One Faith No Longer: The Transformation of Christianity in Red and Blue America

by George Yancey, Ashlee Quosigk

Irreconcilable differences drive the division between progressive and conservative Christians―is there a divorce coming?

Much attention has been paid to political polarization in America, but far less to the growing schism between progressive and conservative Christians. In this groundbreaking new book, George Yancey and Ashlee Quosigk offer the provocative contention that progressive and conservative Christianities have diverged so much in their core values that they ought to be thought of as two separate religions.

The authors draw on both quantitative data and interviews to uncover how progressive and conservative Christians determine with whom they align themselves religiously, and how they distinguish themselves from each other. They find that progressive Christians emphasize political agreement relating to social justice issues as they determine who is part of their in-group, and focus less on theological agreement. Among conservative Christians, on the other hand, the major concern is whether one agrees with them on core theological points. Progressive and conservative Christians thus use entirely different factors in determining their social identity and moral values.

In a time when religion and politics have never seemed so intertwined, One Faith No Longer offers a timely and compelling reframing of an age-old conflict.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Christianity, Christian

320 pages, Hardcover

Published July 6, 2021

Reviews

[Ashley Hoss · Rating 5 out of 5]

The thesis of One Faith No Longer is that progressive Christianity and conservative Christianity are becoming so different that they should, could, and potentially will be considered separate religions. An additional goal is stated on page 5:

Our aim is to show both how theologically progressive and conservative Christians define their social and political priorities and how those definitions differ from each other. We also examine how differing social and political aspirations emerge from these theological discussions.

I do want to mention that if you are the kind of person who skips the introduction of a book, you absolutely do not want to pass through this one, it is full of information that helps set up the rest of the book for you.

OFNL primarily focuses on American Christianity, which is important to recognize because many of the dynamics discussed in this book are specific to America. There’s also an emphasis that the conversation is directed primarily towards theological conservatives and progressives, though it does have implications on the political views of said groups. OFNL defines conservative Christians as those who have a strong emphasis on “God-given absolutes,” including biblical inerrancy and exclusive truth claims. Conservatives are also “less concern[ed] with systemic societal improvement and more focus[ed] on individual sins” (page 30). On the other hand, progressive Christians value inclusivity and acceptance. There is a lower emphasis on “theological conformity” and evangelism, while valuing the importance of social justice and societal change (pages 32-34).

On page 12, Yancey and Quosigk outline the methods for their research, citing data collected from American National Election Studies (ANES), which is a probability survey that is done during presidential and midterm elections. They also looked to a variety of blogs from differing perspectives and performed interviews with over 70 evangelicals from differing perspectives. These resources provide insight to how conservatives and progressives believe about themselves and each other. This isn’t just about what people think, but also looks at how and why people think the way that they do.

Yancey and Quosigk take the time to walk through the history of evangelicalism and how we got here in the first place, making sure to include the modernist and fundementalist debates of the 1920s. While looking at current disagreements, they touch on the inerrancy of scripture, abortion, immigration, and views of Islam. In each of these sections, the arguments of conservatives tended to be theologically based, even when their views were more politically liberal. On page 109, Yancey and Quosigk expound:

The majority of our interviewees in our conservative Christian example were categorized as politically right leaning. However, our research also finds that conservative Christians are becoming increasingly unhappy with the Republican Party, citing corruption and abandonment of conservative and founding principles of small government within a Judeo-Christian framework. … Our research also shows that conservative Christians are very likely to defend their political affiliations by also citing their faith. … Often conservative Christians see others as being more motivated by theology, seeing the world through a religious lens. For example, when it comes to the issue of Islamic terrorism, many conservative Christians believe that the root of the problem lies in the religion of Islam, as opposed to other political or social causes.

This is contrasted with progressive arguments that often come from a more experience and politically shaped perspective, even when they hold to a view that is more politically conservative, like being pro life. On pages 66 and 67, Yancey and Quosigk point to arguments made that showed “concern for women,” including arguments concerned with “prenatal care, low socioeconomic status, minority women, or other help for women facing an unplanned pregnancy.” They also note that progressive Christians’ “disagreement with other progressives is presented as a contrasting way to present their shared values and not a disagreement with the overarching values themselves.”

Because of the differing “why” to these goals (even when the goals are the same), Yancey and Quosigk argue that the differences put progressive and conservative Christians at odds with one another to the degree that the differences are irreconcilable, partly due to unwillingness to work together (largely on the side of theological progressives, which their research supports) and also due to the theological differences also being core differences. An example cited on page 196 is regarding beliefs in Jesus:

But even within the beliefs that are assumed to be central to Christianity, the opinions of Christians can dramatically vary. For example, it can be argued that there is no tenet more central to Christianity than the belief in Jesus. But are Christians linked together because of their beliefs in Jesus? And what exactly do they believe about Jesus? Conservative Christians tend to envision him as having the qualities of a deity. While some progressive Christians openly acknowledge Jesus as God, others see him as an exemplary model for how a human should live rather than focusing on any divine characteristics. There are even Christians who challenge the idea that Jesus even existed.

With this in mind, Yancey and Quosigk point to a potential split because of differing (sometimes contradictory) goals and an unwillingness to work together. Though, they do say on page 197 that a split is unlikely unless there becomes a new way to categorize progressives and conservatives.

OFNL is exceptionally well written and thorough. Every ounce of nuance that could be afforded has been afforded and I don’t know if I’ve ever read a book that has given as much good faith to opposing sides as this one has. Yancey and Quosigk are very direct and don’t use labels pejoratively. There’s no sense of superiority complex, it’s truly just delivering and analyzing facts.

While I largely agree with a lot of the content, I do wish that they had touched on LGBT issues and women's ordination because I see those as more hot button topics today. Though I understand that the differences in those issues are more theologically based than politically and this book does focus primarily on the intersection of faith and politics.

OFNL gives a lot of great food for thought and is quite insightful. I truly feel like I grew as a person and intellectually while reading it, so in that way, I know the authors accomplished their goals. It also gave me a positive affinity for being considered a conservative Christian after the last few years have left me feeling a little ideologically homeless at times.

One of the biggest takeaways I have from OFNL is the importance of asking good questions when you’re talking to someone about your faith (even a fellow Christian). We shouldn’t be quick to label other people as woke, feminist, misogynist, bigot, etc. We should let people self identify what they are and read them charitably. It is more work to do that, but it’s also more honest and if you work from a place of honesty and understanding a common baseline, it’s easier to move past that into more winsome conversations. We can be winsome without compromising on the truth or our integrity.

Due to all of these things and more, I can happily give this book 5 stars out of 5. If you want to get an introduction to the book, I will link 2 pieces from the Gospel Coalition below that discuss One Faith No Longer, one is from George Yancey and the other is a review written by Trevin Wax. George Yancey also did an insightful interview with Dr. Sean McDowell that I’ll link below as well!
Links: https://bit.ly/34Uy9Ne, https://bit.ly/3InBvXL, https://bit.ly/3h1e0rc

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Maybe 4.5 stars]

This important sociological study examines the differences in the beliefs of Conservative and Progressive Christians and how these differences affect their views of Christianity, society, politics, and each other. The findings are striking, and delivered in a evenhanded dispassionate style, but are ultimately distressing since it appears that the two groups have diverged so much they should be regarded as separate religions.

In general, for progressive Christians political alignment is more important, and they are willing to tolerate more theological variation. It’s the opposite for conservative Christians — they are more accepting of those with differing political views, but are less likely to tolerate theological differences.

Perhaps surprisingly, progressive Christians are more likely to surround themselves with like-minded people, especially those who are like-minded politically. Conservative Christians are much more likely to regard progressive Christians positively and to think of them as being on the same team. Progressive Christians however, tend to look at conservative Christians with some disdain, and would prefer not to associate with them.

The authors examine how both groups view Islam to highlight some differences. It would have been helpful had they also evaluated the two groups’ views regarding LGBT and gender issues. I think these subjects are currently more divisive and salient.


Here are a couple of summarizing passages:

“Conservative Christians build their faith on attempts to follow the dictates of the Bible…The idea of the Bible being without error can lead to a particularist approach to faith. There is a strong tendency to envision their religion as the only valid way to salvation…The ramification of such belief is motivation to “share“ the religion with others, which often takes the form of proselytization efforts on an individual or group level…Conservative Christians socialized in the United States are likely to adapt values of religious freedom too deeply for such a perspective to gain much strength among them. But many conservative Christians believe that individuals in the larger society would be better off adopting their values and so they seek to replace the faith of others with their particular version of Christianity. Most progressive Christians do not base their religion on strict obedience to the Bible, nor do they feel a strong need to encourage others to accept their interpretation of the Bible or even to accept a Christian faith. The core of the religion is built upon a value set of inclusiveness, tolerance, and social justice. It is what we have conceptualized and termed a humanistic ethic of social justice. Unlike conservative Christians, progressives do not center their spirituality upon a certainty that Christianity has all the answers. Instead, Christianity is just one of many paths to achieving a society of inclusion and justice for the marginalized.”

“Generally, for conservative Christians, meaning is found within obedience to a supernatural God as described in the Bible. They believe that God, much interpreted through the lens of the Bible, determines our value, meaning, and worth. In their epistemological framework, humans look for direct guidance by the Christian deity how to live their lives and shape their society. Progressive Christians believe in the Christian deity with varying degrees of certainty, but that is not the complete source of their purpose. Their purpose is the alteration of society toward one that embodies a humanistic ethic of social justice. To this end, they value empowering those defined as marginalized and accepting those of non-Christian faiths and beliefs. The adherence of conservative Christians to a more rigid and, in some cases, more literal, interpretation of the Bible, and the adherence of progressive Christians to a humanistic ethic of social justice, create differing priorities toward political activism, acceptance of non-Christians, and the role of culture and understanding truth. These differences are not incidental and reveal religious groups with distinct goals and core perspectives. The essential goals of each group are diametrically opposed to each other. Progressive and conservative Christians have distinct systems of belief that use similar terms infused with contrasting meanings.”


Here’s a couple of useful reviews. One from Trevin Wax (conservative) and one from Dwight Welch (progressive). [I noticed after I pasted the links into this review that the website names themselves are very telling, and further demonstrate this book’s findings]:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...

https://approachingjustice.net/2021/1...

[Zak Schmoll · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book convincingly argues that it does not make sense to make claims about Christianity as a whole in the United States anymore. Instead, progressive and conservative Christians ought to be understood as discrete groups rather than a homogeneous religion.

Supported by quantitative as well as qualitative research, this book makes many provocative claims. For example, their research shows that conservative Christians are more likely to consider progressive Christians as members of their "in group" because of an element of theological agreement. Progressives are more likely to consider even non-Christian people who share their political values related to social justice as members of their "in group" than they are to give that spot to conservative Christians. Contrary to popular belief, conservative Christians seem to be the ones more open to keeping Christian unity than progressives.

This book will probably make you uncomfortable. As a conservative Christian, I can entirely identify with the impulse to want to think that even progressive Christians can be on the same team. From this research, it seems pretty clear to me that often times they don't want to be. I don't know what to make of that or how that should impact my interactions, but this book gives you a great deal to think about and is highly recommended.

[Michelle Zier · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite maxims is “First, tell the truth. Then, give your opinion.” In “One Faith No Longer,” authors Yancey/Quosigk do exactly that: they report their research findings and provide an accurate breakdown of the differences within Christianity in the neverending culture wars.
Although Christians are often depicted as a distinct, unified group, Yancey and Quosigk invite readers to check their assumptions and question the stereotypes. Christianity, not just globally but also within American culture, is far from being a monolith. As such in discussing Christians, we should always first be asking “What kind of Christians are we talking about?” Based on Yancey and Quosigk’s findings, it’s time to recognize that Christianity is as polarized in America as the red and blue political parties.
With careful methodology, nuanced thought, and solid analysis, Yancey and Quosigk first examine the historical context of the modernist/fundamentalist split that emerged early in the 20th century. They then spend several chapters dispassionately examining the core values and beliefs of both conservative and progressive Christians. They don’t attempt to steer the readers into one group or another or disclose their own personal beliefs. Nor do they draw conclusions beyond their research results. Rather, they aim for the book to spark further discussion and research on this subject.
Their research confirms the undeniable: conservative and progressive Christians have different epistemological approaches to their faith, resulting in different theology, core values, and approaches to meaning, purpose, and identity. The groups also greatly differ in how they construct their social identities and political priorities. These significant distinctions warrant that we should be careful to use proper nuance and afford appreciation of these differences when discussing Christianity. Indeed, progressive and conservative Christians are so far apart that they should be regarded as distinct religious groups rather than subgroups under one religious umbrella.
Whether you are an academic or layperson, conservative Christian, progressive Christian, moderate Christian, or not Christian, I highly recommend this compelling book, as well as all of George Yancey’s fantastic books which are significant contributions to the areas of race, politics, and religion. This is my first time reading something by Ashlee Quosigk and will now be checking out her other works.

[Randy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Same Words, Different Worlds

Have progressive Christianity and conservative Christianity diverged so much that we should now consider them separate religions? Authors George Yancey and Ashlee Quosigk have the provocative idea and the research to back it up to say yes, that is indeed the case.

This new book, One Faith no Longer, is a sociological study of conservative Christianity and progressive Christianity. What makes this study unique is that, after reading the book twice, I still cannot tell what side the authors would stand on. They appear to have done their best to give an objective assessment of the data that their research has revealed.

So how did they define progressive Christians versus conservative Christians? They used two theological questions of their interviewees. First, do you believe Jesus Christ is the one way to heaven? Second, do you believe the Bible is the authoritative, God-breathed, or inerrant Word of God? Those who answered “yes” to both questions were categorized as conservative Christians (33% of respondents). Those who disagreed, as progressive Christians (27%).

It should be noted that 40% of the respondents, a larger percentage than either of the two other groups, gave a mixed answer, and being in the middle, were not characterized as either conservative or progressive. I think that indicates that further research needs to be done on that large group in the middle. But it is helpful in defining the boundaries around a group that if defined as broadly as possible, becomes impossible to characterize in any meaningful way.

Now to anyone with any knowledge of church history, it is clear that there have always been differences within Christianity, and yet we have always characterized them as differences within Christianity. So what is different about progressive and conservative Christianity that would warrant talk about them diverging into two different religions?

The answer begins to emerge by looking at how you define religions in general. Religions try to answer questions of meaning, and different religions have different approaches to those questions and answers of meaning. Now, within the same religion, you could have variations on that answer. An example could be Catholics and Protestants. Arguably they are the same religion because they are both trying to answer the same question, namely, how can I have my sins forgiven and have peace with God? Christ’s atonement on the cross as a payment for sin figures in the picture for both, and even though there are significant differences in the answer that should not be minimized, the general framework is still the same. They both are trying to get from “A” to “B”; they agree on what “A” and “B” are, but they disagree on how to cross the distance.

The authors argue that by contrast, progressive Christians have a different approach to questions of meaning such that they don’t even agree with conservatives on what “A” and “B” are. They are asking and answering entirely different questions of meaning and purpose. Even if they use a lot of the same terminology, when you dive down, these terms are infused with entirely different meanings.

There actually is historical precedent for this argument of religious divergence, and this would be the emergence of Buddhism from Hinduism in the fifth century BC. No one would say they’re the same religion even though there’s some similarities in terminology. Both religions, for example, use the term “nirvana,” but they mean radically different things by it. In Hinduism it means “merging with ultimate reality,” while in Buddhism it means “extinction,” ceasing to exist.

This is essentially what we see paralleled in conservative Christianity and progressive Christianity.

An example in the book that really illustrates the difference is the controversy over the lyrics in the song “In Christ Alone.” There’s a line that refers to the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ that progressives objected to, and asked (unsuccessfully) to be changed so that they could use it in their hymnbook. The line is: “And on that cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” The progressives rejected that theology and wanted it instead to read: “And on that cross where Jesus died, the love of God was magnified,” in order to reflect their own theology.

The authors argue that two factors must be present for two groups to be considered separate religions. First, there has to be sufficient differences in their core beliefs such that it becomes clear they are trying to fulfill different purposes and work toward different goals. It could be objected that despite their differences, both progressives and conservatives are at bottom trying to serve and honor Christ. Yes, but they are working from such distinct values systems that aside from the mere words “serve and honor Christ,” they mean entirely different things.

Conservatives have as their starting point a commitment to what they understand the Bible to be saying, and they define their terms on that basis. Progressives, by contrast, begin with what the authors call a “humanistic ethic of social justice” as the grid through which terms are defined. “With this ethic,” the authors argue, “progressive Christians maintain, in varying proportions, a high view of Jesus but distinguish themselves from their conservative counterparts in their willingness to learn from and accept non-Christians, and even embrace many of their beliefs, particularly individuals and beliefs perceived as marginalized in Western culture.” And so they may claim a high view of the Bible, but it is subservient to this ethic.

If that sounds confusing, the authors quote a progressive pastor who makes the difference clear as day:

“The difference between me and you is you use scripture to determine what love means and I use love to determine what scripture means.”

So I think it is fair to say that the first condition has been met for two groups to be considered separate religions.

The second condition is that sufficient out-grouping has to have occurred between the two groups. And here is where one of the surprises of the book jumped out at me. The data indicate that conservatives, though they use theological criteria to distinguish their in-group from their out-group, still consider progressives to be part of their in-group. But progressives, by contrast, although their values of social justice has them placing a high premium on tolerance and inclusion, overwhelmingly place conservative Christians in their out-group.

Even on those rare occasions when they disagree with other progressives and actually agree with conservatives on a matter of public policy – that sole issue being abortion – they make sure to distance themselves from conservative pro-lifers and stress that they are NOT like them. It is no exaggeration to say that one of the clearest self-identifying characteristics of progressive Christians is that they are not conservative Christians.

Clearly the second condition for religious divergence has been met.

I find it interesting that J. Gresham Machen, in his 1923 book “Christianity and Liberalism” came to the same conclusion as Yancey and Quosigk did, especially since he too regarded Catholicism, for all its errors, as still falling within the boundaries of Christianity.

I don’t have to answer the question of the relationship between the liberalism of Machen’s day and the progressive Christianity of our day. It’s enough for the authors to let the progressives speak for themselves and in their own words show that regardless of whatever differences they may have with the old liberals, their religion of “serving Christ” is essentially identical to that of the liberals. And it is interpreted through an entirely different value set and hence has an entirely different purpose and trajectory than what “serving Christ” meant to conservative Christians either in Machen’s day or today.

Machen’s liberals and today’s progressives look at Christ and see only “imitation.” Conservatives yesterday and today look at Him and see not imitation but the glories of “imputation.”

Looking at Christ and seeing nothing more than a model for imitation is light-years away from looking at Him who was pierced and clinging to the hope of imputation. These are the bedrock commitments of different religions.

Yancey and Quosigk are to be commended for their dispassionate tone and carefully reasoned argument, where they essentially just let the data speak for themselves and all they do is connect the dots. I highly recommend this book as a unique and refreshing study.

[Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’re looking for a book that roundly criticizes progressive Christianity and strongly favors traditional Christianity, this is not that book. This is a scholarly work and as such the authors aimed at maintaining academic/scientific objectivity and neutrality. The book is descriptive, rather than prescriptive or proscriptive. The authors tried to portray both sides evenly, so some of the characterizations of progressive Christians might seem positive, and some of the descriptions of conservative Christianity could seem negative, and vice versa. In general, though, the authors refrain from making value judgments about either side.

The authors state in the Introduction that there’s more existing research on conservative Christianity than on progressive Christianity. So maybe this book breaks some new ground by providing additional empirical study of progressive Christianity and also in comparing it to conservative Christianity. In that way the authors have provided a significant service to the church and the academic community.

Those who are already familiar with progressive Christianity won’t find many surprises here or much you didn’t already know. However, the book is likely to confirm some of your suspicions or intuitions about theologically progressive Christianity. For those new to progressive Christianity, this book may provide some helpful information.

It should be understood that this is not primarily a book about political progressivism, but about theologically progressive Christianity. Where politics figure into it is mainly in the authors’ observation that theologically progressive Christians tend to be politically progressive as well, though not always. Also, the authors found that, because of progressive Christians’ humanistic ethic of social justice, progressives tend to be more motivated by political concerns than by theological ones. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, are motivated more by theological considerations than by politics. Ironically, because of this difference, the authors found that progressive Christians seem to feel less free to dissent politically from their social group than conservative Christians do from theirs. Conservative Christians displayed a greater variety of political views.

An observation I would make here is that progressive Christians are more theologically flexible (one of the conclusions the authors draw in the book), while conservatives seem more politically flexible. Likewise, the authors found that conservative Christians are more theologically rigid; I would suggest based on the book’s findings that progressive Christians seem more politically rigid.

The authors’ statistical analysis of conservative and progressive Christianity relied on existing survey data from the 2012 American National Election Studies, a survey conducted every midterm and presidential election year. The only question in this survey that lent itself to distinguishing between conservative and progressive Christians was one asking whether respondents viewed the Bible as the literal Word of God. Since previous studies have shown that conservative Christians are most likely to accept the Bible as inerrant and progressive Christians are unlikely to subscribe to inerrancy, this was a pretty reliable marker. Still, I feel more information is needed about the beliefs of conservative and progressive Christians to accurately understand and portray the theological differences between the two groups. The authors themselves acknowledged this, saying that it’s “reasonable to consider beliefs such as whether salvation comes only from Christ or particularism [sic], whether hell is real, whether miracles occur, or other possible theological contrasts between progressive and conservative Christians as possible theological measurements, but the ANES does not enable us to do that…an instrument with multiple measures would be more ideal” (pp. 41-42). George Barna’s research organization has developed some very specific instruments geared toward distinguishing evangelical Christians from the rest of the population using theological measures of the kind the authors mentioned. I think for future studies comparing and contrasting conservative and progressive Christianity, employing a greater number of more specific theological measures like those would provide more detailed information about the differences between progressive and conservative Christians.

More than 70 people were interviewed for this study. All of them were identified as evangelicals. Of these, roughly half identified as conservative, and roughly half identified as progressives. Of the 70+ people interviewed, 29 were considered leaders in evangelicalism, either progressive or conservative. The remaining 40+ interviewees were members of 4 congregations, two of which were conservative, and two of which were progressive. I feel the fact that members of only 4 congregations were interviewed is one of the biggest weaknesses of the study. In addition to this, the interviewees were not chosen at random, but were chosen by word of mouth among the members of the 4 churches selected, which has the disadvantage of possibly attracting like-minded people to the interviews. Conservative Christianity today is extremely varied, despite the similarity of views about the inerrancy of Scripture and other core doctrines. In conservative Christianity today you have Baptists, charismatics, traditional Pentecostals, cessationists, holiness churches, and historically evangelical denominations, as well as more liturgical denominations like Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian. These groups differ in many ways. Within conservative Christianity you also have Trump supporters and never-Trumpers, who are in strong disagreement with one another, as well as some who are politically centrist or progressive but theologically conservative. And this is not to even consider the diversity within progressive Christianity. I think in order to accurately represent both conservative and progressive Christianity, a much broader group of people need to be interviewed, and chosen at random as much as possible.

All of that said, the authors’ findings in the book nonetheless match what one would expect from anecdotal evidence, so it’s not hard to believe the results are accurate. Still, a broader sample would be more likely to satisfy any skeptics.

So One Faith No Longer doesn’t rely primarily on theological questions to differentiate between conservative and progressive Christians. Rather, this is mainly a sociological study. The authors use a sociological approach to uncover differences between the two groups. One of the key methods they use is to look at who progressive and conservative Christians identify as their “in-groups” and “out-groups.” An in-group is a social group which a group of people likes or identifies with: an out-group is a social group that a group dislikes or feels alienated from. The authors found that conservative Christians identified as their in-groups those who most agreed with them on theological matters—namely, other Christians, including progressive Christians. Out-groups for conservative Christians included atheists and members of other religions, especially Muslims. Progressive Christians were more likely to identify like-minded atheists and members of other religions, including Muslims, as part of their in-group. The primary out-group for progressive Christians was conservative Christians.

To conclude, I think the work Drs. Yancey and Quosigk have offered here is very timely, helpful, and valuable, and is an important step forward in providing empirical research that sheds light on the nature of progressive and conservative Christianity and the differences between them.

[Stephanie Erwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super helpful book! Yancey and Quosigk make a very compelling case for viewing conservative and progressive Christians as two entirely different religious groups. From the broader issue of how they approach questions of meaning, to the unique ways they approach problems, truly these two groups are so different that it's no longer helpful to combine them sociologically. From the preface, "It is vital to ask the question 'what type of Christian are we talking about?' before we so freely use 'Christian' as an adjective."
Some of the findings in the research may be surprising to some readers, such as the fact that conservative Christians have more ideologically diverse social groups than progressive Christians.
A crucial read for academics, but also very accessible and enlightening for the layperson. I would highly recommend this book to both conservative and progressive Christians, as a help in clarifying our differences.

[Derek Plegge · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘One Faith No Longer’ brings forth an objective analysis of the difference between conservative Christianity and progressive Christianity. This book opened my eyes even further to the growing divide between these two groups. Here are a couple of big take aways:

First, conservative and progressive Christians have different ways of determining who is a part of their ‘in-group.’ Conservatives determine it based on theology while progressive determine it on politics.

Second, progressive Christians will align themselves more with Islam than they do with conservative Christians. Progressive Christians are most critical of conservatives. They view Muslims as being in their ‘in-group’ and conservative Christianity as their out.

Third, conservative Christians actually view progressive Christians as being in their ‘in-group.’ Even though they do not align theologically, conservative Christians are continuing to warm up to progressive theology and no longer see the difference as being worth dividing.

All in all, I am very surprised at this trend of progressive Christians aligning with Islam and conservatives aligning with progressives. I agree with the authors that progressive and conservative Christianity are at its core two different religions.

[Brenna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not the book I expected to break my book slump with, but it intrigued me, and I had a strong desire to read and finish it. One Faith No Longer is an academic, objective view of the differences between conservative and progressive Christianity, especially in regards to evangelicalism. It was a really interesting read, and they are open about their methodology and research. I couldn’t really follow the statistical analysis in Chapter 2 and had to just trust the authors’ interpretation. It was really interesting to see the two sides explained so clearly, and I agree with the authors ultimate point that the two sides are essentially 2 different religions, though that is personally hard to accept or believe. But, as we have seen so far, it is already playing out in the splitting of denominations. A good book and very interesting.

[Dwight Welch · Rating 3 out of 5]

https://approachingjustice.net/2021/1...

[Valari Westeren · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book explained SO MUCH of my personal observations about "red" and "blue" Christianity to me. I wasn't crazy after all! In most of my personal experience, conservatives really do put theology ahead of politics, while liberals/progressives do the opposite. Scripture interpretation doesn't mean the same thing to these groups, nor is it used in the same way. And progressive Christians are much more likely to be vocal in disagreement with conservative Christians, thereby being more likely to go on the offensive too. And that's exactly what this in-depth social study found.

If anything surprised me, it was learning that progressive Christians, as opposed to conservative Christians, are more likely to be white, male, and highly educated. That's not exactly the picture largely painted of them, and I'm wondering what nuances are present. This is one book, after all, and the authors do acknowledge that conservative vs. progressive Christians need to be studied in way more depth than they have. But so far, at least to my experience, this book rang very true. And whatever side you find yourself on, this book is an important conversation starter on the real divide within American Christianity.