Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Home and Religion
The Amish are not ‘Evangelicals.’ They’re Amish.

The Amish are not ‘Evangelicals.’ They’re Amish.

Last updated on: March 13, 2026 at 1:12 pm by Fred Clark

0 Comments

The Amish are not ‘Evangelicals.’ They’re Amish. 2026-03-13T13:12:25-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Ryan Burge asks a question here, so I will try to answer it. After listing what he categorizes as the “20 Largest Evangelical Denominations,” Burge writes:

I don’t think anyone could look at this list and have any major gripes about these groups being classified as Evangelical. Maybe the Amish? But if they aren’t Evangelical, then what are they? They certainly aren’t Mainline Protestants or part of the Black Church.

Anabaptist and Pietist sects are not evangelical any more than they are Mainline Protestants or part of the Black Church. They are their own thing. Some of these groups have assimilated enough that they might now possibly to be squeezed into one of Burge’s boxes — some Mennonite and Brethren congregations are more or less evangelical, some Quakers are more or less Mainline Protestants. But the Amish have not assimilated to the point where they would affiliate or associate with anyone.

Traffic sign near Arcola, Ill. (Wikimedia Commons photo by Daniel Schwen)

Not assimilating is kind of their whole deal. So, no, the Amish are not evangelicals. They’re their own thing.

The interesting thing about Burge’s question is that it involves a debate about the boundaries or definition(s) of “evangelical” that seems wholly distinct from the usual forms of this endless argument. It’s separate from both the ongoing historiographic battles among historians of American religion and from the ongoing power-struggles among the wanna-be-popes who seek control as gatekeepers of their brand. Instead, Burge is attempting something more like a system of Linnaean classification in which every religious group or sub-group has to be classed into a limited set of categories. Thus, since the Amish “certainly aren’t Mainline Protestants or part of the Black Church,” they must be classified as “evangelicals.” Kingdom: Christian; Phylum: Protestant; Class: Evangelical … or something like that.

The argument-evading simplicity of this is superficially appealing. Just redefine “evangelicals” as “American Protestants who are not members of a Mainline denomination or a part of the historic Black Church.” Easy peasy. And no need to get bogged down in reading all those critiques of the Bebbington Quadrilateral and whatnot.

But, alas, this just doesn’t work.

This Linnaean approach fails partly because religion is full of platypuses, like the Amish. And it fails mainly because it’s backwards — creating categories and then trying to force various groups to fit into them whether they like it or not. That’s a recipe for getting bogged down in semantic distractions and pointless arguments over questions like “Are Latter Day Saints Protestants?” (They’re not Catholic or Orthodox, so they must be Protestants — and since they’re definitely not either Mainline Protestants or part of the Black Church, then the LDS faithful must be “Evangelicals,” right?)

The backwardness of this cram-into-categories approach also helps us understand why Burge’s list of the “20 Largest Evangelical Denominations” is not, in fact, a list of the 20 largest evangelical denominations.

Consider the United Methodists. The UMC is not part of Burge’s list because he’s got them classified as “Mainline Protestants” instead. That makes sense because they are, after all, one of the largest ecumenical Protestant denominations cooperating through the National Council of Churches. That’s the original sense of this category, and it’s why the normal practice used to be distinguishing between “evangelicals” and “ecumenicals.”* That distinction has always been fuzzy, since a large percentage of American “evangelicals” have always been members of those ecumenical denominations.

Any historian arguing for the existence of “evangelicals” prior to the mid-century “Neo-evangelical” movement led by Billy Graham and Co. is mostly talking about exactly such “evangelicals” — Protestant Christians who were members of the churches Burge treats as the wholly separate category of “Mainline Protestants.” If we use something like the “Bebbington Quadrilateral” to identify evangelicals, then a big chunk of United Methodists today should still be counted as “evangelicals.” How big a chunk? I don’t know, but if a fifth of the 5 million United Methodists fall into that category, that would still put them in the top half of Burge’s “20 largest evangelical denominations.”**

Or consider the West Virginia Baptist Convention, 351 churches that look like any other southern Baptist churches, but which are not Southern Baptist churches only because the Baptists of the Mountain State 160 years ago were patriots and did not betray their country to commit treason in defense of slavery. That’s why to this day the West Virginia Baptist Convention is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches — and why the tens of thousands of evangelical Christians in its churches wind up, in Burge’s system, categorized as Mainline Protestants.

And let’s note, again, that the “Neo-evangelical” movement that birthed contemporary white evangelicalism in America was not a group that broke away from “Mainline Protestants.” It was a group that broke away from fundamentalists. That was the whole point of Graham’s movement. They weren’t trying to differentiate themselves from Mainline Protestants, but from fundamentalists.

The break from Mainline Protestantism happened a generation earlier — during the “Fundamentalist-modernist controversy” of the early 20th century. It seems insulting to Graham and Carl Henry and the rest of the “Neo-evangelicals” to project back onto that actual history a reimagined one in which the “Fundamentalist-modernist” split turns into an “evangelical-modernist” divide. That equates “evangelicals” with “fundamentalists,” which is exactly what Graham et. al. were insisting was not the case.

Fundamentalists still exist, of course. That’s another group that, like the Amish, cannot be made to fit into Burge’s All Protestants Must Be One of These Three Things categories.

Fundamentalists are also a bit like the Amish in this context in that they would both resist and reject any system that lumped them in as a subset of “Evangelicalism.”

Well, that’s true of old-school fundamentalists — folks like the Bobs Jones or Bill Gothard or any of the Sword of the Lord-style Independent Baptists still around. The new breed of 21st-century fundamentalists has learned to like passing themselves off as “evangelicals.” Guys like Al Mohler and Ken Ham and John Hagee and the Jerries Falwell and the late Tim LaHaye learned that there was more influence, power, and money to be had by passing themselves off as part of the evangelical mainstream they all once denounced as craven, compromised, worldly apostates. (They still spend most of their time bashing evangelicals as craven, compromised, worldly apostates, but they do it on Twitter now while simultaneously claiming that they alone represent the real, true evangelicalism.)

I’m not intending here to pick on Ryan Burge. His list of the “20 largest evangelical denominations” is fascinating and helpful in a lot of ways. And he is, in general, a really good Numbers Guy if you’re looking for “data” on American Christianity. But if that “data” is put in service of models that require us to lump the Amish in with evangelicals, then that data ceases to be helpful.

The Amish cannot be lumped in with evangelicals because, among other reasons, Amish ecclesiology is wholly incompatible with evangelical ecclesiology. “Ecclesiology” is the fancy seminary term for a denomination’s doctrine of the church. The Amish have a unique, embodied doctrine of the church. Evangelicals don’t really have one at all. What they have, instead, is a kind of free-market ecclesiology based on marketing and market share — sales, ratings, attendance, and clicks. None of that has any place in the church as far as the Amish are concerned.

Another way to consider all of these groups, apart from formal doctrines or number-crunching attempts to create classification systems, would be to think of them as distinct communities of interpretation. The Amish and the evangelicals and the modernist Mainline Protestants and the Black Church and the fundamentalists all read the same Bible, but they do not all read it in the same way. The same texts mean different things to these different groups. Those same texts mean different-ly to these different groups — they have meaning in different ways

This is part of why the category or classification of “evangelical” is so contentious and frustratingly evasive. I basically agree with Burge that, apart from the Amish, “I don’t think anyone could look at this list and have any major gripes about these groups being classified as Evangelical.” And yet it is clearly not true that the Presbyterian Church in America and the Vineyard can be regarded as part of the same community of interpretation.

Burge’s list of the 20 largest “evangelical” denominations includes groups with wildly divergent and incompatible approaches to understanding the Bible. Especially considering that the largest group there — the nondenominational, unaffiliated congregations — includes a vast hodgepodge of disparate beliefs and practices. But for all of these 20 19 groups’ different understandings of interpretation and their different approaches to scripture and Christian teaching, we can point to one common thread. They all turn to scripture in all their various ways in order to seek and to find (and to impose) there the same thing.

That same thing is partly soteriological, but it is mainly cultural and, thus, political. Evangelicalism is a diverse community of interpretation united by the way its various approaches to interpretation all seek support for the same thing.

That agenda is not shared by the Amish. The Amish are not evangelicals. They are simply, you know … the Amish.

* Making any distinction between “evangelicals” and “Mainline Protestants” in the 19th century is a tricky business that almost always involves projecting contemporary distinctions back onto people who would not have understood or accepted them. By the early 20th century we got things like the “Fundamentalist-modernist controversy,” where this distinction begins to describe something real. A generation later, neither of those sides was still comfortable with that terminology, with both the “fundamentalists” and the “modernists” feeling like those labels had acquired too many negative connotations. So they rebranded as “evangelicals” and “ecumenicals,” respectively.

The shift from “ecumenical” to “Mainline” was promoted polemically by opponents of the NCC and the churches it represented, whose support of the New Deal and of desegregation — “Communism” — made them an enemy. The groups supporting this anti-“Mainline” effort recognized that lots of born-again, biblicistic, conversions, etc., white Christians were members of those “Mainline” Protestant denominations and sought to peel them off by creating “evangelical” caucuses within those denominations that could be turned into splinter groups — “Good News” Methodists and such.

Those anti-Mainline groups — the Institute on Religion & Democracy, among others — had an interest in promoting the most expansive estimates of, for example, how many members of the UMC were “really” evangelicals. Were their estimates accurate? How could we go about measuring that? Questions like those, it seems to me, are where we need help from number-crunching Data Guys like Ryan Burge.

** It is 1980-something in Little Rock and the first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is attending a meeting of Church Women United where the church ladies will be making preparations for this southern UMC congregation’s participation in that year’s Crop Walk. The right-wing propaganda machine had not yet created its monstrous caricature of her, but Hillary was still a Yale Law valedictorian and something like the stereotype of the both theologically “liberal” and politically liberal intellectual that anti-“Mainline” evangelicals love to pretend is characteristic of everyone in those denominations. But at that same CWU meeting, there was almost certainly also a nice white southern homemaker and full-time Mom who didn’t vote for the governor and whose “conservative” theology was much more like what we would describe as “evangelical.”

And what happened when these two very different women met at that Church Women United meeting? Well, the liberal intellectual and the conservative homemaker prayed together with all the others at the start of that meeting, and then they all hashed out the details of the Crop Walk — these things don’t just happen by themselves — and then they closed the meeting by praying together again and said goodnight to one another and see you on Sunday,

And that sort of thing happens every day in churches all over America with no one involved bothering with or bothered by the categories we’re discussing here.

General Christian

Home and Religion

evangelicals

Previous Post

March 10, 2026

Andy Ogles and the Flushing Remonstrance

Next Post

March 13, 2026 LBCF: Conditional election

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"I remember A: but not B:. It was just A: for floppies and C: for ..."

MG Remoaner

A Psalm for Election Day

""Why would God need a watch?""He doesn't, that's why we know a watchmaker made the ..."

damanoid

The possibility of possibility

"30 minutes just to get to the coffee/tea part."

P J Evans

The possibility of possibility

"Are they Juan Ortiz posters? (I have a book of Next Generation ones and the ..."

Scurra

The possibility of possibility

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Where was Jesus' first miracle performed?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Cana Nazareth Capernaum Jerusalem