Next Christian Denomination to Be Elected President

[RINO Tom]

Some of the Presidents' religious affiliations are a bit fuzzy, whether that be ambiguous cases like Jefferson/Lincoln or Presidents identifying as Christian hopping around different denominations like Obama/Trump.  However, the following Christian Denominations have all been represented in the Oval Office by at least one President:

Protestant
Episcopalian
Presbyterian
Baptist (both Northern and Southern)
Methodist
Congregationalist
Dutch Reformed
Quaker
Restorationist (Disciples of Christ)

Catholic
Roman Catholic

Non-Trinitarian
Unitarian

So, using the Pew Religious Landscape's categories, which of the following denominations that have never made it to the Oval Office do you think is most likely to be the religion of a President elected over the next several decades?  I put what percent of the population they were for reference:

Protestant
Holiness/Pentecostal (4.3%)
Lutheran (3.6%)
Evangelical Restorationist/Churches of Christ (1.6%)
Adventist (0.6%)
Anabaptist (0.3%)
Other

Non-Trinitarian
Mormon (1.6%)
Jehovah's Witness (0.8%)
Other (0.4%)

Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox (0.5%)
Oriental Orthodox (<0.1%)

Again, I know it's possibly more likely that we get an unaffiliated or Jewish President first, but which of these do you think is most likely in the future?

[RINO Tom]

We seemed to have not had a lutheran president before.

Yeah, a pretty surprising one on this list, given that it's a decent share of the population.  My guess is just that Lutherans were uniquely associated with German, Scandinavian and Finnish immigrants, and it was seen as somewhat of a liability in past decades when the nation saw itself as more overtly ethnically English?

[RINO Tom]

When it comes to “first timers”, MORmONisms is my next bet.  Because when you get to know them personally (lots of them serve in the military, work in the federal government, and are loyal Americans) are quite pleasant and personable.   And dare I say….innovative and dynamic (their worship of Lord Xenu, Volcano Jesus notwithstanding). 

Also, didn’t the Romneytard come remarkably close?

Mormonism isn't a Christian Denomination....

I was not interested in gatekeeping Christianity in this post.  Mormons self-identity as Christians, and all academic classifications count them as such.

[RINO Tom]

Guys, maybe I should have been clearer.  I literally used Pew's classifications in the link provided and was not in any way giving my opinion on whether or not Mormons are Christians.

I will say, though, that there should be some distinction between being heretical and "not Christian."  Academic classifications very clearly always have room for "Non-Trinitarian Christians."  It's another argument entirely whether or not more extreme groups like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, but I think the term needs to be broad enough to include groups like Oneness Pentecostals.

EDIT: I have been thinking about this a lot and listening to several YouTube videos on my commute about denominations from excellent channels like Ready to Harvest, Redeemed Zoomer I Am Your Target Demographic, Useful Charts and others.  Two things are clear to me:

1. Any meaningful discussion on this is from an academic perspective and tries to minimize theological standards.  Obviously you have to consider a group's theology and there have to be meaningful cutoffs, but we cannot gatekeep too much.  For example, if you define Christianity by what "mainstream" Christians believe only, then there are by definition no non-mainstream Christians, and the term "mainstream" is rendered useless, as it encompasses all Christians, lol.  I have never seen a scholar not count Arian Christians as "Christians" ... it's literally in the name.  However, by the standard of having to hold to mainstream views on the Trinity and adhering to things like the Nicene Creed, they would not count.

2. Again, from an academic perspective, my own opinion is that it seems reasonable to count any group that checks the following boxes under the broad umbrella term of "Christian."  The group has to (A) believe in the Resurrection in SOME sort of "literal" sense, and (B) in some meaningful way "follow the teachings of Jesus Christ."  These are meant to be intentionally vague.

2. (A) For example, it seems incredibly arbitrary to me how you think the Resurrection went down.  You could take it at 110% face value and effectively treat God as a "magical power" that simply resurrected Jesus, and that would count.  However, this could go all the way to a more imaginative/less orthodox view of combining new findings in digital physics and imagining God as this sort of consciousness that creates reality much in the way that a videogame works and effectively reinserting Jesus/Himself back into the programming after three days.  It literally doesn't matter, either way you think that the Earthly human form of Jesus died, came back to life in some form three days later and ascended into Heaven.  Disputing the differences is for the theologians to decide who is or is not a heretic, not for deciding who should be classified as a Christian.  Groups like the Unitarians who started to question if Jesus had ANY divinity were barely Christians to start with and eventually literally became non-Christians, lol.  Mormons definitely check this box, even if the stuff they add on is enough to make them EXTREMELY fringe Christians (which I would say that they are).

2. (B) This point is much more vague and harder to pin down, and I REALLY think we should avoid getting into Fundamentalists telling someone they are not a Christian because they are gay or because they got a divorce for an unsanctioned reason or because they believe in evolution or whatever other narrow reading of "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" they apply literally to everyone else.  On the flipside, though, some hyper-liberal pastor in the UCC or something who just uses his/her position as a platform for social justice causes that he/she thinks Jesus would have supported but really is an agnostic at a spiritual level really isn't meaningfully a Christian either.  I think you could argue Mormons DO follow the teachings of Jesus at least in an overall sense, but given the prominence of the Book of Mormon and how far it strays from the Bible and mainstream Christian tradition, I will admit they are pretty suspect on this one.

Not that it matters, though, because I made these up.

[RINO Tom]

The only distinction between "fringe" Xtian sects like Mormonism/Scientology/Jehovahs/whatever and "muhMainstream" Jeebus-worship is roughly two thousand years of institutional indocotrination.

And you just followed what your parents were doing.  If your parents worshipped, say, a cheeseburger, there is a 90% probability you too will also be worshipping a cheeseburger.

But at the end of the day, it's really all the same thing.  

Class dismissed.

I'm sorry you mistook this as a platform to share your views that nobody cares about.

[RINO Tom]

Hmm....this is an interesting question.

Most presidents have experience as either governors or senators.  Of the unrepresented groups, Lutherans have the most members serving in these capacities (6 senators + 1 governor.)  However, the point about Lutherans being extremely regional and thus unlikely to break out as national politicians is well-made.  

But it may be a long time (or maybe never again?) that we get a new Protestant denomination in the White House.  The trend has been for fewer Americans to identify strongly with denominational labels, so vaguely "Christian" presidents like Obama/Trump should be the norm going forward.  

Mormons stand-out for being mostly immune from this trend, growing, and they're increasingly well-represented in national politics, so my vote is for them.

Good post, and I am likely to agree with most of it.  Regarding Lutheranism, while it is undeniably high church/Mainline and has suffered the same decline as those similar churches, I do get the vague sense that it still retains some sort of cultural and/or regional "tag" that comes along with it.  Whereas a denomination like Methodist is about as "white bread" as they come, when I hear someone is Lutheran (like me!), I do often immediately assume that (A) they are from the Midwest and more likely the upper Midwest, (B) they are of mostly German or Scandinavian descent or (C) both.  I think a Lutheran getting into the White House will mostly just be chance that a Democratic or Republican rising star is from a Midwestern state and happens to be Lutheran.

As far as my guess at a denomination, while it does not answer the OP, I agree that this vague "I'm a Christian" answer will become a lot more common among Presidential candidates, with "I was confirmed [insert Mainline denomination here], and now I am non-denominational" being a recurring follow-up answer, lol.  I think of the ones yet to make it to the White House, it's an especially interesting question because there almost seems to be an inverse relationship between some of the larger ones and the ones that your "average American" would be most comfortable with:

Pentecostal: Pretty large chunk of the population, but a lot of people (including most Christians I know) just find it really sensationalist and kind of unusual.
Mormon: Again, a decent chunk of the population, but a lot of people really get sort of freaked out by Mormonism ... just see the debate about whether or not it is even Christian!  On the flip side, we did just almost elect a Mormon in 2012, he/she would carry a baked-in base of support and despite the theology, most people's impression of Mormon individuals is quite positive, from my experience.
Eastern Orthodox: Likely not a controversial group to most voters at all (was it even really an issue for Dukakis way back in 1988??), but they're just such a small slice of the population.

Now that I think about it again, I think the "Churches of Christ" denomination might be a good bet.  They're pretty much non-denominational already, and it is fairly big in the rural Midwest, a region that both parties might try to cater to over the next several decades?

[RINO Tom]

Sociologically speaking Mormonism is very obviously a form of Christianity and that is what is relevant to this question. Let's move on.

(Also, the particulars of DeSantis's religious affiliation are apparently weirdly unclear, which I didn't realize.)

That is kind of odd.  Is he like shying away from being a Catholic due to how heavily Protestant the GOP primary electorate is?...  I mean, as previously stated, we literally nominated a frickin' Mormon 10+ years ago, lol ... I doubt being a Catholic is that big of a deal.

Also kind of hilarious that he got married at Disney World.  I am surprised he has not had a crassly public "remarriage" to his wife somewhere else yet.