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!

[Jaded]

How convenient...

[annalex]

You are no where near as prideful as most of the Roman Catholics that are posting on this thread.

Hm. Thank you, for it is a constant fear of mine that the pride I hold for my glorious Church might come across as prideful conceit.

the idea that your church controls the HOLY SPIRIT based on whether or not your members follow your rituals is inconsistent with the teachings of JESUS and his life.

The Church does not "control" the baptism. This is one salvific sacrament that does not require ordained clergy. The baptism is, however, necessary for salvation in general and for the gift of the Holy Ghost in particular:

3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(John 3)

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

(Acts 2)

Baptism is connected to understanding of Scripture as well, as we've seen in the Eunuch episode. Of course, the separate sacrament of confirmation had not been formed yet in apostolic times, since mostly adults were baptized. However, anointing is connected with spiritual and intellectual strength as well as physical health throughout the Gospel. For example, when Christ is asked to teach in the synagogue, he reads from Isaiah:

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart,
19 To preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward.
20 And when he had folded the book, he restored it to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.
21 And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.

(Luke 4)

You proceed to make a different argument, that of the role of grace and works. It does not seem to connect to the necessity of the sacraments issue, -- perhaps you can show me the connection, or is it someting you want to discuss as a new topic?

[annalex]

The claim is not that the Apostles were the only ones every to be indwelt, but that they were the first, and that their ministry was the vehicle used to pass it on to others.

I don't think I am ever unclear on that part. But the blindness to the reality of the Apostolic commission is such that the moment I point out who actually received the Holy Ghost according to the scripture, I am met with complete incredulity: "Does the Church really teach that?".

[SoothingDave]

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.

So hard you work to avoid answering the question.

In reading Acts, what would lead anyone to believe the James in chapter 15 is not the James in chapter 1 (who wasn't killed)?

If one is to base their beliefs only on what is found in Scripture, how would one explain this? I realize neither you nor I base ourselves on this, but we seem to be the only ones willing to look at the evidence.

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?

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.

If Jesus is the son of Joseph, as you just said, then the Virgin Birth is a myth.

Now, about post 2061...

SD

[SoothingDave]

25 And knew her not

Knew her=Biblical idiom for sex.

The Bible clearly says he knew her not. Why do you think it says something else?

Have you a chance to look at 2061 yet? I'd appreciate an answer. Which James is the "brother of the Lord" and when does he displace James the Lesser in the narrative?

SD

[annalex]

read [2 Peter 1:20] and no hint of "private interpretation"

Sure it is. Your translation has it "one's own interpretation". The original says "idias epilyseos". Your translation fudges the verb a little bit, "is a matter", when the Greek says simply "ou ginetai", -- "does not happen" or "is not made".

Certainly you don't cofuse "prophesy" with "private interpretation of Scripture"?

You mean to say that I should not confuse private interpretation of prophecies in the scripture with private interpretation of the entire scripture. Yes, it is possible to read the pssage narrowly and restrict it to the prophetic scripture only. This still indicates that an apostolic authority is necessary at least to interpret the prophecies. So where does it leave the Left Behind superstitionists?

But I would argue that St. Peter's warning should be taken expansively, not only so that we err on the side of caution, but also because to St. Peter the "scripture" meant the Old Testament, relevant to Christians primarily for its prophetic content. The gospels were simply not written yet, so the phenomenon of a private interpretation of the gospel did not exist yet. As to the private interpretation of the Old Testament Law, Christ indeed taught that it should be looked through the prism of reason, and the Church, lead by the same St. Peter, formulates her own moral and canon law.

[buck61]

I don't believe when I get to heaven and I bow before the Lord Jesus Christ he is going to be asking me if I am Catholic or Protestant. All I want to hear him say is, enter in, my good and faithful servant, Amen!

[annalex]

Of course He would not be asking, He already made you Catholic, assuming you are His faithful servant as you describe.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey look. Instead of beating your heads against the wall trying to get non-Catholics to see things your way, there's a growing movement afoot. Give up freeping for lent. Go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1587198/posts

[buck61]

No, actually I was raised a Baptist but I would have no problem using the word Catholic as as an adjective. I love my Catholic brothers and believers in Christ Jesus.


For there is no other name under heaven by which man may be saved, The Lord Jesus Christ.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

40 days no Catholics on FR.....

Amen!

:)

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

I'm giving up asking for an answer to post 2061...

As soon as someone gives me one.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I'm giving up Dave's post number 2061 for lent.
Too much revelation for me to handle. :-)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

So does that mean you're not giving up FR for Lent?

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I'm giving up Dave's post number 2061 for lent. Too much revelation for me to handle. :-)

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

So does that mean you're not giving up FR for Lent?

That would be correct. Someone has to hold down the fort.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

That would be correct. Someone has to hold down the fort.

I know you could give up something difficult. Like the NFL. :-)

[gscc]

If Jesus is the son of Joseph, as you just said, then the Virgin Birth is a myth.

Matthew 13:55

⁵⁵ "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

I didn't think I had to hold you hand by referencing Joseph as Jesus' earthly father.

I like your post #2061 I just don't like the only two conclusions you come to.

Now, there are two competing theories on the rest of the references.

#1. James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus, brother of Judas, brother of Joses is a relative of Jesus's earthly family and is in this way referred to as a "brother" of Jesus. He also has a mother named Mary, but not the same mother as Jesus.

#2. James, a son of Joseph and Mary, is a half-blood brother of Jesus. He is mentioned in a list of Jesus's "brothers" early in his ministry and then disappears from the narrative until sometime around Penetecost and the death of James the Greater.

The first Bishop of Jerusalem was James the brother of Jesus.  This is the same James referenced in Matthew Matthew 13:55.

When Luke narrated the story of the Jerusalem council, it was "James" who made the final ruling on the situation with Gentile believers. (Acts 15:13-21) Although it was not made explicit in Acts who this James was, Paul's epistle to the Galatians provide the clarification. This is how James was introduced in Galatians:

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother.

 

[Knitting A Conundrum]

That is a neat keepsake. The oldest things I have are some knitting books from the 1840s.

The neatest historical things I have, though, are the distinguished service cross and commemoration papers that my Grandfather was awarded during WWI.