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!

[gscc]

I can read just fine - and I did read your selective appraisal of the authenticity of the ossuary.

It is very obvious you have to hang your hat (and your doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary) on any hook that may further this doctrine which is contradicted by scripture.  Therefore, it is necessary to take the side of the Israel Antiquities Authority in order to discredit the ossuary.  It is notable that both the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Catholic Church has much to lose if the historicity of this ossuary is confirmed.

The inscription and the ossuary were examined in the laboratory of the Geological Survey of Israel. Both were studied with a binocular microscope to identify the stone and to observe the patina. Six samples of the chalk (soft limestone), six samples of the patina and two samples of the attached soil were studied with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) equipped with EDS (Electron Dispersive Spectroscopy). The scientists concluded: “[T]he patina does not contain any modern elements (such as modern pigments) and it adheres firmly to the stone. No signs of the use of a modern tool or instrument was [sic] found. No evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the patina and the inscription was found.

[SoothingDave]

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?

Don't know. I'm not in charge of that site.

Besides, I am trying to engage the "Bible only" believers in a discussion of the Bible. Why they won't address my 2061 remains as much of a mystery as the sudden appearance of the third James.

SD

[Titanites]

I can read just fine - and I did read your selective appraisal of the authenticity of the ossuary.

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.

[SoothingDave]

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,

Who knows? My point is still that it seems remarkable that a person goes from belief in Christ's insanity to chief Apostle in Jerusalem without it being remarked upon.

Just like it is remarkable that a cast of characters introduced in Acts 1 suddenly has a new James (and a disappearance of the old James) without it being remarked upon.

What outside tradition influences the reading of Acts to assume the James in Acts 15 is not the same (not-dead)James listed in Acts 1?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Besides being a fraud, this ossuary is irrelevant. The language used is consistent with the Biblical language. What it means doesn't change cause it's written on stone rather than parchment.

True and true. It makes no difference whether fraudulent or not.

[SoothingDave]

I can read just fine - and I did read your selective appraisal of the authenticity of the ossuary.

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.

Never mind that. He and any other "Bible" Christian has to address post 2061 and explain exactly which James is the "brother of the Lord" and explain when he gets elevated to Apostle and what happens to James the Lesser.

How long can "Bible" Christians a post of Bible verses?

SD

[SoothingDave]

How long can "Bible" Christians a post of Bible verses?

"Ignore a post of Bible verses," that is.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Robert Eisenman the author of "James, the Brother of Jesus"
made a case for just one James. He says the reason for all the different Mary's, James' and Judas' was confusion with a purpose. I'll have to go back and read that chapter to see if his contention actually has any validity.

[gscc]

The ossuary links James as the brother of Jesus and the both of them as the sons of Joseph and Scripture links James as the son of Mary. This is why it is important to denigrate the historicity of the ossuary for Catholics. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem is the brother of Jesus son of Mary & Joseph. How more simple can this be.

[SoothingDave]

How more simple can this be.

You can look at post 2061 and explain which of the Jameses are "the brother of the Lord." Then you can explain exactly when he makes his appearance in the narrative in Acts. Then explain what text gives you the impression the James in Acts 15 is not the James in Acts 1 (who is still alive.)

Simple, right?

SD

[SoothingDave]

The ossuary links James as the brother of Jesus and the both of them as the sons of Joseph

So the ossuary denies the virgin birth?

SD

[Full Court]

I have a book signed by his brother, Sen. Charles Pelham.

[Full Court]

The passage says that all went to be taxed.

ALL.

[OLD REGGIE]

OK. Where is this captured in Scripture?

The same place the Bodily Assumption of Mary is captured.

Or, by chance, are you one of those so-called Sola Scriptura fundamentalists?

[Full Court]

It doesn't go into such intimate details and you repeating it over and over again wont make it true

Matthew 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Knew her=Biblical idiom for sex.

[OLD REGGIE]

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

WOW! If the validity of the teaching of the RCC was based on mention in Scripture there would be no RCC.

[Titanites]

Never mind that.

OK Dave, as you wish.

[OLD REGGIE]

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?

James was not a follower of Jesus until.......

[OLD REGGIE]

Besides, I am trying to engage the "Bible only" believers in a discussion of the Bible.

Then leave me out of your 2061. :-)

[gscc]

What kind of twisted logic did you use to get to that question. If James is the younger brother of Jesus it does not deny the virgin birth.