Diversity within Protestant Transnationalism: Differences in the Scope and Reach of Pentecostal/Charismatic and Evangelical Missions

Background: A growing number of studies have begun to emphasize differences between Pentecostals and Charismatics (P/Cs), on the one hand, and Evangelicals, on the other. Yet few of these studies have considered differences in transnational missions. Purpose: This study explores the extent to which P/C and Evangelical organizations vary in their transnational outreach, both in terms of what they do and where they operate. Methods: To examine these differences, I explore data on transnational American Protestant mission agencies using descriptions of trends over time and time series logistic regressions. Results: Although both P/Cs and Evangelicals tend to be concerned with otherworldly soteriological issues, I find that P/Cs are even more likely to engage in otherworldly types of activities that allow for the propagation and proliferation of the Gospel, especially with respect to evangelism and the publication and distribution of Christian literature. In addition, although both P/C and Evangelical agencies gravitate towards countries where the percentage of Protestants is low, P/C agencies are comparatively less active in countries with the lowest percentages. However, there is little evidence of differences between P/C and Evangelical agencies’ ministries when it comes to countries’ varying levels of development. Conclusions and Implications: The study concludes with several implications. First, although many differences may be more salient when distinguishing Evangelicals and P/Cs together from other Protestant traditions, there are sufficient important variations between the two former traditions to warrant treating them as analytically distinct, at least with respect to their organized transnational activism. Second, at the same time, non-findings in the study also suggest that differences between Evangelicals and P/Cs are not as pronounced at the organizational as compared to the individual level. Finally, the study reflects on the limitations of the data with recommendations for further research.