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!

[Quester]

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!

Such is the stuff of imagination ... or speculation (at best).

Do you not believe that God would be able to protect His scriptures ?

[Jaded]

Do you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[OLD REGGIE]

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

Nah! Different cast of characters (mostly). :-)

[restornu]

I think history speaks for that and manuscripts were burn and just asked Tyndale?

there are others and more is starting to surface!

[restornu]

that is part of it but those were there person version and the New Testament was not among them!

BTW in that area over time there was over 800 scrolls founds I believe the OT only has 39 of those books!

[restornu]

BBL

[Quester]

I think history speaks for that and manuscripts were burn and just asked Tyndale?

There are others and more is starting to surface!

So ... none of these manuscripts survived (in any form) ?

[OLD REGGIE]

Whom are you addressing?

You. Who else could it be?

[OLD REGGIE]

Such is the stuff of imagination ... or speculation (at best).

Do you not believe that God would be able to protect His scriptures ?

Why of course He would be able to protect His (scriptures) unchanged and with no contradictions if He chose to do so. He could also have chosen a different path for mankind - no wars - no killing, stealing-lying, etc. The fact He didn't must be because He had a different plan.

Do you believe there are no outright contradictions and changes (some simply due to copy errors, some deliberate changes over the various iterations) contained in the current Bible(s)?

[SoothingDave]

You. Who else could it be?

Just wondering if you also were looking for the same answers from Full Court, as I've tried to get them for some time now.

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

Sure, I could have a mistaken impression. But I don't believe I do.

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

Here's the point. I can allow (much like you) that the words written can be interpreted in more than one way. I can allow how one taking a "text only" viewpoint and not taking into account history or tradition might come to one conclusion. I believe it is the wrong conclusion, and it falls apart when one really digs into it and discovers who is named as the mother or father of the various persons identified as "brothers" of Jesus.

But, if one does not agree with this analysis or does not wish to look at things too deeply, I can accept that one simply taking one's own reading of the verses in question can come to that conclusion.

Full Court and those of her(?) persuasion are ill-informed and yet genuinely trying their best to understand the text. I do not think they are deliberately straying from the Bible nor making a liar of God or any of the other things which Catholics have been accused.

I ask only that the same consideration be given to the Catholic view.

I am not persuaded by anything that has been offered as proof to change my well-decided opinion. Largely because nothing has been offered except the repetition of the verses in English. I have rejected the arguments offered after examining them.

I do not think the other side can honestly say that.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I thought you were a little more serious.

You thought I might have bought into your spin over the years....think again.

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

You thought I might have bought into your spin over the years....think again.

All that's asked for is to look at the arguments presented and respond to them in an intelligent fashion. Because we interpret things differently does not mean we are against the Scripture, which is how FC put it, and what you applauded her for.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Dave you're still trying to put people in a box that you have designed and expect them to operate from, IOW's circular reasoning.

It might work for the brain dead.....but it won't fly around here anymore.

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

Just wondering if you also were looking for the same answers from Full Court, as I've tried to get them for some time now.

You must be aware I've given up on Full Court. She is very open in her insistence that her interpretation is the one and only correct one. I suspect you, on the other hand, merely pretends to be open minded. You are just as fixed on your "not blood brother" position as she is on hers but, for some reason you are silent on the real reason.

I am not persuaded by anything that has been offered as proof to change my well-decided opinion. Largely because nothing has been offered except the repetition of the verses in English. I have rejected the arguments offered after examining them.

Face it, Mother Church has spoken and you are not allowed to think differently. I believe your "openness" is nothing but a bluff - so there!

I do not think the other side can honestly say that.

Am I on this "other side"? I actualy think Jesus did have blood brothers and sisters but cannot find absoloute proof in our current day Bible(s). Further, I don't think it makes any difference except to those of you who are locked into a position which, despite your protestation of open mindendness, cannot change unless you are prepared to become an "ex".

[Quester]

Such is the stuff of imagination ... or speculation (at best).

Do you not believe that God would be able to protect His scriptures ?

Why of course He would be able to protect His (scriptures) unchanged and with no contradictions if He chose to do so. He could also have chosen a different path for mankind - no wars - no killing, stealing-lying, etc. The fact He didn't must be because He had a different plan.

He (God) also could have allowed mankind to wipe itself off of the face of the planet by now.

That He has allowed some evils to occur ... does not mean that He has not caused some particular things to endure.

It's His plan.

He promises that His scripture will endure.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Do you believe there are no outright contradictions and changes (some simply due to copy errors, some deliberate changes over the various iterations) contained in the current Bible(s)?

There are few, if any, significant contradictions (I know of a few insignificant examples ... like numbers not matching up) ... and, likewise, a few differences in the textual copies ... that have been detected and known about for several centuries now.

My point is that it's a rather large leap from this which we have evidence for ... to the presumption that scripture has somehow been twisted (or obliterated) beyond recognition.

[Full Court]

You have steadfastly refused to engage in a discussion about what the words could mean.

Dave, the Greek is the idiom for sex between a man and a woman. What else could that possibly mean?

There is no reason at all to look for another meaning when that one is perfectly clear. It follows every rule of Biblical interpretation.

[Full Court]

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?

Dave, I posted the Greek. It means sex between a man and a woman. Now why you want to claim I am not looking at it fully it not true.

[SoothingDave]

Am I on this "other side"? I actualy think Jesus did have blood brothers and sisters but cannot find absoloute proof in our current day Bible(s).

You're actually a voice of moderation here, at least on the issue of what the Bible does and does not say on this issue.

How about that?

SD

[Full Court]

Dave, there is no obvious reason in Scripture to disregard the clear meaning and try and make it obscure, that's my point.

The Bible says Mary and Joseph had sex.

The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.

The Bible says Jesus was the firstborn, meaning other came after.

THere is no reason at all to disregard the clear teaching to try and make the Bible mean something it does not say, unless you are trying to support a false doctrine.

[SoothingDave]

Dave you're still trying to put people in a box that you have designed and expect them to operate from, IOW's circular reasoning. It might work for the brain dead.....but it won't fly around here anymore.

Yeah, I place people into two general categories. Those who can examine an argument and respond to it, and those who can not.

SD