A new book by Bonnie Kristian, an editor at Christianity Today, challenges the prevailing media narrative that American evangelicals are a monolithic, politically driven demographic. "In Defense of Evangelicalism" argues that mainstream coverage often conflates the voting behavior of white evangelicals with the religious identity of the broader evangelical movement, which includes significant non-white and international populations. The work critiques authors such as Kristin Du Mez and Beth Allison Barr for presenting fringe elements as representative of the whole.
The central premise of Kristian’s argument is that the term "evangelical" has been redefined in public discourse to mean "white Republican," obscuring the religious beliefs of the actual constituency. She notes that approximately 90% of self-identified evangelicals live outside the United States, and a significant portion of American evangelicals are Black. Despite this diversity, media and political commentary frequently hold all evangelicals collectively responsible for the actions of President Donald Trump, whom a majority of white evangelicals supported in 2016.
What the Right Is Saying
Kristian, writing from within the evangelical tradition, argues that the media’s framing is factually inaccurate and intellectually lazy. She contends that pollsters and pundits often accept self-identification from individuals who do not hold core evangelical beliefs or attend church regularly, thereby inflating the political power of the label. When asked directly, Kristian reports that churchgoing evangelicals prioritize their faith and theological commitments over political figures, stating that "it’s impossible to go to an evangelical church on a Sunday morning and come away honestly convinced that faith is irrelevant there."
The book also addresses the accusation of "Christian nationalism," where evangelicals are accused of seeking to impose religious morality on the public square. Kristian argues this is a double standard, noting that all political groups seek to advance their moral visions through public policy. She suggests that terms like "dominion" and "theocracy" are used as "handy shorthand" to dismiss evangelical political participation as inherently illegitimate, whereas similar lobbying by other groups is viewed as standard democratic engagement.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics within the progressive and secular spheres, as characterized in the book, have argued that white evangelical support for Donald Trump represents a fundamental compromise of religious ethics. Authors like Kristin Du Mez, in her book "Jesus and John Wayne," have described a movement characterized by "militant masculinity" and a pursuit of political power at the expense of faith. This perspective holds that the alignment between the Republican Party and white evangelicals is not a coincidence of policy preference but a result of a cultural shift where political identity superseded religious conviction.
The critique suggests that many who identify as evangelical do so primarily for political reasons, viewing the label as a marker of conservative cultural identity rather than a theological commitment. From this viewpoint, the media’s focus on the political behavior of this demographic is justified because the political actions are seen as the most visible and consequential output of the movement. Critics argue that pointing to internal diversity or international membership does not negate the specific political impact of white evangelical voters in U.S. elections.
What the Numbers Show
Data cited in the book highlights the demographic complexity of the evangelical population. Kristian points out that roughly 90% of the world’s evangelicals live outside the United States, and within the U.S., the Black church has historically been a major center of evangelical faith, yet it is often excluded from the "white evangelical" political narrative. Gallup polling data, referenced in the critique, indicates that many white Americans who identify as "evangelical" do not attend religious services regularly or hold distinctively evangelical theological beliefs, suggesting a conflation of cultural identity with religious affiliation.
Furthermore, the book notes that while white evangelicals were a decisive voting bloc for Donald Trump in 2016, treating the entire group as a monolith ignores the diversity of political views within the movement. Kristian argues that critics often focus on outliers, such as the pastor Doug Wilson, to represent the whole, while ignoring mainstream movements like Promise Keepers that emphasized racial reconciliation and egalitarian gender roles. The text asserts that most contemporary evangelicals are egalitarian on gender issues, a fact that undercuts the "patriarchal" narrative presented by some best-selling authors.
The Bottom Line
The publication of "In Defense of Evangelicalism" marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the role of religion in American politics. It challenges journalists and political analysts to distinguish between the political behavior of a specific voting bloc and the religious identity of a diverse global movement. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the accuracy of these demographic labels will likely influence how candidates court religious voters and how media outlets frame the intersection of faith and policy.
Readers and policymakers should watch for how future polling and reporting handle the definition of "evangelical." If media outlets continue to rely on self-identification without cross-referencing religious practice, the narrative of a politically monolithic evangelical base may persist despite evidence to the contrary. The book suggests that a more nuanced understanding of these demographics is necessary for accurate political analysis, potentially shifting the focus from cultural war rhetoric to specific policy disagreements.