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!

[xzins]

Most of them that I know speak of believers and unbelievers in all churches.

Christians and non-Christians, if you will.

Jesus himself revealed via parable that there would be both wheat and tares.

The protestant reformation, though, is a specific historic event and many of today's denominations had nothing to do with it. They had no dog in that fight.

It is inappropriate to call them protestants. They aren't protesting, nor have they ever protested, the Catholic/Protestant issues of the reformation.

They just aren't organized that way, nor do they think in those terms.

[sitetest]

Dear Pyro7480,

I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago.

I don't miss it.


sitetest

[SoothingDave]

Of course the Sacraments (however many of them there are) are important. But in the Lutheran tradition, the clergy is called by the holy spirit directly, not by a bishop (an office which doesn't exist in my denomination).

There's a difference between calling and actually being ordained or empowered to confer the sacraments. Jesus called all of the Apostles, but He also breathed the Spirit into them personally. Paul laid hands on Titus when he left him in charge of a local church.

SD

[kerryusama04]

So you're saying all the folks who believed on Christ prior to the Nicene Council were not Christians? That might come as a surprise Peter, Paul, Lazarus, etc.

[Mr. Lucky]

From the Sacrament of the Holy Orders?

[SoothingDave]

So you're saying all the folks who believed on Christ prior to the Nicene Council were not Christians?

Don't be silly. Only Democrats can get away with ex post facto laws.

SD

[Mr. Lucky]

Fair enough. In the Lutheran tradition, the clergy is empowered to administer the Sacraments directly by the power of the holy Spirit and not through a belief in the authority of a magisterium.

[Mr. Lucky]

Only democrats can get away with ex post facto laws.

This is a religion thread; mention of democrats is inappropriate.

[Rytwyng]

If so, why do they insist in making a distinction between "Christians" and "Catholics" instead referring to great number of these people were nominally "Catholic", all Christian denominations as Christians

Because in some places -- the Los Angeles area, in particular, where there are an estimated one million evangelicals -- many of these people were nominally Catholic BEFORE their Christian conversion experience. They became Christians in an Evangelical context ("Protestant", if you insist), and their memory of their Catholic past is simply one of spiritual deadness -- "How come they never taught me any of this in the Catholic church?? It never made any sense to me, til my neighbor invited me to Bible study, and then... !!! "

They don't identify by denominations, because they soon meet others who have had similar conversion experiences, in the ranks of the Baptist, Assembly of God & other Pentecostals, Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, etc, etc. They immediately sense a spiritual kinship with others despite the differences of church names (and minor issues, such as tongues, the rapture date, etc). As a result of their easily recognized commonality of spirit, they are loathe to distinguish themselves from one another based on denominationalism, which is increasingly regarded as sinful. So they simply say, "Christians", as a catch-all name for the whole group. And they all listen to the same radio stations and go to the same Christian bookstores and concerts and dating websites.

Some Catholics will go into a rage at this supposed Protestant "sheep stealing", but, the cold hard fact is that the Catholic church, in many places (especially here in Mahoney land) is not doing the job -- they're not evangelizing nonbelievers and they're not even making believers of people BORN into their church! Instead, they sit back and let people blunder along the hellward road until a "Protestant" preacher or neighor or friend takes the time to present the personal call to repent and be saved. Not all of then join Protestant churches, either -- I know a guy who is drawn to the Evangelicals but feels compelled to stay within the Catholic church for family reasons, and I'm sure there are many others like him who stay Catholic but secretly owe their faith to the "Protestants".

I guess you might say, we are PROTESTING against the fact that the Catholic church didn't bother to teach us how to live Christian lives. Fortunately this may all change soon. B16 proclaimed a while back that "lack of Biblical spirituality is the root of Catholic problems", or something to that effect. If he follows through on that idea, millions of Evangelicals may return.

[AnalogReigns]

Intersting that someone who calls himself a "universal" Christian....or more commonly just a "universal" (the meaning of "catholic") would complain that other Christians descendent of the Reformation use of the more specific simple term of Christian, is not specific enough.

His ignorance of history is stunning, in that "Protestant" was originally a pejorative term (bad word) for those who dared to stand up against the Roman ruled church's incredible corruptions.

When the leaders of the reform movement of the 1520s were excommunicated (they didn't leave the church)--and (usually) put under a defacto death sentence by that lovely Roman church, the ones who were not burned alive, had quite an influence on a number of German princes. Those princes protested to their emperor, Charles V over his unfair treatment of them, and hence were named "Protestants," by those subservient to the corrupt Roman church.

Since those German princes died 450+ years ago--and no one I know has protested to any Emperor....it would seem the term "Protestant" has completely lost its relevance.

So no, we don't really want to be called by the put-down-word give to us by Romanists.

FYI, the original word the children of the reformation called themselves--found in the names of Lutheran churches today (be they theologically conservative or very liberal), in the USA and Europe, is Evangelical, or simply, Christian.

Live with it!

[SoothingDave]

In the Lutheran tradition, the clergy is empowered to administer the Sacraments directly by the power of the holy Spirit and not through a belief in the authority of a magisterium.

The entire idea of sacraments is God using normal people and matter in order to bring His Power into the world. To believe God can work through a man in order to change bread into flesh, but not that He works through man to change man into priest seems inconsistent. IMO.

SD

[kerryusama04]

Only Democrats take a simple Gospel and muck it up with a bunch of impossible to understand regulations and requirements and cal it "precedent".

[PandaRosaMishima]

There is a distinct difference between "Christian" and "Catholic" that I find in their respective bookshops. Just try to find a photo of Pope Benedict in most "Christian" stores!
Some wag said that a Catholic is a Christian who beleives too many things. While I disagree, still I think the term "Christian" has been hijacked by the Oral Roberts/Pat Robertson crowd. Frankly I'm rather disillusioned with my fellow Presbyterains; we're about as interesting as old bread. Baptists get to damn rock music and preach hellfire, Lutherans have Garrison Keillor to smirk at them, Episcopals get to have all the cool outrages such as female bishops and gay weddings. Do Unitarians count as Christians or are they too far out there?I keep wondering if the True Faith is tapping at my door; been feeling that way since John Paul II died.

Pat Robertson keeps stuffing his foot in his mouth clear up to the hip; Pope Benedict loves beer, Mozart and cats, which one would you rather listen to?
Viva il Papa!

[Quester]

In the Lutheran tradition, the clergy is empowered to administer the Sacraments directly by the power of the holy Spirit and not through a belief in the authority of a magisterium.

The entire idea of sacraments is God using normal people and matter in order to bring His Power into the world. To believe God can work through a man in order to change bread into flesh, but not that He works through man to change man into priest seems inconsistent. IMO.

God works as He will ... sometimes through men, angels, donkeys, fire, water, etc. ...

We accept that God does choose to work through men, at times ... but, at other times, He chooses not to.

[blue-duncan]

" In fact, the church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and it was there that the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" were first used."

I see in the book of Acts where they were first called Christians at the Church at Antioch but where is it stated that the Antioch Church was founded by Peter or they were called "Catholic" there?

[AnalogReigns]

This new roman bishop decided to throw his weight around. So, he deliberitly issued an inflammatory letter proclaiming that the HS only followed from the Father through the Son and then on down to the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure your post is correct about the letter from the pope, etc... However, the filioque controversy was about the West saying the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father AND the Son, not that the Holy Spirit came from the Father through the Son (which contra your post, is actually closer to what the East says.)

The Eastern churches claim the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that He doesn't proceed (originate) from the Son too. This "proceeding" is NOT in a temporal/time sense as God is God from all eternity, unchanged.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia which is helpful:

Following John 15:26b, the Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father." This creed was first promulgated at the First Council of Nicea in 325 and modified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Hence, it is also called "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" or "Niceno-Constantinopolitan."

In thinking about God as Father, Son, and Spirit, the Trinity, following Jesus (Matt 28:19), Christians from early times have made some important distinctions. The Son and the Spirit are said to have their eternal origin from the Father; the Son, the eternal Divine Logos (John 1:1) is "generated" ("born" or "begotten") of the Father, while the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. These statements are made in reference to the being of God, from all eternity, "before all ages" in the words of the Nicene Creed. With regard to creation, God is said to "send" his Son and his Spirit. In this case, "procession" or "generation" in English would not be used; "mission" is a more common term. In Greek, however, there are two words for "procession." One of these words would be used in reference to God's relationship to creation; although there is only the single word processio in Latin, such an idiom could also be used in that language, thereby giving rise to some confusion.

On the one hand, the Nicene Creed and the Bible do not say explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father; that is, there is no statement that the Spirit's eternal origin is found anywhere but in the Father. To be sure, Christians found evidence for a connection between the Son and the Spirit. For example, the New Testament teaches that the Spirit testifies to the Son (1 Jn 5:6) and is called the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8:9;15:5; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:1) and "Spirit of [the] Son" (Gal 4:6). The Church Fathers further explained that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "of one essence" (substantia/ousia) and have one common will and activity, with regard to their external actions (actiones ad extra). This tradition continued to be reaffirmed in both East and West, unanimously in medieval times by the Scholastic theologians. (See Scholastic Philosophy). In this second, "economic" sense, God is said to send us the Spirit through the Son (Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6).

On the other hand, while the New Testament teaches that there is a connection between the Son and the Spirit, the divinity of the Son and the Spirit may not be entirely clear from Scripture alone. Many theologians historically have been unconvinced by the texts, and readily quoted the Scripture in defense of their denials of the Trinity, see Nontrinitarianism. For this reason, over the years, creeds, decrees, hymns, and prayers have been formulated, in order to clarify, defend, and make explicit this doctrine. The filioque is one such attempt.

[markomalley]

The protestant reformation, though, is a specific historic event and many of today's denominations had nothing to do with it. They had no dog in that fight.

It is inappropriate to call them protestants. They aren't protesting, nor have they ever protested, the Catholic/Protestant issues of the reformation.

They just aren't organized that way, nor do they think in those terms.

---

I'm glad you feel that way.

However, that's not what is in the 'official' documents from a number of Protestant groups:

• Lutheran: Smalcald Part II Art IV
• Presbyterian: Westminster Confession Chap 25 Art VI, Savoy Declaration Chap 26 Art IV
• Baptist: London Baptist Confession of Faith Chap 26 Art IV

And, of course, there's no need to go into individual well known names (other than just their mention), such as Ian Paisley, Jack Chick, Bob Jones, etc.

So, while I'm glad you don't see it as an issue, a number of your colleagues apparently still do.

Again, with due respect...

[SoothingDave]

Only Democrats take a simple Gospel and muck it up with a bunch of impossible to understand regulations and requirements and cal it "precedent".

Is there something I can help you understand?

SD

[markomalley]

he katholike ekklesia (the universal Church) was an expression first documented by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, in a letter to the Smyrnaeans, written in approx 107-110 AD.

In this letter, he said: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Chap 8). You can see the document here, courtesy of Calvin College.

[kerryusama04]

Sure. How does the Hellenistic apostate church claim to be the "one true church" when its doctrine and creeds are in direct contradiction with the scripture. As the prophet Isaiah said, "to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this it is because there is no light in them".