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!

[magisterium]

Should have mentioned that it is entirely possible that St. Peter was using "Babylon" for "Rome PRECISELY because he was writing immediately after Nero's persecution had begun in Rome. We don't know for certain if such is the case, but it is very possible, if not likely. In such a situation, he'd be crazy if he ever gave out that he, the leader of this "vile sect," was right under the nose of the Emperor in Rome!

[TradicalRC]

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.

Yes. But my response was to one of YOUR premises, not the author's. You seemed to think that each group should respectfully called by their individual self-appelations. Hence, all protestants ought to be called Christians if that is their desire. You imply that anything else would be unfair labeling. So within your parameters I ask that we all simply refer to the Catholic Church as the One, True Church or do you insist that you should call us what You want.

[markomalley]

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

Jack Chick Alert!!!!!!!

It's those Catholics fault! All of it!!!

It's a CONSPIRACY!!!

[Jaded]

See you've gone and made them all speechless by exposing the conspiracy. /so

[markomalley]

It's not easy being part of the Whore of Babylon /sarc

[blue-duncan]

" In fact, the church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and it was there that the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" were first used."

We are not talking about Rome this time but NYer's comment concerning the church at Antioch and the article at #114. Based on Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, Peter was in Jerusalem during the time the writer of the article says he was in Antioch and in Rome. In Acts 11:19 on and 13:1-4 Luke says it was refugees from the Jerusalem persecution that started the church and prophets and teachers led it. There is no mention of Peter as head of the church at Antioch.

Herod died in 44 A.D. and Peter was in Jerusalem in 47 A.D for Paul's second visit (Gal. 2:1) probably when he brought the gifts from the Antioch church for the famine and Peter was at the Jerusalem meeting in 49 A.D., not in Rome as the article states.

[Bainbridge]

You are not answering my criticism of the man's premise. You are just being smug. So, now I am supposed to say okay, I will call you the One, True , Church if you call me the really, truly only one true church. C'mon, kind of lame don't you think.But that is Roman Catholicism, lotta gotcha, and preaching to the choir.

[Ciexyz]

I don't think I ever heard any non-Catholic Christian define themselves as "Protestant", instead they use their particular denomination: Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian. The evangelicals describe themselves as "Christian, Assembly of God" (or whatever their affiliation is).

[Clemenza]

All who accept Christ as the messiah are Christians.

I look forward to the day when we don't have to worry about labels, and are just mere Christians, nothing more, nothing less.

[Salvation]

At the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council, by the way, Peter spoke out about circumcised and uncircumcied and whether if affected their faith, correct? Check the Acts of the Apostles.

[twidle]

Catholics seem to prefer to be referred to as "Catholic".Have never had a Catholic person
tell me he is christian, so believed early in
my life that Catholic was Catholic first and
christian, second; like many people claim that
jews were jews first, germans 2nd and their
allegiance would be to their religion beforet
their state. So, Catholics are led by Pope.

Just my point of view from experience. Guess is
reason some people are so adamant about separating
church from state. More posts re: this topic apprec-
iated (no Flaming please!!, just facts)

[Rytwyng]

Why not ditch the curriculum for a few days, and ask them what THEIR deepest questions are? Do they wonder about dating, sex, and relationships? ...terrorism and death?... their parents' divorce?... extistential questions re: worldview? Find whatever keeps them up worrying at night and show how Christ offers the only workable answers. Then you'll get some enthusiastic students.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

At the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council, by the way, Peter spoke out about circumcised and uncircumcied and whether if affected their faith, correct?

That's correct assuming the Book of Acts is accurate. But has nothing to do with my point.

Check the Acts of the Apostles.

Whoop dee do. I'm talking about the first Christians. That council was 30 years later. No resemblence.

[twidle]

First of all, my religious faith is usually not mentioned unless someone tells me theirs, then I tell them I am Protestant, but that is probably because I am history student and know the difference between Catholic and Protestant, Buddhist, etal and I do not want people to put me in the wrong category.

Luther was important in my life and glad he came around before me because I believe Catholic church is too oppressive (like many others) and protestants came to this new land for religious freedom. Being Protestant(being able to chose one's religious beliefs without being born into it) is in my mind an important part of Freedom.

[ThanhPhero]

"Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

Nothing can decrease by more than 100%.

[Rytwyng]

Or you might give a short talk on Tolkein and his life and faith, and how his Christian/Catholic worldview undergirds the Ring... and then give them a free screening of the Ring, with pizza & soft drinks. You'll convert all the nerds, at least ;-) But NO essay afterwards, please! Just a discussion over ice cream when it's over.

In fact if you look around, there are gospel "hooks" all over pop culture. For example, here are 2 that will warm your Catholic heart: Marian Images in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Marian Images in The Terminator

[ThanhPhero]

Protestants belong to heretical churches. They believe differently from Catholics. To that extent they are heretics.

[twidle]

Well, how did Apostle Paul get established. Most christians (non catholic) like Paul better than Peter;
then Jesus afterall, was Jewish, so being pragmatic, wouldn't you think that the first christian religion was
Judaism.

[twidle]

Righton. Glad someone else said it. Maybe the word "christian" came about later, but in reality since
Jesus was Jewish, one would believe that the first christian church was Jewish. Don't know how Catholics picked up on they were first church? Maybe I missed something. Idolatry was an arguing point and all that gold in the churches were considered un-christian to a lot of people and not being able to interpret the relilgion oneself. Paul of course was a converted Roman Soldier.
Do feel that Catholic church went off on too many tangents to be considered christian, but that is not my decision to make only that I am not Catholic, but feel deep down that it lost its christianity somewhere along the way because I do not see Chatholics carrying the bible, refer to the bible or even mention Jesus to me. Maybe just my experience. I believe though that Catholics believe they are doing the right thing and respect them for that part. We of course will all be judged later by a higher power.

[AlaninSA]

You ignorant fool.

Open yourself up to more than the sewage spewing from whatever "minister" you have at whatever "church" you claim to attend.