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!

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hi Jaded,

Since you are offering to keep people in your prayer intentions during lent, can I ask you to keep me in your prayers as well?

[SoothingDave]

Gen 14:12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Lot is Abram's nephew. Abram's brother is Haran. Haran is Lot's father. This is made explicit in verse 12.

Two verses later, Lot is called Abram's "brother."

Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is wrong.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Lot is Abram's nephew. Abram's brother is Haran. Haran is Lot's father. This is made explicit in verse 12. Two verses later, Lot is called Abram's "brother." Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is

I'm sorry, i don't do sola scriptura. :-)

[annalex]

Very informative post, thank you.

This is a good resource for further study: The Brethren of the Lord

[Titanites]

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

You are quite skilful at selectively snipping bits of scripture out of context. Read the whole chapter.

First off, you avoid quoting the very next verse where Paul says “But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.” He nowhere states it is a sin to not come together. That is your assumption.

Next, the limit “for a time” is not defined. Is it weeks, months, years? We know that Mary and Joseph did not come together for at least 9-months because of the virgin birth. Did that break Paul’s “concession”? I doubt it, because the key phrase of the verse is come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency (or self-control per other translations). We know that Mary and Joseph stayed apart for at least 9-months, so we know they had self-control. It is quite possible they maintained self-control after His birth. Scripture doesn’t say one way or the other.

In any case to say Mary and Joseph would sin by violating Paul’s concession is absolutely wrong and figment of your imagination.

[annalex]

The absolute commandment is to be fruitful, which Joseph and Mary were in the most glorious fashion in bringing us the Savior. In many instances the Church allows for complete abstinence in marriage, when the fruit of the marriage is either already present or impossible. That is called Josephine marriage and is perfectly valid. An example would be a couple wishing to join monastic orders.

The commandment of submission to the husband remains valid, of course, but Mary would have violated it only if Joseph had asked her physical affection, of which we have no record.

In any event, the uniquely exceptional nature of the Holy Family renders all attempts to find a legalistic fault in them stupid and vaguely blasphemous.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Full Court,

You made an interesting quote from Scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

My translation actually reads a little differently. "Neither was the man created from the woman; but the woman from the man." This being, of course, a reference to Adam and Eve and reflecting that man and woman are created in such a way that the they are made to become, "one flesh," which God joins and man may not split assunder.

There are a lot of ideologies that would argue today that there is nothing essential about gender. Rather it is simply seen as an accident of chromosome shuffling during conception--an individual could have easily received the father's X as his Y. Gender is seen as a mere coin toss, and gender differences are seen as something that are created by society, and not something intrinsic to the individual. It follows directly from this view, that because gender is nonessential to the individual, we should be able to mix and match genders in "marriage."

In your post, you underscore a much more complex, and I think richer view of the relationship between women and men. God did not have to create gender, we could all have been hermaphrodites. but God instead choose to create us in His image--male and female. God made men and women for each other. Your view underscores that.

Where we must be careful, however, is that we are going to far if we claim that women are made for men, and not men made for women. Women and men are created for God, to share in His own blessed life. We cannot accept any view, however, which asserts that women are not equal to men in dignity (and I'm sure you didn't imply this was not the case,), nor can we somehow claim that men's experiences are normative for humans, with women being in some sense an appendage. Both men and women are created in the image of God.


"For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God." (1 Cor: 12)

[annalex]

No, verse 9 has "for"; "from" (or "of") is in verse 8.

8 ou gar estin aner ek gyneaikos alla gyne ex andros
9 kai gar ouk ektisthe aner dia ten gynaika alla gyne dia ton andra

8 Non enim vir ex muliere est, sed mulier ex viro.
9 Etenim non est creatus vir propter mulierem, sed mulier propter virum.

(1 Corinthians 11)

Woma is for the man because, like Eve, she is from the man. The instruction to husband is to love the wife, sanctify and cleanse her, and sacrifice himself for her, as given in Ephesians 5.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Woman is for the man because, like Eve, she is from the man. The instruction to husband is to love the wife, sanctify and cleanse her, and sacrifice himself for her, as given in Ephesians 5."

Excellent! Thanks for calling that to my attention, it makes a lot more sense. I tend to read Paul's instruction to wives: "submit to your husbands," as saying, "don't hamstring the guy, you need to be on his side and for him, not against him." I do that because we are elsewhere told to submit to each other, so I don't see St. Paul singling out wives so much as emphasizing a common point of difficulty in many marital relationships. In my opinion, St. Paul is pointing to the difficulties that men and women often have in their relationships as husbands and wives. Husbands are to respect their wives as their own bodies and sacrifice for them: that is, they are not supposed to hate their wives, so we see a condemnation of misogyny. On the other hand, women need to be on their husbands side. At least that's how I usually interpret St. Paul on gender. It's all a development on the theme of "Love one another as I have loved you."

Thank you also for the link, Annalex!

[Uri’el-2012]

Not really. I was just waiting for your very imaginative "Catholic Dictionary" explanation that Unum Sanctum doesn't mean what it says.

Fr. Feeney would be proud.

[OLD REGGIE]

"First off, you avoid quoting the very next verse where Paul says “But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.” ..."

It is refreshing that you recognize Paul frequently speaks for himself and himself only. Please advise some of your compatriots that I am not a bitter "ex" or anything like that when I say that not all of Paul's writings are "Commandments of God".

[OLD REGGIE]

Fr. Feeney would be proud.

Gee, I wonder whether it would be possible to "Recomminucate Father Feeney? :-)

[annalex]

Possible, and done. The ex-communication of Fr. Feeney was lifted by Pope Paul VI in 1972.

[OLD REGGIE]

Possible, and done. The ex-communication of Fr. Feeney was lifted by Pope Paul VI in 1972.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. That is, I wasn't currently aware of that. If I had been so at some time in the past my memory lapse may be blamed on old age and semi-senility. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Fr. Feeney would be proud.

Gee, I wonder whether it would be possible to "Recomminucate Father Feeney? :-)

You'd be surprised how many people I think have invincible mental impediments.

SD

[Full Court]

The absolute commandment is to be fruitful, which Joseph and Mary were in the most glorious fashion

Joseph had nothing to do with that union.

His fruitful union with Mary Came later.

Matthew 1:24  

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[Full Court]

Excuse me NYER, but Jaded claimed I said something I did not, and I find that to be dishonest. So don't post moral platitudes to ME, when it was Jaded that made the false claim.

[Full Court]

I admire your zeal and passion for religion, that is a tremendous gift.

It's not for "relegion." It's for the Lord Jesus Christ against a bunch of catholics who would rather call Jesus a sinner than admit that the Word of God clearly shows that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters.

When God wants to use the word "cousin" He does.

There is no reason given in any of Scripture that Mary was not a good wife and that she did not have sex with Joseph.

[Full Court]

Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is wrong.

God uses the word cousin when He means cousin.

The idea that Mary was a sinful wife and refused to have sex with Joseph is what is not in Scripture.

Why you insist in ignoring God's word in favor or a silly tradition just proves that you don't believe what God says.

Dave, your soul is in great peril.

[annalex]

Marriage is fruitful even when no biological offspring is produced. Joseph's marriage was validated, and, in fact, glorified, by his care of Our Lady and child Jesus.