Show Up or Shut Up

The Political Future of Evangelicals

Over the summer, Evangelicals complained about being underrepresented at the RNC. Too much was made of the pageantry, but there was something to it. Of course, we all know that white Evangelicals voted 81% for Trump, which was the least noteworthy statistic ever given that that’s basically the rate at which white Evangelicals have voted Republican for a long time.

That’s stability, not growth. The GOP is seeing growth trends elsewhere, hence the more ecumenical emphasis at the RNC, especially when the Trump era has enjoyed a steady flow of young Hispanic and black men siphoned off from Democrats and might post record numbers on this front in the 2024 contest.

But what if Evangelicals, and Christians generally pumped their numbers up? Not necessarily on the percentage side, but in the raw participation. They could, quite easily. What if they really did dictate electoral outcomes? As the maxim goes, decisions are made by those who show up.

George Barna recently released data showing that 41 million self-identified “born-again Christians” (i.e., Evangelicals) and 32 million mainline Christians (i.e., liberal Protestants) are not planning to vote this November. About 32 million regular church attenders (from both groups) are sitting out 2024. Only 51% of “people of faith” plan to vote.

Picking up on this, Charlie Kirk tweeted,

“The local church must be activated to explain WHY voting is critical and national leaders must not take this group for granted [on] key issues. We cannot expect President Trump to have a more Christian ethos if the Church refuses to vote. We cannot expect President Trump to be more pro-life if our own people don’t back him up at the ballot box. The local church MUST be activated.”

Quite right. For all the bemoaning of the RNC and its nonchalance toward abortion, or its platforming of less than savory characters at the convention, Evangelicals are painting a stagnant electoral picture of themselves. Eight in 10 of voting Evangelicals may have swung for Trump in 2016 and 2020, but 41 million of them didn’t even bother to show up. This is more or less inviting the party you’re courting (the GOP) to kindly tell you to shut up. I’m sorry that’s how the “democracy” everyone wantonly claims they love works. (For perspective, there are around 100 million Evangelicals in America depending on which polls you consult.) To be clear, the above statistic means that 41 million Evangelicals are not even on the table. No one needs to appeal to them. By contrast, if these tens of millions were in play, they would have the ability to swing an election. Recall that the margins of victory in nine battleground states in 2020 were a combined 570,000 votes.

Kirk said the church needs to be mobilized. This, in my view, doesn’t mean that the church needs to become a political action committee. The election should be kept in perspective. (Assume all the typical caveats.) It simply means that there are millions of American Christians who are apathetic, derelict in their civic duty, and careless with their communal responsibilities. It also means that Evangelical leaders need to more seriously consider several dynamics in play amidst this apathy. If Evangelicals are going to constitute a real constituency, they’ll have to start thinking along these lines (i.e., politically), which may feel unnatural. Realize, however, that political consciousness does not offend the sensibilities of competing constituencies including the ones who are diametrically opposed to our religious convictions, vision for the country, and way of life. Mobilize or enjoy the back seat.

Political Action

Relatedly, Ryan Burge has been posting a series of fascinating if depressing graphs this week. The GOP has had significant gains with uneducated, generally unreligious white voters. Hence, the RNC and its platform. But this goes beyond voting. Evangelicals are substantially less politically active than their liberal mainline counterparts. Atheists beat everyone. Political activity includes working for a campaign, distributing political literature or signs, and donating money. Another graph from Burge presents a similar spread accounting for political meetings, public demonstrations, and contacting public officials. All very grassroots stuff.

Episcopalians remain the most politically active Christians, followed by the Church of Christ and PCUSA. (Southern Baptists are way down the list and the PCA doesn’t appear at all.) Some things never change. All these, especially the Episcopalians, represent old WASPdom. Their education and economic performance still reflect this, as Burge demonstrated in another post.

The residual WASP elite may be a pitiful reflection of their past glory, but however morphed or laxed in application their virtues, the basic ones still remain, especially civic-mindedness, conscience, and industry (i.e., the idea that “you must be doing things”). “WASPs pay lip service, and often even service, to the good of society,” wrote Richard Brookhiser in The Way of the WASP (1991). That WASP descendants now fatally misapprehend what the common good actually is, is neither here nor there. “Civic society exercises discipline not so much by the force of law… as by conformity.” Even at this late date, it is no surprise that Episcopalians are the ones, among Christians, who try to form the bounds of socio-political conformity and simultaneously try to justify their status by civic action and usefulness, even self-improvement. Remember that the Episcopalians gave us our last sectarian presidential dynasty. Disastrous on the whole? Yes. But in true WASPy form, nevertheless. Muscular Christianity hasn’t defined Groton for a while, I gather, but a residual activism and deformed aspiration of the well-rounded citizen remains in that world.

All that to say, Evangelicals have their work cut out for them. The least they could do is show up to the ballot box. If they want to shape the future of the party most hospitable to them, they have to be present. But if Evangelicals would like to reconstitute an American Protestant elite, they will need to adopt a sense of civic responsibility, of social involvement, of activism, of presumptuous ownership (of the nation) even, that goes beyond voting. Showing up, especially at a local level, is the first step toward reconstructing an elite.  

In our context, institutional maintenance is a bit more complicated than it used to be. A new Protestant elite will have to build a lot of new things, designed for them and by them and for the world they find themselves in. But this does not negate the maintenance of institutions, political and ecclesial, amenable to the same purposes. Young Protestants need to get more aggressive and serious on this front. Dare to rule!

Church Attendance

It goes without saying that church attendance is good in itself. It is a biblical command. It is not surprising then that it is also politically good. People who attend church are more conservative. Culturally, its also not the worst thing in the world for people to identify as Christian generally or Evangelical more particularly because they align politically. This will happen wherever cultural Christianity flourishes. Evangelical has been more of a political moniker than a theological one for awhile anyway. The more conservatives who identify as Evangelical the more Evangelical interests will be served. A highly cultural Christian environment also elevates the social importance of the church and participation therein. This is also good. It’s up to pastors to then care for souls and lead people to true repentance and faith.

Get the Young, Win the Nation

My parents were missionaries in a Muslim country. They always said that conversion of the men was definitive for a community, specifically the men with communal status. The women would more readily show interest in Christianity, but no real movement was detectable unless the men came first. This is true in most places. Familial dynamics must be considered, especially if you want to convert people to something more than an atomized faith. Without the men, the household won’t follow, and neither will the culture. Young men in America are trending rightward and, for the first time in awhile, are more religious than their female counterparts. Religious attendance among young men is increasing. The harvest is ripe.

It is surprising to see the uptick in religious activities at home too. The extent to which Protestantism can capture and hold young men will dictate its political-representative future. Currently, we are bleeding members to Catholicism, and this for various reasons including the socio-political ones highlighted by Aaron Renn recently.  

Capturing the young men may begin with an emphasis on family and by correcting the current approach to gender roles both within the home and without. What does the church have to say to young men, to young fathers? That’s the question.

On the flipside, I was struck by the fact that in a lengthy Gospel Coalition podcast about gender roles in the church, homemaking and raising children were not mentioned. This is a problem. Proper duties for men and women need to be elevated and given status. Anecdotally, one thing young Protestants are doing well, despite the direction of their Big Eva betters, is reforming home life along more traditional lines. This is a good and something that won’t show up on charts or surveys about political action, and should be encouraged and catered to by churches and church leaders. In trad Cath circles, traditional family life is increasingly prized. Call it reactionary or cosplaying all you want, it’s happening. Protestants must do the same if they want to compete, to put it crudely. If we want households to operate as a social unit, it must be well ordered and it must be structured in a way that is conducive to the influence of young men in their churches and communities.

Image Credit: Print article