Abstract
How do members of the evangelical religious tradition choose to identify themselves, and how do they define terms such as “evangelical” or “born-again?” Extant scholarship traditionally utilizes quantitative data in order to isolate the pitfalls associated with this conflation. In order to validate these quantitative measures and to better understand how adherents of the evangelical religious tradition conceptualize these identities, I leverage 63 face-to-face interviews conducted with white evangelicals. I find that “evangelical” is not commonly used among adherents, who view the term as esoteric and ill-defined. Democrats specifically recoil against the term due to its perceived conservative nature; however, some Republicans also eschew identifying as such, viewing it in some cases as too liberal or contaminated by the media. I also find that the term “born-again” is much more commonly used, regardless of the respondent’s partisanship. This work reveals the continuing politicization of “evangelical” and the endogeneity of religious orientations to politics.
“No [I would not identify as an evangelical], because I don’t necessarily like all those labels because there’s a million of ‘em and what it means for one person might not mean the same thing for another person.” – Respondent #9, Sabrina
Sabrina has attended a congregation that is a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church. She has attended the church for over 20 years and has been on staff for almost a decade. She indicates that she considers herself to have been “born-again,” by which she means to say that she has had a personal religious conversion experience that she relates to Jesus Christ. Politically, she identifies as a Republican and theologically, she affirms traditional orthodox evangelical beliefs such as believing that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the only acceptable atonement for her sin. Despite this evidence suggesting she would identify as an evangelical, Sabrina elects not to. Why?
The evangelical identity has been poorly defined throughout history, with debates raging about who is and is not an evangelical, how to measure this group, and whether or not the identity is a religious one or a political one (Kellstedt et al., 1996; Lifeway Research, 2015; Patrikios, 2013; Wilcox et al., 1993). Much of the literature has focused on the outside perceptions of evangelicals and how they are perceived by political, religious, and social outgroups as well as the causal linkage between identifying as an evangelical and a Republican (Campbell et al., 2018; Margolis, 2018). However, little scholarship has ascertained how Evangelical Protestants themselves conceptualize the term and how they choose to identify.
In order to answer these questions, I take an innovative approach, heeding the advice of Cramer (2012) to “more seriously listen to the public.” While researchers have documented the backlash against evangelicalism and posited various explanations for this (Braunstein, 2021; Campbell, 2020), few studies have relied on evangelicals, in their own words, relaying how they conceptualize and identify with these multifaceted and at times, ill-defined identities. Furthermore, there is little qualitative validation of the measures that scholars traditionally use to measure American religion and scholars have called attention to how poor survey data can color our understanding of the American religious landscape (Wuthnow, 2015). This research endeavors to fill this gap.
To that end, I leverage 63 face-to-face interviews with evangelicals from across northern Indiana and southern Michigan. I ask respondents directly how they view and conceptualize these identities. I find that neither Republicans nor Democrats much care to identify as evangelical, although Republicans are much more likely to identify as such. I also find that the identities are nebulous and without clear definitions in the minds of many respondents. I distill three findings.
First, the qualitative methodological approach uncovers findings that quantitative data would simply be unable to. For example, Naomi below, an orthodox born-again Christian who steadfastly supports the Republican Party, refuses to identify as evangelical because she views it as “too woke.” Conversely, Alper, a Democrat, says that while he doesn’t accept the “whole culture, political, entertainment complex” of evangelicalism, he does identify as such. These type of insights into the minds of evangelicals cannot be accomplished with a survey, especially given that open text box questions often yield poor results (LaDonna et al., 2018; Miller & Lambert, 2014). It also reveals that the ways in which members of the religious tradition conceptualize their identities is a complicated matter that would is not always intuitive.
Second, I reveal that there are partisan differences when it comes to identification as an evangelical as Republicans are three times as likely to identify as such than Democrats. However, when it comes to identifying as born-again, there are not partisan differences as almost all respondents in the study identify as born-again. While individuals identifying as “born-again” has long outpaced those who identify as “evangelical” (Smidt, 2019), the contribution here is that the term “born-again” does not appear to have become as politically contaminated, if contaminated at all at least in the minds of evangelicals, as “evangelical” has. I also find that identifying as born-again is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, to identifying as evangelical.
Third, these findings have implications for the measurement of religion in the United States. White evangelicals represent one of the nation’s most powerful, consolidated, and largest blocs of voters. But if the measures used to study this group are inherently flawed, it renders subsequent analysis bias, skewed, or even unsound. I find that a sizable number on both sides of the political aisle are hesitant to use the terms, and many opt just to identify as “Christians.”
What Exactly is an Evangelical?
There continues to be a debate as to what “being an evangelical” really means. The term “evangelical” has long been one that is poorly defined, context-dependent, and perhaps esoteric for average American, better suited for academic classrooms and seminary debates than a causal discussion of faith at the kitchen table or in Sunday School. And of course, politics has only complicated matters as many in the mass public associate “Evangelical” with “Republican” (Campbell et al., 2011; Patrikios, 2013) and the evidence has shown that political identities (e.g., Democrat) can now influence religious identities (e.g., secular) (Campbell et al., 2020).
Beyond being poorly described in public discourse, scholars of religion, history, and politics have also struggled to clearly define the term. Marsden (1984) referred to this “conceptual challenge” and quipped that “evangelicalism indeed appears as disorganized as a kaleidoscope” which may lead “one might wonder why evangelicalism is ever regarded as a unified entity at all.” Kidd (2019, p. 2) best encapsulates this ambiguity: “Evangelical is a scholarly and journalistic term that doesn’t resonate with many laypeople, including those who do appear to be evangelicals according to standard definitions. Trying to pin down evangelicals can be maddening: some Christians who seem to evangelicals do not describe themselves as such. Others (especially whites) who don’t necessarily hold evangelicals beliefs or regularly attend church nonetheless tell pollsters that they are evangelicals.”
Traditionally, evangelicalism has been thought of as a group who people who adhere to a certain set of beliefs and some hold that evangelicals are defined by their beliefs and should be measured as such (Hunter, 1991; Lifeway Research, 2015). This approach assumes that religion is primarily a cognitive phenomenon, occurring in the mind. For example, one may have varying attitudes towards heaven and hell, salvation, and so on that then shape how one views the political world. As Monsma (2017) notes, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the organization whose genesis was to break from fundamentalist Christians and create their own religious sect, has formally adopted a conceptualization of evangelicalism based on beliefs. Leith Anderson, who served as the President of the NAE for over a decade, said when announcing this decision that “evangelicals are people of faith and should be defined by their beliefs.” Those who have spilt a considerable among of ink endeavoring to solve this puzzle have traditionally focused on evangelicalism as a faith tradition with adherents who affirm traditional Christian orthodoxy. David Bebbington in his seminal 1989 work Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, created what has subsequently been called the “Bebbington Quadrilateral.” It distills evangelical theology down into four core pillars: 1) Conversionism - The belief that lives need to be changed. 2) Activism - The expression of the gospel in effort. 3) Biblicism - A particular regard for the Bible. 4) Crucicentrism - A stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Together these four characteristics, Bebbington argued, form “a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of evangelicalism” (Bebbington, 1989, p. 3). Lifeway Research takes an approach built out of these belief items, asking respondents four questions and considering only those who “strongly agree” to these four suppositions as evangelicals: Belief Item #1: The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe. Belief Item #2: It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior. Belief Item #3: Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin. Belief Item #4: Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.
Despite this approach once gaining significant traction in the literature (Layman, 1997), it has fallen out of favor as many scholars have decided to conceptualize evangelicalism as a religious tradition (Kellstedt et al., 1996; Steensland et al., 2000). This approach places the focus on one’s denominational affiliation and then places respondents into broad categories ranging from “Not Religious” to “Evangelical Protestant.” It assumes a sociological perspective, noting that the social networks forged within one’s religious community will work to shape political attitudes and behavior (Berelson et al., 1954). Although trading off precision for parsimony, measurement of religion in this manner, colloquially referred to as RELTRAD, has proven to be an effective tool for researchers and has stood the test of time (Shelton, 2018; Smidt, 2019).
The final strategy focuses on self-identification as either born-again, evangelical, or both (Hackett & Lindsay, 2008), which is the primary focus of this paper. The exact language varies as some surveys focus on the religious experience (ANES) while some ask respondents if they identify as one or the other (CES). This assumes again that religion is a psychological phenomenon and that identifying as born-again makes up an important part of one’s social identity. It has become a useful tool for researchers in that it does not require the intricate coding that RELTRAD does and can yield an accurate measurement when paired with a broad denominational question (Burge & Lewis, 2018). When respondents are asked this question, what underlies their answer? Why do they choose (or not) to identify as evangelical and/or born-again?
The Evangelical “Identity”
Social identity theory is a dominant paradigm by which scholars understand political behavior. First described by Tajfel and Turner (1979), social identity is the part of an individual’s self-concept resulting from perceived belonging to (or exclusion from) a relevant social group. Once an individual is aware that they may be a member of a social group, they begin to view the world through these identities, and in a broader way, the social groups that members form. They then engage in a process whereby they determine the relative value or social standing of a particular group and its members, a process known as “comparison” (Hogg, 2000). Individuals own this identity, defending it as one would defend their favorite sports team, television show, or hometown. Finally, members of the social group are not simply detached observers of events that affect their social group, but are participants in that group and identify with it. In short, we are placed into social groups because of our identities and affiliations, we rank those groups, and we then defend the boundaries of those groups.
One of the most important social identities is religion as it arranges the worldview of individuals; it is the “sacred canopy” by which humans structure their beliefs, ideals, and values (Berger, 1967). If one were asked to describe their identity, many would offer a religious descriptor such as “Christian” or “believer in God.” It gives meaning to one’s life and their struggle, instilling them with purpose and a promise of a better future. It also modifies our behavior politically, affecting attitudes towards salient political issues or pushing individuals to support a certain political party. Religion is one of the most integral parts of one’s social identity and it has also become a fundamental building block of one’s partisan identity.
Evangelicalism is a “strict” religious tradition (Finke & Stark, 2005; Iannaccone, 1994), typically demanding a great deal of its members such as weekly monetary giving, attendance at not just church services but Sunday school classes, and service within the church and in the community. This, in turn, strengthens that portion of one’s identity and may also enrich the social connections to other members of the group (Campbell, 2004).
Beyond its inherent religious nature, there are other characterizations of evangelicalism that have emerged in recent years, such as one that is imbued with political meaning and connotations as “religious groups, especially evangelical Christians… are clearly and strongly associated with the GOP” (Campbell et al., 2011, p. 55). While evangelicals used to differ from fundamentalists and charismatics and other Protestant sects, the rise of modernity and secularism has forged a singular evangelical identity which has allied itself with the Republican Party (Patrikios, 2013). In fact, the union has grown so pronounced that political identification as a Republican may lead to one identifying as evangelical (Campbell et al., 2018; Margolis, 2018). One of the most socially sorted groups in the United States, evangelicals, particularly those who were white, were steadfast in their support of Donald Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. So how do members of this social group choose to identify? Figure 1 uses data from the 2020 American National Elections Study to analyze how individuals across three Christian religious traditions – Evangelical Protestantism, Mainline Protestantism, and Catholicism, as determined by RELTRAD (Steensland et al., 2000) – use the terms “evangelical” and/or “born-again.”
1
Identification as Evangelical and/or Born-again by Religious Tradition.
Among white evangelicals, identification as either born-again or evangelical, or both, is quite high, with 77% of respondents indicating they identify as such. This number is quite high when compared to other religious traditions, as more than half of Mainline Protestants (58%) do not identify as born-again or evangelical. Among Catholics, despite a slight increase over time in the number of Catholics who identify as born-again (Allen, 2023; Perry and Schleifer, 2018), a staggering 83% of Catholics do not identify as either. A trend also emerges which is that very few respondents across the three traditions elect to identify as evangelical and not as born-again, suggesting some logically progression to how one might identify.
I further investigate these trends among the population of interest for this paper, white evangelicals, as Figure 2 presents identification broken down by partisan groups. Among Republican white evangelicals, only 17% of them do not identify as evangelical or born-again compared to 38% of Independents and almost half (45%) of Democrats. This of course suggests that, in the minds of Democrats, both of the words have become politicized, at least to some degree. There is little partisan difference among those who identify as evangelical, but not as born-again. Identification as Evangelical and/or Born-again by Partianship among White Evangelicals.
Thus, it stands to reason that individuals may identify as evangelical and/or born-again for a host of reasons, such as having had a religious conversion experience such as being baptized. But they may also do so for political reasons, associating the born-again identity with political conservatism or the Republican Party. Unconstrained by their church’s denomination or a set of strict orthodox beliefs, anyone for any reason can elect to say they consider themselves to be born-again or evangelical on a survey. Yet scholars are unsure why respondents choose to identify, the puzzle that this paper tackles.
Data and Methods
To assess how white evangelicals define and understand salient term such as “evangelical” and “born-again,” I leverage a dataset of 63 face-to-face interviews conducted across seven evangelical churches in the Northern Indiana-Southern Michigan region during the months of May to November 2021. 2 I varied the churches on five relevant independent variables: pastoral tenure, geographic location, denomination, racial diversity, and congregational size. More information about these variables, and why I choose to vary churches along these dimensions, can be found in Appendix C. I engaged in a three-step process to secure respondents.
Step #1: Identified Churches via the Internet
In order for respondents to be eligible for the purposes of this study, they must be white, and they must be evangelical. To ensure that they met these criteria, once I identified a church that was possibly suitable, I canvassed its website and all available media. In that this study took place after the onset of the COVID pandemic, the churches had a multitude of livestreamed services to view. Thus, I was able to quickly ascertain that the church was predominately white. 3 As for ensuring that the church was indeed evangelical, I read the doctrinal statements and denominational affiliation of the church to ensure that the church would be coded as “Evangelical Christian” according to the ANES religion codes (Steensland et al., 2000). All seven churches in the study fit these criteria.
Step #2: Emailed the Pastor for an Interview
The next step was to contact the church, which I did so by emailing the pastor and requesting an interview. All seven pastors who were contacted agreed to be interviewed. The conversation with the pastor lasted approximately 90 minutes, with the average formal interview being 45 minutes. After completing the interview, I followed up with the pastor a few days later and asked to meet with some members of the church leadership and laity. I asked for the pastor to give me a group of individuals that were representative of their church. 4 Of the 63 interviews completed, 11 were pastors employed by the church.
Step #3: Interviewed Members of the Church
The third step was to interview members of the church, which yielded a response rate of approximately 95%. I contacted the names passed along to me by the pastor and also engaged in snowball sampling beyond the list of names the pastor had given me in order to gain a better perspective of the church. The average interview time was 47.7 minutes. These questions ranged in topics from the respondent’s personal background to what their church environment was like, from their view of contemporary politics to the circumstances of their work environment. A full table of the respondents’ descriptive statistics can be found in Appendix D. In total, I interviewed 34 Democrats, 31 Republicans, 2 Independents, and 1 interviewee who identified with another party, all of whom attend churches categorized by RELTRAD as “Evangelical” and themselves identified as born-again Christians.
I restrict my analysis to white evangelicals as they are the largest racial group in evangelicalism. Furthermore, there remains a debate in the literature if it is appropriate to call African-Americans “evangelicals” given their unique and shared history of racial discrimination (Allen & Olson, 2022; Shelton & Cobb, 2018) and the meaning of the “born-again” identity and its conceptualization also fluctuates across racial groups (Wong, 2015). All interviewees attend churches that would be coded as “Evangelical Protestant” churches in RELTRAD.
Summary Statistics of Sample.
“What is Your Religion?”
After learning more about their background, I asked congregants a broad question about how they would identify themselves to a stranger. In order to personalize the question, I ask the interviewee to envision that, after our discussion, they went by the grocery store on their way home. While selecting these items from the grocery store, they strike up a conversation with a stranger, who after making small talk with them for a while, asks them what their religion is.
I ask the question in this fashion for three reasons. First, it is one of the initial questions that I ask interviewees in order to ensure that they are not primed by the rest of our conversation, one in which we dive deeper into the meaning of certain words like “Christian” and “Evangelical.” Second, I pose the question in this way to respondents in order to better understand how they would describe their faith to a stranger, perhaps even someone outside of the faith, a macro-description per se. It is a 10,000 feet view of how individuals identify themselves and conceptualize their identity. Finally, when measuring religion, the Pew Research Center asks: “What is your religion?” Thus, while the question may seem sterile, or perhaps too forthright, it is often utilized by social scientists. Americans know little about how American religion is organized, and so asking the question in this manner allows respondents to identify in their own words.
Respondents Prefer Broad, Salient Terms.
If believers themselves are not using those terms to describe themselves, it may indicate that survey items are not adequately capturing respondents’ religious identification. If one does not identify as something, even if you are by formal definition indeed that thing, then perhaps you do not indicate as such on a survey. In order to explicitly test this assertion, that if respondents who are by definition a member of a social group choose to (not) identify as such, I then asked respondents if they would identify as an evangelical, and then if they would identify as born-again.
Born-Again and Evangelical Identification
Republicans Favor Identifying as “Evangelical” While Democrats Avoid it. 6
No respondent in the sample elects to identify as an evangelical without also identifying as a born-again Christian. This suggests that there is a logical order to these identities, that identifying as born-again is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to identifying as evangelical. For many, the born-again experience is considered to be one of a few core components of what it means to be an evangelical, and identifying as born-again has its genesis from the renowned story of Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. Second, while some Democrats identify as an evangelical, surprising given its political connotations, it must be paired with a born-again identity. By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Democrats favor as just identifying as “born-again” without the evangelical label attached. Conversely, Republicans do not shy away from identifying as evangelical, with 65% of them choosing to identify in that way. To better ascertain how respondents conceptualize these identities, and why they identify as such, I detail their responses to inquiries regarding how they would identify and what their conceptualizations and definitions of these terms are. The responses are separated into the four quadrants depicted in Table 3.
Republican: Yes to Born-Again, No to Evangelical
Of the 34 white evangelicals who identified as Republican, only 12 elected to identify as born-again while simultaneously declining to identify as evangelical. They primarily do so for two reasons. First, approximately half refuse to identify as such because they are unclear what “evangelical” actually means, or what the proper definition to be, and therefore are weary to be linked to it. This lends credence to the assertation above that the term is unclear to not just the outside world, but even the social group it is proscribed to. In fact, many of these individuals would return the question to me, asking what I meant by “evangelical.” While they had some sense of what they thought it meant, they were unsure if it was correct. Ruby, who leaned back in her seat with her hands thrown up, said, frustrated, “If I’m being honest about it, I don’t know that I would say I am or not, because what does that even mean?” Dawn notes that she would “need a definition” before agreeing to herself as an evangelical. Ramona works through this uncertainty in real time:
Teddy also held these sentiments, unsure of what the word means and thus was hesitant to identify as such. I probe further to try and understand what comes to mind when he hears the word.
Ostensibly, Republicans, especially the theologically orthodox like Ramona and Teddy, should be the most likely to adhere and “own” the evangelical identity due not only to it being closely connected to their political identity, but also because it is most likely to be used in their religious circles and accurately describes their religious worldview. Yet many do not because they have no sense of what it really means. Pearl continues to build on this, saying with the same frustration as Ruby above, “We didn’t grow up as an evangelical, so that’s not a word that’s near and dear to us like it might be to somebody who grew up in that atmosphere.” This is despite the fact that all of these respondents identified as born-again, all belong to churches categorized as “evangelical” in RELTRAD, and all, when asked, affirmed orthodox evangelical theology, yet they do not identify as evangelical.
But beyond those who were simply unclear on what the term meant, another bloc of Republicans who choose to identify solely as born-again did so because of the political connotations of the term, namely that they view the identity as lost or “woke.” These individuals view evangelicals as too concerned with matters such as social justice and equality, endeavors they view as antithetical to the teachings of the Bible. Below are respondents detailing this in their own words:
This is a surprising viewpoint given the close association in the public mind, and in empirical reality, between evangelicalism and conservatism (Campbell et al., 2011; Mathew, 2018; Patrikios, 2013). Why do some interviewees who attend conservative, evangelical churches view the label as being too liberal when white evangelicals are one of the most socially sorted groups in the United States, lined up behind the Republican Party? One potential explanation is that some prominent evangelical elites, such as Rick Warren, author of perhaps the most read evangelical book of the 21st Century, A Purpose Driven Life, Russell Moore, a prominent figure in the Southern Baptist Convention, and Beth Moore, president of Living Proof Ministry, all denounced Donald Trump. The backlash against both Russell Moore and Beth Moore was so fierce that they both were forced out of their denominations due to the political backlash while Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church was recently expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention for ordaining women despite the fact they had done so for years. Thus, it might be that as prominent evangelical elites voice concerns over racial disparities in the United States and opposition to some of Donald Trump’s policies, such as the ban on Muslims entering the country, individuals connect that those positions, which they disagree with, to the evangelical identity. Naomi briefly opines on this:
It could also be that these respondents are just simply unaware, or perhaps put more acerbically, ignorant of what these various words mean. Nonetheless, the result is the same: these responses by Republicans who wish only to identify as born-again highlights a peril of relying on self-identification. For some, the word “evangelical” is esoteric, one that is not used in their daily lives but only batted around in the media, by academics, and perhaps some religious leaders, many of whom they disagree with. In their minds, it is nebulous, unclear, and poorly defined. They thus avoid it, not denying that perhaps they are “technically” an evangelical, but rather unwilling to be identified as something that they are unsure of its definition. But beyond that, for some, the story is more complex, negatively recoiling against the identity because they perceive it to be too concerned with social justice, displaying the perils of relying solely on self-identification.
By all accounts, Naomi, Daniel, and Pearl are evangelicals, especially for the purposes of social science research: they attend churches that are squarely within the evangelical camp (evangelical Free Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention), coded as such by RELTRAD, they all identify as born-again Christians, and all three affirm orthodox evangelical theology. But on a survey instrument, they would select “no” when asked if they identify as evangelical and would potentially do so if asked a double-barreled question asking them if they were born-again or evangelical. The implications of this are that quantitively analysis, which rely heavily on these self-identification questions, may be internally flawed, or at a minimum, not capturing the whole picture.
Democratic: Yes to Born-Again, No to Evangelical
The majority of interviewees who identify as Democrats consider themselves to be born-again, but not evangelical. They are most often found in more progressive congregations whose leadership will not endorse the term for fear it conveys a political message. Pastor Glen who leads the only politically heterogenous church in the study, details his reservations about the union between the Republican Party and evangelicalism, and then Marty, a parishioner in his congregation, states this bloc’s hesitations most clearly:
This is unsurprising given the connections between their partisan out-group (i.e., Republicans) and “evangelical” Christians. But beyond their unwillingness to use the term for primarily political reasons, there is also another emergent pattern among these respondents: this eschewing of the evangelical label is a relatively recent phenomenon, one that has been driven by politics, most specifically the Trump era. Many would have considered themselves to be evangelicals just a short time ago.
These interview excerpts provide substantial evidence that Democrats who identify as just born-again once identified as evangelical and what individuals once felt the identity conveyed has changed overtime due to its political transformation. While much of the literature has focused on how the exodus from organized religion to secularism has been driven by conservative politics (Braunstein, 2022; Campbell et al., 2020; Hout & Fischer, 2014), less research has examined how individuals within religion traditions sort themselves. In this case, all but Kayla and Pastor Jamal attend progressive churches that are politically homogenous with the majority being Democrats. In this way, they have sorted, not out of their religious tradition, but out of more conservative evangelical denominations and into more progressive ones. This also identifies the commitment of these respondents to their faith as they are unwilling to move out of evangelicalism despite it conflicting with their partisan identity and that they might be accused of being guilty by association.
Of course, it is unclear if respondents sorted into these churches and then dropped the label, or were moving away from evangelicalism and thus joined, but almost all attribute this shift to political and the changing landscape. They view the Republican Party as harsher and more dogmatic when it comes to their rhetoric, as Rosemary says, “without the evangelicals, they [the Republican Party] would be nothing.” The reaction against evangelicalism is not just on partisan grounds as these respondents also view it in conflict with their religious identity as born-again Christians as they draw a constant between themselves and evangelicals.
Marshall takes a bit more nuanced approach, but comes to the same conclusion that Daisy does.
While implicit in Pastor Glen’s explanation, these respondents are particularly worried about how it affects their “witness,” or in layman’s terms, their ability to reach others and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While they are of course repelled by the perceived political connotations of the identity, they are also intimately concerned with its harm to the faith tradition.
While one may quickly dismiss these evangelicals as an artifact of measurement error, or not “true” evangelicals so to speak, these respondents speak in depth, such as Daisy, as to the sincerity of their faith. They are most centrally frustrated as they feel lumped together with a group of people who are not only politically different from them, but also interpret Scripture and view the world around them in different ways. I now to turn Democrats and Republicans who affirmatively identify as both.
Republican: Yes to Born-Again, Yes to Evangelical
Approximately two-thirds of Republicans elect to identify as both born-again as well as evangelical, almost doubling the number of Democrats who do. These respondents personify the Christian Right, ardent in their support of the GOP while identifying as evangelicals, a term for many that has become just as much associated with the Republican Party as it has distinguishing a unique faith tradition (Campbell et al., 2011; Patrikios, 2013). Some respondents have a clearer understanding of the identity that is primarily rooted in “evangel,” the Ancient Greek word meaning “good news” and what Bebbington (1989) above calls the “activism” component of the identity:
These respondents have a very narrow view of the identity, speaking specifically about the meaning implied by the word itself and only one facet of what scholars have conceptualized evangelicalism as. Furthermore, the sharing of faith is the bedrock of evangelicalism, a group whose genesis traces back to breaking away from the rigid fundamentalists, who believed in separating themselves from the outside world (Smith & Emerson, 1998). Very few who are not pastors go on to talk about other components of it, such as the inerrancy of The Bible or that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only proper atoning for sin. Most individuals find very little utility for the word and are somewhat reluctant to identify as such. As Table 2 above shows, they use it sparingly.
Although these respondents identify as such, many of them, like their Republican counterparts above who only identify as born-again, are a bit mystified to what the identity actually means, saying that it would not be helpful to a stranger and is an “umbrella statement.” This lends credence that the assertion above that the term is somewhat esoteric for the average adherent, a term that is ostensibly not often used even in social circles one would expect it to be used.
They are, however, keenly aware of the perceived negative connotation that is has among the broader public. Much like Democrats, they are concerned about conveying something that they view to be undesirable. Dawn blamed the media for unfairly maligning “followers of Jesus” and thus owns the label, despite being hesitant. Damien speaks more about this phenomenon:
In short, although they identify as such, Republican respondents who identify as both born-again and evangelical have little utility for the latter term. As Pastor Avery says, “Yes [identify as evangelical], and then I would have a thousand disclaimers.” Many echoed the same thing, especially those in pastoral or leadership roles within the church who in many ways are charged with shaping the church’s image to the surrounding community.
Democratic: Yes to Born-Again, Yes to Evangelical
The most unexpected group of interviewees are the eight Democrats who identify as both born-again and evangelical; as the ANES data revealed, only 15% of Democrats elect to do so. Given the close association between evangelical and the Republican Party, one might except in a socially sorted and polarized society that identifying as evangelical, a term so clearly associated with the other party, would be a bridge too far. However, it is not as these Democrats have an academic view of what evangelical means, opting for a theological conceptualization of it despite their political identity conflicting with the modern incarnation of it. For example, Miles, a former biologist turned banking investment officer, identifies as an evangelical despite being repelled by Donald Trump.
Despite identifying as a Democrat, Miles’ response for as to why he identifies as such is grounded in theology. Others build on this as well.
Implicit within these comments is the gentle assertion that these individuals are also willing to stand and fight for the identity, dismayed at the “cultural, political, entertainment complex” as Alper calls it. They also feel a great deal of consternation about identifying as such and regret what they view to be a perverting of the term.
Thus, despite the political connotations, which Eloise and others above viscerally react to, she still chooses to identify as an evangelical, refusing to give it up because it’s such a “beautiful description” when she thinks of the conceptualization of her faith identity. So how can these individuals’ theological view of the identity be described despite it being in conflict with their partisan identity?
These respondents emphasis on a shared theology is a window into how Democrats, embattled and in the minority in their faith tradition, endure and remain. They do not identify as evangelical for political reasons as obviously there is little shared ground on that terrain, but rather they do so for theological reasons, appreciating the richness of the term and its historic meaning and their feeling that it is indeed, despite their political differences, an accurate description of their faith.
One explanation for this finding may be education, of which a lengthy literature identifies the role that education plays in how individuals experience their social identities (Berelson et al., 1954; Converse, 1960; Scott, 2009). The respondents profiled in this category (Democratic party identification and identifying as both evangelical and born-again) hold at least a master’s degree, with Alper and Pastor Maggie attaining doctorates. Indeed, this is a common trend throughout the study, which is that Democrats report higher levels of education than Republicans, which is to be expected to some degree given that Democrats have higher rates of college education than Republicans. While education has a profound role in motivating some Democratic respondents to identify as both born-again and evangelical, its explanatory power does not transcend partisan bounds as more Democrats with a college degree identify as simply born-again (N = 15) rather than born-again and evangelical (N = 10). Thus, a more likely explanation is that, while levels of education certainly influence how individuals conceptualize these identities, as evidenced by the data presented above, the partisan contamination, or lack thereof in the case of the “born-again” identity, is responsible. A complete breakdown of respondents by education, partisanship, and identification can be found in Appendices D and E.
Conclusion
The results presented above have serious implications for the study of American religion and how scholars of public opinion measure it, as well as our understanding of the terms “evangelical” and “born-again.” It is clear that while perhaps the mass public would lump evangelical and born-again Christians together, members of that social group make very clear distinctions between the two terms. There is significant preference for identification as born-again compared to evangelical, which again reveals the perils in conflating the two (Margolis, 2022; Smidt, 2022).
There is also an open question of whether “evangelical” is just a label that has been proscribed to a group of predominately conservative and theologically orthodox Protestants; the interchanging of the words “label” and “identity” throughout the article has been intentional to accentuate this. If so many members of a social group do not identify as such, and those that do adhere to it are reluctant to do so, then can it truly be considered an identity? Perhaps it is better thought of as a label that is given to a group, which explains it nebulous and at times subjective nature. For example, many often use “evangelical” and “Republican” as synonymous and interchangeable terms. While they are of course related, this research also revealed that there is a significant minority of adherents in evangelical churches who support the opposing political party, and that while American society is sorting, that sorting is still incomplete (Allen, 2023).
It is clear that even the most serious adherents – those who attend church regularly, speak at length and in depth about their faith, and whose pastors consider them to be foundation to the identity of the church – struggle to define, even at a basic level, what it means to be an evangelical and that poor survey data can compound this measurement conundrum (Wuthnow, 2015). This is even more profound among the group (e.g., Republicans) we would most expect to identify as such. Some view it as too woke, some too Republican, and other simply have no idea what it means; many report it as useless, or at best unhelpful, when describing their faith to outsiders.
In a sense, the term has always been esoteric, perhaps best reserved for students at seminary discussing the finer points of evangelical theology; however, it has recently been dragged into the public sphere, perhaps not by its own will, and thus has been subject to difficulty and ambiguity in definition. But this has not stopped scholars from relying on measurement schemes that relying on self-identification. The findings here suggest that previous ways of demarcating who is and is not an evangelical can be improved upon and further provide evidence that born-again and evangelical should not be conflated with one another in survey items (Margolis, 2022; Smidt, 2022).
However, in light of this, respondents – even Democratic respondents – choose to adhere to the born-again identity, which appears to have not suffered the same politicizing fate as “evangelical.” The reasons for this may be exactly what is delineated above, that “evangelical” has perhaps always been poorly defined by the mass public, and so its connotation – and to some extent, its denotation – is more open for debate than “born-again.” Furthermore, the term is derived exclusively from the Bible, when Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3 that “no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born again.” It is also closely related to the Christian practice of baptism, a ceremony that is viewed as an exclusively religious, apolitical one. It may also be that when referring to conservative Protestants, the media simply utilizes the term “evangelical” instead of “born-again,” thus further shaping public perception of the identity.
These findings also have electoral implications for the political parties. At a time when two-party competition is closer than it has ever been in the United States, small shifts in the number of evangelicals supporting either political candidate can have serious implications for the winner of national elections. Furthermore, there is some evidence presented above that as the evangelical identity continues to politicize, it may be unable to account for many Democrats who still identify as part of the religious tradition, attend churches that are part of that tradition, and hold an orthodox evangelical theology. This homogenization of evangelicalism has grave consequences for American democracy as well, as evidenced during the January 6th riot at the United States Capitol. Thus, scholars of religion and politics should continue to further investigate the best way to capture this religious group.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - The Qualitative Differences Between Self-Identification as a Born-Again and/or Evangelical Christian
Supplemental Material for The Qualitative Differences Between Self-Identification as a Born-Again and/or Evangelical Christian by Levi Allen in American Politics Research.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Institute for the Scholarship of the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
