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 Steeler won 4 Superbowls in the 70's but didn't win another til 20006. :-)

Technically, the 4th Super Bowl was in 1980, following the 79 season. And yes, it's all good.

SD

[Mr. Lucky]

I hate to correct your grammer, but I believe your sentence should have read:

The Steelers...won't win another until 20006..

[SoothingDave]

We might even have a different coach then.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Technically, the 4th Super Bowl was in 1980, following the 79 season. And yes, it's all good.

I was trying to give you an example of the usage of the word "til"

[SoothingDave]

I was trying to give you an example of the usage of the word "til"

Yes, but you didn't give one that parallels the verse from Matthew.

In your example, saying we won 4 SBs in the 70s, but didn't win another till 2006. This would lead me to conclude that the Steelers won the Super Bowl held in 2006.

Now, if you said "The Steelers won 4 SBs in the 70s, but didn't win another till 1997" that would be a parallel.

It's true that the Steelers won a Super Bowl after 1997, but who would say the sentence like that?

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Nevermind. You've got me more confused now than Jerome did.

[magisterium]

Just revisiting this thread - I thought it must have been "dead" for days by now!

How about this one: "Mrs. Smith remained unmarried until the day of her death." This "until" does not have the connotation to it that the situation changes afterwards. She does not get married *after* her death!

[magisterium]

Uh... according to the premises of my own post, that should be "Miss" or "Ms" Smith! Sheesh!

Long day...

[gscc]

Death in this instance puts a limiting factor on the example. If the statement said that Ms Smith was unmarried until she married Mr. Jones then that would indicate that at some point she did get married. It does not specify when she was married only that she was no longer unmarried.

[wmfights]

"Sacraments are how salvation, saving grace that is, is communicated, transmitted to us."
____________________________________

I was unaware of this. Can you lose your salvation if you fail to participate in the sacraments on a regular basis?

In my faith once I've been saved the HOLY SPIRIT indwells in me to guide me and convict me of my sin and JESUS has promised that once he has me he will not let go.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

How about this one: "Mrs. Smith remained unmarried until the day of her death." This "until" does not have the connotation to it that the situation changes afterwards. She does not get married *after* her death!

Yes its a legitimate usage of the word in your sentence. However, when you read the prior and follwing verses of that passage in Matthew, the context dictates the usage I ascribe to.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

However, you should know this is a subject that really doesn't affect me much and that I fully acknowledge the NT writings were canonized by the Catholic Church. Therefore, even though those verses in context make it seem that most Protestants have the correct interpretation I certainly wouldn't argue with Catholics, whether they be wrong or right at the end of the day, being the final arbitors of those passages.

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

[SoothingDave]

I was unaware of this.

Thank you for the candor. Many disparage sacraments without understanding exactly what we believe they are.

Can you lose your salvation if you fail to participate in the sacraments on a regular basis?

Without getting into a messy predestination/free will battle, the simple answer is "yes." We all sin, and sacraments like the Eucharist (Communion) give us strength to grow in holiness and sacraments like Confession restore us to grace after serious sin. Since we all sin, keeping ourselves from the sacraments is a sure way of letting your faith and your soul die from starvation, of falling out of grace.

In my faith once I've been saved the HOLY SPIRIT indwells in me to guide me and convict me of my sin and JESUS has promised that once he has me he will not let go.

Yes, of course. Those who will persevere to the end are known by God and He will protect them.

I know that if I remain in a state of grace I will be saved. You presume you are among those who will persevere.

But we all know of those who thought themselves "saved" who later backslide into serious sin and even denial of God. So we should not judge ourselves by a one-time act of the will, but rather by how we continue to exercise the will.

If we are both truly among those God has chosen, we will both end up at the same destination. Presuming one has completed the journey prematurely is an invitation to complacency. Jesus said He will return quickly, like a thief in the night. He warns us to be prepared. This is a hollow sentiment if we are all to be assured that we will pass muster.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If the statement said that Ms Smith was unmarried until she married Mr. Jones then that would indicate that at some point she did get married. It does not specify when she was married only that she was no longer unmarried.

Um, it specifies exactly when she ceased being unmarried.

Just like the sentence "they had no relations until she had given birth" must mean they had relations immediately after the birth. If you want to read this as an affirmation of their having relations, as opposed to a statement of her virginity before the birth.

The verse is meant to convey that she was virginal prior to Jesus' birth. That is all.

SD

[Quester]

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.

[Quester]

Just like the sentence "they had no relations until she had given birth" must mean they had relations immediately after the birth.

No ... they likely had relations within the same period of time after the birth ... that husbands and wives do after the birth of their children today.

The fact that we waited, having achieved a certain point in our pregnancies, until the actual births of our children, to resume relations ... does not mean that we had relations in the hospital.

[OLD REGGIE]

Sorry all my Protestant buds but if you're going to reject doctrines such as papal authority and the perpetual virginity of Mary you ought to reject the canonization of NT writings who were given you by the same folks that gave you the aforementioned doctrines.

Well....I'm not a Protestant but there was no such thing as Papal Authority and the "Infallible" pronouncement of Perpetual Virginity and the RCC when the Bible as we know it today was canonized.

The RCC as we know it today did not exist in the early few hundred years of the "Church".

The retroactive listing of "Popes" and the authority of the RCC is just that - - - retroactive and imaginative.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.

Well that's fine, I just wanted to offer an opinion that if you can trust those who've handed down doctrines that if preached in your congregation of worship would go over like a porkchop in a synagogue and at the same time totally trust their ability to canonize NT writings that is your perogative. Some would characterize this approach as lacking. And since this is the Free Republic, I just did. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Well....I'm not a Protestant but there was no such thing as Papal Authority and the "Infallible" pronouncement of Perpetual Virginity and the RCC when the Bible as we know it today was canonized.

It was canonized by the Constantinian regime. That's good enough for me.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I should say "during" the Constantinian regime.