Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[NYer]

Many people forget - or do not realize - that Christianity came from Judaism. As the church expanded beyond the realm of Judaism, it adapted itself to the people and cultures in which it took root. This cultural adaptation resulted in the 22 different rites of the Catholic Church today.

It is from Jewish roots that the church of Antioch sprung. In fact, the church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and it was there that the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" were first used. The first Christians were Jews and entire communities came to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

[muawiyah]

If you consider Protestants to be "separated brethren", you are not being consistent with Catholic doctrine, since that particular church refers only to some Lutherans in that way.

Still, Protestants, in general, are not considered heretics because, in general, most of them were never previously adherents of Catholicism. (You have to have been "one" to become a "heretic").

I suspect that as long as Catholics are in the habit of referring to themselves as Catholics, both they and others are going to continue to refer to Protestants, as well as Lutherans, as Christians.

At some point, I suppose, Catholics will discover that they, too, are Christians, and we'll all do a big group hug and sing kumbayah.

[Pyro7480]

You're going to get some flack from posting this, both from the Protestants and their "Reformist" Christian brethren, and from the Catholics, for one reason or another, don't like the New Oxford Review. The funny thing is, I just read this article this morning. I've been a subscriber for just under 3 years. I don't always agree with them, but they produce a decent publication.

[Puddleglum]

I imagine they'll be along to reply to this article very shortly. Its sentiment is one I agree with, however, especially in regard to a sort of conscious ahistoricism I've noticed in some Protestants I've spoken with, pastors and lay folks alike.

[markomalley]

As stated previously,

The problem is, at least based upon conversations I've had with my Protestant friends, is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that (cf 1 cor 3:1-5, 1 cor 12:12ff, Eph 5:27, etc.). Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church (cf Eph 5:23). He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church (Matt 16:19, cf Isa 22:20-23). Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations).

Until that realization happens, they will always try to get the Church to 'admit' She is just another denomination...I truly believe that in most cases, it's not a matter of evilness, I just believe it to be a matter of honestly not understanding.

[AKA Elena]

Great article and one that has crossed my mind many times!

[AKA Elena]

Great article and one that has crossed my mind many times!

[AKA Elena]

Sorry for the double post!

[Jibaholic]

It sounds like the Catholics have been reading the DU - now they are big fans of Lakoff and "framing". Are Catholics the "stern father" or the "nurturing mother?"

It is natural for Protestants to call themselves Christians. The "unit" of interest is faith in Jesus Christ. I would not call myself a theist because I do not believe that other faiths provide a path to God. OTOH, I do think all Christians (all of those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior) do.

[Pyro7480]

It sounds like the Catholics have been reading the DU - now they are big fans of Lakoff and "framing".

Huh? Explain.

[Alex Murphy]

I've never seen tinfoil constructed into such an ornate shape before. The picture definitely suits the article!

[SoothingDave]

If you consider Protestants to be "separated brethren", you are not being consistent with Catholic doctrine, since that particular church refers only to some Lutherans in that way.

You might want to know what you are talking about before you post.

Just a suggestion.

SD

[where HE leads me]

I just became a "Christian", and I use that term generically because I just came out of a "cult". I have no official church affiliation except I attend a non-denominational church in my area. I accept the doctrines of grace, but that is probably the closest I get to being able to claim a denomination. I have no idea what the Baptists teach, or the Lutherans, or the DoC, etc., so I cannot choose a denomination, so I am stuck with the title of generic non-denominational protestant. And, I think being "non-denominational" is a growing trend. So, when someone asks me what religion I am, I am not going to say "I'm a generic non-denominational protestant", but I will say I am a Christian.

[xzins]

This author doesn't realize that many non-Catholic Christians do not self-identify as Protestants, because, unlike Muslims who are still fighting the Crusades, some have simply moved on.

They were not part of that old struggle on a personal level and many of the denominations were't a part of that struggle at ANY level. For example, Assembly of God and Evangelical Free came about after that debate was long over.

In short, they aren't protesting anything, so they are not protestants. They don't identify as protestants, so they are not protestants. The historical ties to the protestant raison d'etre are nearly invisible with the passage of time, so they are not protestants.

They are Christians.

[bethelgrad]

I "understand" all those things you mentioned. And being a student of history I am not convinced of the RCC's claims regarding them. It's not always a matter of not understanding, but it also happens that there are many of us on the Christian (Protestant) side who simply do not accept those claims you mention.

[stocksthatgoup]

The vast majority of Protestors are left wing. A group many Protestants want to move as far away from as possible.

[trisham]

Excellent article. It's an issue that's been on my mind lately.

[Little Ray]

Hmph. Everybody knows that Roman Catholics are just bunch of polytheistic idolators...
(/joke)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

This protestant coverted to Judaism. :-)