The first is this: If we were to diagram where American evangelicals coalesce around the issues I’ve just listed, the collective result would look a lot like a new (and newly important) tribal division in US politics.
Continued below.
Is Evangelicalism Due for a Hundred-Year Schism?
Here is a related key to divisions forming:
The 6 Categories
As I have surveyed the evangelical landscape and discussed with pastors all around the country, evangelicalism seems to be fracturing into at least 6 different subgroups. Three of those groups (#s1-3) still have at least some connectivity to evangelicalism and the other three have cut ties (#s 4-6):
- Neo-Fundamentalist Evangelical– Neo-fundamentalists are those who have deep concerns about both political and theological liberalism. There is some overlap and co-belligerency with Christian Nationalism (a syncretism of right wing nationalism and Christianity) but neo-fundamentalists do so with more theological vocabulary and rationality. Concerning threats within the church, they have deep worries with the church’s drift towards liberalism and the ways secular ideologies are finding homes in the church. Outside the church, they are concerned by the culture’s increasing hostility to Christianity, most prominently from mass media, social media, and the government.
- Mainstream Evangelical – Historically this term has been Protestants who hold to the Bebbington Quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. The emphasis for this group is on the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Concerning threats within the church, they share some concern for the secular right’s influence on Christinaity, including the destructive pull of Christian Nationalism, but are far more concerned by the secular left’s influence and the desire to assimilate since the world still remains so hostile. Outside the church, they are likely uncomfortable with the rhetoric Trump and other conservatives use but view this direction as the lesser of two evils.
- Neo-Evangelical – People who would see themselves as “global evangelicals” and are doctrinally “Evangelicals” (w/ some philosophy of ministry differences) but no longer use the term “evangelical” in some circumstances in the American context as the term as an identifier has evolved to be more political than theological. Within the church, they are highly concerned by conservative Christianity’s acceptance of Trump and failure to engage on topics of race and sexuality in helpful ways, but they have not totally abandoned evangelical identification and likely still labor in churches with the broadest spectrum of these groups. Outside of the church, this group feels largely homeless in today’s world. There is equal concern, or slightly more either way depending on the person, at the threat the left and the right pose to Christians seeking to live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness.
- Post-Evangelical – People who have fully left evangelicalism from a self-identification standpoint and reject the “evangelical” label yet are still churched and likely still agree with the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed. They are more deconstructed than neo-evangelicals and they are more vocal in their critiques of 1s and 2s than 3s would be. Some remain firmly in Protestant circles and others have crossed over to mainline, catholic, or orthodox traditions while still holding to the basic creeds. Concerning threats within the church, they are focused on abuse, corruption, hypocrisy, Christian nationalism, and the secular right. Outside the church, they are primarily concerned with the matters of injustice, inequity, the secular right, and to a lesser extent the radical secular left. Many 4s are 4s also because their experiences with predominantly white evangelicalism have been so difficult and strained that physical distance seemed to be the only conclusion.
- Note – there is likely a halfway point between 4 and 5 known as ex-vangelicals that don’t neatly fit either 4 or 5. This group is difficult to parse as the meaning that this group has taken on has evolved even this year. We did not want to exclude the group from this typology but given the evolving nature were hesitant to pin it down too precisely at this juncture. Some of these folks have actually dechurched, some have deconverted, yet some remain in the faith but are quite vocal on their critiques of the movement. In time this category might evolve and/or swallow up category 5 below or it might fizzle like other labels.
- Dechurched (but with some Jesus) – People who have left the church but still hold to at least some orthodox Christian beliefs.
- Dechurched and Deconverted – People who have left the church and are completely deconverted with no vestigial Christian beliefs.
Some of these terms have been used in the past with different definitions. We are trying to stay close to the commonly understood meanings of both Christian Nationalist and ex-vangelical as they are presently understood. However, regarding Neo-Evangelical and Post-Evangelical we are diverging from some of the other past uses of these terms. Post-Evangelical was a term sometimes used during the emergent church movement and we are not using it in this sense. Neo-Evangelical is sometimes used to describe folks whom we have categorized as 4s and 5s here and we are not using the term in that sense.
It should also be noted that there are many folks who exist part way between two categories. There are those who are 0.5s whose commitment to nationalistic identity is so grave and syncretistic that they are no longer in the faith. There are 1.5s who can’t fully commit to neo-fundamentalism or Christian Nationalism. There are 2.5s who draw equal inspiration from both mainstream evangelicalism and neo-evangelicalism. There are 3.5s who likely strongly agree with the critiques levied by 4s but think the tactics of 3s are more wise. There are some 4.5s who would still subscribe to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds but fully dechurched for a wide variety of reasons. Hence, these categories should be seen as a bit fluid with permeability between them especially while we are in this season of self-sorting.
The Fault Lines
Over the last few decades and especially the last five years these groups have been increasingly becoming more clear. For some decades old exhaustion with the Culture Wars strategy disenfranchised them. For some five to six years of dissonance with how fellow congregants processed Trump, Mike Brown, and Trayvon Martin created separation. Finally for others the separation wasn’t palpable until 2020-2021 when divergence was revealed as to how people processed COVID, masks, the losses of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Trump’s re-election campaign, and January 6th.
As I’ve talked with pastors about this paradigm, 1s and 4s have largely already opted out of worshiping in the same churches anymore (with the exception of a few megachurch environments). This leaves the primary points of real world internal church tension being between
1s vs. 3s and
2s vs. 4s.
1s vs. 3s
Neo-Fundamentalist Evangelicals (1s) think that 3s have a compromised Gospel that has imported worldly ideas of social justice into the church and are in danger of apostasy as a result. These things come to a head primarily on the topics of race and politics. 1s cannot fathom that 3s might not have voted for the “pro-life” Trump and elected to abstain, vote third party, or vote for Biden. 1s struggle to understand that evangelicals would be activists on anything except abortion.
Many neo-evangelicals (3s) struggle with what they would view as ethical compromise in voting for someone with the moral track record of Donald Trump and resent the pressure from 1s to do so. 3s also struggle with the 1s view that we live in a post-racial colorblind society and there aren’t lingering effects of the awful legacy of chattel slavery and Jim Crow systems of racial oppression and white dominance. 3s struggle with the idea that 1s see ongoing positive historical legacy of the societal benefits conferred by our Constitution but that 1s see no continuation of a negative historical legacy of the much more recent harm inflicted by slavery and Jim Crow. 3s struggle with the close proximity of 1s political and national identity to their Christian identity.
The upshot of these things means significant philosophy of ministry differences in how to contextualize the Gospel in this cultural moment. Disagreements over mercy, justice, strategies, tactics, affect, and culture are not easily bridged. In many instances these differences will be fatal.
2s vs. 4s.
Mainstream evangelicals (2s) sometimes have a hard time understanding the core concerns of post-evangelicals (4s). There is misalignment between the two groups as to the extent of hypocrisy, racism, political entanglements, and abuse. Some of these differences arise from diverging experiences between the two groups. Anecdotally it seems like many post-evangelicals have experienced church hurt and potentially first hand or second hand trauma.
Post-evangelicals(4s) feel that mainstream evangelicals (2s) form a kind of establishment that is very resistant to reform or change. I have observed among 4s immense frustration due to their perception that mainstream evangelicals are silent, inactive, or unwilling to see problems obvious to 4s.
The upshot of these things means that 2s and 4s will increasingly struggle to occupy the same churches. There are significant disagreements about whether problems exist, the extent of those problems, and what things need to be done to address those matters.
What are the Implications For the Future of Evangelicalism?
If 2016 was an X-ray, then 2020-2021 is a 3D MRI. What was previously invisible is now largely plain for all to see. Imagine for a moment that every local church is a rubber band. If you have ever had one of those multi-packs of rubber bands there are different diameters, widths, and elastic qualities. The bottom line is that the rubber bands of local churches, ministries, and parachurch organizations are now less elastic. This means the overall tension tolerable before the band breaks has been reduced.
How much elasticity can a church handle now?
As I talk with other pastors around the country what we are seeing is that a church can handle two adjacent subgroups. Some churches are a little more elastic and some a little less elastic but two adjacent subgroups seems to be the amount of tension tolerable before it becomes fatal. If this is true, then three local church paradigms will eventually take form:
- Type A Church – a church comprised almost entirely of 1s and 2s
- Type B Church – a church comprised almost entirely of 2s and 3s
- Type C Church – a church comprised almost entirely of 3s and 4s
Type A Church will continue to carry the torch of the culture wars into the 21st century. They will continue the same primary mode of cultural engagement through political activism through the Republican Party. They will see
Type B & C churches as being compromised by political and theological liberalism.
Type B Church will chart a course that is not as culture war centric. While still being politically involved – their primary mode of cultural engagement will be interpersonal in nature. These churches will seek to make disciples and be neighborly.
Type B churches would like to avoid the perceived political syncretism and cultural withdrawal of
Type A Church and the perceived overly deconstructed posture of
Type C Church.
Type C Church will seek to recover the public witness of the church by critiquing abuse, hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and misconduct. Their primary mode will be calling the church to ethical fidelity, justice, and empathy towards the lost, marginalized, oppressed, or disinherited.
Type C Church would like to avoid the perceived fundamentalism, cultural isolation, and tacit support of oppressive structures or systems of
Type A Churches and the perceived silence of
Type B Churches on certain justice or ethical matters
The above is by Michael Graham as found in
The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism - Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture
