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!

[tenn2005]

Try using your Bible instead of someone's software. You will be surprised at the benifit.

[magisterium]

Irrelevant. "Cafeteria Catholics" do not figure into this point. They claim to be their own magisterium sometimes, but they do so in direct OPPOSITION to their tenuous membership in the Catholic Church. With you, it is apparently an article of faith that you ARE your own teaching authority, with the full approbation of whatever denomination to which you may belong. If you have none, the point is thereby only further emphasized.

[kerryusama04]

You need to learn the difference between the spiritual resurrection and the bodidly resurrection. These are two totally different things. Until then you post display a lack of understanding of scripture.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Post a scripture already. If I'm wrong, then you ought to be able to correct me with scriptures.

[Diego1618]

Peter himself does not claim either office but only identifies himself as an elder in the church

Matthew 10:5 is the great commission. Matthew 10:6 tells them where to go. Rome was a Gentile city. The twelve were instructed by our Saviour Not to go there. Paul was later appointed Apostle to the Gentiles and He also was allowed to preach to the Israelites.

This is why you never see any scripture about Peter being in Rome. Paul established the Church in Rome and none of the twelve are ever shown to be there.

[magisterium]

If it is, then you might as well stop being a Christian now, as the religion, however generic you want to make it, would be logically false. If the Catholic Church is man-made, then Jesus, whom we suppose to be omniscient, would have knowingly allowed Himself to be massively quoted out-of-context in His discussion of the Church (whatever it is), and, further, knowingly allowed this bastardized church to go on unchecked and uncorrected for 1500 years before any correction was made. This is an absurd denial of Divine Providence. If that was the best He could do, then we ALL labor in vain, indeed!

Yet, there is an alternative viewpoint here that rectifies the situation quite nicely...

[Diego1618]

That's the equivalent of saying that Anything extra-Biblical Did Not Happen

Acts 17:11

[tenn2005]

Try John 5:24-29. Notice the "and now is" in vs 25 and the "the hour is coming" in verse 28. One (vs 25) concerns the spiritual resurrection and the other (vs 28) concerns the bodidly resurrection at the end of time.

[tenn2005]

You are right on.

[TradicalRC]

It does not have a group of weak and fallible men claiming to be the only ones who can accurately interpret SCRIPTURE. Your institution is obviously man made and prone to error as all man made things are.

Backatcha.

[Diego1618]

Tell me why then, is Peter mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Apostle? Is it just a coincidence?

Actually, Paul is mentioned more than Peter.

[tenn2005]

The church established by Jesus continued to exist even after the apostate Catholic church came into existence. By you logic every church that has come into existence that was not "His church" would have been stamped out via "divine providence." God gives man a choice. Either obey the teachings of the Bible or men such as the Pope, Mohammed, or Joseph Smith.

[TradicalRC]

11 The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Okay. The people studied the prophecies of the Tanach to see if Christ fulfilled the Scriptures. How does this equate to "anything extra-Biblical did not happen"? I guess America was never discovered, then.

[tenn2005]

You are right and besides that Paul wrote much more of the New testament than Peter did.

[kerryusama04]

Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My Word and believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life. Joh 5:25 Truly, truly, I say to you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live. Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life within Himself, Joh 5:27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice, Joh 5:29 and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation.

Then why are the graveyards still full? The way I read this is that those who believe in Jesus move from the "doomed" column to the "saved" column. "Shall come forth" would indicate a future event.

[kerryusama04]

Dang, you drew them all off of me. I'm going to bed. Catcha' later my FRiend.

[tenn2005]

When he says "the hour is coming, and now is" He is referring to the present. When he talks about the graves being opened he is referring to the future. Are you unable to discern the difference?

[Diego1618]

The scriptures you quote refer to the bodily resurrection. How do you know what Paul thought?

Think about it. Why would the Lord take us at death to "heaven" and then resurrect us later on back into a mortal body. Ezekiel 37 describes the resurrection fairly well. Notice verse 8 regarding tendons and flesh reappearing....and new skin!

[Diego1618]

What of the 24 elders first mentioned in Revelation 4:4

Where does it say the 24 elders are human?

[Cronos]

The Catholics didn't split from the Orthodox --- and the Orthodox didn't split from the Catholic -- they had a mutual falling out and remained apart. That's why it's called a schism. What the Protestants did was to break away

[tenn2005]

The scripture in Ezekiel has nothing to do with the resurrection of the dead. It is the spirit, not the body that goes to heaven or hell at death. It will be at the bodidly resurrection that the spirit is placed in the resurrected body.