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]

How about the saints under the alter?

[Cronos]

Again, you're over-simplifying the Schism. It started a century earlier with a split over the Patriarch of Constantinople -- can't remember his name -- who deposed his predecessor and imprisoned him. The Roman Patriarch opposed this and thanks to him the rightful Patriarch was restored. The one who lost out was pretty bitter and stirred up anti-Roman thought (this was in line with political thinking as then Rome was part of the Western, holy Roman Empire which was claimed as part of the overall Roman Empire by the Emperors in Constantinople). Later, this usurper was rightfully voted and became the successor to the PAtriarch of Constantinople and he became friendly to the Roman church. however, the unfriendliness he stirred up never died down.

The two groups also had a lot of political wrangling as the original 7 churchs were now reduced to effectively only two -- the others had been consumed by the fury ofIslam. Two at loggerheads, so any small issue would flare up to be a schism.

[Diego1618]

It is the spirit, not the body that goes to heaven or hell at death Please quote for me a scripture anywhere that tells of someone going to "Hell" and I will then explain it to you, using the Greek language.

[x5452]

If there's one true church someone left it and someone didn't. :)

I think the prevailing opinions on who is in it and who isn't held by both sides are fairly well known. :)

[Cronos]

Again, don't over-simplify things. Even the infamous 4th Crusade (cited by many Orthodox as a reason for a split from the West) was the master plan of the Doge of Venice, who had a grouse against Constantinople BECAUSE HE HAD HAD HIS EYES GORED OUT IN CONSTANTINOPLE. Personal enemities and politics pushed both sides, so don't make it a simple little case, because it wasn't.

As a Catholic, I can see where Luther railed against corruption in the Church as being GOOD for the Medieval Church (it cleaned up good), but Calvin's dogma I don't agree with.

[Cronos]

I think we would call each other Christians, but to differentiate, we would say that you were a Protestant CHRISTIAN and I was a Catholic CHRISTIAN.

[tenn2005]

Try Luke 16:19-31.

[tenn2005]

I am still waiting. Also, please explain it to me in English as I am just a dumb country boy with a Bible.

[Cronos]

If there's one true church someone left it and someone didn't. :)

As agreed by BOTH sides -- no one "left" -- the two halves of the church disagreed and went their own way. Do note that the two halves hold each other to be part of the ONE TRUE Apostolic Church -- no matter what rabble-rousers who want to keep the halves apart may say.

[tenn2005]

The fact of the matter is that neither side represents the church established by my Lord.

[Diego1618]

How about the saints under the alter?

Symbolic....like the horses mentioned earlier in the chapter....Rev. 6:1-8. Remember, John is having a vision of future events, chapter 1:10.

Matthew 24:9-28 describes the great tribulation "yet to come". This is basically the 5th seal spoken of in verse 9 of Revelation 6.....a future event.

This is akin to Abel's blood crying out Genesis 4:10. It is symbolic also....as blood does not cry.

[tenn2005]

Here I thought I was going to get the benefit of the wisdom of a great Biblical scholar and all I get is silence. I guess your silence speaks louder than words.

[tenn2005]

Nice try, but no cigar.

[tenn2005]

Matthew 24 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. What else do you have to opine about?

[Diego1618]

Try Luke 16:19-31.

Lazarus and the rich man

I'm sorry, but you will have to settle for this as I'm going to retire.....sleeeeeepy.

[Diego1618]

Matthew 24 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. What else do you have to opine about?

Can't let this one go.....

Verse 14 of Matthew 24 says the gospel will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations....and then the end will come. Yeah, that sure did happen when Jerusalem was destroyed....I had forgotten. (Snicker)

[tenn2005]

And I thought you were a Biblical scholar. Why am I not surprised that you would defer to another man only espousing his own opinion.

[TheBrotherhood]

"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."

Whatever the denomination, we are all Christians.

Of course there is nothing the enemy would love more than to see us address ourselves as Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, etc. They (the anti-Christian) despise our calling ourselves Christians as this enhances our unity and strenght. They (the anti-Christian) would rather see us divided and, hence, conquerable.

United we stand. Divided we fall.

~In hoc signo vinces~

[tenn2005]

Read what Paul said in Col:1:23. Is he lying or are you mistaken. Either way, your argument is with Paul. You need to study the whole Bible.

[tenn2005]

Looks like you snickered too sone my friend.