The Decline That Wasn’t

Nearly two decades have passed since James D. Hunter published his groundbreaking book, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation, which deals primarily with the theological, political, and social attitudes of students attending nine evangelical colleges.1 Hunter’s findings proved to be exceedingly disturbing to supporters of Christian higher education because they suggested, among other things, that evangelical college students were becoming more secularized and that quite likely Christian colleges were contributing to secularization and the loss of faith commitment among their students. In other words, a new, more “secular” generation of evangelicals was emerging due in part to the fact that Christian colleges were having precisely the opposite effect intended by their supporters.

Although Hunter contended that “one can only be amazed by the resilience of Protestant orthodoxy in its long encounter with the modern world order,” his examination of students attending evangelical colleges raised disturbing questions not only about Christian higher education but about the future of American evangelicalism as well. Like Dean Kelley,2 Hunter suggested that for religious orthodoxy to retain its vitality, it must provide people with cognitive and normative boundaries that contribute to group solidarity and help people to make sense of their lives. The presence of these boundaries is the source of religion’s ability to stimulate loyalty and promote action. Religious orthodoxies that fail to maintain boundaries and provide such meaning, which some believe happened to liberal Protestantism in the post-World War II period, risk alienating people, suffering a loss in membership, and experiencing a decline in institutional rigor.

According to Hunter, during the 1960s and 1970s, American evangelicalism witnessed “an erosion of precisely the sort of symbolic boundaries that Kelley and others have argued are necessary for the growth if not maintenance of its institutions and constituencies.” This erosion, however, was gradual, and as a result, its more negative consequences were not always so readily apparent. Nevertheless, according to Hunter, these changes were likely to have serious long-term consequences.

What contributed to this apparent weakening of evangelicals’ symbolic boundary system? In addition to the more general forces of modernization and secularization, Hunter’s work noted that Christian colleges themselves were possibly playing a role by failing to emphasize eternal truths and by facilitating students’ exposure to secular culture. Specifically, he contended that Christian higher education was weakening student belief in such traditional tenets of orthodoxy as belief in Jesus as the only way to salvation, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the doctrine of creation. Thus, his work suggested that students at evangelical colleges were deviating from orthodox notions of transcendent norms rooted in Scripture and moving toward a “progressive” view of authority based on Enlightenment thinking and grounded in human, rational discourse.

Since students who attend evangelical colleges constitute arguably the most important source of future evangelical leadership, Hunter’s conclusion that evangelical colleges were playing “a significant role in the erosion of the symbolic boundaries of conservative Protestantism” had potentially significant, negative implications for the future of evangelicalism in the United States. Indeed, Hunter concluded that “nearly everything reviewed” in his research “could provide reasonable grounds for pessimism.”

But is the situation actually as grim as Hunter implied? While Hunter’s book was critically acclaimed, it suffers from several serious shortcomings.3 For example, even though Hunter intended to assess changes within American evangelicalism over time, his study was based largely on data that, at best, provide a picture of college students’ attitudes at only a single point in time. His study does not, as a result, provide adequate data by which to assess change over time. Second, while Hunter sought to assess generational change among educated American evangelicals, he did not compare, even when possible, the attitudes of students attending evangelical colleges with the attitudes of older evangelicals who were similarly educated. Certainly, if important changes were taking place among college-educated evangelicals, one might expect such differences to be evident between the evangelical college students he surveyed and older, college-educated evangelicals (e.g., college-educated evangelicals 50 years of age or older). Hunter, however, did not provide such comparisons.

Despite these criticisms, Hunter’s work is one of the few in-depth analyses of students attending evangelical colleges, and it thus remains an important study worthy of attention. The beginning of a new millennium seems to be the appropriate time to reassess his work, primarily to determine whether his projections concerning the coming generation of evangelical college students are valid today.

The Theological Beliefs of Evangelical College Students

When Hunter assessed the theological beliefs of evangelical college students in the early 1980s, his emphasis was on the cracks in theological orthodoxy he thought were evident among the students he surveyed. He did not fail to note the theological orthodoxy of these students, but he chose to focus on what he thought were the inroads that subjectivism and moral relativism had made in their thinking. In so doing, he emphasized the responses that deviated from the norm rather than the most common responses. The following comments drawn from Hunter’s discussion illuminate this emphasis:

In the spectrum of theological opinion, it is clear that the coming generation of Evangelicals remains squarely conservative in its view of the Bible. … Thus, on the surface, little has taken place at all. Yet, … one can see that a dynamic is at play. The essence of this dynamic is a retreat from a position of strict inerrancy celebrated in the early decades of the twentieth century . …

Overall, this cohort of Evangelicals has not, for all practical purposes, repudiated traditional Protestant theology on the matter of salvation. A dynamic is at work nonetheless. As with their view of the Bible, it minimally represents a softening of earlier doctrinal certainties.4

By emphasizing such deviations from the norm, Hunter suggested that important changes were taking place among evangelical college students, that erosion in the bedrock of evangelical theology was evident among the coming generation of evangelical leaders, and that accommodation and secularization were the hallmarks of the educational experience of evangelical college students.

Actually, Hunter’s argument was somewhat more nuanced than it might at first appear. He did not simply argue that secularization is the inevitable result of modernity. Rather, he emphasized both the growth in subjectivity as the starting perspective of individuals and the growth of cultural pluralism as a sociological reality. In Hunter’s eyes, these two phenomena are mutually reinforcing—with the former leading to a restriction of any universal claim to a personal, subjective applicability and the latter to a growth in relativism with regard to moral truth. While such changes may lead to greater civility and tolerance on the part of religious believers, they are also likely to produce less confidence with regard to the truth of the religious beliefs to which believers adhere. Thus, according to Hunter:

When traditional affirmations of religious reality are, to whatever degree, undermined by modern forms of rationalism, they are simultaneously de-objectified. What was “known” with a taken-for-granted certitude becomes, at best, a “belief.” Further along in this process, it becomes a “religious opinion” or a “feeling.” … The other side of de-objectivation, though, is what social scientists call subjectivization. The emphasis shifts from a concern with the proclamation of an objective and universal truth to a concern with the subjective applicability of truth . …With regard to the problem of salvation, the adjustment simply entails an alignment to the normative codes of civility spawned by the contemporary milieu of pluralism.5

Still, while modernization might not inevitably lead to secularization, little hope was expressed that secularization could be resisted:

As religious traditions and the sociohistorical realities of the modern world order confront each other, there is little question as to which of the two gives way to the other. Almost invariably the former yields to the latter.6

However, while Hunter’s argument was based on contentions about change over time, his analysis and focus were largely based on data collected at one point in time. As a result, he was ill-equipped to discuss with any degree of confidence the extent to which changes in theological perspectives, if any, might be evident among evangelical believers. It is true that Hunter sought to incorporate, when available, relevant survey data that had been collected on evangelical college students at earlier points in time, and he occasionally made use of such data for comparisons over time. But for the most part, Hunter was limited in these cross-time comparisons to the data collected by David Moberg in his 1963 Religion and Morality survey.7

Unfortunately, the relevant data in Moberg’s study were limited to the surveys he had conducted in 1963 among students at Bethel College, Minnesota Bible College, and North Central Bible College. Bethel College was among the nine evangelical colleges from which Hunter gathered his data, but the presence of students from the two Bible colleges meant that Moberg’s earlier data base was likely made up disproportionately of fundamentalist as opposed to evangelical students. One suspects that, even in 1963, these fundamentalist students were likely more literalistic in their biblical understanding and more restrictive in terms of lifestyle than students attending evangelical colleges at the time. Hence, when Hunter compared the religious views and lifestyle practices of evangelical college students in 1982 with the views and practices of students revealed in the Moberg data of 1963, it is unclear just how many of the differences that emerged were reflective of real change in beliefs and practices over time or were simply the result of comparing two different things.

Since the 1963 data that Hunter used as the basis for his comparisons were drawn mainly from students attending Bible colleges, one could argue that he was, in a sense, comparing apples and oranges. While Hunter could have chosen to compare Bethel College students in the 1980s with Bethel College students in 1963, he did not do so. Consequently, it is far from clear whether the results of Hunter’s survey of evangelical college students in 1982 necessarily revealed (1) any clear change from what evangelical college students might have expressed a generation earlier, (2) any softening of earlier doctrinal certainties, or (3) any new dynamic with regard to the religious belief systems of evangelical college students at that point in time.

The present study is better equipped to answer such questions. To assess whether there has been any change over time in the religious beliefs and practices of students attending evangelical colleges, we first analyze the nature of theological beliefs expressed by students in our 1996 survey at nine evangelical colleges and universities: Bethel College, George Fox University, Gordon College, Houghton College, Messiah College, Seattle Pacific University, Taylor University, Westmont College, and Wheaton College. We then compare these results with those obtained by Hunter in his 1982 study of students attending the same nine evangelical colleges. Next, we analyze the relative impact that age and level of education have on shaping religious beliefs and the certainty of such beliefs among evangelicals over time. Finally, we assess the general level of orthodox Christian faith expressed by evangelical college students at the close of the second millennium.

Where, then, do evangelical college students stand today in terms of their beliefs concerning the historic articles of the Christian faith? Are evangelical college students still relatively orthodox in terms of their theological beliefs? Are evangelical college students today less firmly rooted in their religious faith than their counterparts attending evangelical colleges fourteen years ago?

We begin our analysis by examining responses to several questions concerning theological beliefs that historically have served as central components of the Christian faith. These questions were asked by Hunter in his survey of evangelical college students in the 1980s8 but were not reported in his book. We examine them here simply to ascertain whether the responses given by evangelical college students today reveal any possible warning signs as well as to provide a baseline for any future analyses that may be undertaken to assess stability and change in the religious belief systems of evangelical college students.

Table 1 presents the distribution of responses given by evangelical college students with regard to three doctrinal statements. The students were allowed to express responses ranging from “strong agreement” to “strong disagreement.” The three statements are: (1) There is no way to salvation but through Jesus Christ; (2) Jesus’ virgin birth is a historic fact; and (3) Jesus’ resurrection is a historic fact. The responses shown in table 1 hardly suggest that orthodoxy was in short supply on evangelical college campuses in the late 1990s. More than five out of every six students (85 percent) strongly agreed that there is no way to salvation but through Jesus Christ. And while a smaller percentage of students strongly agreed with the historicity of Jesus’ virgin birth and his physical resurrection from the dead, nearly three out of every four students did so, with a slightly larger percentage expressing strong agreement with the resurrection (76 percent) compared to the virgin birth (72 percent).

Furthermore, an examination of the level of disagreement with regard to the three statements reveals that only a small number of students indicated a contrary perspective, whether strong or less emphatic in nature. Only 2 percent of evangelical college students expressed any level of disagreement with the first statement, 4 percent with the second, and 3 percent with the third. When asked, “Do you believe Jesus Christ will physically return to earth?” only 2 percent indicated that they did not. Eighty-nine percent responded that they anticipate such a return, and another 9 percent indicated uncertainty (data not shown).

Thus, the data presented in table 1 suggest that evangelical college students today continue to express a relatively high level of orthodoxy with regard to the historic tenets of the Christian faith. Do evangelical college students also continue to exhibit and engage in traditional religious practices (e.g., attending church, Bible reading, and prayer) long evident among evangelical Protestants? These questions are addressed in table 2. Generally speaking, the data confirm such continuity, though it is impossible to assess change over time, as no reports of such religious practices were published in Hunter’s book. Still, the general level of religious practices reported by evangelical college students in 1996 suggests that traditional religious practices continue to be firmly rooted among evangelical college students. More than four out of every five students reported that they pray daily (84 percent), and a similar percentage stated that they attend church weekly (81 percent) and say grace daily before meals (79 percent). In addition, over 40 percent of the evangelical college students surveyed reported that they read or study the Bible daily, while a little more than one out of five students indicated that they share their religious faith with others at least weekly. Evangelical college students continue not only to express a relatively high level of theological orthodoxy but also to exhibit high levels of traditional evangelical religious practice.

Since the data presented in tables 1 and 2 do not reveal comparisons over time, we cannot ascertain whether any change, either in terms of erosion or revitalization, has occurred on evangelical college campuses over the past two decades. The issue of possible change over time is addressed in tables 3 and 4, where the distributions of responses obtained in the 1996 study are compared with those reported by Hunter in his study of these same campuses.9 It should be noted that the tables incorporate responses to all the theological questions reported by Hunter. The comparisons shown, therefore, are not simply ones selected to confirm some preselected pattern.10

Table 3 presents the distribution of responses with regard to three matters: (1) views on life after death, (2) views on the devil, and (3) views on the origin of human beings. What is most striking about the data are the virtually identical response patterns given by evangelical college students at these two cross- sections in time. For example, Hunter reported that 66 percent of evangelical college students surveyed in the early 1980s believed that the only hope for heaven is through personal faith in Jesus Christ. In 1996, an identical 66 percent of evangelical college students expressed this same belief. Likewise, in 1982, 85 percent of those surveyed indicated that they believed the devil to be a personal being who directs evil forces and influences people to do wrong. In 1996, a nearly identical 86 percent responded the same way. The same pattern of relative stability also appears with regard to views on the origin of human beings.

The pattern that emerges from table 3 hardly suggests an erosion of religious orthodoxy on the campuses of evangelical colleges. Orthodoxy remains, by far, the most prevalent perspective. If anything, changes in theological perspectives that may have occurred over time appear to be in a more conservative rather than a “secular” direction. As can be seen in table 4, evangelical college students, when asked about their views concerning the nature of biblical authority, were more likely in 1996 to report “inerrant” views of biblical authority coupled with a literalistic mode of interpretation (47 percent) than was true in 1982 (38 percent). Earlier, 50 percent of evangelical college students reported that they believed the Bible to be “infallible,” though the mode of interpretation used should not necessarily be literalistic in nature, while 41 percent of evangelical college students did so in 1996. With regard to changes in theological orthodoxy, the predominant pattern appears to be one of stability. These data, therefore, provide no evidence of a secularizing influence on evangelical college campuses—at least in terms of agreement with historic tenets of the Christian faith.

How, then, could Hunter believe that important changes were taking place among evangelical college students and that the coming generation of evangelicals was likely to be qualitatively different from previous generations of evangelicals? In part, the answer lies in Hunter’s choice to focus less on the most common responses and more on the answers that deviated from the dominant (modal) position. This choice was coupled with an implicit but undergirding assumption that greater theological unity existed among evangelicals in the past. However, historical evidence suggests that such an assumption is simply unwarranted. Evangelicalism has always been highly diverse. While there may be core evangelical beliefs, their existence does not mean that all evangelicals necessarily agree on each and every one. By making such an assumption, it appears that Hunter overinterpreted the amount of change that had transpired on evangelical college campuses.

James M. Penning is professor of polical science at Calvin College. Corwin E. Smidt holds the Paul B. Henry Chair in Christianity and Politics and serves as executive director of the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College. This essay is excerpted from their book, Evangelicalism: The Next Generation (Baker Academic/A Renewed Minds Book). Copyright 2002 by James M Penning and Corwin E. Smidt. Used by permission of Baker Book House.

1. James D. Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987). 2. Dean Kelley, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (Harper & Row, 1972). 3. These are discussed at greater length in the book from which this article is excerpted. 4. Hunter, pp. 30, 40. 5. Hunter, p. 47. 6. Hunter, p. 48. 7. For a description of this study, see David Moberg, “Theological Self-Classification and Ascetic Moral Views of Students,” Review of Religious Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1969), pp. 100-107. 8. James Davison Hunter graciously provided us with a copy of his survey instruments before we began our study. 9. Hunter, chap. 2. 10. Only responses to five questions pertaining to “standard” tenets of theological orthodoxy are presented by Hunter in Evangelicalism (tables 3-5). No identical question on the biblical account of Creation was included in the 1996 study; a related but differently worded question used to tap the respondent’s view of Creation was included in the 1996 study.

Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine. Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.