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!

[Cronos]

Catholic legend then. Whatever. I know plenty of Catholics that believe it. Matters not to me if its an

Well, many protestants and EOs also believe it is The Shroud. It's a Christian legend m'dear.

[Cronos]

Contrary to your statement that in the middle east brother often means cousin the Bible does mention cousins clearly defined as cousins.

Yup, and it also calls Lot Abraham's brother.... There is ambiguity in many things....

[Cronos]

The Shroud of Tourin can not possibly be the grave clothing of Jesus Christ.

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

you're free to believe in it or not, but the reason you give for it is really funny, and pretty true of most of your posts -- illogical. The verse doesn't say that the shroud was not wrapped around His face as well with a napkin about the head over it. It doesn't say anything to prove OR disprove the Shroud. Understand that ambiguity. Christianity is about Christ, not poring over a book like the Moslems slave over the Koran

[Cronos]

I doubt you will get anywhere with the Roman Catholic's though. They have a huge investment in their veneration/worship of Mary even if it's not SCRIPTURAL.

We don't worship Mary. We hold her in esteem, in great respect. And so do the Eastern Orthodox, the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Armenians etc. namely all the Churchs founded by the Apostles.

[annalex]

Why are you playing games? If you think what Jaded posted in 2309 is bad translation, correct the translation. If not, respond to the substance of his post. We can be all day discussing translation of the Scripture, they are all bad.

[restornu]

I have no clue what that is on his head?
But he sure is serious! LOL

[wmfights]

"We don't worship Mary."
____________________________
I know. You will stress how much you esteem her, or venerate her.

Your actions though make that position suspect.

You Pray to her expecting special considerations.

You have statues that you bow down before made in her likeness.

You have established doctrines such as immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and her assenting.

I see these actions as something more than veneration or respect. I respect Mary. She was truly blessed, but I don't pray to her, build statues to her, or believe she never died. She was a human being that performed a special task that GOD gave her.

BTW, you can easily read SCRIPTURE and come to the conclusion that she did not truly know who JESUS was until the resurrection. If she did why did she rebuke him at the temple? If she did why did she and his brothers come to take him home when he had started his ministry? Mary was a devoted mother who was obedient to GOD.

[SoothingDave]

The James referenced in the passage above [Gal1:18] is called ... the Lord's brother.

This wouldn't have been any of the original twelve Apostles ... because scriptures tells us that Jesus' brothers did not believe on Him.

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

I guess you could make this point, if you take this quoting of "brethren" to be exhaustive. Maybe it is not meant to refer to all of his brothers, maybe it just refers to the ones being discussed in this passage? The whole passage:

John 7:2Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5For neither did his brethren believe in him.
6Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
7The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

I don't deny that the brethren in this scene do not believe in Jesus. I do wonder if this is meant to apply to all of Jesus's half-brothers or relatives. I will grant you that your interpretation is a valid one and this is a good cite.

It is inferred that James, the brother of the Lord ... became a believer ... and, from the Galatians passage above, ... an Apostle, ... after he was confronted by the resurrected Christ.

Exactly what I wonder about. We must infer, from different books what seems to be a rather large chunk of the story. A conversion from "trying to send Jesus off to be killed" to "bishop of Jerusalem" seems like the type of thing that should at least be mentioned. It should not be something one has to piece together.

Neither should the appearance of this new James (not James, son of Alphaeus) in Acts 15 be unexplained (or explainable only by consulting other books and outside traditions).

My impressions upon trying to find out the identities of the various Jameses mentioned in Scripture has led me to two conclusions. First of all, the ideas that Scripture is clear and easy to understand must be rejected. If we must somehow intuit that a new James appears in Acts 12 or 15, then the book is not written clearly. When I sat down and read Acts, my conclusion was James the Lesser was the actor throughout Acts. That is the clear reading.

Secondly, I do not believe there is enough internal evidence to clearly identify the various Jameses without consulting some form of tradition. You yourself said one must "infer" that James "the brother of the Lord" is put in charge of Jerusalem, and must know from some other source that he is put in place before Acts 12 or 15. Whatever this is, it is not sola scriptura.

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

The question is "does 'the twelve' mean something different that 'all the apostles'"?

You seem to think it does. I am not so sure. How many people are called apostles in the Bible?

Verse 6, of course, points out the flaws in assuming that the Greek "adelphos" can only mean co-uteral sibling. This has been mentioned before. The writers of Scripture can use the Greek for "cousin" or the Greek for "brother" and different authors use it differently. There is always a human element in the authorship of Scripture and it seems a few discount this.

I think when we do the final analysis, it boils down to the same essential point. (Assuming one wants their analysis boiled, that is.) Is the author of Scripture using "adelphos" in a strict or loose sense in passages like Matt 13? There is no direct answer to this from Scripture itself.

SD

[Jaded]

Feeling better? There's some nasty stuff going around.

[SoothingDave]

Your entire dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on the "possible meaning of the words" (till or until) and the possible meaning of brothers and sisters not actually meaning brothers and sisters, and the possible existence of a third man named James and on and on.

Actually, no. The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based upon the truth, not upon the meaning of a few words in Scripture. What I am arguing is that these passages, cited by critics, do not definitively disprove what is claimed about Mary. Like I said above, you may not agree with the interpretation, only agree that there are possible alternatives.

"Eos" in Greek does not have to mean "until, and then it changes after." It can mean "before." This is not a ridiculous stretch, this is what happens when you study the text, rather than just read it.

Ditto on the question of how Scripture deals with "brother." At the very basic level, none of us believe adelphos means what it says in its strictest sense. Because Jesus is not the brother of anyone. At best he is a half-brother. So arguments about holding to the purity of words at their most basic level ring hollow.

Lastly, you seem to misunderstand my entire oeuvre on James. I am not the one suggesting there is a third James. I am quite happy with the two listed in Scripture in Acts 1. It is my esteemed opponents who must believe James the Lesser is written out and a new James appears, without comment.

If He had meant that His "brothers and sisters" were cousins He would have stated they were cousins.

Just like He did with Lot and Abram, right?

Contrary to your statement that in the middle east brother often means cousin the Bible does mention cousins clearly defined as cousins.

Yep. And it also calls nephews "brothers" and half-brothers "brothers" and cousins "sisters." There is no consistency cause there were different human authors. God did not dictate Scripture.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Feeling better? There's some nasty stuff going around.

Yes, thank you and the others for their concern.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Dave that's just too funny! You are trying to claim that till doesn't mean until? Tell me you are not trying to pull a Bill Clinton here.

When, oh when, will you being to engage in this conversation?

You are presented with examples, from Scripture and from common sense, where "till" does not have to mean what you think it does.

Why can't you just say our interpretation is possible. Anyone honest about language would.

dictionary.com:until

un·til ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl) prep.

1. Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
2. Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
3. Scots. Unto; to.

Look at defintion 2. "Before." Look at the example given. "She can't leave until Friday."

Does that mean she leaves on Friday? Maybe she stays on until Monday? You can't read this to mean "she will leave on Friday." Maybe she does. Maybe she doesn't. "Until" in this case only sets a limit in time, it does not dictate any action afterward.

Sound familiar?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Where is the Ark of the Covenant? If it was the Ark that was sacred where is it?

Ethiopia.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Jesus was not the new covenant. He was the mediator of the new covenant. That's what God says, so the issue is settled.

KJV:Luke22:20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

YLT:20In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.

Jesus' Blood is the New Covenant. Maybe you think this makes Him only a "mediator."

SD

[SoothingDave]

"But Mary is not the Ark, because Jesus is not the new covenant, he is the MEDIATOR of the new covenant."

Thanks for not backing off. Your right.

You agree, as well, that Jesus is not the New Covenant? He only mediates it?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Yeah its possible OJ didn't kill his wife and the other guy.....Lawyer talk Dave...is thats the best you can come up with? When the simple is right in front of your nose you come up with tortuous ridiculous stuff like the above. Dave you're not a stupid man, look at what you're having to swallow to believe this.

I understand your unwillingness to study. I'm glad you are upfront about it.

I hope your faith stays strong until you reach your dying bed.

SD

[SoothingDave]

For nstance ... why is it never mentioned before ... that one of Jesus' disciples ... was kin to Him.

Is that any stranger than a new James appearing out of nowhere in Acts 12 or 15?

Is it any stranger than the mother of Jesus being called "the mother of James and Joses" at the cross?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

How many people are called apostles in the Bible?

Barnabas, Matthias, James, the Brother of Jesus, and the unnamed "some" who are called to be Apostles???

[OLD REGGIE]

I hope your faith stays strong until you reach your dying bed.

Smart alec!

That's ok Mack, I hope your faith stays "till the end of time". :)

[Quester]

It is inferred that James, the brother of the Lord ... became a believer ... and, from the Galatians passage above, ... an Apostle, ... after he was confronted by the resurrected Christ.

Exactly what I wonder about. We must infer, from different books what seems to be a rather large chunk of the story. A conversion from "trying to send Jesus off to be killed" to "bishop of Jerusalem" seems like the type of thing that should at least be mentioned.

I don't think that Jesus' brethren were actually about sending Him to His death, ... but, rather, that they showed the attitude of the other citizens of Jesus' old stomping grounds (i.e. that he was making more of Himself than He ought).

They, obviously, didn't get the enormity of Who Jesus really was ... and, as such, I would tend to believe that they underestimated the danger to Him in attending the festival.

You yourself said one must "infer" that James "the brother of the Lord" is put in charge of Jerusalem, and must know from some other source that he is put in place before Acts 12 or 15.

What I inferred ... was that it was Jesus' post-ressurrection appearance to him (James) ... that turned a non-believing brother ... into a believer and an Apostle.

The writers of Scripture can use the Greek for "cousin" or the Greek for "brother" and different authors use it differently. There is always a human element in the authorship of Scripture and it seems a few discount this.

I think when we do the final analysis, it boils down to the same essential point. (Assuming one wants their analysis boiled, that is.) Is the author of Scripture using "adelphos" in a strict or loose sense in passages like Matt 13? There is no direct answer to this from Scripture itself.

My point only concerned the likelihood that James, the brother of Jesus ... was or was not ... one of the original twelve Apostles.

I believe that it is possible that Christians, in good conscience, ... can disagree with one another as to whether Mary had other children or not.