Is White Christianity in America dying? That is what many in our American media would have us to believe.
In July of 2016, Robert P. Jones released his book “The End of White Christian America”. George Soros’s Open Society Foundation hosted one of the book’s first discussion groups and book signing events a couple weeks after it came out.
Robert Jones is also the founder and CEO of The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). PRRI claims to be a nonpartisan polling organization but it is anything but that. Their who’s who list of globalists and left wing supporters like George Soros should be a huge red flag for anyone reading their polls.
What you will discover when you look at PRRI’s polling and commentary is that they are trying to persuade conservative Christians to give up their conservative positions on social issues like opposition to fluid gender roles, transgenderism, homosexuality and abortion just to name a few areas. In the area of immigration, they greatly push globalism and multiculturalism and their enemies are populists or nationalists whether they be Christian or non-Christian.
Pretty much all liberal Christian groups and publications use PRRI’s polling because it supports both the secular and Christian liberal agenda’s which are closely aligned.
If you want to get polling from a truly independent source, I would recommend Pew Research who strictly forbids all of their executives and poll commentators from any involvement in the political arena. They truly seek to do objective polling and present objective commentary without trying to sway public opinion one way or the other.
A great summary of Robert Jones’s positions is found in a Washington Post interview by John Sides entitled “Why Christian American is dying”.
The False “Lower Religious Affiliation by Age” Argument
In the beginning of his interview Mr. Jones makes the argument that lower numbers of Whites Christians in the younger ages is an indicator of the coming death of White Christianity in America. He references a chart from his book showing this when he states:
“Like an archaeological excavation, the chart sorts Americans by religious affiliation and race, stratified by age. It shows the decline of white Christians among each successive generation.
Today, young adults ages 18 to 29 are less than half as likely to be white Christians as seniors age 65 and older. Nearly 7 in 10 American seniors (67 percent) are white Christians, compared to fewer than 3 in 10 (29 percent) young adults.” [1]
There are two problems with Jones’s argument on this point. The first problem is that if you dig into his definition here he is talking about church attendance. There are many people who are true believing Christians that for various reasons have not attended Church in many years. The second problem and really the larger problem is his glaring omission of a fact he knows well.
This difference between age groups and church attendance (not faith) has been around since the 1970s. This is NOT something new. In an article from Pew Research entitled “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?” they make the following observation about age and church attendance:
“Looking at four age groups (rather than two) reveals even more clearly that religious service attendance and age have not always correlated perfectly in the United States. From the early 1940s through the 1960s, people in their 40s and 50s reported attending at least as frequently as those over 60. And adults in their 30s saw a spike in attendance in the late 1950s, briefly matching or exceeding the other groups. By the mid-1970s, the age groups had split into the pattern seen today: Older adults are more religiously committed than younger adults.” [2]
So, the pattern of younger people not attending church and then as they get older attending church has been the pattern for the last half century. As people get married, have children and grow older they return with their families to church. Nothing new here and certainly not evidence for the demise of White Christianity in America.
I always find it humorous when I am watching liberal TV news and read liberal articles and they point to the liberal views of young people as an indicator of where elections and the culture is heading. What they neglect to tell their viewers and readers is that many polls and studies show that as people age they generally get more conservative. That is why there is always consistently a larger percentage of conservatives among middle age and older people than younger.
Before I present and answer more of Mr. Jones’s supposed evidence for the death of White Christianity in America we need to define the major categories of Christianity in America.
Christian Sectarianism is as American as Apple Pie
In a Washington Examiner article entitled “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?” Michael Barone wrote:
“Sectarianism is as American as apple pie. We have not only had black churches, we have had separate Northern and Southern churches. The American Catholic Church, run by Irish-Americans for most of its history, has had identifiable Italian and Polish parishes. It’s nice if people of different ethnic or racial heritage decide to participate in a congregation together. But it doesn’t seem likely to be a major driver of increased church membership.” [3]
I would go a step further and say sectarianism is not just the norm for America, but it has always been the norm for Christianity throughout the world. During the early church bishops ruled over individual churches. Eventually metropolitan bishops consolidated power over all the local bishops and churches in a given city area. There are letters during this early church period of bishops arguing with one another on various doctrines and applications of the Scriptures. The point is that sectarianism was the norm of the early church.
After the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 A.D. he not only sought to reunite the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, but he also helped the Christian Bishops at Rome to consolidate religious power over all the Christian churches in the empire. Rome’s hold on power over the Christian churches would only last until 1054 A.D. when the Eastern Byzantine Christians split from Rome to form what would later be known as the Orthodox Church. Less than 500 years after that split, in 1517, the Catholic Church of Rome would experience another great division which started with a German Catholic Monk named Martin Luther. This division would become known as the Protestant reformation.
The Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.
Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation but not the only guide for faith and practice. Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that formed from them believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.
Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.
The Differences between Evangelical, Mainline and Black Protestants
Pew Research when compiling its 2014 “Religious Landscape Study” broke up Protestants into three main groups based on a combination of culture and beliefs. These three groups were Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black. When PRRI did it’s study they purposefully rejected these three groupings and instead only had Evangelical and Mainline. It added all black churches into the Evangelical category. Then it divided evangelicals back out into three categories of “White evangelical, White mainline and Black Protestant”. Yes, it was definitely some fuzzy math.
This recategorization is alluded to in the ABC News Blog “FiveThirtyEight.com”. In an article entitled “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals” Perry Bacon Jr. and Amelia Thomson-Deveaux wrote:
“Two factors appear to be driving this divide. First, the number of white evangelicals is in decline in America at the same time that the evangelical population is becoming more racially diverse. According to 2016 data from the Public Religion Research Institute, about 64 percent of evangelicals are non-Hispanic white, compared to about 68 percent in 2006. [you have to click the x here to see the note]
PRRI defines “evangelicals” as respondents who identify as Protestant and evangelical or born-again. Other pollsters — in particular, the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, though not all Pew surveys — define “evangelical” by denomination and exclude some historically black denominations, which results in a higher share of white evangelicals. The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey, for example, suggested that about 75 of evangelicals are white, a higher number than PRRI’s finding, but still a drop from 81 percent in 2007.” [4]
Robert Jones has attempted to sell a narrative for some time that Black Protestant and Evangelical churches are the same group of Protestants. That has NEVER historically been the case as I will show later in this article. In an article he wrote for the Atlantic in 2014 entitled “White Christmas, Black Christmas” Jones states:
“Black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants are the two groups with the highest church-attendance rates in the country. While less than four in 10 (38 percent) Americans overall report attending religious services weekly or more often, 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 55 percent of black Protestants attend church at least weekly. White evangelical Protestants and black Protestants also share a particularly literal approach to the Bible. Among the general public, approximately one-third (35 percent) believe the Bible is the literal word of God, but about six in 10 white evangelical Protestants (61 percent) and black Protestants (57 percent) hold a literal view of the Bible. These two groups also share a belief in a personal God, an emphasis on individual salvation, and religious architecture that emphasizes the centrality of the pulpit over the altar.” [5]
Jones is right that Black Protestants and White Evangelicals have much in common. White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning the mainline Protestants who reject the authority of the Bible or the literal interpretation of it. White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning mainline Protestant churches who allow homosexual members and even homosexual clergy.
However there still is a core and fundamental divide between Black Protestants and White Evangelicals and that divide is and has always been throughout American history what we call today social justice, which is simply another name for socialism.
White Evangelical Opposition to Socialism and Social Justice
As I have previously said, Robert Jones has tried to paint a false narrative that Black Protestants and White evangelicals are the same Protestant group. But the history of the evangelical movement proves this narrative to be false.
When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded in 1942 there were no African American denominations or churches that were a part of it. It was completely comprised of churches that were predominantly white and held to a literal view of the Bible.
There was probably no better representation of a 20th century White Evangelicalism than Billy Graham who passed away earlier this year at the age of 99. Unfortunately, the version of Billy Graham that we saw in his last couple decades bore little resemblance to the man he once was. If you were to go to BillyGraham.org today and look up “racism” in search of his quotes and sermons you will find the “edited for modern viewers” presentation of Billy Graham. You will find stories of how he befriended Martin Luther King and even paid to bail him out of jail. You will find him calling racism evil and wicked. You will hear how he integrated his rallies.
But after his death there were several publications that reminded us (albeit in a negative and condescending way) that the sweet and non-political Billy Graham most people had come to know today was not the Billy Graham of earlier years.
A CNN article entitled “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’” recounts this story about Billy Graham:
“…Graham personally lobbied President Dwight D. Eisenhower to ignore the racial crisis in the South, that he told a white audience in Charlotte in 1958 that demonic hordes were the real source behind the country’s racial problems, and that he wrote a 1960 article for U.S. News and World Report tacitly defending Southern resistance to integration.
“The Bible also recognizes that each individual has the right to choose his own friendships and social relationships,” Graham wrote. “I am convinced that forced integration will never work. You cannot make two races love each other and accept each other at the point of bayonets.” [6]
Matthew Avery Sutton, wrote the following in an article for the Guardian entitled “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”:
“For Graham, the Bible had a clear message for Christians living in what he believed were humans’ last days on earth. Individuals alone can achieve salvation; governments cannot. Conversions change behaviors; federal policies do not…
In the late 1950s, Graham integrated his revivals and seemed to support the burgeoning civil rights movement. This is the Graham most Americans remember… Within days of the publication of King’s famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Graham told reporters that the Baptist minister should “put the brakes on a little bit”.
He criticized civil rights activists for focusing on changing laws rather than hearts…
Graham praised the wisdom of young people who rejected the federal government as a tool for rectifying injustices.
“These young people don’t put much stock in the old slogans of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society,” he said. “They believe that utopia will arrive only when Jesus returns. Thus these young people are on sound Biblical ground.
For six decades, Graham taught Americans that the federal government could not be an instrument of God to bring about justice, not on race matters and not on other significant issues…
Graham came of age during Franklin Roosevelt’s vast expansion of government power. But rather than join with social gospel advocates like Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins in promoting the creation of a welfare state to serve the needy, the future evangelist was more influenced by apocalypse-obsessed, fundamentalist rabble rousers who rejected New Deal liberalism.” [7]
So, while it is true that Billy Graham even in his early years spoke out against racial hatred you will also find that he was equally against communism, socialism, the New Deal, the Great society and Martin Luther King’s social gospel which simply tried to interweave socialism into the Gospel.
It is also important to point out that Billy Graham was NOT the originator of these political positions of White Evangelicals, but rather he became their national spokesperson.
Graham believed “the race question” and the Gospel should never be confused. They were separate issues for him. He believed that Martin Luther King and many other Christian ministers had mistakenly made racial and economic equality a core tenant of the Gospel. For Graham the Gospel was simple – it was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And nothing should be added to it or taken away from it.
It is for all these reasons I have just mentioned that White Evangelicals tend to vote against socialist policies and for the most conservative candidates. And it is for these same reasons that most blacks (including Black Protestants), following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, tend to vote for socialist policies including social and economic engineering programs.
This is why it is an utter mistake in polling data conclusions or political considerations to lump in Black Protestants with Evangelicals. While they agree in principle on taking the Bible literally they very much disagree on their interpretation and application of the Bible especially as it relates to what the Gospel is and what government should or should not do.
American Churches Are Still Dominated by Whites or Blacks
Now let’s bring this full circle back to Pew Research’s breakdown of Protestants into the three categories of Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black – they were absolutely right to do this as these are three separate and distinct groups of Christians in America with VERY different cultural and political beliefs.
The chart I have made below is based off table data from Pew Research’s 2014 “Religious Landscapes” Study specifically from their section entitled “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups” [8]:
I know of Protestant churches in my area that are Korean Churches, Chinese Churches or even Arab Churches. The Baptist Church I attend helped a local Arab Baptist Church put on a vacation Bible school program a few years back. But the reality is the vast majority of Protestant churches in America are dominated by one of two races – White or Black with other ethnic groups usually comprising minorities in one of these two types of churches. And of these two racially dominant churches the vast majority are white.
Are Protestants really in a freefall decline?
Now that we have gone over the major categories of Christianity and then Protestant Christianity in America we can continue on to Mr. Jones next supposed evidence for the death of White Christian America.
In his interview with Washington Post writer John Sides, Mr. Jones goes on to speak about the declining numbers of White Protestants in America:
“Up until about a decade ago, most of the decline among white Protestants was confined to mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, United Methodists, or Presbyterians, who populate the more liberal branch of the white Protestant family tree. The mainline numbers dropped earlier and more sharply — from 24 percent of the population in 1988 to 14 percent in 2012, at which time their numbers generally stabilized.
But over the last decade, we have seen marked decline among white evangelical Protestants, the more conservative part of the white Protestant family. White evangelical Protestants comprised 22 percent of the population in 1988 and still commanded 21 percent of the population in 2008, but their share of the religious market had slipped to 18 percent at the time the book went to press, and our latest 2015 numbers show an additional one-percentage-point slip to 17 percent.” [9]
Let’s now compare what Pew Research stated about White Evangelicals in the 1987 to 2006-time frame:
“The rising political clout of evangelical Christians is not the result of growth in their numbers but rather of their increasing cohesiveness as a key element of the Republican Party. The proportion of the population composed of white evangelicals has changed very little (19% in 1987; 22% now) and what growth there was occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.” [10]
In 2015 Pew made this statement as to the current population percentage of White Evangelicals:
“To look at it another way, white evangelical Protestants now make up nearly one-in-five (19%) of the nation’s adult population, while evangelical members of other racial and ethnic groups make up roughly another 6% of U.S. adults. Hispanics are the largest group among non-white evangelicals.” [11]
So, what is the major difference between the different pictures of these same time periods painted by PRRI and the Pew Research Center?
The difference is that PRRI attempts to paint a picture that White Evangelicals have not been below 20 percent from the 1980’s on and that now they are consistently losing ground over the last decade.
On the other hand, the Pew Research center analysis shows that White Evangelicals have actually had their numbers fluctuate between the late teens and early twenty percentage rates since the 1980s. Again, like the argument of lower church attendance by the younger and higher by the older, this pattern is nothing new. If anything, it shows a consistent level of White Evangelicals over the past several decades.
Evangelicals are Actually Gaining While Other Christian Groups are Shrinking
Now we get into the data that should be an encouragement to White Evangelical Christians about our future in this country. Pew made this general observation of evangelical Protestants (who are predominately white as we have previously shown):
“One big reason evangelical Protestants have not declined at the same rate as other major Christian groups is that they are gaining new converts at a greater rate than they are losing people who were raised in the tradition. While 8.4% of Americans were raised as evangelicals and have since left evangelicalism for another faith (or no faith), even more U.S. adults (9.8%) were raised in another faith (or without a religious affiliation) and have since become evangelicals.
The same cannot be said for Catholics and mainline Protestants. For instance, a significant share of all American adults – 12.9% – are former Catholics, while only 2% have converted to Catholicism after being raised outside the Catholic Church. And 10.4% of the nation’s population is made up of former mainline Protestants, while only 6.1% have joined mainline churches after being raised in another tradition.” [12]
These numbers expose the false narrative of liberals today who say that evangelicalism is dying. Yes we in evangelical churches have shed the unfaithful and nonbelievers from our midst at a rate just over 8 percent. But we are gaining those seeking a true and vibrant faith at almost a 10 percent rate!
Why Evangelicals Are Growing While Other Christian Groups Shrink
There is a fantastic article that Glen Stanton wrote in early 2018 for the Federalist entitled “New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger”. Below are some key observations he makes from the Harvard study:
“New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.
Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis…
The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent…
When the so-called “progressive” churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches…” [13]
True believers in Christ want the real thing. If someone just wants to go to a social club or be part of an organization that fights for things like “social justice” they don’t need a church for that. They can go join some secular political group. I am not saying there are not true believers who believe that social justice initiatives should be a part of what the church does. I have met in person and online many people who I think are true believers who think this way, but I simply disagree with them. What I am saying is that if your main point for attending church is to talk about and fight for social justice initiatives you don’t need a church for that and that is why many liberal protestant churches are bleeding members.
But if what someone is looking for in a Christian Church a true intense faith and a group of like-minded people who believe in a foundation for morality that stands the test of time in the Bible then they will be drawn to evangelical Christian Churches.
Conservative Christians Have More Children Than Other Groups
At the end of his article in the Federalist, Glen Stanton talks about the reason that fundamentalist Christians will eventually outnumber secularists:
“There is another factor at work here beyond orthodox belief. The University of London’s Eric Kaufmann explains in his important book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” (he says yes) that the sustaining vitality, and even significant per capita growth, of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism. Globally, he says that the more robust baby-making practices of orthodox Jews and Christians, as opposed to the baby-limiting practices of liberals, create many more seriously religious people than a secular agenda can keep up with.” [14]
Now I want to add a point of clarification here.
The Fact is that Eric Kaufmann’s book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” is not simply about the reality that Christian fundamentalists are out-breeding secularists, but that all fundamentalists including Jews and Muslims are doing the same.
Below are a few questions that Eric Kaufmann was asked on an Atheist Blog about his thesis that Fundamentalists (Jews, Muslims and Christians) are about to retake the world from secularism:
“Why do fundamentalists have so many babies? Is this a relatively recent trend?”
Fundamentalists have large families because they believe in traditional gender roles, pronatalism (‘go forth and multiply’) and the subordination of individualism to the needs of the religious community.
Is it recent? Yes. First, when we all lived on the land, had no contraception and poor medicine and sanitation, most people — pious or otherwise — needed to have large families to survive. Now, family size has been freed from material constraints by urbanisation, modern medicine and contraception. So values come to the fore, and seculars express their values in smaller families while fundamentalists resist the trend. Fundamentalists don’t actually have more kids than they used to, but nearly all survive, and their relative advantage over others grows. It’s also worth mentioning that fundamentalism is a modern (post-1850 or post-1900) trend: a reaction against secularism or secularised (read: moderate) religion that has become more intense since the 1960s sexual revolution.”
Are fundamentalists concerned with the prospect of an overpopulated earth?
No — they feel God will provide and consider such concerns ‘anti-people’.
…
This trend of “quiverfull” Christian families and large Catholic families (to name a couple) has been around for a while… And yet, the percentages of non-religious people keep increasing according to recent polls. Does that contradict your thesis?
“No. The composition of a population is always a product of the relative pace of secularisation and religious growth. I use the analogy of a treadmill. Seculars are running on a treadmill that is tilting up and moving against them because of their low fertility and immigration. The religious — notably fundamentalists — are standing still or walking backward, but their treadmill is pushing them forward and tilting downhill. So, in Europe in the late twentieth century, seculars were running fast enough to overcome their demographic disadvantage and overtook the faithful. But today, secularism is slowing down outside England and Catholic Europe, and is facing a more difficult incline from the treadmill of demography. London is a good example: it is more religious now than 20 years ago despite secularisation, simply because of religious immigration and fertility.” [15]
Why This Should Matter to White Evangelicals
A lot of White Evangelicals reading this might be asking “What doe it matter if Whites continue to be a majority in evangelism or even in America? Isn’t it racism to even care if Whites are declining or not?”
I will probably get a lot of Christians who will email this verse to me:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 (KJV)
This is actually the favorite verse of Christian egalitarians, Christian feminists and Christian socialists. These groups literally read the entire Bible through the lenses of this one verse instead of interpreting this passage within the entire witness of the Scriptures. So, if you, even as a conservative White Evangelical have been taught this verse means you are not allowed to care about your race in connection with their status in your country let me challenge you with a few passages you may not have heard before.
“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)
And the parallel passage to this is found in the book of Acts in the New Testament:
“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”
Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)
My point in showing these passages is that it was God, and not sin that divided men by racial and national borders. Even Billy Graham mistakenly believed racial divisions were because of sin in the world but that is NOT what the Bible teaches.
Is racial hatred a result of sin? Absolutely. But racial preference is not. It is by the very design of God who made all men from the blood of Adam but also divided the sons of Adam.
But loving one’s own family and one’s own race and promoting the good of one’s own family and race is not equivalent to hatred for other races. Racial preference, preferring to marry someone of your race, preferring to live in a neighborhood that is predominantly your race or preferring to go to a church that is your race is not hatred for other races.
I don’t blame Blacks or Asians for wanting the best for their race. I don’t blame the Hispanics from central America who come from impoverished nations looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
But I can blame the whites of this country who wrongly bought kidnapped black slaves from Africa. I can blame the politicians who rejected Abraham Lincoln’s plan to send the freed blacks back to Africa to avoid future racial strife in America.
I can place the blame squarely on my ancestors in this nation who removed one of the first laws this nation passed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted American citizenship to “free white persons”. They literally took down America’s protection for ethnic homogeneity and opened us up to the racial strife we have seen over the past 150 years.
And I can place the blame on politicians today who refuse to protect the borders of this nation and those who say “I don’t believe in borders” or that borders are an “injustice”. I can also blame politicians who blame all the ills of minorities in this country on my race. And I can vote based on these principles as millions of whites did in the last election.
Conclusion
I have shown proof here from multiple sources the Robert Jones’s thesis that White Christianity in America is dying is false. White Evangelicals, the most conservative and Bible believing of all Christian sects, have hovered in the late teens and early 20 percent range of the population for the last half century. But as secularists begin to die off and leave little to no offspring behind fundamentalists White Evangelicals will experience a rebirth like nothing seen in the history of this country.
Even if secularists catch on to their own demise there is nothing they can do about it. Because their individualist selfish philosophy of life won’t allow them to fix the problem. They can’t have bigger families because for them it is a violation of their own “religion” of secularism to do so.
If you are a white evangelical, you have nothing to be ashamed of if you consider race in whom you date, where you go to church or where you live. And you certainly do not have to be ashamed of being white or for voting for white candidates for office or for voting for policies that favor your ethnic group.
For more on the subject of nations and race from a Biblical perspective see these other articles I wrote on those subjects – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” and “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?”
References
[1] J. Sides, “White Christian America is dying”, The Washington Post, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/?utm_term=.8175dab35da2.
[2] “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?”, Pew Research Center, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/why-do-levels-of-religious-observance-vary-by-age-and-country/.
[3] Michael Barone, “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?”, Washington Examiner, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-the-end-of-white-christian-america-a-good-thing.
[4] P. Bacon & A. Thomson-DeVeaux, “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals”, FiveThirtyEight.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-and-race-are-splitting-evangelicals/.
[5] R. Jones, “White Christmas, Black Christmas”, The Atlantic, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/white-christmas-black-christmas-evangelical-christian-racial-divide/383986/.
[6] J. Blake, “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’”, CNN, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/billy-graham-mlk-civil-rights/index.html.
[7] M. Sutton, “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”, The Guardian, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/billy-graham-wrong-side-history.
[8] “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups”, Pew Research Center, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#race-and-ethnicity-of-religious-groups.
[9] J. Sides, “White Christian America is dying”, The Washington Post, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/?utm_term=.8175dab35da2.
[10] S. Keeter, “Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP?”, Pew Research Center, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/05/02/will-white-evangelicals-desert-the-gop/.
[11] D. Masci, “Compared with other Christian groups, evangelicals’ dropoff is less steep”, Pew Research Center, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/15/compared-with-other-christian-groups-evangelicals-dropoff-is-less-steep/.
[12] Ibid.
[13] G. Stanton, “Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP?”, The Federalist, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/19/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-author-of-shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/.
[14] Ibid.
[15] “Interview with Eric Kaufmann, Author of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?”, FriendlyAtheist.Patheos.com, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/19/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-author-of-shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/.