Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists

[Ken]

Here is a list of towns and cities where Grok thinks Evangelicals may have more influence than Mainliners. Again, the question is currently, not what was happening 50 or 100 years ago.

The term "Mainline" was coined 100 years ago. And it very much did refer to the denominations that provided the "P" in WASP. Which pretty much by definition was the "establishment"

Pointing out that large parts of the US are no longer dominated by mainline churches is just another way of saying that the influence of mainline churches has been diminishing in this country for the past several decades. A fact that I think we are all aware of.

[Pelerin]

Mainline Protestant has a specific meaning. The Wikipedia article explains it well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant

Mainline Protestant churches don't really meet your above definition.

I’m not sure which particular aspect of the article you’ve hitched your definitional horse to. Not the bits about prestige, affluence, and influence presumably. Simply saying “liberal” is out since the article has a whole section about variation within mainline denominations. Maybe you want to define it institutionally, which is viable, but in that case we could have simply listed the included institutions and saved ourselves ten pages of posts.

In any case, Ernie was wondering how to nail down what it means to be mainline and whether and how it might be applied to Anabaptist groups given changing convictions over the decades. I offered something I thought captured the spirit of the mainline and given that some Wikipedia editor thought to illustrate the Mainline with a photo of a Tudor Revival home in the Forest Hills Gardens neighborhood of Queens, I feel reasonably confident that I captured it somewhat.

[JohnH]

Mainline Protestant has a specific meaning. The Wikipedia article explains it well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant

Mainline Protestant churches don't really meet your above definition.

I’m not sure which particular aspect of the article you’ve hitched your definitional horse to. Not the bits about prestige, affluence, and influence presumably. Simply saying “liberal” is out since the article has a whole section about variation within mainline denominations. Maybe you want to define it institutionally, which is viable, but in that case we could have simply listed the included institutions and saved ourselves ten pages of posts.

In any case, Ernie was wondering how to nail down what it means to be mainline and whether and how it might be applied to Anabaptist groups given changing convictions over the decades. I offered something I thought captured the spirit of the mainline and given that some Wikipedia editor thought to illustrate the Mainline with a photo of a Tudor Revival home in the Forest Hills Gardens neighborhood of Queens, I feel reasonably confident that I captured it somewhat.

Perhaps consider what distinguishes a mainline denomination like Disciples of Christ from its non-mainline cousins like Church of Christ.

[Ken]

There are really two different aspects to what it means to be mainline protestant.

There is the theological definition in which the mainline protestant denominations are contrasted against those other protestant denominations that are evangelical or fundamentalist (or both).

And there is the social definition in which mainline protestants as a social group tended to be the establishment or "IN" group that dominated business and politics for about the first two centuries of this country's existence. But are clearly slipping in influence as this country undergoes rapid demographic and religious change and mainline denominations are in decline.

When it comes to Mennonites, the mainline Anabaptist groups like MCUSA tend to fall more into the first category than the second.

[Ernie]

Here is a list of towns and cities where Grok thinks Evangelicals may have more influence than Mainliners. Again, the question is currently, not what was happening 50 or 100 years ago.

The term "Mainline" was coined 100 years ago. And it very much did refer to the denominations that provided the "P" in WASP. Which pretty much by definition was the "establishment"

Pointing out that large parts of the US are no longer dominated by mainline churches is just another way of saying that the influence of mainline churches has been diminishing in this country for the past several decades. A fact that I think we are all aware of.

I am responding to this statement.

“Establishment” might be a better term than Mainline. In every society or town there are “in” groups and “out” groups and mainline churches are the “in” group.

I'm suggesting that mainline is not always the "in" group. In many cases, I think the "in" group is Evangelicals.

And in some parts of the nation, Mormons and Catholics are the "in" group.

[Ernie]

I'm wrestling a bit with whether categories like "Mainline" should be updated/redefined or whether new categories should be added for groups that accept things they would not have accepted at one point.

Mainline used to mean a certain thing in the late 1900's. It seems to me that this should/could stick with the same definition and we simply add new terms for all the movements that have started since. (i.e. the three mainline groups that you identified who accept LGBTQ)

On the other hand, if sociologists are going to keep using "Mainline" to refer to certain Protestant denominations who keep changing, then it makes sense from a sociological perspective to use their terms and create new categories for the groups who are trying to preserve what mainliners stood for in the last half of the 20th century.  

I always pictured “mainline” to mean the sort of church the respectable people of town would attend—the doctors and businessmen and such. The sort that won’t ruffle the feathers of respectable society, whatever that means for its constituents. I think that’s still broadly true. “Conservative” mainliners in small towns fit in well with respectable opinion in their town. Even the more outlandish stories you hear about in mainline churches aren’t all that outlandish when you consider that they fit in well with, say, corporate sponsorship of the pride parade that goes past their doors.

Are you contrasting this with devout Evangelicals who are respectable people in town, but would not participate in pride parades, etc.?

[JohnH]

"Mainline" has a certain analogy for MC USA and (some) LMC congregations, as they are often graying congregations, declining in relevance and influence in their surrounding communities, but still often being the bearers of significant wealth. I think the two streams are essentially the same thing.

[JohnL]

I'm suggesting that mainline is not always the "in" group. In many cases, I think the "in" group is Evangelicals.

And in some parts of the nation, Mormons and Catholics are the "in" group.

Sometimes the "in" group isn't part of a church at all. It's the Rotary Club.

[Ken]

“Establishment” might be a better term than Mainline. In every society or town there are “in” groups and “out” groups and mainline churches are the “in” group.

I'm suggesting that mainline is not always the "in" group. In many cases, I think the "in" group is Evangelicals.

And in some parts of the nation, Mormons and Catholics are the "in" group.

Yes, times change and the US is slowly becoming a more inclusive nation. We had our first Catholic president in 1960 and that was thought to be very controversial. By 2020 it no longer was. And we had our first and only evangelical president in 1976. Mormons have clawed their way to "respectability" in much of the country but perhaps not so much in the south.

Although I would suggest that only certain flavors of evangelical have really become mainstream, mainly Baptist and Baptist-adjacent non-denominationals. Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witness are still pretty on the outside looking in. As would be plain Anabaptists. Although to some extent that is by choice.

[JohnH]

The most common denomination in terms of attendance is non-denominational evangelical, and now that’s rapidly becoming true of Latin America as well.