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!

[blue-duncan]

"I didn't realize that all Church history ended at Acts 28."

No one is talking about extra biblical church history. The point was that there is no scriptural basis for calling the Antioch Church "Catholic" nor is there a scriptural basis for it being founded by Peter

[Pyro7480]

As, I am no longer Roman Catholic, I'm proud to call myself Protestant, should I be even 1/10th the child of God, that she was, accurses and anathemas, notwithstanding.

No longer Catholic? When did that happen?

[markomalley]

OK, I can accept that. So let's substitute it with "historic, authentic, apostolic Christianity" -- that works for me, as well.

[Bainbridge]

I had a very similar experience with a Roman Catholic, one with 2 Master's Degrees from prestigious universities. When asked about me ( Bainbridge) and whether or not I was a "Catholic" he replied " oh , no she is a Christian.".
The problem here , as I see it is that the Roman Catholics are sensing a shift of momentum. They are insisting on people using their( RC) terms to define themselves. It is rather like when those who support abortion refer to those
who do not as anti-choice", refusing to use the term said people choose for themselves, that being pro-life.The tone of the article is pompous, yet vaguely pathetic as the author keeps trying to insist that well, if only they were "Catholic" well then they would be Catholic. He is obviously very hard core using the term Protestant revolt for what most of Western Civilization refers to as the Reformation. Seems to me he and his compatriots are whistling' past the graveyard.

[Mr. Lucky]

You should visit one of these threads during football season; Steelers fans are impossible to deal with.

[wmfights]

"The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"
e.g."
_______________________________________
Thank you for a much better explanation than I could muster.

[Uri’el-2012]

Not a problem

Blessings to you and yours.

b'shem Y'shua

[Full Court]

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants.

What a silly article! Everyone knows that Baptists are not Protestants, and most of the other truly evangelical denominations did not fall from Luther's tree either.

[Flavius Josephus]

I feel home. It makes me feel like a little boy again.

[Full Court]

Protestant churches still baptize infants and claim it has some if not a totaly salvational effect.

If your church does not baptize unbelieving infants, you are not a Protestant, but a Christian.

Acts 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

[Uri’el-2012]

Thank you and welcome aboard.

b'shem Y'shua

[AlbionGirl]

Recently. What the Church demands of me to be in Communion, I cannot give her. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, if you can't believe or assent to believe, have the integrity to get out.

One thing I want to say is that I wish the Roman Catholic Church well, and I really mean that. You won't find me on any Catholic threads bemoaning this or that, criticizing this or that, the Church's affairs are no longer any of my business. It cost me a bit to leave, but what I did I did because of the prompting of my conscience.

[blue-duncan]

"OK, I can accept that. So let's substitute it with "historic, authentic, apostolic Christianity" -- that works for me, as well."

Let's just leave it at "extra biblical church history" then we don't have to argue over whether it is authentic or apostolic. By the way I owe you both an apology, Peter was mentioned being at the church at Antioch in the scriptures. Paul mentioned his visit in Galatians 2:11 but that was when he embarrassed himself with his hypocrisy.

[kerryusama04]

Yes, you do. You even have padded knee rests in front of the idols. Please refer to the 10 Commandments section of your catechism book. Mine has a chart illustrating that the Roman Church actually deleted idolatry from the 10.

[Full Court]

Ian Paisley, Jack Chick, Bob Jones, are NOT exactly representative of typical Protestant leaders, nor even typical Evangelical leaders. All three are radicals fundamentalists.

Bob JOnes is somewhat of a lightweight in fundy circles, because he isn't KJVO. Paisley is the best orator and preacher as far as listening to goes, but he still baptizes infants which lets him out of the inner circle of real fundamentalism.
Jack Chick is ok, and has won millions of people to the Lord, but his drawings of God give me the willies.

[Uri’el-2012]

There is more to church history and the beliefs of the church fathers than Rome lets on. :-)

I'm much like the Bereans; I search the scriptures daily.

b'shem Y'shua