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!

[SoothingDave]

The Bible clearly states that Joseph did have union with Mary.

25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

You mean right after delivery, there in the stable?

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You mean right after delivery, there in the stable?

Right there in the fresh straw. :-)

[conservonator]

The Church doesn't "teach" evolution it simply recognized that how ever it happened, God did it. The Church is not in the business of advancing scientific theory, it's in the business of salvation.

Is our salvation dependent on a literal understanding of Genesis? No, of course not, but it is important to understand that God is the cause of all, and that is the bottom line of the creation story.

Why didn't the Pope correct the Bishops who say the Bible is not true?

They didn't say it wasn't true, they said that hyper literalism is potentially dangerous and can causes people to lose focus on the real purpose of Scripture.

People tend to forget that God isn't bound to the limits of either our ability to understand or our ability to communicate via the written word. If I tell my child that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I'm not accurately describing the mechanics of the interplay of the earth's rotation around it's axis and it's rotation around the sun in the sunrise/sunset scenario, but the child understands that the sun rises and sets, giving us day and night.

[Conservative til I die]

I understand that to admit that the Lord could accomplish His will, reveal His Holy Word through Scripture, provide Salvation to His creation, guide His flock through the power of His Spirit, without the Roman Catholic Church is hard for you to grasp.

Any reason you're being an obnoxious wise ass?

[gscc]

Just defending the Sovereignty of God against your church's pretensions.

[Conservative til I die]

I didn't bash anything or anyone Catholic. I simply potsed the news report showing that "most" catholics don't read the Bible for themselves and that the leadersship of the RCC recently told the "catholic faithful" that parts of the Bible were not true and could not be trusted.

1) You obviously don't know any Catholics because many of us do read the Bible. However, we recognize that Bible-reading is not the sum total of our faith. Either that or the Catholics you do know are very inactive and slack.

2) As I am sure you know, our Liturgy has 3 readings (one OT, one non-Gospel NT, one Gospel) a Psalm, and the Our Father.

3) I find your assertion that the Church instructed the faithful that the Bible is "not to be trusted" and "not true" to be highly specious at best. If I had to hazard a guess, the Church indicated that portions of the Bible are metaphorical or employ poetic license and may not be literally true. I want to say this has to do with the story of Creation. In any case, it does not mean that the bible should not be trusted or that it is not true (though that truth may be in a literal, historical sense).

[Conservative til I die]

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

I love the objective nature of the title. You can tell right off the bat this will be a fair, sensible article. And you folks just eat it right up. What's it like to live in an echo chamber?

[Conservative til I die]

As I suspected, the teaching that was quoted has to do primarily with the slackjawed "science" of Young Earth Creationism.

Note also that the Church is only referring to "scientific/historical accuracy" not whether something is true or untrue. There is actually a difference between being inaccurate and being a liar (which is what I believe you folks to be accusing us of saying).

If you folks feel the need to misrepresent and falsehoods as part of your apologetic mission, why would I ever take what you have to say seriously? Try not to be liars.

[Conservative til I die]

Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you.

What a child you are. You've said this probably 20 times already this weekend. Keep saying it until you're blue in the face. It'll keep you safe in that little bubble you live in but it won't make it anymore true.

[gscc]

It is hard to believe you can draw so much from this document without apparently not reading it.  I provided a link, not to a newspaper article but to the source of the document.

The Gift of Scripture

[Conservative til I die]

If I want to learn more of my faith, why should I go to a Catholic web site. Wouldn't the Bible be a much better source.

But you don't go to the Bible. You and your fellow travellers often pull extra-biblical quotes "refuting" Catholic doctrine off of other polemical websites. And most of these websites are simply cut-n-pastes of other polemic websites.

My guess is none of you've never actually gone to the actual source (such as Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, etc.) and read what they taught in depth. Just mindless cut-n-pastes from other cut-n-pasters.

[Conservative til I die]

If I want to learn more of my faith, why should I go to a Catholic web site.

1) You'd actually be going to the Catholic web site to learn about *our* faith, not your own. The reason being that you are here criticizing *our* beliefs, so it might be in your interests to know the opposition.

2) The reason it's a good idea to go a Catholic site -in addition to the sites you probably already visit- is so that you can see the other side's position for yourself. Yes, it may naturally be biased towards Catholicism (duh) but at least you can say that it's not going to be artificially biased the other way either, as an Evangelical apologetic site might be.

If I were a political novice and Candidate 1 said Candidate 2 wants to take away Social Security, wouldn't it be smart of me to actually see what Candidate 2 has to say in his own words, rather than rely on what Candidate 1 - who sure has a lot to gain personally - has to say about it?

[Jaded]

You're correct. Many people want to believe that the earth and people have been around only 6000 years, give or take. Anything else they view as apostacy.

Men (and women) want to put God in their own 24 hour day- Julian calendar boxes. The Lord God is greater than anything we as humans could possibly understand. We are nothing, apart from Christ, we are damned.

[Conservative til I die]

If I want to learn more of my faith, why should I go to a Catholic web site.

1) You'd actually be going to the Catholic web site to learn about *our* faith, not your own. The reason being that you are here criticizing *our* beliefs, so it might be in your interests to know the opposition.

2) The reason it's a good idea to go a Catholic site -in addition to the sites you probably already visit- is so that you can see the other side's position for yourself. Yes, it may naturally be biased towards Catholicism (duh) but at least you can say that it's not going to be artificially biased the other way either, as an Evangelical apologetic site might be.

If I were a political novice and Candidate 1 said Candidate 2 wants to take away Social Security, wouldn't it be smart of me to actually see what Candidate 2 has to say in his own words, rather than rely on what Candidate 1 - who sure has a lot to gain personally - has to say about it?

[Conservative til I die]

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.

Agreed 100%!!! So then, why should I not give Ireneaus or Justin Martyr or Polycarp's views more credence then I would Martin Luther, John Calvin, or tenn2005's?

[Conservative til I die]

I won't blame true Protestants for abortion and homosexuality.

You miss my point; I wasn't doing that either. I was responding to a post from a bit earlier in the thread that was trying to make the silly point that somehow Protestantism is better than Catholicism because Protestant countries are all wealthy and prosperous (untrue) while all Catholic countries are all poor and Third World (also untrue). This is because God blesses America for its Protestantism by giving it wealth and prosperity.

My first response was that such a line of reasoning is silly and fallacious, even if we do consider the measure of a religion's greatness its prosperity and wealth (I can cite several PRotestant countries that are not rich - Jamaica being one - and several Catholic countries that are not cesspools - Ireland being one).

My second response was that money and wealth should not be what a religious person considers important.

My third response was that I don't think God would want to bless a country that embraces abortion, homosexuality, contraception, pornography and all other manner of immorality. Regardless of "who started it."

[Conservative til I die]

I find myself forced to yeild to the divinely inspired wisdom of Pope Cronos I. Let all the earth keep silent before him.

Poor little petulant child. When overwhelmed with sane reasoning, always get obnoxious and pointless.

[gscc]

You cannot deny that when Israel walk righteously with the Lord we blessed them and when they did not he not only withdrew His favor but punished them.

[Conservative til I die]

That is true, but I know more about the Bible than your Pope does.

Wow you're arrogant....and blind.

Like him or not, the Pope, *particularly* this Pope is pre-eminently qualified to discuss the Bible.

[Conservative til I die]

Mo, you have been proven false along with your church and your Pope. You continue to try to defend the indefesable and deny the undenyable. Your Pope is an imposter, your church is apostate and your beliefs and teachings are in direct contradiction of the Bible. You faith, or lack thereof, will not save you, me, or anyone else who follows it.

Poor little child. Utterly defeated and so he lashes out. Just think, the harder you lash out, the more true your position will become! Right.

PS - Mr. Biblical and Historical Expert: Please explain to me what "indefesable" and "undenyable" mean. Are they related to "indefensible" and "undeniable"?