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!

[annalex]

persons who doubt the very nature of scripture -- stating that Paul's writings may not all be inspired.

This is very entertaining. Discuss predestination or salvation theology with a Protestant though and you'll get the impression that the only scrpture they ever read was Romans and Galatians.

[annalex]

that was so uncalled for!

Was I impolite to you?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

This is very entertaining. Discuss predestination or salvation theology with a Protestant though and you'll get the impression that the only scrpture they ever read was Romans and Galatians.

That's 2 more books and about 6 more chapters than John 6.

[annalex]

Thank you.

[OLD REGGIE]

Bringing in non-canonical documents is pointless at this point. We're still establishing what "brother" means or does not mean. One thing at a time.

SD>{?

It meant several things, same as it does to this very day. Context. Context. Context>

I assume you agree that the first real Ecumenical Council which established the current day RCC Bible Cannon was the Council of Trent?

[annalex]

What relevant context do you see in Matthew 1 other than Christ was born of a virgin?

John 6 does not discuss salvation and predestination. But the Gospels do, in many chapters, and it is virtually impossible to get a Protestant to discuss the healing episodes and the parables, which are essential if one wants to understand the Pauline formulae in Romans.

[OLD REGGIE]

"...Tradition is self-correcting,..."

Baloney!

[annalex]

first real Ecumenical Council which established the current day RCC Bible Cannon was the Council of Trent?

Nonsense. The three Carthage councils did, last in AD 409. Trent did not even include the Orthodox, who nevertheless have the same books we have. Trent reiterated the inspired nature of the Deuterocanon in the face of Protestant lies.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

What relevant context do you see in Matthew 1 other than Christ was born of a virgin?

Apparently more than you see.

John 6 does not discuss salvation and predestination. But the Gospels do, in many chapters, and it is virtually impossible to get a Protestant to discuss the healing episodes and the parables, which are essential if one wants to understand the Pauline formulae in Romans.

What? You should have been around when these threads were 15,000 posts long.

[annalex]

Once again, I provide arguments and you, snarls.

[SoothingDave]

Which Apostle James is the son of Joseph, the one who is the son of Alephus or the one who is the son of Zebedee?

If it is some other James please identify him from Scripture.

SD

[Keisha]

God will bless you, don't worry about titles, when the occasions of sin present themselves , titles don't matter, I am a cradle Catholic, and I think it hard sometimes to see Christ's face in the face of the beggar etc. , but, in my opinion, that is what He wants us to do, self deny and think of others suffering, also if we have to suffer to do it in His name, then a purpose is there, welcome to Christianity and God Bless You, you might think about writing a book.

[OLD REGGIE]

Nonsense. The three Carthage councils did, last in AD 409. Trent did not even include the Orthodox, who nevertheless have the same books we have. Trent reiterated the inspired nature of the Deuterocanon in the face of Protestant lies.

The Carthage Councils were LOCAL Councils.

You really should be careful when you speak of lies.

[restornu]

you can bring in the LDS factor but it don't really has anything to do with here only to me because it has answered those questions!

But you keep missing the point I had these questions way before I became LDS at the age of 38!

So you can't reduce it LDS!

I have stuck to the Bible a few of you are aware I am LDS and can't answer my questions so you resort to my faith which has nothing to do with my focus and question!

[restornu]

FM

[Quester]

I have stuck to the Bible a few of you are aware I am LDS and can't answer my questions so you resort to my faith which has nothing to do with my focus and question!

Are you sure that you don't mean that ... you have stuck it to the Bible ?

Your post #1935 - 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 not an example of chrisitan belief ... it's pure LDS.

[OLD REGGIE]

Once again, I provide arguments and you, snarls.

I don't even know how to snarls. :)

I don't know how to respond when you post something as vapid as "tradition is self correcting".

How about this? "Lies become truth with the passage of time."

Please don't snarls.

[annalex]

I see your point. Perhaps I anticipated the charge that Trent added the deuterocanonical books to the Canon, which you actually did not make. However, Carthage effectively defined the Canon for the entire Church, including the Eastern Church. Why is is important to you that Carthage was local?

[annalex]

I explained why and how Tradition is self-correcting in that post:

If I need to understand the passage I suspect is not self-evident, I can read the Catechism or talk to a priest, till that process brings a better understanding. Usually, a reference to the early Church writings closes the deal, if the Catechism is silent. That way, the meaning of a particular verse, say, Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:28, is understood not through some archaeological analysis of surviving copies, but by evidence of understanding common to the Fathers.

Do I need to elaborate?

[OLD REGGIE]

Which Apostle James is the son of Joseph, the one who is the son of Alephus or the one who is the son of Zebedee?

If it is some other James please identify him from Scripture.

See Acts 15. You'll find James - the brother of Jesus and the son of Mary.