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!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

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

LOL and you go ahead finish your own circle that you started.

BigMack

[wmfights]

"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."
_____________________________________

I think it's obvious why Dave continues to make these claims. He can not refute your position.

I agree with your reading of SCRIPTURE and also find it pretty straight forward. Hang in there!

[SoothingDave]

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

Are you still here a week later not undestanding what the objection is?

Apparently. It's like a wise person once said "you seem to have a difficult time recognizing what aspects of an argument are in agreement and which are in dispute."

No one is arguing that the words "knew her not" don't refer to sex. Duh.

The point being argued is that "till" does not have to mean what you think it does. Especially in the Greek.

There is no reason at all to look for another meaning when that one is perfectly clear.

Exactly why you remain purposefully ignorant. Since there exists a "clear" meaning, you insist that must be the only possible one.

This is a logical fallacy. Words can mean more than one thing.

Now, if you care to engage in a real conversation, you could begin by identifying one person from Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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

Again, this is the most uneducated of arguments, it is a wonder a more enlightened Protestant doesn't correct you on this.

Have you ever looked at the Old Testament?

SD

[SoothingDave]

"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."

_____________________________________

I think it's obvious why Dave continues to make these claims. He can not refute your position.

You don't understand the objection either. It's not about what "knew" means in the Biblical lingo. Anytime you or FC care to engage the arguments put forth, and not the make-believe arguments you create in your own minds, feel free.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Mack, is it impossible to think about an idea without accepting it as your own belief?

Is it possible to admit that a text allows for different interpretations without sinning by choosing the wrong one?

Must Biblical Fundamentalism go hand-in-hand with the unwillingness to accept that others may have reasonable, yet wrong, arguments?

SD

[wmfights]

"I think it's obvious why Dave continues to make these claims. He can not refute your position.

You don't understand the objection either. It's not about what "knew" means in the Biblical lingo. Anytime you or FC care to engage the arguments put forth, and not the make-believe arguments you create in your own minds, feel free."
______________________________________

Thanks for making my case for me!

If SD doesn't like the interpretation put forth and can't refute it he will make snide comments and denigrate the individual.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The scriptures are plain and decided about the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

It is evident that the Greek adelphos (brothers/sisters) is used in the case of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the flesh. And before you start there is also no evidence or reason to say that these were Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

The main reason there is controversy over this matter is because of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

BigMack

[Full Court]

Humor Break


May 2005

Dear Dr. Adams: I read with great interest your recent article "Red Headed Woodpeckers." Tell me Dr., how come you kill deer and watch birds? Why don't you put down your rifle and watch them both?

Raymond


Hi Raymond. That's a good question, with a simple answer. I like the taste of roasted venison, but not roasted woodpecker. Let me know if I can be of further assistance, Ray.


Mike Adams


Funny guy. Tell me this, Dr. Smarta**, have you EVER given money to a panhandler?


Raymond


No, Raymond, I haven't. What's your point?

Mike Adams


My point is that if you feed birds and not the homeless, you are (sic) pompous, hypocritical a**. Obviously, you value the birds more than the homeless.

Raymond


I don't have a problem with that, Raymond. The birds don't steal my hubcaps and crack dealers don't accept seeds.

Mike Adams

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Must Biblical Fundamentalism go hand-in-hand with the unwillingness to accept that others may have reasonable, yet wrong, arguments?

I have always accepted that you have reasonable, yet wrong, arguments.

BigMack

[wmfights]

"The main reason there is controversy over this matter is because of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary."
_______________________________

Is it possible that if Roman Catholic's recognized that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was wrong they might have to recognize their doctrines about her Ascension and ability to amplify prayers for consideration by the LORD could be wrong too. It could explain why there is such an obstinate fight over this.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Well, that is a giant leap from anything I have ever said. I have stated many times (at least a few times :)) that our present day Bible(s) while not perfect are good enough to live by. Any "errors" are inconsequential.

[Full Court]

Reggie, are you an ex catholic?

[SoothingDave]

It is evident that the Greek adelphos (brothers/sisters) is used in the case of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the flesh.

You're sure that adelphos could never be used for step-brothers/half-brothers?

And before you start there is also no evidence or reason to say that these were Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

There's no evidence to say they were not either.

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If SD doesn't like the interpretation put forth and can't refute it he will make snide comments and denigrate the individual.

Sorry, guy, but there's nothing snide in pointing out that you don't understand what part of the verse is under question. You guys high fiving each other because you "proved" that "knew her" means sex is juvenile.

That part has never been questioned, no matter how many times you re-post it as if you've hit a eureka moment.

SD

[Jaded]

Thanks for the humor break. Co-workers are staring at me now. Wait, they always do that.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

Thats 4 and if you count the sisters....but still you will not accept this because it would kill the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I understand your problem Dave, you're in a no win situation here.

When you have studied both sides and shaved away (Occam's razor) everything the plain truth screams thru.

BigMack

[Jaded]

Firstborn does not necessarily mean there were others. If Mary'd had 12 girls and then Jesus, He would still be considered the firstborn. If He'd been the only one ever, He'd still be the firstborn. It's also an important Jewish designation.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, are you an ex catholic?

Yes, and ex-Protestant too. I am one of those dreaded Unitarians who believes God has provided many ways for all people to be welcomed into His house.

BTW I am a very conservative Unitarian, more closely attuned to the Christian/Biblical group.

[Uri’el-2012]

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

That what is says in all the versions that I have, Mack.

b'shem Y'shua