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!

(The common term would be heterodox, not heretical)

Here's an interesting article from Orthodoxinfo.com
Prayer With the Non-Orthodox

Related Articles
On Praying With Heretics
On the Burial of the Heterodox
Holy Canons Related to Ecumenism
Concerning Super Correctness
Metropolitan Philaret of New York
More related articles on Google!...
The Church forbids us to pray with non-Orthodox. When invited to a meal in a Protestant household, what do we do when they say "grace," e.g., the "Our Father" before a meal? (K.L., IL)

In this age of ecumenism, one is hard-pressed to argue with the "givens" of the religious world: "We all have the same God," or "All religions are good and are equal." If we apply these notions to science, it is immediately apparent that they are absurd: "All observations are valid and equal," or "Alchemy and chemistry are both sciences and are equal." Quite obviously, even within a given religious tradition, there are those who understand its precepts well and those who hardly grasp them. And so, a simple Orthodox believer would not claim to understand God with the same insight and perception that, say, a great Saint or Teacher of the Church understood Him; in a sense, in terms of their understanding of Him, these individuals have different experiences of God. How, then, since we consider Orthodoxy to be a correct statement about the nature of God, man, and the universe, can we actually have the same God as those whom we consider erroneous in their beliefs? Nor can any rational individual argue that all religions are equal. Even among modern religious traditions, some teach the ascendency of peace and love, while others advocate violence and even elevate it to the level of a "holy pursuit." The problem is, of course, that ecumenism is based on simple-minded or trendy notions of religion and the Truth. It thus forces us to confront complex philosophical and theological questions at a very low level, leaving little room for subtlety. In this context, praying with others takes on a special significance. Prayer is an expression of our Orthodox understanding of, and relationship to, God; therefore, we cannot engage in joint prayer with the non-Orthodox as an expression of a "commonality" with them which we in fact do not have. This fact is reinforced by Church Canons that prohibit prayer with (though assuredly not for) the non-Orthodox.

Now, admittedly, if we refuse to pray with the non-Orthodox, we appear—again because we are unable to address religious issues, today, with any depth—rude, if not downright sectarian. In view of this, probably the most prudent thing to do, when you are invited to a meal in a non-Orthodox household, is to stand (or sit) respectfully while your hosts pray as they see fit. Afterwards, before you eat, you can Cross yourself and silently recite the appropriate Orthodox prayer. Whatever you do, you must keep in mind that the canonical guidelines that prohibit us from praying with the non-Orthodox, based solely on the precepts discussed above, must never become an occasion for showing disrespect or disdain for others or for their religious traditions. The Holy Canons are designed to protect our Faith, as the criterion of Truth, from any vitiation by what is foreign to that fullness of Christianity that Orthodoxy is. But this desire to protect our traditions is not selfish; it is motivated by love for those outside Orthodoxy, the pristine Faith—preserved among us alone—to which we hope that they will one day turn, if they are truly searching for God. Just as a good chemist would be remiss, were he to endorse some superstitious procedure from the false science of alchemy, so we Orthodox must not endorse the spiritual practices of those outside the Church. However, just as a chemist need not ridicule an alchemist, but should try to bring him to a knowledge of the real science of chemistry, so we must not show disrespect for the heterodox, but attempt to educate them by our good example and civility.

There are, of course, Orthodox who, zealous without knowledge, would use the Holy Canons—which are not laws, but principles which should guide us in making decisions regarding delicate matters of Christian comportment—to justify their un-Christian hatred for the heterodox and for heretics. They would thus argue that we should not sit at the same table with heretics or non-Orthodox, forgetting that this canonical prescription is aimed at insuring that, by eating in public with unbelievers, we do not somehow give the impression that we endorse their error and thus bring scandal on others. In modern America, this is hardly a risk while having dinner with non-Orthodox friends. Unthinking people might also say that by listening to the prayers of non-Orthodox, we are technically praying with them. We must simply ignore such irrational rubbish for what it is. An advocate of such thinking once told us that, following the agape meal in his parish on Sundays, all left-over food was thrown away, rather than given to the poor, since it had been blessed by an Orthodox Priest. To do otherwise, in his view, would have meant throwing what was blessed to the dogs. One can only imagine what Christ, Who calls us to feed the poor (St. Luke 14:13), or St. Paul, who tells us to feed even our enemies (Romans 12:20), would have said of such a thought. Prudence and true zeal should lead us in our relationships to the heterodox at all times. Otherwise, our wisdom becomes foolish and anti-Christian.

+ + +
From Orthodox Tradition, vol. XIV, no. 4, pp. 24-25.

+ + +
Father Anthony Nelson once submitted these helpful words to an Orthodox email forum: "The stricture against joint prayer with heretics is that such prayer falsely legitimizes their prayer, it raises their heresy—which is an attack on Christ's Church—to a level of perceived equality with Orthodox Christianity. It is not praying with heretics to allow them to visit our services, to be gracious hosts, for them to pray with us—which instead exposes them to the Church and Her prayer, and the noetic effects that prayer has on the soul (and there are, of course, such negative effects on the right-believing who enter into prayerful communion with those who are not Orthodox). This is not a phoney or contrived distinction, either...it is real, and those who want to find ways to pray with their heterodox friends with contempt for the Canons forbidding it are the ones who are misusing the Canons because they are making up observances that are not there and trying to pawn them off as the teaching of extremists" (who, they say, teach that the Canons forbid the heterodox to pray with us, and other distortions).

Our problem isn't in having gatherings of family and friends and somebody's religious obligation requires them to pray separately ~ it's more like avoiding massive conflict over dietary demands.

For instance, we have some vegetarian Buddhists, and lactovarian Hindus in the mix, so that means you absolutely must have something for them, and that requires no cute little ham chunks in the salads (for example).

Quite regularly some Shi'ites show up (friends of the kids from down the street), so we have turkeybased salami to put on the home-made cheese pizza, and everyone likes that.

We've had large events here where there weren't more than 4 people who belonged to even the same world-religion level "brand", like Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu, Shinto, Jewish, Shi'ite, Sunni, and so forth, to say nothing of denominations within a broad class.

So, to answer the question about prayer with the heathen, even those who believe they possess the revealed Word of God, or at least a serious guidepost to that Word if God were to reveal Himself ~ what everybody does is get the prayers out of the way before dining.

It's also a very good idea in a remarkably mixed crowd to begin serving "snacks" of appropriate kosher/halal/vegetarian mix BEFORE any main servings, and this tends to screw everybody up on when and where to pray, so usually nothing anyone does focuses attention on them and their own traditions (or religious obligations).

When serving mondu filled with kimchi it's a very good practice to inform everyone that it's strictly vegetarian. Otherwise, virtually everyone assumes the kimchi is filled with roast pork and garlic. Jains don't eat garlic.

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.