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!

[WriteOn]

Having short memories and no knowledge of history is consistent with being a protestant :-)

[tenn2005]

When a group, no matter what it calls itself, leaves the truth of the Bible to listen to the teachings of one man and place him above all others that group needs to be broken away from. The Bible is full of references to the Church which Jesus established and calls it be a number of different names. The name Holy Roman Catholic Church is never one of those names. You need to be careful as to who you are labeling a Heretic. God may be referring to that person as a Christian and one of his faithful children. Are you familiar with the parable of the beam and the mote.

[tenn2005]

Having no knowledge of Scripture and relying on another persons understanding and teaching is consistant with being a Catholic.

[bethelgrad]

Amen Dr. Mike. If only our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would mark their walk with that level of humility.

[Jaded]

Maybe so, but not this one.

[kerryusama04]

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

In my view, nope. The holy catholic and apostolic Church line is a little suspect, but all in all, the Creed looks solid to me. It is strange that so many people recite this each week and yet still pray to/for dead people. Saying that people have to recite it to be considered Christian is a stretch, don't you think?

[bethelgrad]

I hope you didn't think I was looking for cut and paste prooftexts. I could provide you the same cut and paste standard response that would only serve to harden your stance.

I don't doubt that you are convinced of your position. I for one cannot find the same level of historical support for your claim.

[TradicalRC]

You are not answering my criticism of the man's premise.

Yes, I am. You simply do not like the answer. He stated things from the viewpoint of a Catholic Christian, you stated them from a non-Catholic Christian. However, you can't say Oh, he's spinning it this way because he's Catholic but I'm just being objective. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your premise of how each should be able to choose their own "label". Sorry if I came across as smug.

[ThanhPhero]

Your church goes back to 1820, you said it yourself. The One Church goes back to Peter and to Christ without break. Protestant sects, even if they don't protest anything, are relatively ephemeral. Even if their names don't disappear their currently held doctrines often don't match up well with their founders' revelations(I read Calvin's Institutes, in translation of course. And then, of course there are the Episcopalians. Common to Protestants is the doctrine that each is his own interpreter of the Bible. Make of it what you will is an attitude that must produce almost always heretical results.

[AlaninSA]

Xenia - the warrior princess.

Your cult strikes me as the ultimate undecided voter. Can't be fully Christian, can't be fully Jewish...

The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

[tenn2005]

An interesting read but your first and earliest quote comes some 100 years after the end of the apostolic age. Do you have any quotes from scripture to support your contentions?

[bethelgrad]

Why don't you tell the whole story? What were Luther's complaints against "The Church?" Look into his many forerunners who were shut up shut out and otherwise silenced. You will find that the Reformation began long before 1517. The Catholic church has existed since Christ, I'll grant you that. But the Roman Catholic church did not really develope until after Constantine--300 years after Christ!

[tenn2005]

You are wrong again. I never said my church goes back to 1820. My church was established on Penticost AD 30. All others spring from that one, including yours.

[nmh]

I'm a Protestant and wouldn't change that for the world.

I'm Bible based so I could NEVER be a Catholic. Catholic teachings differ from the Bible. No matter how you want to twist history to fit a Catholic agenda it won't work with me.

[Full Court]

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.

It does not say that they have been aborted from the new birth and it does not say they have lost their salvation.

Having known Christians who sunk into sin, I can say this verse fits the life they lived, because no one is in a bigger mess than a believer who is not living what they believe.

[tenn2005]

Well said.

[dangus]

>> while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent. <<

That would mean that if there WERE one hundred million Protestats, there now are negative one hundred and seventy million Protestants. Innumeracy bugs me.

[Full Court]

To that extent, their observations about relativism among Evangelicals is certainly legitimate.

Both men are considered pro catholic and never disagree with catholic doctrine.

[magisterium]

Sez who? Sez you. That's it at bottom, unless, of course, you have an independently verifiable pipeline to the Holy Spirit! Since I suspect strongly that you don't, your word in this matter is 100% subjective. Sorry.

[Full Court]

All baptized catholics are saved.

The unbelieving baby who dies before before a man gets his head wet is bound for Hell?

What if the man who baptizes the unbelieving baby is a child molesting pedophile? What then?

If getting an unbelieving baby;s head wet can save them, then why did Jesus have to die?