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!

[Mr. Lucky]

Take a deep breath, OK?

[NYer]

Looks like the Antioch church was a self governing body, able to send out missionaries and even voluntarily assist the church at Jerusalem.

The first Bishop of Antioch was St. Peter the Apostle and the third was St. Ignatius of Antioch; it was from Antioch that Saint Peter and Saint Barnabas set out on their great missionary journeys, a tradition that marks the history of the Church of Antioch. When the Turks took the city of Antioch, the offices of the Patriarchate of Antioch was moved to Damascus, the civil capital of Syria, where it remains to this day “on the street called Straight.” (Acts 9:11).

[magisterium]

You should know better than that. You've been around here a few months, and have seen many times the Catholic response on the relationship between grace and works.

All the same, for the record, we are not Pelagians. Works prior to initial justification through baptism count for nothing. Subsequent to that, cooperation with God's grace, which prompts good works and animates them, is the thing that matters. It's simple enough.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Did not St Paul and St Peter have sort of a coming out about circumcision?

So the NT writings say. I don't happen to find them inspired.

[Full Court]

The non-baptist Christians that were the first to proclaim the "solas": salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, with the absolute authority of scipture alone, to the glory of God alone, all taught that scripture indicates baptism and communion are A means of grace (but not the only means) if received in faith.

There is no "means of grace" save for the faith of the believer in Jesus Christ. But your comment was interesting. Who are you talking about when you say non baptist?

[Bainbridge]

Did you even read the article? The premise was that "Catholics" ( he uses the term over and over) should insist on Protestant as the proper appellation for those who simply call themselves Christian.
You reflect exactly my comment on those who think that the trouble with those who do not believe in Roman Catholicism is that they don't believe in Roman Catholicism. Sorry it is so exasperating for you.

[Full Court]

if it's any consolation, I am fully supportive of your rights to believe as you do and state those beliefs. :-)

[franky]

###"Now, criticize the source if you wish, but there is no denying that there are huge numbers (? majority) of self-identified Catholics who do not believe in one or more Catholic teachings, at least in the U.S. I suspect it is the same or worse in Europe. They are not Catholics."###

You have now defined the term "cafeteria Catholics". The saving grace is that they can go to confession and return to the Church.

[Full Court]

Then I guess you'll burn.;^)

Now that was funny!!!

[Full Court]

You mean Protestants who think that salvation can be lost (like, for example, Martin Luther, or Free Will Baptists, or any of a large number of other groups) are not "Bible believing Christians"?

Well, if they believe that God is going to abort them from the New Birth, then they don't actually believe the whole of the Bible do they?

[Full Court]

It's a total myth that baptists had survived in Europe as any kind of body from before the 1500s Reformation. No self respecting scholar finds any evidence for that.

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable. Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran):

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle

from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

[AnalogReigns]

Without Protestantism, there would never have been Communism, Fascist Socialism, or Liberalism.

What a load of biggoted crock.

Lenin and Stalin, had Eastern Orthodox ancestry (and Mao?), and Musollini and Hitler were both baptised Roman Catholics (and never excommunicated...).

"Liberalism" has such a broad meaning, it cannot be quantified, as to its founders--but in the classical meaning yes, it did engender the United States of America, WITH OUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION (unavailable in any Roman Catholic country until the USA). So yes, freedom has made Protestant denominations possible, and yes, did come out of Protestant traditions.

[aimhigh]

Without Protestantism, there would never have been Communism,

It was the Catholic church that supported the early communists, in hopes of overcoming the Orthodox stronghold.

[Jaded]

No it's not deleted.

Do you have any pictures of loved ones?

[magisterium]

There is truth in what you say about Catholics here. But we are far from alone in the "cafeteria mindset" within generic Christianity. Consider the fact (constantly referred to by James Dobson and Chuck Colson, no Catholics they!) that "over 80%" of young (under 25) American Evangelicals do not believe that there is such a thing as totally objective truth. In short, a vast majority of the next generation of Evangelicals suffers from relativism and indifferentism.

Further, I would personally contend that, since hardly any Protestant Christian has any real problem with divorce and remarriage anymore, even in trivial circumstances, that there is specific evidence that they all have deviated from the Faith, at least in this instance. According to James 2:10, that fact alone is sufficient to suppose that such people have placed themselves in grave danger.

We live in precarious times. I'd even go so far as to say that it is possible that what we are witnessing here is the "early stage" of the Great Apostasy foretold, though I certainly leave myself open to suppose that may be a premature assessment! At any rate, inconsistency and a spirit of pick-and-choose acceptance of teaching are symptoms infecting the vast majority of Christians of any stripe today, especially in the western, "developed" world.

[NathanR]

Some of these same arguments were occurring before Mohamed came out of the south and blind sided the Byzantine Roman Empire. And the printing press had not even been invented yet.

[Full Court]

Consider the fact (constantly referred to by James Dobson and Chuck Colson, no Catholics they!)

Both men are very friendly to Rome and Colson was one of the main movers behind the Catholics and Evangelicals together movement. Colson's wife is catholic.

Dobson has never voiced any disaproval of Rome and counts catholics amond some of his best supporters.

His monthly magazine once featured Mother Teresa on the cover.

Not catholics? No, but very close and approving of catholocism.

[Full Court]

At any rate, inconsistency and a spirit of pick-and-choose acceptance of teaching are symptoms infecting the vast majority of Christians of any stripe today, especially in the western, "developed" world.

Totally agree.

[magisterium]

Sources for these quotes, especially Hosius...?


Your thesis takes continuity of Baptist belief as a given. Please provide evidence for that contiuum of belief with historical references to individuals who overlap each other and span the entire gap from the apostolic era to the 1500's.

[Campion]

Well, if they believe that God is going to abort them from the New Birth, then they don't actually believe the whole of the Bible do they?

It's pretty breathtaking to assume that your reading of the Bible is the only right answer. Me, I think I'll stand on this:

2 Peter 2:20 -- For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Doesn't sound like once-saved-always-saved to me.