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.
AllenL. G. (2023). Inhabiting the middle ground: The case of born-again Catholics. Politics and Religion Journal, 17(2), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.54561/prj1702277a
2.
AllenL. G. (2023). Political heretics: Why voters act in defiance of their social identities. PhD Diss. University of Notre Dame.
3.
AllenL. G.OlsonS. F. (2022). Racial attitudes and political preferences among Black and white evangelicals. Politics and Religion, 15(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048322000074
4.
BebbingtonD. W. (1989). Evangelicalism in modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s. Routledge.
5.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954). A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. University of Chicago Press.
6.
BergerP. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Doubleday Press.
7.
BraunsteinR. (2022). A theory of political backlash: Assessing the religious right’s effects on the religious field. Sociology of Religion, 83(3), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srab050
8.
BurgeR. P.LewisA. R. (2018). Measuring evangelicals: Practical considerations for social scientists. Politics and Religion, 11(4), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048318000299
CampbellD. E.GreenJ. C.LaymanG. C. (2011). The party faithful: Partisan images, candidate religion, and the electoral impact of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00474.x
12.
CampbellD. E.LaymanG. C.GreenJ. C.SumaktoyoN. G. (2018). Putting politics first: The impact of politics on American religious and secular orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12365
13.
CampbellD. E.LaymanG. C.GreenJ. E. (2020). Secular surge: A new fault line in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
14.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). Free Press.
15.
CramerK. J. (2012). Putting inequality in its place: Rural consciousness and the power of perspective. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000305
16.
FinkeR.StarkR. (2005). The churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and losers in our religious economy. Rutgers University Press.
17.
HackettC.LindsayD. M. (2008). Measuring evangelicalism: Consequences of different operationalization strategies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00423.x
18.
HoggM. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 223–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000040
19.
HoutM.FischerC. S. (2014). Explaining why more Americans have No religious preference: Political backlash and generational succession, 1987–2012. Sociological Science, 1(24), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a24
20.
HunterJ. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to control the family, art, education, law, and politics in America. Basic Books.
21.
IannacconeL. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1180–1211. https://doi.org/10.1086/230409
22.
KellstedtL. A.GreenJ. C.GuthJ. L.SmidtC. E. (1996). Grasping the essentials: The social embodiment of religion and political behavior. In Green JohnC.GuthJ. L.SmidtC. E.KellstedtL. A. (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars: Dispatches from the front (pp. 147–192). Rowman and Littlefield.
23.
KiddT. S. (2019). Who is an evangelical? The history of a movement in crisis. Yale University Press.
24.
LaDonnaK. A.TaylorT.LingardL. (2018). Why open-ended survey questions are unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 93(3), 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002088
25.
LaymanG. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. Columbia University Press.
MargolisM. F. (2018). From politics to the pews: How partisanship and the political environment shape religious identity. University of Chicago Press.
28.
MargolisM. F. (2022). Born again but not evangelical? How the (double-barreled) questions you ask affect the answers you get. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86(3), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac035
29.
MarsdenG. (1984). Evangelicalism and modern America. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
30.
MathewN. A. (2018). Evangelizing congress: The emergence of evangelical Republicans and party polarization in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 43(3), 409–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12200
31.
MillerA. L.LambertA. D. (2014). Open-ended survey questions: Item nonresponse nightmare or qualitative data dream?Survey Practice, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2014-0024
32.
MonsmaS. V. (2017). What is an evangelical? And does it matter?Christian Scholar’s Review, 46(4), 323–340.
33.
PatrikiosS. (2013). Self-stereotyping as ‘evangelical republican’: An empirical test. Politics and Religion, 6(4), 800–822. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048313000023
34.
PerryS. L.SchleiferC. (2018). Understanding the rise of born-again catholics in the United States: The role of educational attainment. Review of Religious Research, 60(4), 555–574.
35.
ScottJ. C. (2009). The art of not being governed. Yale University Press.
36.
SheltonJ. E. (2018). Is RELTRAD still the gold standard?Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(4), 817–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12557
37.
SheltonJ. E.CobbR. J. (2018). Black RELTRAD: Measuring religious diversity and commonality among African Americans. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(4), 737–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12378
38.
SmidtC. E. (2019). Reassessing the concept and measurement of evangelicals: The case for the RELTRAD approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 58(4), 833–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12633
39.
SmidtC. E. (2022). Born-again versus evangelical: Does the difference make a difference?Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 61(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12762
40.
SmithC.EmersonM. O. (1998). American evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. University of Chicago Press.
41.
SteenslandB.RobinsonL. D.WilcoxW. B.ParkJ. Z.RegnerusM. D.WoodberryR. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/79.1.291
42.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity, 56(65), 56–64.
43.
WilcoxC.RobinsonC. (2011). Onward Christian soldiers? The religious right in American politics. Routledge.
44.
WongJ. S. (2015). The role of born-again identity on the political attitudes of Whites, Blacks: Atinos, and Asian Americans. Politics and Religion, 8(4), 641–678.
45.
WuthnowR. (2015). Inventing Americna religion: Polls, surveys, and tenuous quest for a Nation’s faith. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
