Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

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!

I shamelessly lifted this from a young woman's blog. I know her. I know she is not Catholic, her father is a minister. It is remarkable insight for one as young as she.

The case for infant baptism:

"People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them . When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.'" Luke 18:15-17

If we are not to baptize infants, I ask you why does Jesus specifically mention that people were bringing "babies to Jesus to have him touch them"? Why were they having him touch them if they could not benefit from it? If this was not intended by God to be an indication of how we are to act in bringing our children to God, then this passage is nothing but a meaningless story; it is then merely a warm sentiment that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Well I am here to tell you that Jesus meant what he said when he stated plainly that "anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." So then, many people's beliefs will be turned upside down, not merely amended, because not only does Jesus include babies in with the believers, but he sets them apart as the epitome of Christian faith.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20a

While this passage does not explicitly say, "Go and baptize infants," it just as clearly does not say, "Go and baptized only adults, teenagers, and very mature third graders." Jesus speaks quite plainly here, telling his disciples to go out and bring all people to faith through baptism.

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matthew 18:6

This passage states that there are "little ones who believe" in Jesus. It may be argued that Jesus was indeed talking about children, but children of perhaps six or seven years of age. When looking at the English translation of this passage, that argument could be convincing; when the passage is re-examined in the original Greek text however, the prior argument loses all ground. The Greek phrase in this verse for "little ones" clearly indicates a newborn infant nursing at his mother's breast. I've never seen a six-year-old do that. This is a perfect example of why it is vitally important to refer back to the original languages in which the Bible was written when a doctrinal question such as this arises.

"In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." Matthew 18:14

This passage is not only a proof text for infant baptism, but is also a clear reminder of the reality of original sin. It acknowledges that babies can in fact "be lost." It is not, however, the preference of God for this to happen. Instead, he warns us against allowing it to happen by denying babies the right to become believers in Christ.

"From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger." Psalm 8:2

Here the Psalmist says that infants praise God. No one can utter one word, thought, or feeling of praise to God without faith that comes only from the Holy Spirit, which we learn from Scripture. The only way an infant can receive such faith is through baptism, since they are not yet old enough to comprehend the concept of God. Then again, that arouses the idea that anyone can ever comprehend the concept of God, even with age. In fact, I would go so far as to say that infants, in their ignorance and contentment to be so, have a far stronger faith than many adult "mature" Christians. After all, Jesus did say that anyone who does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

"At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.' " Matthew 11:25

Again, these are words straight from the lips of Jesus that testify to the ability of babies to have faith in Him, and which show God's power to reveal his will to them.

"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." Proverbs 22:6

God realizes that it is very difficult for a person to become a Christian after he is grown and set in his ways. This then is his commandment to parents, that they should begin the instruction of children in the ways of God from the very beginning of their lives, so that it becomes not only part of who they are, but quite literally who they are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.