These are the graphs that break through any storyline and give us real metrics. Thanks for all your work looking into it.
If I might add one wrinkle it might be yo compare population size to shows political acts. I.e. conservatives are less per capital (as above article demonstrates) but have a greater overall effect because they simply have more people. I don't know the answer, but it might be an idea for a future article.
Again thanks for all your work. I use it all the time in my church to cut through emotions and show what's actually happening in the world, so real discussion can happen.
Putting aside the fact that Christian nationalism does not mean political activity by Christians as the tweet implies, I feel like this analysis is missing the most important political engagement statistic: voting. The white evangelical voting bloc is incredibly important to the Republican Party and votes very consistently.
Thanks for another great article. Surprising data and conclusions but a bit of a shame not to discuss how, despite less political actions, the religious right has dominated media and political air time. My guess would be partially the size of the voting blocks but also the funding levels of individual major members and the lack of strong visible leaders on the religious left.
On a completely different topic. have you considered using a tool like Gap Minder to show how the kind of great data you use evolves over time?
This comports with my experience. Perhaps it was the social gospel movement, the civil rights movement, and the increasing liberalization of elite universities, but whatever the causes, over the course of the twentieth century it seems to me that the Mainline denominations (and certain parts of the Catholic church as well) became increasingly liberal and increasingly politically engaged. This was always one of my concerns whenever I entered liberal Protestant settings, that it seemed as though political engagement on behalf of the preferred causes was 80% of how they envisioned the Christian life. (I'm sure that's uncharitable, but it was my impression at the time).
Evangelicals and conservative Catholics were more likely to be withdrawn from political engagement in the middle part of the twentieth century. That began to change, in particular in the 80s, with the rise of a variety of organizations that sought to organize conservative Christians for political engagement. But I'm not surprised that there should remain a gap, and wouldn't be surprised if the gap remained. There are still precincts of American evangelicalism that are less engaged in the political process and more focused on child-rearing, supporting missions, etc.
My concern today is not that conservative Christians are too engaged in politics. It's good to be engaged. It has to do with the way in which one engages, the way in which we should continue to emphasize love and self-sacrifice over bare-knuckle political victory, and a desire that we should not repeat the mistake of the progressives who made their faith too much about political expression. My experiences in progressive Christian circles (which were never where I worshiped, but where I studied) made me leery of any environment where it seemed as though political passions shaped religious convictions rather than the other way around. I would hope for my friends in the conservative Christian space (which is where I would still place myself) that we could avoid that.
I'm a conservative who recently attended and graduated from a progressive seminary. Their high level of political activism astonished me. The majority of the courses focused on fostering structures that contribute to creating a better society. I recall in my first introduction, they talked about their values and used the Imago DEI to uphold diversity, equity, and inclusion as being what emanates from God. Now, this is all personal experience, and so I don't know how much of this translates into churches. But I will say, and this could be one to show the degree of political activism between conservative and liberal, how many churches have the Gadsden flag (or any conservative type of flag) hanging outside it versus a Pride flag.
Very valuable and interesting post. From my experience, as a “conservative” evangelical Christian with considerable political experience, it is challenging to get brethren to engage politically. They consider politics to be “dirty,” and actually subscribe to a false notion of the “separation of church and state” that includes keeping politics and politicians away from the local church. There are exceptions, obviously, but you confirm my long-held notion that self-professing Christians of the left are far more open and active about their politics and “faith” than those of a more conservative/evangelical bent. When I have tried to get conservative churches to allow geofencing (locating cell phone numbers and matching them against voter rolls) so we can track which regular church attendees are registered or not, and get Church leaders’ help to register them, even on a non-partisan basis, pastors and elders often recoil in horror.
On the issue of race, I see this every Sunday at church. The elders at our church are more politically engaged compared to the younger members. Those who have a direct memory of the Civil Rights movement (personally or through stories from their parents) haven't lost their desire to be politically active but younger folks don't have that same energy.
The distinction was even sharper 50 years ago before Lee Atwater turned fundamentalists into a political force. Back then, Baptists were poor and Methodists were rich. The mainstream churches included all the politicians and politically active businessmen.
Baptists and other serious fundamentalists came from specifically anti-political traditions. They came to America because the old countries required churches to be Established and thus part of the government.
I wonder if there's a statistical way to predict the left/right beliefs of extremely active white Christians. If this data had the kind of "America is a Christian Nation" question, that would be an interesting cross-section to see how that impacts political activity.
Ryan, get ahold of me at Larry@wildworldofhistory.com I think a serious academic books lies in this particular development, and I suspect it goes back to the "social gospel" days of the late 1800s and the shift from salvation to works (i.e., money) by the uber rich such as Rockefeller and others.
A good example of the type of activism undertaken by religious liberals is an organization in my area called 'The Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance'. While it's true that they are interfaith (christian, unitiarian universalism, jewish, muslim), all of their members are political liberals. The organization exists "to build a diverse organization of lay leaders and clergy from across boundaries of race, class, gender identity, religion and geography, to build relational power to address social justice issues in local communities and beyond."
There are other ways to look at the same data. Not long ago, a columnist for The Atlantic named George Packer issued a wonderful analysis of the American Voters called How America Fractured into four parts. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/ He identified quadrants which he called Free America, Smart America, Real America, Just America. Smart and Just vote Democratic, Free and Real vote Republican. But they are very different people. Free and Smart vote differently but they intersect economically. They dominate commerce, the arts, science. They went to college and make good secure incomes. And they are very traditional, belonging to church, married to the same person a long time. And they are doers. They have the means to donate money, make connections with candidates, belong to committees. Which religion didn't matter. They achieved their success by their education and their stability. These are the people who have yards with signs and give money, small amounts for Smart America which is prosperous, large amounts by a much smaller group of Free America who are wealthy. But the link is that they are doers seeking to move ahead. Packer's Real America are the people who have more limited education and less means. They are overwhelmingly Christian, less stable with more divorce and more job turnover. They don't have the means to engage in this political activity and are
Is there any data about the actual overtly political content of progressive and conservative pulpits? Eg. “vote for trump/biden,” “vote yes/no on prop blah.”
Re: political signage: is displaying or wearing an American flag political signage? What about the modified American flags (thin blue line, etc)? Any data on political clothing?
I doubt that religious involvement drives political activity that much. The main point is that some people are joiners and some are not. You see the same thing on the Nones side of the scale. Atheists and agnostics (who may not go to anti-religious meetings, but are serious about religion) are highly engaged in politics. Nothing in particulars, are disengaged.
Another great post and analysis, Ryan; thanks. If all these political acts are considered independent of their context, they are very civil/civic acts, and it seems salutary that religious engagement somewhat disposes Christians (and interestingly, while liberal Christians) to be more civic. The tweeter asked about, and assumes that, liberal Christian *churches are *"talking politics" as much as conservative ones. I think we all know that that doesn't necessarily follow from the data here.
So, two requests, Ryan: (1) If you see this comment and have time to reply, do you have a good post that comes to mind about patterns of political talk in church, activism by pastors, etc.? (2) To go on your list for possible future posts (unless you've done it already), are there ways to correlate and analyze what kinds of in-church speech and actions might prompt what kind of member actions out in society?
These are the graphs that break through any storyline and give us real metrics. Thanks for all your work looking into it.
If I might add one wrinkle it might be yo compare population size to shows political acts. I.e. conservatives are less per capital (as above article demonstrates) but have a greater overall effect because they simply have more people. I don't know the answer, but it might be an idea for a future article.
Again thanks for all your work. I use it all the time in my church to cut through emotions and show what's actually happening in the world, so real discussion can happen.
Putting aside the fact that Christian nationalism does not mean political activity by Christians as the tweet implies, I feel like this analysis is missing the most important political engagement statistic: voting. The white evangelical voting bloc is incredibly important to the Republican Party and votes very consistently.
Thanks for another great article. Surprising data and conclusions but a bit of a shame not to discuss how, despite less political actions, the religious right has dominated media and political air time. My guess would be partially the size of the voting blocks but also the funding levels of individual major members and the lack of strong visible leaders on the religious left.
On a completely different topic. have you considered using a tool like Gap Minder to show how the kind of great data you use evolves over time?
This comports with my experience. Perhaps it was the social gospel movement, the civil rights movement, and the increasing liberalization of elite universities, but whatever the causes, over the course of the twentieth century it seems to me that the Mainline denominations (and certain parts of the Catholic church as well) became increasingly liberal and increasingly politically engaged. This was always one of my concerns whenever I entered liberal Protestant settings, that it seemed as though political engagement on behalf of the preferred causes was 80% of how they envisioned the Christian life. (I'm sure that's uncharitable, but it was my impression at the time).
Evangelicals and conservative Catholics were more likely to be withdrawn from political engagement in the middle part of the twentieth century. That began to change, in particular in the 80s, with the rise of a variety of organizations that sought to organize conservative Christians for political engagement. But I'm not surprised that there should remain a gap, and wouldn't be surprised if the gap remained. There are still precincts of American evangelicalism that are less engaged in the political process and more focused on child-rearing, supporting missions, etc.
My concern today is not that conservative Christians are too engaged in politics. It's good to be engaged. It has to do with the way in which one engages, the way in which we should continue to emphasize love and self-sacrifice over bare-knuckle political victory, and a desire that we should not repeat the mistake of the progressives who made their faith too much about political expression. My experiences in progressive Christian circles (which were never where I worshiped, but where I studied) made me leery of any environment where it seemed as though political passions shaped religious convictions rather than the other way around. I would hope for my friends in the conservative Christian space (which is where I would still place myself) that we could avoid that.
I'm a conservative who recently attended and graduated from a progressive seminary. Their high level of political activism astonished me. The majority of the courses focused on fostering structures that contribute to creating a better society. I recall in my first introduction, they talked about their values and used the Imago DEI to uphold diversity, equity, and inclusion as being what emanates from God. Now, this is all personal experience, and so I don't know how much of this translates into churches. But I will say, and this could be one to show the degree of political activism between conservative and liberal, how many churches have the Gadsden flag (or any conservative type of flag) hanging outside it versus a Pride flag.
Very valuable and interesting post. From my experience, as a “conservative” evangelical Christian with considerable political experience, it is challenging to get brethren to engage politically. They consider politics to be “dirty,” and actually subscribe to a false notion of the “separation of church and state” that includes keeping politics and politicians away from the local church. There are exceptions, obviously, but you confirm my long-held notion that self-professing Christians of the left are far more open and active about their politics and “faith” than those of a more conservative/evangelical bent. When I have tried to get conservative churches to allow geofencing (locating cell phone numbers and matching them against voter rolls) so we can track which regular church attendees are registered or not, and get Church leaders’ help to register them, even on a non-partisan basis, pastors and elders often recoil in horror.
On the issue of race, I see this every Sunday at church. The elders at our church are more politically engaged compared to the younger members. Those who have a direct memory of the Civil Rights movement (personally or through stories from their parents) haven't lost their desire to be politically active but younger folks don't have that same energy.
The distinction was even sharper 50 years ago before Lee Atwater turned fundamentalists into a political force. Back then, Baptists were poor and Methodists were rich. The mainstream churches included all the politicians and politically active businessmen.
Baptists and other serious fundamentalists came from specifically anti-political traditions. They came to America because the old countries required churches to be Established and thus part of the government.
Another great article Ryan!
I was wondering if you saw these effects being driven by any particular faith in your selections, or if efx were differential between faiths.
I know the LDS are extremely politically active almost as a part of their orthopraxy; I can see reasoning for their slopes to differ from others, etc
I wonder if there's a statistical way to predict the left/right beliefs of extremely active white Christians. If this data had the kind of "America is a Christian Nation" question, that would be an interesting cross-section to see how that impacts political activity.
Ryan, get ahold of me at Larry@wildworldofhistory.com I think a serious academic books lies in this particular development, and I suspect it goes back to the "social gospel" days of the late 1800s and the shift from salvation to works (i.e., money) by the uber rich such as Rockefeller and others.
A good example of the type of activism undertaken by religious liberals is an organization in my area called 'The Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance'. While it's true that they are interfaith (christian, unitiarian universalism, jewish, muslim), all of their members are political liberals. The organization exists "to build a diverse organization of lay leaders and clergy from across boundaries of race, class, gender identity, religion and geography, to build relational power to address social justice issues in local communities and beyond."
There are other ways to look at the same data. Not long ago, a columnist for The Atlantic named George Packer issued a wonderful analysis of the American Voters called How America Fractured into four parts. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/ He identified quadrants which he called Free America, Smart America, Real America, Just America. Smart and Just vote Democratic, Free and Real vote Republican. But they are very different people. Free and Smart vote differently but they intersect economically. They dominate commerce, the arts, science. They went to college and make good secure incomes. And they are very traditional, belonging to church, married to the same person a long time. And they are doers. They have the means to donate money, make connections with candidates, belong to committees. Which religion didn't matter. They achieved their success by their education and their stability. These are the people who have yards with signs and give money, small amounts for Smart America which is prosperous, large amounts by a much smaller group of Free America who are wealthy. But the link is that they are doers seeking to move ahead. Packer's Real America are the people who have more limited education and less means. They are overwhelmingly Christian, less stable with more divorce and more job turnover. They don't have the means to engage in this political activity and are
Is there any data about the actual overtly political content of progressive and conservative pulpits? Eg. “vote for trump/biden,” “vote yes/no on prop blah.”
Re: political signage: is displaying or wearing an American flag political signage? What about the modified American flags (thin blue line, etc)? Any data on political clothing?
I doubt that religious involvement drives political activity that much. The main point is that some people are joiners and some are not. You see the same thing on the Nones side of the scale. Atheists and agnostics (who may not go to anti-religious meetings, but are serious about religion) are highly engaged in politics. Nothing in particulars, are disengaged.
Another great post and analysis, Ryan; thanks. If all these political acts are considered independent of their context, they are very civil/civic acts, and it seems salutary that religious engagement somewhat disposes Christians (and interestingly, while liberal Christians) to be more civic. The tweeter asked about, and assumes that, liberal Christian *churches are *"talking politics" as much as conservative ones. I think we all know that that doesn't necessarily follow from the data here.
So, two requests, Ryan: (1) If you see this comment and have time to reply, do you have a good post that comes to mind about patterns of political talk in church, activism by pastors, etc.? (2) To go on your list for possible future posts (unless you've done it already), are there ways to correlate and analyze what kinds of in-church speech and actions might prompt what kind of member actions out in society?