I see no issue with calling "Christian communities living in the U.S." the American Church.
The focus for my MA was the intersection of church & educational history in the U.S. and how that affects cultural identity. So, I'm a little picky on this topic. Part of that is due to a recent rethinking among historians about what it means to teach "World History", "Western Civilization", and "American History".
You can't cover everything, so you have to limit the scope of what you're studying, but when doing so good practice is to address the variation within your study group. If the variation is too much, the validity of the study is in question. And though no partition is strictly invalid, some can be a poor choice. It would be a little odd to do a study on Madrid, Iowa and Madrid, Spain called simply "Madrid", where no attempt is made to address the differences between the two locations.
Many historians would now say "United States", though a valid partition for some studies (maybe political structure), is arbitrary and invalid for other studies. Religious history comes close. Those who are only familiar with mainstream American Puritanism probably don't realize how diverse the Christian communities are in the U.S.
What if one community is "healthy" (whatever that means) and another is "unhealthy"? What good does it do to smear them all together and say the U.S. is average?
Upvote
0