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!

[Conservative til I die]

So your more logical and less ludicrous claim is that these groups named in the Bible did not exist but that groups not named in the Bible did exist? That is a piece if I ever read one.

I don't really have time for these games tonight. However, I will indulge you this one time. It is you, not I that made the claim that because certain current Christian sects (e.g., Assemblies of God) share the same name as a certain phrase used to describe some believers in the Bible, that this current group therefore is the same group that existed in Biblical times and hence has some credible claim to being the true Christian sect.

This of course completely ignores nearly 2000 years of history and theology. No discussion of the similarities between today's AoG and the ancient AoG. No examination of Christian history to see if there is any direct lineage of today's AoG to the Christians of Biblical times that does not include the Reformation. No consideration that "assembly of God" is a somewhat generic descriptive of a body of Christians, rather than the "brand" name of a specific sect.

On the other hand, I merely indicated that the specific sect's "brand" name not being mentioned in Scripture does not *preclude* it from being the same church indicated in the Bible.

In no way did I state that not being mentioned in the Bible *makes* the Catholic Church the true Church. But I will say you are correct in one way: I am more logical and less ludicrous than you are being.

[annalex]

annalex stated to me that the HOLY SPIRIT did not indwell believers

You misunderstood 2060, which I clarified in 2127, -- do you still have questions?

[Cronos]

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:)

Says St. J went to Bethlehelm

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

Says he took along Mary.  It doesn't actually say if he went alone or with his entire kit and kin and others... You're making an assumption aren't you, that he went alone.  Or are you relying on a traditional or pastor's interpretation?

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

The verse doesn't actually say one way or the other that Joseph didn't take along his mom, pop, aunts and uncles and any brethern... 

[tenn2005]

We do not need to have "church fathers" to explain the scriptures to us as you claim that you need to have. If you need to rely on the explanation of men to understand the scriptures then that is your problem, not mine. Incidently, we also have church fathers. They are called Apostles and wrote most of the New Testament in a manner that we could study and understand it for oursleves. If we get it wrong we mislead only ourself. If the Pope gets it wrong he misleads the entire Catholic Church.

[tenn2005]

I never said that churches today by that name are the same as those who used that name in Bible days. I only said that the names they are calling themselves are found in the Bible. The rest of your argument is against a straw man of your own creation.

[Cronos]

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.
Duuuh.... what did I say? : "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."

Though, as I said, if you ain't part of Christ's Church and following His teachings, I would mostly consider you non-Christian, just as I dont' consider Mormons or Unitarians or Jehovah's witnesses or Scientologists to be Christian.So, the little groupings can't be called a church, more a meeting room for a little song and dance with some guy shouting and gesticulating from a stage and imparting no knowledge to the people he/she has lead astray...

[tenn2005]

Are you referring to the mass in Latin which no one understands?

[Cronos]

The Bible says Mary and Joseph had sex.

Nope -- it doesn't and we've proved that again and again on this thread.  It doesn't go into such intimate details and you repeating it over and over again wont make it true

The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Nope -- it doesn't and we've proved that again and again on this thread.  You repeating it over and over again wont make it true

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

Nope -- it doesn't mean that, all it means is that Jesus was the first born from Mary, any thing else is pure conjecture.  You repeating it over and over again wont make it true

[Cronos]

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.

There is no evidence one way or the other from Biblical tracts.

[Cronos]

And you over look and use the very plain message that James IS called the Lords brother

And Lot is called Abraham's brother....

[tenn2005]

The greek word adelphos literally means "of the same womb."

Theyer's Greek Lexicon

[Cronos]

Actually Dave, there are folks who completely discard everything considered Christian -- right from the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ downwards... They AREN'T Christian..

[tenn2005]

Why do you insist in going to the old Testament (Hebrew) to justify your erroneous understanding of the New Testament (Greek)?

[Cronos]

Though actually I must state that the person who doubted if St. Paul's Epistles are inspired later states that he is a Unitarian. The strange and opposting concepts clubbed under the Protestant banner...

[Cronos]

It would appear that those groups did exist and called themselves by those names.

All the groups of Christians in the 1st century were either: catholic orthodox beleivers or gnostics or vaguely Christianized Jews...

[Cronos]

Are you referring to the mass in Latin which no one understands?

Nope, I'm referring to televanglista phonies and other song-and-dance sing-a-long kumbaya groups that seem to call themselves christian when they are not. In short -- you not part of the Assyrian or Oriental or Orthodox or Catholic or some Anglican and Lutheran Churchs (that follow Apostolic succession), you chances are likely that you've not learnt Christ's Word and aren't Christian. It's sad to see so many led astray by 'pastors' and others who really deserve the blame for leading Christ's sheep astray.

[tenn2005]

All the groups of Christians in the 1st century were either: catholic orthodox beleivers or gnostics or vaguely Christianized Jews...
_____________________

Is this something that you have first hand knowledge of or something that you have been told by your "Church Fathers?"

[Cronos]

Is this something that you have first hand knowledge of or something that you have been told by your "Church Fathers?"

Nope, it's scriptural -- the early Christians believed in orthodoxy, not any doo-dah that the non-Apostolic groups do nowadays. Pure Manichaenism...

[tenn2005]

Please supply a scripture that states this

[Cronos]

read what they wrote and spoke about -- yons Catholic teachings...