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!

[SoothingDave]

No response to the request to identify which James is the brother of the Lord yet. You'd think one of these Biblical scholars would take up the argument and explain which of these Jameses is Joseph's son.

If this is a listing of His cousins why isn't John the Baptist mentioned here?

Who said the list was cousins and who said it was an exhaustive list?

My post is 2061. Please identify for me which Jameses are the blood half-brother of Jesus and tell me when he displaces James the Lesser.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The strange and opposting concepts clubbed under the Protestant banner...

Actually he's never claimed the "protestant" banner.

[gscc]

James, the Brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.  Even the Jewish historian Josephus tells us that James, the brother of Jesus, was tried and executed in the year A.D. 62 in Jerusalem.  Simeon, the second Bishop, is noted by historians as a close relative of Jesus and James.  Simeon was bishop at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem AD 70 and may have gone with most of the Christians to Pella. About the year 106 or 107 he was crucified under Trajan.

[Titanites]

The James ossuary bears the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

In other words, the box inscription counts against both the Roman Catholic cousin theory and the Orthodox theory that they are children of Joseph by prior marriage.

Assuming the box isn't a forgery:

First, you should note that the inscription says son of Joseph, not son of Mary.

Second, the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were very common during this period and you would have to prove the names on the box refer to the people of interest. When this box came out, there was an analysis done based on the population of Jerusalem at the time of about 80,000 and the commonality of these names and it was estimated about 20 people could be called "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus."

Third, you'd have to prove the word brother, as used here, meant from the same womb.

But alas, it was a forgery and the forger was arrested.

[OLD REGGIE]

Dave, this feeble old man has no desire to plough through your convoluted maze.

James, the brother of Jesus was not appointed until after the death of Jesus.

This James: Acts 15:13: After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.

And this James: Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

If you have so much time on your hands plough through this stuff.

[SoothingDave]

James, the Brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Even the Jewish historian Josephus tells us that James, the brother of Jesus, was tried and executed in the year A.D. 62 in Jerusalem. Simeon, the second Bishop, is noted by historians as a close relative of Jesus and James. Simeon was bishop at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem AD 70 and may have gone with most of the Christians to Pella. About the year 106 or 107 he was crucified under Trajan.

Post 2061. Can you address it or not? I pulled every single instance where "James" is referenced in the New Testament. I want to get to the bottom of this. Which of the Jameses mentioned in Scripture are James the "brother of the Lord" and when does he become an Apostle? (And what did he do with James the Lesser?)

SD

[SoothingDave]

Dave, this feeble old man has no desire to plough through your convoluted maze.

Of course not. It's only the Bible. Why should we examine it when we are talking about religion?

James, the brother of Jesus was not appointed until after the death of Jesus.

OK. Where is this captured in Scripture?

This James: Acts 15:13: After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.

OK. The Apostles are listed in Acts 1. There are two Jameses the "James and John" one and the "son of Alphaeus" one.

In Acts 12 we learn that the "James and John" James is killed. That leaves one James.

What makes you think the James in Acts 15 is some other James and not the one already an Apostle and already introduced in the narrative?

Does that make any sense that a brand new character is introduced without mention?

SD

[gscc]

But alas, it was a forgery and the forger was arrested.

But alas it is not proven to be a forgery.  By your logic then the Shroud of Turin is a forgery - scientific dating has shown it to be of Renaissance dating.  Should the Catholic Church be arrested for perpetrating this fraud on the world?  The ossuary on the other hand was tested and the patina was shown to has been of first century origin.

[SoothingDave]

The ossuary on the other hand was tested and the patina was shown to has been of first century origin.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

We all know what the words are. The idea is to find out what they meant, and what the relationships really were. Written on stone or written on parchment. It. Doesn't. Matter.

The whole ossuary thing has been a red herring from day one.

Now, about post 2061...

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

OK. Where is this captured in Scripture?

Since you claim not to be a Literalist, you'll be happy to know this can be found in the Psuedoclementines. :-)

[Titanites]

But alas it is not proven to be a forgery.

Believe in it if you wish, but the antiquities experts have had their say.

The ossuary on the other hand was tested and the patina was shown to has been of first century origin.

Please read the article I linked. The box may be genuine but the inscription is not. There is also a fake patina applied, which you can read about in the caption of the first photo.

Fake or not, you still have to address the 3 points I noted to prove that this James is who you think he is, i.e. the natural born son of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.

[gscc]

The inscription was what was tested for the patina. The patina was in accord with a first century dating. The Shroud on the other hand was dated from the Renaissance period.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The Shroud on the other hand was dated from the Renaissance period.

How can that be? The Catholic church tells us that Constantine's mother Helen went to Jerusalem and found the shroud herself while artifact hunting. She also found a piece of wood (obviously petrified by now) and some nails from Jesus' cross. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Wow. I've always been able to go to the New Advent site and find the PsuedoClementines under the category "church fathers". This time they weren't on the list. Did they put them somewhere else or take them off the site entirely?

[Titanites]

The inscription was what was tested for the patina. The patina was in accord with a first century dating.

Can you not read:

At some time long after the natural processes of varnish and patination in a damp cave environment had been completed, someone carved a series of letters through the natural varnish on the ossuary. Then he or she covered the freshly cut letters with an imitation patina made from water and ground chalk.

Whether the patina is fake or not, you still have to address the 3 points I noted to prove that this James is who you think he is, i.e. the natural born son of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.

[wmfights]

"That said, I agree private interpretation can be misleading, even dangerous. Of course blindly accepting the interpretation of others can be just as dangerous."
_____________________________

I would agree.

[Jaded]

The James ossuary was proven to be a fraud. Unless something has changed in the last 3 or 4 years.

[Jaded]

That's not true either.

[OLD REGGIE]

One day James thinks his older brother is crazy, the next he is in charge of the church in Jerusalem, making decisions on circumcision, etc. That's some epiphany. Wonder why it isn't mentioned in Scripture?

How many days between the time
John 7:5
For even his brothers did not believe in him. BR>
and

1 Corinthians 15:7
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

and


Acts 15:19
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

[Jaded]

If James is, as some of you suggest, the blood brother of Jesus and an Apostle or the very least a follower of Christ, WHY did he give care of His mother to John, a non-relative?