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!

[Salvation]

** Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians?**

Yes, we are the first Christians.

And the only church that is
one,
holy,
Catholic,
and apostolic.

Protestant Churches do not have those four marks of the Church as Catholics do.

[Pyro7480]

Where do you get the impression that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize Christ as King? That concept can be found in Church documents from time immemorial. Here's a more recent one:

From Quas Primas (Pope Pius XI)

It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings....

It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power....

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience....

[Salvation]

Wonderful link. I didn't know that precious little book was on the web! Thanks.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Yes, we are the first Christians.

The first "Christians" were observing 7th day Sabbath, Jewish feast days, still considering themselves Jewish, taking Nazarite vows, ritually bathing in the Mikvah. If you think Constantinian Christianity resembles anything close to that lifestyle you're silly.

[Polybius]

This author doesn't realize that many non-Catholic Christians do not self-identify as Protestants, because, unlike Muslims who are still fighting the Crusades, some have simply moved on.

If so, why do they insist in making a distinction between "Christians" and "Catholics" instead referring to all Christian denominations as Christian?

[markomalley]

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

---

In case you don't understand the term "keys"...

Isa 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isa 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

---

So, you are right...the leader of the Christian world is Jesus Christ. However, the 'prime minister' (i.e., Vicar) He appointed was Peter...

...and, from succession (cf Acts 1), Peter's successors.

and that's all there is to that!

[kerryusama04]

Did Jesus Christ say these Creeds?

[STD]

Dear NYer,

Just like the issue of salvation outside of the RCC above, you are wrong about what caused this split.

"the Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054."

"The Great Schism" was due to two basic arguments on which these two bishoprics could not agree. A new roman bishop was trying to consolidate his power by declaring the primacy of his bishopric in Rome. But that wasn't the real problem.

In those days the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was accepted as a perfect triune relationship. eg. Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the HS coming from co-equal contributions from both the Father and the Son.

This new roman bishop decided to throw his weight around. So, he deliberitly issued an inflammatory letter proclaiming that the HS only followed from the Father through the Son and then on down to the Holy Spirit.

God is suddenly perfect not triune, He's deconstructed by this man from Rome, made up of unequal parts.

Why was this a big deal? In the Eastern Church they had spent the last 500 plus years fighting against this same heresy in the Arian churches, this statement was and still is an abomination.

Now you know the truth, maybe you might open your eyes to other issues that are being used by the enemy to divide us. That's my prayer anyway. Agape, DrMike

[SoothingDave]

The first "Christians" were observing 7th day Sabbath, Jewish feast days, still considering themselves Jewish, taking Nazarite vows, ritually bathing in the Mikvah.

Read the Acts of the Apostles. One of the very first decisions made by the Church was that it was not necessary to observe Jewish things in order to be a follower of Jesus.

SD

[STD]

Dear NYer,

Just like the issue of salvation outside of the RCC above, you are wrong about what caused this split.

"the Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054."

"The Great Schism" was due to two basic arguments on which these two bishoprics could not agree. A new roman bishop was trying to consolidate his power by declaring the primacy of his bishopric in Rome. But that wasn't the real problem.

In those days the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was accepted as a perfect triune relationship. eg. Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the HS coming from co-equal contributions from both the Father and the Son.

This new roman bishop decided to throw his weight around. So, he deliberitly issued an inflammatory letter proclaiming that the HS only followed from the Father through the Son and then on down to the Holy Spirit.

God is suddenly perfect not triune, He's deconstructed by this man from Rome, made up of unequal parts.

Why was this a big deal? In the Eastern Church they had spent the last 500 plus years fighting against this same heresy in the Arian churches, this statement was and still is an abomination.

Now you know the truth, maybe you might open your eyes to other issues that are being used by the enemy to divide us. That's my prayer anyway. Agape, DrMike

[Uri’el-2012]

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!

Protestant is a Pejorative term.

I'm not protesting anything or anyone.
I'm simply a follower of the Christ, Y'shua.

b'shem Y'shua

[markomalley]

The first "Christians" were observing 7th day Sabbath, Jewish feast days, still considering themselves Jewish, taking Nazarite vows, ritually bathing in the Mikvah.

Fortunately, the Council of Jerusalem (cf Acts 15:23ff) prevented those practices from spreading to the new churches being made up from the Gentiles.

[STD]

Sorry, Our perfect God is suddenly not triune, He's deconstructed by this man from Rome, made up of unequal parts.

[Zack Nguyen]

Give me a break. There is no ulterior motive here. I call myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ. I attend a Protestant church, and not everyone who fills the pews on Sunday is a Christian, because not everyone there believes in Jesus Christ alone for his salvation. I'm not trying to score any points against anyone at all, just being accurate.

I welcome my Catholic brothers as Christian too, because if they have trusted in Christ for their salvation they are Christian.

[Jaded]

They'd spent several hundred years arguing amongst themselves before 1054.

[Salvation]

You are correct. And after the apostles and the first Christians honored their Jewish roots they then met in home churches to celebrate the Eucharist given to them by Christ at the Last Supper -- and instructed by Him, "Do this in memory of Me."

That's basically how observing Sunday as a day of holiness got started.

(On your lifestyle comment -- today there are many who do live a holy and devout lifestyle -- we cannot be the judge of that.)

[Jaded]

Bless you.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Read the Acts of the Apostles. One of the very first decisions made by the Church was that it was not necessary to observe Jewish things in order to be a follower of Jesus.

30 years later. Thought we were talking about the first Christians? By the way, even after that decision the first "Christians" remained observant.

[wmfights]

"So, you are right...the leader of the Christian world is Jesus Christ. However, the 'prime minister' (i.e., Vicar) He appointed was Peter..."
___________________________________________
I'm glad we could agree on something, JESUS CHRIST is the leader of the Christian world.

Your claim about Peter and the Popes though is wrong. If you read the entire passage and context of the passage the "ROCK" to which JESUS is referring to is him being the Messiah and that salvation would only be found through faith in him.