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]

Eagerly awaiting your reply or are you too going to bed as your fellow travelor did rather than answering scripture?

[Cronos]

well, both are part of the Apostolic Church -- a grouping outside the Apostolic Church isn't part of the Christian Church. Individuals -- well, if you follow the Church teachings...

[x5452]

I don't know where you get you're ecumenical revisionist information but that is simply not true.

From OCA.org:
QUESTION:

Is the Orthodox Church anti-Catholic?


ANSWER:

The Orthodox Church in America is not "anti-Catholic."

While Orthodoxy is not in communion with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy rejects the notion that Roman Catholicism is the "other half" of the Church, this, coupled with the fact that Orthodox doctrine rejects certain teachings unique to Roman Catholicism - papal supremacy and infallibility, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, to name a few -- does not mean that the Orthodox Church is "anti-Catholic."

Orthodox Christianity sees itself as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church established by Christ and handed down to us through the apostles and the unbroken Tradition of the People of God. While there may be some Orthodox Christians who might be looked upon as "anti-Catholic," this does not mean that Orthodoxy pursues an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-anything-else" approach as official policy.

It is the fervent prayer of the Orthodox Church that all people - Roman Catholic, unchurched, whatever - might some day be united to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. Until that becomes a reality, we continue to pray for unity while, at the same time, rejecting any notion that Orthodox Christianity is just one of many "branches" or "expressions" of Christianity. To believe this would be to reject our understanding of Orthodoxy as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

[tenn2005]

Your post makes no sense what-so-ever.

[tenn2005]

I believe that a better dewcription would be the one holy, Catholic Apostate Church.

[x5452]

I'm curious, do women remain silent and cover their heads when praying as par of this church you mention?

[tenn2005]

Yes

[x5452]

Where do they pray?

[tenn2005]

Any other questions?

[x5452]

Not when you can't answer the first.

[tenn2005]

Whereever and whenever they feel like it except in the worship service where they are commanded to remain silent.

[x5452]

Are they commanded to cover their heads in this worship service and where is it held, and when?

[tenn2005]

Are you unable to accept yes for an answer?

[x5452]

Not when I know you're seaking untruthfully, protestant confessions could care less what Paul said with regard to prayer just as they could care less how God instructed the temple to be built.

[tenn2005]

It is held on the first day of the week at whatever location the local church chooses to meet.

[tenn2005]

Please reply in a manner that makes sense

[x5452]

What is the name for the 'local church', and do they require covering heads of women during worship?

The fact is you're waffling on saying what confession because you know darn well it's hardly enforced, unlike ROCA parishes which have a sign on the door reminding parishioners of this commandment of the lord.

[tenn2005]

Roman Catholic perishes do and teach a lot of things that are unscriptural. They require a woman to cover their heads before entering. what does this have to do with the admonition against a woman praying with her head uncovered. I have even a had a woman ask to borrow my handkerchief so she could enter a Catholic church with her head covered.

[x5452]

The Lord commanded that her head be covered when praying, if she intends to pray in church she should cover her head simple as that.

Even in Europe I have yet to find Catholic churches that require women to cover their heads, however Orthodox ones do.

[tenn2005]

You choke on a gnat while swallowing a camel.