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]

NYer - I hope you don't mind but your phrase is a jewel and I'd like to borrow it for a while to use as my new tag line.

ooops, I didn't ask before using it. Apolologies -- NYer, I would like to use your phrase as a tag line (I generally keep my tags for quite some time.....)

[Cronos]

there is plenty that tells us that Mary and Joseph had sex and had other children

FC -- you seem to rely on pure conjecture. However, I guess that the error lies more which your teachers/pastors who propagate these gross errors, than with you.

[Cronos]

Just because you make the claim that the Bible is not true and does not mean that Jesus had brothers or sisters when he clearly did means nothing.

No one says the Bible is not true -- we say YOUR PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION IS NOT TRUE. The Bible terminology brothers and sisters includes relations other than siblings, that is very clear and is viewable even today in the M-E (I think this is the 40th time I've repeated the statement to you). You don't understand that and refuse to SEE it.

[Cronos]

Referring to 1 Corinthians 15:6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, some posters on this thread must believe the Virgin Mary was very busy after the birth of Jesus.

ROTFLOL!!!

[Cronos]

Aren't you really saying that because we read the SCRIPTURES and see a clear meaning that disagrees with what your magisterium and unwritten, unverified, tradition has determined you can't understand it?

Nope, we're saying your induhvidual interpretation (like anyone's induhvidual interpretation) is inherently flawed. Christ gave us a community of believers to go and ponder His mission. That's the strength of the Church.

[restornu]

I wouldn't say you are lying as I think you genuinely believe you see the truth, but the fact is that you err (twice as we've shown),

***

at lease you are polite in your disgreement, than some here who outright accuse, instead of figuring it was that person out look and was not tryting to PRETEND ANY THING!

I truly thought that was so uncalled for!

Had I been talking face to face with this being I don't they would have been so quick to say that!

[Cronos]

The only 1st century "baptists" were Anabaptists or Gnostic groups which have nothing in common with modern day Baptists.

[Cronos]

Please don't post to me anymore.

Ok, gotcha. The other posts were replies before I say your post #1869.

[Cronos]

Please don't post to me anymore.

Ok, gotcha. The other posts were replies before I saw your post #1869.

[restornu]

you are being inane to poke fun!

The Point is what is the big hoodeedoo because AFTER the birth of Jesus, that he also had earthly brothers or sisters born of Mary!

It takes away nothing!

Since you feel this way you better pray no legit scriptures come forth to say that Jesus had earthly off springs!

I don't think so but none of us know all??

[Cronos]

The Point is what is the big hoodeedoo because AFTER the birth of Jesus, that he also had earthly brothers or sisters born of Mary!

No, restornu. The Big hoodeedoo is that taking a personal interpretation of scripture can lead to conjectures in the wrong direction -- some have even gone to the extremes of Unitarianism. That is what we warn against.

[restornu]

Could we turn this into the Never Ending Story thread!:)

[Knitting A Conundrum]

The closest you get to "protestant" style Christian are the Waldensens, which began as a lay movement in the 12th century that got out of hand and rebelled against church teachings, but remained Christian as opposed to gnostic like the various Cathar groups, went underground because they were rejecting the sacraments, authority, and other things, that got them in trouble with the authorities, but before their time, you would be hard put to find any form of "primitive Christian" type groups. That is wishful thinking.

[Cronos]

well, restornu, the nature of the 'net makes is easier to be rude!! I'm sure most if not all of the persons on this forum (except DUmmy Trolls) are nice, genteel folks in real life. I will say the same (they aren't lying as I think they genuinely believe they see the truth) about my main 3 posters on this threat (Tenn, FC and gscc) -- I'd pretty surely even add in Old Reggie and others as well.

The good thing is that everyone believes in Christ as their Lord God and Saviour. That's ONE common ground. I may think that they strongly err on other points, but hey, if any of them are threatened by Muslimes, they can count on me to watch their backs...

[SoothingDave]

Dave, you have ignored clear Scripture saying that Mary and Joseph had sex, and the Greek behind that.

Don't be ridiculous. You have steadfastly refused to engage in a discussion about what the words could mean.

I repeat for the third time. Can you answer?

Is there any possiblity whatsoever, in your own understanding of your own understanding, that you could be mistaken? Or have you reached fallibility in this area based upon the plain English meaning of words? Can your mind perceive the distinction between what you think a passage means and what the author of the passage actually meant to convey?

So don't send me melodramatic posts asking me if I am proud of myself for "ignoring" Scripture.

I guess self-awareness is just something that happens to other people, eh?

Not to mention the fact that you have ignored all the other Scripture saying that Jesus had siblings.

No. You have ignored any evidence presented that the word you take to mean "co-uteral sibling" can have a broader meaning.

SD

[SoothingDave]

To me this setting could mean blood line instead of spiriual bond!

Yes, it could. Or it could not. Every Catholic and every rational person on this thread realizes that. This is what happens when words can have different senses of meaning.

Explain this to the folks who insist that the word only has one meaning. And that suggesting another sense of the word is a plausible interpretation of the text is not to ignore Scripture.

"male siblings from the same uterus."

How coarse of an expression!

It is a clinical definition of exactly what is being talked about. It is not "coarse," by a long shot.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Unfortunely our Roman Catholic posters are not as open.

Which side is it that is examining the text, looking into the history of the peoples of the region, delving into the original languages and making the argument that linguistically either interpretation is valid, but that tradition and other textual evidence points to our interpretation?

And which side keeps posting the same quotes over and over, as if our problem is in reading English and refuses to engage in discussion about the language used and other possible interpretations?

And which one do you call "open"?

It'd be hilarious if you weren't serious.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Since you feel this way you better pray no legit scriptures come forth to say that Jesus had earthly off springs! I don't think so but none of us know all??

The Canon was closed in the 4th Century. No "legit scriptures" are going to arise period.

We aren't Mormons.

SD

[Jaded]

Since you feel this way you better pray no legit scriptures come forth to say that Jesus had earthly off springs!

The DaVinci Code was a work of fiction.

[Full Court]

Dear Knitting, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed our discussion even though we have reached different conclusions. Perhaps we will have a chance to chat again on a different topic. :-)

Full Court, a lover of history also.