Hey journalists: How many stories have your read (or for some of us, written) in the past quarter century or more about how “evangelicals” and/or the Religious Right is fading and the religious left on the rise?
Those topics often go together, for some reason, and this topic is one of those evergreen themes in coverage linked to religion and politics.
The reality is much more complex. I have found that the problem, from the point of view of editors, is that there is more to this subject than politics. Do dig into the complex realities here, one needs to discuss all kinds of icky things — like doctrine, race, birth rates, evangelism and post-denominationalism. Who wants to do that?
Meanwhile, there is the whole complicated church-history question about the definition of the term “evangelism.” Believe it or not, this is not a political term. It you want to read more on that topic, including Billy Graham’s attempt to offer a destination, click here (“Define ‘evangelical’ — please”), or here (“Define ‘evangelical’ — again”), or here (“Define ‘evangelical’ — 2013 edition”) or here (“Define ‘evangelical,’ please — 2019 edition”).
I bring this up because I have been collecting another blast of essential Ryan Burge tweets (there are so many from this guy) related to this topic.
Journalists and religion-news aficionados also need to check out this post at the Religion in Public blog that is his online home base: “The Evangelical Brand is Not as Tarnished As Most People Think.”
There is so much to talk about here. I mean, check out the chart at the top of this post. I mean, don’t you want to know more about the 13% of Orthodox Jews who self-identify as “evangelical” or “born again”? How about the 1% of atheists in that niche?
This post is all about the charts. But still, here is a crucial thesis statement from the Burge “evangelical brand” post:

