York Times reported on November 24 that some volunteer workers said the Colombian government had mishandled the rescue operation. They told of shortages of manpower, medicines, stretchers, and other basic supplies the government allegedly had said it did not need. In the midst of conflicting information, relief organizations operate on reports from their own sources.
Coordinated Efforts
Organizations operate independently to preserve their distinct philosophies of ministry. For example, World Relief, the relief arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, gives evangelism a high priority, and thus works within evangelical church structures wherever possible. “A lot of people in Colombia have come to know the Lord through our efforts,” says Jim Johnson, a World Relief official who oversees donor development. “You just won’t get that with secular organizations.”
In contrast, the goals of Church World Service are not as directly tied to evangelism. “We make it clear that we are the church,” says Mitton, “and we show witness by helping, but we don’t try to convert.”
More and more, however, the disaster-relief community is seeing the merits of a coordinated effort. Evangelical relief experts regard the formation of InterAction in 1984 as a major step forward. InterAction is an umbrella group for private relief organizations, including major evangelical organizations. During a disaster, it serves as a clearinghouse for information not only on what is needed, but also on what is already being done.
In addition, the formation of the Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations (AERDO) has enhanced communication and cooperation among evangelical groups. Not long after the disaster in Colombia, Food for the Hungry told World Vision it had ,000 worth of antibiotics, but no way to get the medicine to Colombia. The antibiotics ended up on a World Vision shipment.
Food for the Hungry president Tetsunao Yamamori says such exchanges have become standard operating procedure among evangelical agencies. “AERDO has given relief leaders a platform to meet and talk about common problems,” he said. “This has contributed to smoother working relationships.”
Communication has also helped eliminate competition among relief agencies. Says World Relief’s Johnson, “People think we’re constantly competing against each other for funds. That’s blarney. There’s just too much suffering and death in the world for us to be playing those kinds of games.”
Johnson acknowledges there is room for improvement in the coordinating of relief efforts both within and outside the evangelical community. But, he says, “in most of the disasters I’ve seen, the problem has not been overlap. The problem has been we’ve needed ten times more.”
RANDY FRAME
However, race is also a factor in the gap between Protestants and Christians. Among younger Americans, ages 18 to 45, African Americans have the highest levels of religiosity and were more likely than other racial groups to prefer Christian to Protestant. Thirty-eight percent of Black respondents said they were Christians, compared to 10 percent who said Protestant.
Younger Hispanics are also nearly four times more likely to choose the Christian option over Protestant. The gap is smaller among white respondents (24% versus 11%) and those who identify as Asian (13% versus 7%).
In a new paper published last month at the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, I attempted to find other factors around why people hold onto Protestant identity or prefer the Christian label.
The data indicates that those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as Protestants, but even among younger people with a graduate degree, most prefer Christian over Protestant.
While the Nationscape survey does not include many questions related specifically to religion, it does ask respondents about politics. There is some evidence that younger people who identify as Protestants are more likely to say that they are Democrats than those who say that they are Christians. For instance, 27 percent of white Protestants were Democrats, compared to 20 percent of white Christians. That gap also appears for Black and Hispanic respondents as well.
This may be because churches in the mainline tradition such as United Methodists and Episcopalians, which are more likely to still use Protestant as a label in sermons and literature, tend to be more politically moderate.
In a review of my bookJohnny Come Home, the reviewer observed that, “The only character in the novel who is holy is … God.”He was right. No human character can be portrayed with any accuracy unless he or she is painted warts and all. A human being without sin is as rare as an incarnate deity. And that the greatest of saints continue to struggle with sin long after their conversions is axiomatic (except to the most militant perfectionists).
The obvious fact that we all sin can, of course, create an atmosphere of false security among us. Sin being commonplace, we can passively accept the idea that we ought not to be too bothered by it lest we surrender our mental health to a self-deprecating neurosis. Yet in our desire to console ourselves and maintain a good self-image, we may push to the back burner the mandate of God: “Be ye holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16; cf. Lev. 11:44–45).
A Sure And Certain Remedy
Evangelical Christians stress the fact that justification is by faith alone and that righteousness is found in Christ alone.
Though these assertions are true, it is equally true that the faith that justifies us brings forth fruit in our lives. The slogan of the Reformation was that we are justified by faith alone; but not by a faith that is alone. The moment true faith is present in the heart of the believer, the process of sanctification begins; the Christian is being conformed to the image of Christ. We are becoming holy. And if we are not becoming holy, then Christ is not in us and our profession of faith is empty.
Martin Luther gave the following analogy: When we are justified it is as though a doctor had just administered a sure and certain remedy for a fatal disease. Though the patient would still endure a temporary struggle with the residual effects of the illness, the outcome would no longer be in doubt. The physician pronounces the patient cured even though a rehabilitation process must still be carried out.
So it is with our justification. In Christ God pronounces us just by the imputation of the merits of Christ. Along with that declaration God administers something to us—his Holy Spirit—which begins immediately to bring us to holy living.
Unholy Pursuits Of Holiness
The New Testament contains a ringing paradox with respect to sanctification. The Bible says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12b–13). Notice that there are two agents working here. We are called to work, and God promises to work as well. To be sure, our initial regeneration is accomplished by God alone, but our sanctification involves mutual activity.
The two great heresies that have plagued the church on this matter for centuries are the heresies of activism and quietism. These twin distortions are guilty of eliminating one or the other poles of the paradox. In activism, God’s working is swallowed up by human self-righteousness. In quietism, the human struggle is swallowed up by an automatic divine process.
Activism is the creed of the self-righteous person. He has no need of divine assistance to achieve perfection. Grace is held in contempt, a remedy needed only by weak people. The activist can lift himself up by his own bootstraps. His confidence is in himself and his own moral ability. Perhaps the most arrogant statement the activist can make is: “I don’t need Christ.”
The quietist, on the other hand, insults the Holy Spirit by insisting that God is totally responsible for his progress or lack of it. If the quietist still sins, the unspoken assumption is that God has been lacking in his work. The creed of the quietist is, “Let go and let God.” No struggle is necessary; no resistance to temptation is required. It is God’s job, from beginning to end.
God calls us to the pursuit of holiness. The pursuit is to be undertaken with strength and resolution. We are to resist unto blood. To wrestle with powers. To pummel our bodies, rejoicing in the certainty that the Holy Spirit is within us—helping, disposing, convicting, and encouraging.
To the end that we may be holy.
I’m a pastor and an academic, and the findings from the Nationscape survey are troubling from both perspectives. Younger Americans don’t seem to have much familiarity with the term Protestant. If surveys continue to ask about Protestant identity—as most still do—and the average American doesn’t understand that distinction, then social scientists run the very real risk of mismeasuring religion.
Fortunately, the overall composition of religion in the Nationscape survey does not look substantively different from other surveys that only include the Protestant option. If Protestants are combined with Christians in the survey, their overall composition doesn’t differ significantly from Protestants in other data. But that may not always be the case.
From a social science standpoint, how people identify (or not) with a religious tradition is incredibly important. One of the key questions that human beings face is “Who am I? And who are people like me?” Religion is one of the ways in which Americans help sort themselves into social space. The Protestant identity helps Baptists, Methodists, and Episcopalians know that they share a great deal of commonality. When those labels begin to fade, there are fewer social signposts to aid people in finding like-minded people.
For churches, a bigger issue may be that many folks sitting the pews may not have any clue about their church’s denominational affiliation or its connection to larger church history. That kind of religious literacy—an understanding of how the basic precepts of their tradition differs from other Christians—can be helpful for understanding their Catholic, Mormon, and Orthodox neighbors, but also for a deeper understanding of the distinctives of their own faith as Protestants.
Embracing a label-less approach to spirituality seems to be the current trend, but as this data indicates, it is having very real impacts on how Americans understand their place in the religious world.
Ryan Burge is an assistant professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University. His research appears on the site Religion in Public, and he tweets at @ryanburge.
