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!

[Full Court]

Then you'll have no problem proving your assertion.

if you can find proof that Joseph was 90 years old when he married the virginal teenaged Mary, and that he had other children by another wife FROM SCRIPTURE, the Authorized Version, then I will give you a hearing.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

:0)

[Full Court]

Full Court Said: If that were true, those children would of been with them on the trip to Bethlhem and they were not.

Cronos said:Really? Do you KNOW that or are you speculating? The Bible doesn't mention if anyone else went along to Bethlehelm -- it deals with the bigger picture in all. You cannot twist scripture to reflect what you want it to.

I am not speculating. The Word of God tells me those FACTS.

Luke 2:1  ¶And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2  (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3  And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4  And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5  To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Note that ALL went, but no other children went with Joseph and Mary because at this point THERE WERE NONE.

Mary and Joseph did not consumate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus.

[SoothingDave]

if you can find proof that Joseph was 90 years old when he married the virginal teenaged Mary, and that he had other children by another wife FROM SCRIPTURE, the Authorized Version, then I will give you a hearing.

You are correct in stating that Scripture is silent on Joseph's age. You are incorrect in assuming this means your preconception is correct.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Note that ALL went, but no other children went with Joseph and Mary because at this point THERE WERE NONE.

Again, you argue from silence. The Bible does not say Mary and Joseph were alone.

SD

[Full Court]

but before their time, you would be hard put to find any form of "primitive Christian" type groups. That is wishful thinking.

And those in the Catacombs were who?

[Full Court]

The Bible says Joseph went with Mary. Why is that a problem for you?

[restornu]

I wasn't even thinking about that I was thinking of what Archeaologist are finding now in scriptures!

they have found some from the Old Testament now the mainsteam might thing the canon are closes tell that those who are Jewish in Israel!

You don't Speak for the Old Testament nor for other faith just yours, and like many of you have said that the Protestants don't want to look at what you have, here you are tell others!LOL

You can't have it both ways!

Who do you wait on the traditions of men or the Lord!

[SoothingDave]

The Bible says Joseph went with Mary. Why is that a problem for you?

It's not a problem for me. Yes, Joseph went with Mary. We can agree on that (you seem to have a difficult time recognizing what aspects of an argument are in agreement and which are in dispute.)

The Bible does not mention anyone else going on this trip. From this, you assume they went alone. I assume the Bible does not mention anyone else because the author may have considered it an unimportant detail.

The Bible does not say one way or another who was all in their travelling party. You argue from this silence.

It's a logical fallacy.

SD

[restornu]

So are other names clinical why embrass people for your indifference womb is more polite!

[restornu]

this is a post I gave to Soothy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1578939/posts?page=1928#1928

[wmfights]

"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."
________________________________________

Thanks for proving my point.

Your institutionalized thinking is showing.

You and your fellow Roman Catholics should ask yourselves, if the LORD wanted you to place all your hopes for salvation through the filter and direction of an institution of man why didn't he join the Pharisees and change them? Why did JESUS preach the gospel directly to the masses, instead of through the filter of an institution of man such as the Pharisees? Why did JESUS give us the HOLY SPIRIT to indwell believers and convict us of our sins and guide us into a right relationship with the LORD?

I think you don't understand why Christians go to church. We don't go to have the church save us. We go for fellowship with other believers. We go to learn and grow as Christians and most importantly we go to share in honoring the LORD.

[FormerLib]

And since we know that Scripture didn't even address the history of Joseph, the strawman that you've created is most apparent. Fortunately, we also have Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the greatest part.

Reminds me of those folks who refused to eat potatoes because they weren't mentioned in Scripture. Or those folks who think it's somehow significant that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality (that the term itself didn't exist until the 1800's being overlooked) in Scripture.

Yeah, if it's not in Scripture, it just can't be, huh?

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Catholics. Or so they considered themselves in their writings! (But we won't go deep into this thread. I have the resources handy, but it's been done over and over and over and over and over again on these threads.)

[restornu]

Can you imagine when the last apostle was gone and the wars that took place and how many were killed for processing copies or even original or seal of approval!

I cringe at how many scared manuscripts were destroyed or burn!

[SoothingDave]

So are other names clinical why embrass people for your indifference womb is more polite!

I am sincerely sorry if I caused you discomfort. I didn't think using the medical term would be a problem.

SD

[restornu]

Thank you the world is getting so familar would it not be nice or a miracle that the religion forum was able to have discussions in like matter if we were to remember that Lord and his angles are listing to us!

[restornu]

I really got to go to sleep! LOL

its insomnia....

[OLD REGGIE]

Can your mind perceive the distinction between what you think a passage means and what the author of the passage actually meant to convey?

Are you open to, or allowed to, entertain the idea that you have a mistaken impression of what the passage actually meant to convey?

Back to the point I have made many times with you. Is your mind closed on the matter?

[SoothingDave]

Whom are you addressing?

SD