There are currently five major streams of Protestant political outlook and activism.
The first, in terms of age, is the old Religious Left. It’s comprised chiefly of clergy from what’s left of Mainline Protestantism. It has little political influence but sometimes gets attention because it can stage rallies with berobed clergy in clerical collars. And it still has historic institutional affiliations. It rejects or minimizes historical Christian ethical teachings about human sexuality and the human body and endorses identity politics. It largely equates God’s Kingdom with an ever-expanding federal entitlement and welfare state. For the old Religious Left, virtually every human need and desire should be met by government. Most of its denominational members do not support its political activism. So, its political influence has always been limited. But the membership collapse of its denominations makes it now very marginal. The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society is one still surviving representative. The Rev. William Barber of “Moral Mondays” is maybe its best-known current personality.
There is the old Religious Right, founded in the 1970s and 1980s by parachurch groups like the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family. It advocated moral renewal through political action to defend “traditional values.” It is pro-life, pro-traditional family and pro religious expression in public life. It has been mostly Reaganite, backing tax cuts, limited government, a strong U.S. national security posture, and free market economics. It venerates America’s founding and is patriotic. It still has millions of adherents. But there are fewer groups articulating its core values, as the U.S. political right conforms to MAGA. The Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission still articulates the original premises of the Religious Right. MAGA Christianity typically disdains the old Religious Right as weak and obsolete.
The neo-Anabaptist left resembles the old Religious Left but is more adamant about pacifism, peacemaking and rejecting American “empire.” It has professed to be more theologically orthodox. And it was originally pro-life and affirmed traditional Christian sexual teaching but later mostly liberalized on these issues. It has always loved to mock the hypocrisy and greed of bourgeois America. Evangelicals for Social Action founded by Ron Sider was a chief representative. So too was Sojourners under Jim Wallis. Thousands of clergy and many seminary and college professors probably still identify with it, although they are almost entirely over age 50. The late Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School was among its more impressive thinkers, and he reflected the trend by changing his stance on Christian sexual ethics in his final book.
MAGA Christianity crystalized around the rise of Donald Trump over the last decade. Unlike the old Religious Right, it does not necessarily favor limited government but exalts in increased executive power vested in a strong man who can fight The Left. It is nostalgic for America’s past but not necessarily for America’s founding constitutional principles, which can impair its ambitions. It mostly hat tips to traditional Christian views about abortion and marriage but is willing to subordinate those stances to wider political ambitions. With the rest of MAGA, it is skeptical if not hostile to American international commitments and to free trade. It’s also impatient with the humanitarian values of the old Religious Right, which it sometimes disdains as signs of weakness if not wokeness. Pentecostal preacher Paula White-Cain, the White House faith advisor sometimes associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, is a leading figure. But many others who were conventional Religious Right have aligned with MAGA Christianity. Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA is a leading cheerleader.
Finally, there is the TheoBro right, which wants a Christian confessional state that legally privileges Christianity as the only remedy for defeating the Left. Some of its leaders openly denounce voting rights for women as a liberal, modern corruption that undermines the family. Its denizens are not very numerous but have a high profile through social media. And its influence exceeds its numbers because it is aligned with much of MAGA Christianity. Its chief literature is Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism. Many of its followers descend from Calvinist entrepreneur Doug Wilson of Moscow, Idaho. The American Reformer is its chief online exponent.
Perhaps all these contemporary Protestant political streams illustrate the difficulty Protestants have with forming a Christian political witness deeply rooted in historic Christian teaching while adapting to modern circumstances. The TheoBro right champions Protestant traditions but mostly confines its version to the 1600s, especially the Westminster Confession of 1647.
All these streams struggle with forming a vision for the wider common good. All of them frequently mistake their policy preferences as “THE” Christian final word about justice on earth. And all of them, except the old Religious Right, are discomfited by civil religion, which was the original American Protestant tool for sustaining American democracy, preserving religion in public life, and harmonizing society.
In our polarized times, America needs a renewed Protestant political witness speaking widely to the whole nation while affirming the traditional Protestant stress on individual conscience and the eventual but essential Protestant affirmation of dignity and liberty for all.
Comment by Adam J. Ekstedt on April 11, 2025 at 11:46 am
This dismissive account ignores both the enduring vitality of Mainline Protestant faith and its deep grounding in the teachings of Jesus.
Yes, the Mainline churches have declined in membership, but that does not equate to theological or moral irrelevance. The progressive Protestant movement remains the closest among the five streams to Jesus’ own ministry: healing the sick, feeding the hungry, welcoming the outsider, challenging systems of oppression, and proclaiming good news to the poor. Unlike some other factions, it does not idolize the nation-state, elevate partisan power above the Gospel, or equate faith with grievance.
The critique rightly points out that progressive Protestants advocate for policies that expand public support for human dignity—health care, housing, food, education. But to reduce this vision to “an ever-expanding federal entitlement state” misses the point entirely. These aren’t partisan preferences, they’re moral imperatives rooted in the biblical commands to care for the least of these, to love neighbor as self, and to ensure justice for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger.
Further, the suggestion that progressive Protestants have abandoned historic Christian teachings on sexuality or embodiment reflects a narrow and selective reading of tradition. Many of us affirm LGBTQ+ inclusion and gender equity not in spite of Scripture but because of it, because we see in Jesus a pattern of radical hospitality, mercy, and rejection of purity codes that exclude. We are not ignoring the past; we are reading it faithfully and contextually, guided by the Spirit.
Comment by David on April 11, 2025 at 12:42 pm
“It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor,
but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.” — Proverbs 14:21
While private charity is laudable, it lacks the organization necessary to generally provide aid to those in need. This is best done by government in a systematic way. Unfortunately in the US, there are those who resent others getting something they are not even if they are not deserving. This is especially the case where the recipients are thought to be “those people.” I suppose this is a product of living in a multiethnic society. In Europe, one does not find the opposition to government improving people’s lives. There, if schools were inferior in one area, it would be a national scandal and there would be an outcry for reform. In the US, this is tolerated and people are told they should move to another district.
The New Deal brought retirement insurance which lifted many of the elderly out of poverty. Today, Social Security provides a safety net providing not a comfortable living, but at least some basic income. National health insurance was also considered in that era, but this was opposed by medical groups and frequently southern states who feared it might lead to racially integrated hospitals.
Too often, American “rugged individualism” is just another name for selfishness. It has been years since the US was #1 standard of living. It has one of the worst maternal morality rates of advance countries. Yet, Americans whine about taxes which are rather moderate compared to others in the first world. The low tax/low service states typically fall in the Bible Belt.
Comment by Td on April 11, 2025 at 2:12 pm
Well, it’s nice that we all have opinions and can express them. And that’s what this article is.
Comment by Corvus Corax on April 11, 2025 at 3:33 pm
“America needs a renewed Protestant political witness speaking widely to the whole nation while affirming the traditional Protestant stress on individual conscience”
This is a good summation of the confusion at the heart of Protestantism, which has increasingly failed to balance its claims to universal truth against its individualist ethos. When individualism runs amok, we lose sight of the common good because we can hardly even agree on what the “common good” is. Hence one sect calls us to humor boutique sexual immorality, and another promotes free market capitalism–neither of which are endorsed in a fair reading of Christianity. Instead we have the cherished political priors of modern individualists, which are tied only tendentiously to the teachings of the church.
Comment by Tim Ware on April 11, 2025 at 3:59 pm
“All of them frequently mistake their policy preferences as “THE” Christian final word about justice on earth.”
That is absolutely correct. I couldn’t agree more. And that, in my opinion, is the crux of the problem. Each little group believes its way is “The Only” Christian way. Until that changes, you can expect more splintering, more floundering, more ineffectiveness, more irrelevancy, and more sliding into oblivion.
Comment by bobp on April 13, 2025 at 8:02 am
Adam
The teachings of Christ allows us to disobey Scripture.
Perfect sense.
Comment by Tim Ware on April 13, 2025 at 11:02 pm
In reply to David,
Jesus preached a message of “the heart’s transformation.” If institutional Christianity did its job and preached that message and got people to follow that, the ills of society would take care of themselves because the problems you so rightly allude to are caused, in the final analysis, by greed, which would not be a problem in a society with a significant number of people who had transformed hearts.
Instead, institutional Christianity aligned itself with greed, because how else can they maintain their expensive church properties and organizational structures? After all, that requires a lot of money.
And so, by aligning themselves with greed, institutional Christianity has departed from calling people to the heart’s transformation, with the result that they have nowhere to turn to “sprinkle rose water on the cesspools of injustice” than government mandates.
And that is why it seems as if the only way to alleviate the ills of society is by government mandates. Yet another example of how institutional Christianity is an abject failure.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on April 14, 2025 at 11:58 am
Thank you for this article.
It seems to me that most of the “old Religious Right” is now most of “MAGA Christianity”.
The article doesn’t mention the Protestants who are, or who vote for, Christian democrats, e.g. Protestants who are members of, or who vote for, the American Solidarity Party.
Are their numbers really smaller than those of the “TheoBro right”?
Comment by Robert Kellner on April 14, 2025 at 1:20 pm
Church planting and growing churches on major themes of diversity, inclusion, pansexuality, anti-racism, LGBTQ acceptance and full-on gay marriage isn’t working or stanched the acceleration of membership losses. The steady drip drip drip of Scripture de-construction has indeed wrought destruction.
The rabid almost-hate of theological and political conservatives adds to the exodus.
With that follows name-calling.
Endowments go on but people don’t.
Comment by Greg Fletcher on April 14, 2025 at 6:32 pm
Hi. I am writing from the UK. Having read the article and the comments, I believe that the Church, in all its forms, has struggled to be relevant and biblical, mainly because of the emphasis on individualism and more importantly, have tended to focus on either evangelism (not enough) or social justice and action (often not based on biblical principles) instead what should be happening is preaching and living out a whole life Christianity – worship (focus on God), biblical advocacy, evangelism, biblical community (serving others in and out of the church in an attitude of agape love together) and empowering believers to use their skills and spiritual gifts to serve and disciple others. There are signs of this happening here and there but there is very little literature on this subject. One organisation that is edging its way towards that goal is the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity (https://licc.org.uk/ourresources/). Also, there is the Lausanne Movement (https://lausanne.org/report) is helping people wrestle with these issues. In all this, it is essential that the Church sees the need for training not just teaching. We need to help every Christian to be able to live, share the whole Gospel to friends, family and even possibly an Frontier Unreached People Group. God bless. Greg
Comment by David Gingrich on April 15, 2025 at 7:19 am
Worst Juicy Ecumenism article ever. SO shallow and useless.
Comment by Adam J. Ekstedt on April 15, 2025 at 9:53 am
Has anyone ever noticed how Juicy Ecumenism seems more interested in fueling cultural battles than in fostering genuine Christian unity. Rather than building bridges across theological or denominational divides, it focuses on policing the boundaries of orthodoxy and stoking division over hot-button issues.
Juicy Ecumenism isn’t building the body of Christ, it’s people picking fights in the fellowship hall. I don’t think I’m going to waste my time with this publication in the future.
Comment by Tim Ware on April 16, 2025 at 12:30 am
Great!
I guess your definition of “building the body of Christ” is going along with whatever the airhead left wants to do. Have you gone to a left-leaning site and leveled the same criticisms?
I thought not…
Comment by Adam J. Ekstedt on April 18, 2025 at 10:06 pm
I’ve never needed name calling to express my beliefs as an adult, but I will stand by my point of view.
I believe the mainline Protestant expression of Christianity deserves to be taken seriously. While no tradition perfectly addresses every cultural issue, I think one of its greatest strengths is its deep commitment to loving one’s neighbor. In my experience, mainline churches strive to make room for everyone. They reach out to the needy, feed the hungry (both physically and spiritually) and encourage the faithful without requiring them to check their doubts or complexity at the door.
At its best, the tradition Baptist reflects a compassionate, open-hearted faith grounded not in exclusion, but in grace.
Comment by Wesley Mcgranor on January 4, 2026 at 3:11 pm
No Progressivism nor Americanism represents the spiritual Church.