Before I began my previous post, I imagined an introduction to set up a lightly edited version of some notes I prepared for a reporter. Ironically—or “symptomatically?—by the time I finished, it was plenty long for a full post, despite its subject of being concise.
Before this post gets too long, let’s get to my notes. I didn't shrink them into a sound-bite, but I feel good about them as brief talking points on a complex subject. I'm still nervous about the oversimplification. If you want documentation on these assertions, I back them up in my book, in a way that is concise by book standards. Remember, this started when a reporter asked about Tennessee religion, with special reference to denominations. I made six key points in response. If you like how I approached it, you might like this video I use to introduce religion to students.
I. Sorting By Denomination May Do More Harm Than Good
I'm sorry to say that thinking about religious trends by lumping people into denominations might not be your best way to begin an inquiry, for two reasons. To begin, the most important parts of “religion” may not be denominational. For example, there is a trend among young people to be “spiritual but not religious.” And thinking in terms of denominations does not always make sense for non-Christian traditions (a minority of US religions but a large one). All this is before we start debating how to define religion—which may generate thoughts like “the real religions of Tennessee are football and shopping.”
Second, denominations have deep internal splits on the issues that people really care about. People from the same denominations fought on both sides of the Civil War; they are bitterly divided about LGBTQ rights, the morality of cowboy capitalism, and whether to be “fundamentalist.” Most big denominations have conservative and liberal wings that despise each other. Thus it may be more important to focus on conservative wings of, say, Methodists and Catholics together, against their liberal wings, rather than mapping most Methodists in contrast to most Catholics.
II. Start with a Rough Sort Into Four Quadrants: Catholic v. Protestant, White v. Non-White
Insofar as we do want to sort by denomination—this is not all bad—the way to start is, first, to distinguish Catholics from the Protestant family and, second, sort by race and ethnicity. Regarding race, most Protestant traditions in the South have black and white variants—for example, white Pentecostals in the Assemblies of God and African American Pentecostals in the Church of God in Church. Historic white schisms mirror the Civil War, although these have partially healed by now. Catholics don’t have the same schisms, but they do have divides among whites, blacks, and Latino/as, and also among ethnic groups: Irish vs. Italian vs. German vs. Polish, etc. Historically the Irish dominated white Catholicism and Latino/as non-white Catholicism.
Thus we have preliminary “rough sort” of the Christian majority into four quadrants: white Protestants, non-white (mainly black) Protestants, white Catholics, and non-white (mainly Latino/a) Catholics.
III. Zero in on Key Players in Regions: the Southern Case
If we are thinking about denominations in Tennessee, we obviously need to keep on noticing race, and we should think of a Catholic minority that is fairly small compared to other parts of the country—plus a whole bunch of Protestants ("the Reformation") who, as their names suggest, protest and/or reform Catholicism.
After this we can sort the Protestant majority on a continuum from moderate to radical in their reforming zeal. Some made extreme breaks with a Catholic system of formal liturgies and hierarchies of bishops. (Quakers, Baptists, and the Church of Christ moved furthest). Some (especially Episcopalians, to a lesser extent Lutherans) didn't move too far. Presbyterians and Methodists fall in the middle.
This become complicated over time, because Protestants also love to protest each other. A classic case is Methodists. They started as a reform tendency inside the Episcopal church, but later broke away in protest. Later they had various schisms.
Different parts of the country have widely varying proportions of religious groups. That's a key point to stress--think about your region. But in most of the South, the top players are Protestant: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists (the largest), and Pentecostals (the fastest growing).
IV. The Protestant Continuum, Part Two: Socio-Economic Status
Cutting across the previous continuum, we can also sort Protestants, less by degree of break from Catholics, and more across a socio-economic hierarchy. In the South, establishment groups (sometimes Presbyterians but especially Episcopalians who began as an arm of the colonizing British government) were historically at the top. At first Baptists and Pentecostals were at the bottom—but that was long ago and now it's complicated because many rose into the establishment. Older establishment groups still have weight if we count “one dollar one vote” and historic influence—but not so much if we count one person one vote.
Here again let's note regional diversity. In huge parts of the Americas, Catholic elites were at the top of the social hierarchy and Catholic non-elites were at the bottom. In Protestant-dominated regions, first-generation Catholic immigrants typically started near the bottom.
The further up the social hierarchy we go, the less we have to think about white vs. non-white versions of traditions. That’s not because race is less relevant, but because there are fewer African Americans among elites. Across most economic strata, de facto segregated denominations are typical—especially for Baptists and Pentecostals. Nearer the top there few separate groupings for black vs. white Episcopalians or Presbyterians. (Methodists, who began as Episcopalians, do have black and white denominations.)
V. Test Cautious Generalizations
Partly countervailing against all the splitting, there is a widely shared culture of evangelical revivalism, strongest in the South. It stresses emotion-laden conversion to Jesus as “personal savior,” with shared styles of preaching, singing, and moral teaching. It gives Methodists and Baptists (plus kindred groups including Restorationists and many Southern Presbyterians) family resemblances—even cutting across racial lines to some extent. Holiness and Pentecostal groups (who stress healing and speaking in tongues) started a little over 100 years ago as offshoots of this tradition. However, more Protestants than is common assumed plus most non-Protestants fall outside this culture.
VI. Neither Forget Nor Over-Estimate a Growing Non-Christian Minority
Finally, focusing on a Christian majority leaves out Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, flavors of the new age, neopagans, atheists/agnostics, and more. A ballpark estimate for this motley crew is 30% of the national populace, or slightly more using maximal estimates—at least 15% for “no religious preference” and 15% for all other non-Christians combined.
These numbers are immensely slippery. Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and Christian Scientists are tricky because they are self-described Christian but considered by most Christians to be separate religions. Unitarians are tricky because they started as a branch from Protestants, yet often self-describe as non-Christian. There are dozens of ambiguous cases that make counting schemes hazardous: Catholics who are also traditional Native Americans, Lutherans who are also New Agers, Jews who are also Buddhists, Christians and Jews who are also “secular” (this may include most of them!), and multiple complications in measuring "nones."
Although there has been strong growth among non-Christians and secularists, especially if framed as a multi-decade trend, pundit common wisdom often overestimates the trend through various ways of spinning the slipperiness. Conversely pundits underplay the ongoing demographic strength of various Christians. Pundits who like to accent trends toward greater interfaith pluralism especially resist what I just wrote but the numbers don't lie.
Also, a cheerleaderish spin on growing “pluralism” is misleading if it comes, as it commonly does, bundled with an assumption that most Christians are conservative anti-pluralists while non-Christians are reliably liberal “good guys.”
If this shoe fits, wear it! Still, it often oversimplifies. Many Christians are politically liberal. A majority of “pluralizing” new immigrants from both Latin America and Asia are Christians, often conservative. Meanwhile non-Christians are by no means always liberal and pluralist. For example, Republicans recruit many libertarian atheists and neoconservative Jews, and religious sexism comes in many flavors besides Christian. Overall, it's best to think of US religion as highly diverse field of debate stretching across the whole left-right spectrum.
MBE standard notice: The time I spend on this blog is not in addition to a Twitter and FaceBook presence, but an alternative to it. If you think anything here merits wider circulation, this will probably only happen if you circulate it.