Doctrine has always been important. From the earliest creeds to contemporary catechesis, the church has recognized that what we believe shapes who we become. We need to be concerned with the tenets of our faith. Yet, we should not assume that doctrine is solely expressive—a sort of Christian dictionary entry that we can look up when we are confused about something. Doctrine is not merely informational; it is formational. Instead, as Alister McGrath suggests, “Doctrine does not merely describe reality, but articulates the manner by which it may be renewed and refashioned…It is not a static representation, but an invitation to dynamic transformation, of the human situation.” In other words, doctrine addresses not only what is true, but how truth reshapes human life. We need good doctrine because we are called to live faithfully in a broken world by submitting our thinking, desires, and actions to God’s renewing work by allowing God to work through us.
Affirming the importance of good doctrine is one thing; ensuring that God’s people actually understand and internalize the church’s doctrines is another. Ligonier’s 2025 State of Theology report highlights some areas of doctrinal confusion in the United States. The report consists of thirty-five questions dealing with more straightforward doctrinal issues such as the Trinity, God’s nature, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the divinity of Christ, as well as considering specific issues like marriage, abortion, transgenderism, and Christian participation in politics.
Some of the overall results are troubling, particularly given the centrality of these doctrines to historic Christian orthodoxy. Note the following statements and the levels of agreement by evangelicals in the United States:
-“God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.” (35% of evangelicals “strongly agree” and 12% “somewhat agree”)
-“Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.” (28% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed)
-“The Holy Spirit is a force but is not a personal being (42% strongly agreed and 11% somewhat agreed)
-“Religious belief is not about objective truth” (19% strongly agreed, 9% somewhat agreed, and 19% were unsure).
Each of these statements touches on foundational Christian convictions—about God, humanity, truth, and salvation—and confusion at these points has far-reaching consequences. These four questions, along with others that address similar issues, will be treated in the rest of this series. In this introductory piece, however, we will explore how different demographic factors shape doctrinal understanding by examining how various groups responded to specific statements.
The report offers opportunities to compare responses across a variety of demographics, including, but not limited to, age, gender, location, education, and religious affiliation. When looking at the data through some of these filters, we see several noteworthy differences emerge that help explain where and why doctrinal confusion persists.
It is important to note that the compounding effect of some of these elements did not carry across every question. In other words, we can’t claim that a combination of affiliation, belief, and church attendance always moves the needle in the right direction.
Considering the Generations
For some of the statements, filtering for the age of evangelicals (both affiliation and beliefs) yielded some compelling results, particularly in the doctrine of scripture and the intersection of faith and politics. These findings suggest generational differences not only in belief but in how doctrine is interpreted and applied.
Christians and Scripture
Statement 16: The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.
Twenty-four percent of the 18-24 year old age group agreed (either somewhat or strongly) with this statement. That percentage was much higher than the 35-49 (8%), 50-64 (8%), and 2% of 65+ age groups. The contrast is stark and suggests a weakening confidence in the historical truthfulness of Scripture among younger evangelicals.
Statement 18: Modern science disproves the Bible.
Though there was no strong agreement on this statement overall, the generational divide is still worth noting. Only 9% of those 50 and over agreed with the statement versus 21% agreement among those 49 and under. The 18-34 year old age range had the largest agreement with 27%. This pattern reflects broader cultural narratives about science and faith that appear to exert greater influence on younger believers.
Looking at Statements 16 and 18, it would appear that there is some work that needs to be done to clarify the doctrine of scripture with the younger generations. At the same time, we should recognize that, despite the responses to Statements 16 and 18, 96% of 18-34 year old evangelicals agree that “The Bible has the authority to tell us what we must do” and 100% agreed that “The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.” These responses suggest that while misunderstandings exist, a meaningful commitment to biblical authority remains present, though perhaps inconsistently articulated.
Christians, Faith, and Politics
Statement 23: Christians should not allow their religious beliefs to influence their political decisions.
There is a clear generational divide here as well. Only 13% of those 50 and over agreed with the statement, whereas 26% of those 49 and under agreed. This gap reflects differing assumptions about the relationship between faith, public life, and moral reasoning.
However, a higher percentage (15%) of the 18-34 year old age group agreed that “People should be able to choose their gender regardless of their biological sex” than the other age groups (5% combined). Similarly, 27% of the 18-34 year old age group agreed that “The Bible’s condemnation of homosexual behavior doesn’t apply today,” which is much higher than any of the other age groups (ranging from 6-9%). These findings suggest that moral convictions are more contested among younger evangelicals, particularly on issues with strong cultural and political resonance.
While all of these moral issues (except sex outside of marriage) carry political implications, it may be worth considering whether younger evangelicals’ hesitancy about integrating faith with politics influenced their response to these moral questions. In other words, we must ask whether a reluctance to bring Christian convictions into the political sphere weakens moral clarity in areas where doctrine and public life intersect. Though not definitive, the relationship is at least suggestive and could change the way the church approaches these topics from an educational or discipleship perspective.
Considering Affiliation
Even more so than age, belief (evangelical vs. non-evangelical) created rather large disparities in responses. Doctrinal commitments appear to exert a stronger influence than generational identity alone. Looking at the same categories as above, we see even bigger differences of opinion concerning the Bible’s authority and the intersection of faith and politics.
Christians and Scripture
Statement 16: The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.
Those who hold evangelical beliefs are less likely to agree that the Bible is not literally true than those who do not hold evangelical beliefs (17% versus 56%). Doctrinal commitments appear to exert a stronger influence than generational identity alone.
Statement 18: Modern science disproves the Bible.
Similarly, those with evangelical beliefs were less likely to agree that modern science disproves the Bible than those holding non-evangelical beliefs (19% versus 41%). Evangelicals were significantly more likely to affirm biblical authority (Statements 30 and 32) than non-evangelicals (95% versus 39% and 100% versus 50%).
While these results are encouraging, 28% of those with evangelical beliefs agreed that “Religious belief is not about objective truth,” while another 19% were unsure. This level of uncertainty among evangelicals themselves highlights a significant area requiring pastoral and theological attention.
Christians, Faith, and Politics
Statement 23: Christians should not allow their religious beliefs to influence their political decisions.
60% of non-evangelicals agreed that religious beliefs should not influence political decisions. Of those with evangelical beliefs, only 29% agreed.
We see similar trends in the moral issues:
-Sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin (92% of those holding evangelical beliefs versus 42% of those not holding evangelical beliefs)
-People should be able to choose their gender regardless of their biological sex (14% of evangelical beliefs versus 43% non-evangelical beliefs)
-The Bible’s condemnation of homosexual behavior doesn’t apply today (16% of evangelical beliefs versus 46% non-evangelical beliefs).
These differences aren’t surprising, but they are revealing. For instance, while the percentage is not overwhelming, nearly 30% of those with evangelical beliefs claim those beliefs should not influence their political decisions. Avoiding Christian nationalism is essential, but separating theological convictions from any public or moral realm creates its own problems.
What can we learn from the State of Theology Report?
First, we need to recognize the complex character of belief within evangelicalism.
Holding evangelical beliefs does not necessarily mean that we can assume common belief in every instance. There is room for appropriate variation and, unfortunately, for some problematic beliefs. Because “evangelical” names a relatively diverse rather than a monolithic movement, we need to exercise discernment in determining when a given perspective moves beyond orthodoxy and when there is room for variation in thought.
Second, we need to be diligent in teaching foundational doctrines and drawing out their implications.
Some traditional beliefs need reinforcement. At the same time, we must help believers understand how doctrines interrelate and inform a coherent Christian doctrinal framework. Christian belief is not a collection of isolated propositions, but a unified vision of reality that shapes life and practice.
The State of Theology report is not intended to offer a strategy for action. Rather, it provides insight into a significant portion of evangelicals and Christians more generally. Even so, its findings highlight areas requiring renewed attention and discipleship. In the following articles in this series, as well as in multiple episodes of the Thinking Christian podcast, I will examine specific statements from the report. What we believe has consequences.
We must gain clarity. We must help others gain clarity. And we must do so in a manner commensurate with our shared union in Christ, so that the church’s testimony remains faithful, credible, and intelligible in a world that desperately needs to hear it.
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/RobertCrum
.webp)
