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!

[Cronos]

That leaves 75% who recognize the error of your doctrine. The United States was founded on Christian principals, not Catholic theology, and as such has prospered greatly. Mexaco, on the other hand is 95% catholic and remain a third world country.

And the 75% consider each other wrong -- you earlier pointed out that anyone who follows a preacher etc. is wrong. So, you'd consider all Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans etc. wrong.

And, parochially, you bring up Mexico. Let's see -- what about the Catholic nation of Ireland that is now richer than the UK? Thats as silly an example as you bringing up Mexico's economic status to reflect on your personal theology.

[tenn2005]

Not the apostles, they were inspired. However, one writing a hundred and fifty years after the fact leaves considerable doubt concerning the accuracy of his knowledge. Ever play the game of gosip?

[Cronos]

I won't blame true Protestants for abortion and homosexuality. Just as John F Kerry is a Catholic in name alone, ditto for those who call themselves Protestants and kill kids

[Cronos]

I used Scriptures -- the little old Jesus' brothers and sisters bit to which you stated erroneously that they were Jesus' half-brothers and sisters. You aren't READING scripture, just rifling through and pulling up random quotes.

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?

Then, you make a silly statement like "My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?"  -- it's hilarious, you jumble yourself, make false accusations, lies and then resort to childish taunts when your errors are pointed out.  Really silly.

[conservonator]

Again, if you read the document ( I have) you'll clearly see that the point is not to deny Scripture, but the hyper literal diversions that some people get so worked up about; like such extra salvific issues as a literal six days vs. a period of time before time labeled as six days for our understanding. The point of the creation element in Scripture is to show the reader that all is from God.

The Bishops are reminding people to keep their eyes on the prize, as it were. The Bible is the book of Salvation, too many people lose focus of this simple fact.

[Cronos]

RC traditions such as Thomas witnessing in India,

HA!!! you point out your errors once more -- that is a Marthomite tradition -- the Church founded by Mar / Saint Thomas in INdia. This is witnessed and acknowledged by the Syrian Church -- the Syro-Malabar, the Syro-Malankara, the Syrian Orthodox Church in India, the Chaldean Church, the Assyrian Church etc. -- all ancient sources dealing back 2000 years. The CAtholic Church humbly acknowledges the history of these eastern brethern. Do you deny them this? Do you state that the first countries to convert like Armenia or Ethiopia were wrong?

[Cronos]

Show me historically or scripturally your proof.

Scripture doesn't mention the USA or the internet. Do either of these things then exist according to you?

[Cronos]

Now you deviate at a tangent again -- Tenn first stated that the largest denomination was the Baptists. So, do you consider them to be part of the broad gate purely due to numbers?

[Cronos]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true

I expected better from you -- quoting a media article as proof?

[Cronos]

If the Pope's doctrinal abilities are as you say, then explain the need for Vatican II?

PApal infallibility is the second last recourse. Primary importance is given to a Church council like VAtican II. An ecumenical council would take higher importance than that.

[Cronos]

I suppose that it is all relative.

Nope -- it isn't

Our pastor preached from Jeremiah for almost a year with each sermon lasting 45 minutes.

And he made his own inference in each sermon?  Well, let's assume he didn't -- do you realise that the Catholic readings include the entire Bible?  That over the Liturgical cycles the Bible is read

That you have two, three or four passages read from the Bible at every Catholic Mass in the entire world does not seem all that impressive when it comes to equipping the faithful.

Not really -- as I pointed out above -- you're too quick to jump to conclusions

[Cronos]

That you believe your church decided what was Scripture and what was not is just another example of the arrogance of a church that worships itself.

Nope -- we have enough man made groups clustered under the Protestant umbrella that look back to a founder in the past 3 centuries -- a "pastor" that leads his flock astray by shouting and gesticulating like Benny Hinn.

[tenn2005]

Let me understand you correctly. The Pope is infallable since he is a direct successor of the Apostle Peter. However, if a council like Vatican II disagrees with the Pope, then the Council takes president. Kind hard to reconcile for a "poor dumb country boy."

[Cronos]

The Church IS Christ's Bride. The Church follows Christ's teachings and yes, everything you believe in follows that route, unless you are a non-Trinitarian...

[Cronos]

As another Lutheran, I just want to point out that there are Lutherans involved in those "mainstream" churches; ie. the ELCA. My wife and I left that Synod last year for the LCMS because of their Liberal positions

There are far too many good, God-fearing Lutherans and Anglicans who belie the attempt to smear dirt on the denominations. Sadly, parts of your denominations have been hijacked by theGay agenda. I pray that God will help you take your Churchs back.

[Cronos]

I never was a Catholic. My proximity to the Catholic church came through my aunt and her children. Hence the reason I said I thought it was a beautiful religion until I grew up and started reading the Bible and comparing what Scripture says to what the RCC teaches.

Aha -- so you don't really know what the Church teaches, just what someone TOLD you the Church teaches.

[Cronos]

nope, no seances. And we don't get "in-touch" with the dead like having conversations with them and asking them about Aunty MAtilda's will.

[Cronos]

ok, I'll post articles from al-Jazeera and you'll take it as proof? Don't post silly articles and claim them as proof.

[Cronos]

Yawn, read the previous posts -- tenn stated that the Baptists were the largest denomination in the US. the above post proved him wrong. That's all it was about. If the Baptists are the second largest, do you consider them the false, easy path purely because of their numbers?