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!

[SoothingDave]

I agree with your philosophy but not your theology. Words mean things, especially if they were written by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. If you believe in Jesus, repent, confess your sins, try to quit sinning, and get baptized, then you move from the "lost" to the "saved". That alone does not end sin nor does it destroy Satan. Only God and Jesus can do that.

Where do you get any of that from what I said?

Where did I say anything ends sin or destroys Satan? All I was doing was pointing out that few people think about what eternity really means.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Matthew

What about him? Did you hit the post buttone too soon?

SD

[kerryusama04]

If you believe that you die and go straight to heaven for eternity, then you must also believe that sin is ended and the we don't have 1 Judgement day, but rather every day is Judgement day for millions who die each day, thus making the entire NT moot and irrelevant.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

Our Catholic Church teaches that we are saved through grace

I thought it was the sacraments?

[PJ-Comix]

I don't even understand 95% of what is being posted here. My only input is my first reaction when looking at the title of this thread. And that is, there should be a song parody based on the tune "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" called "Where Have All The Protestants Gone?"

[SoothingDave]

If you believe that you die and go straight to heaven for eternity, then you must also believe that sin is ended and the we don't have 1 Judgement day, but rather every day is Judgement day for millions who die each day, thus making the entire NT moot and irrelevant.

You are making tremendous leaps in logic from things I did not say.

I never said heaven was automatic for everyone or anyone and I never said that sin was ended.

Every day is judgment day for those who died. Scripture says we are to die once, and then the judgment. What do you think is going to happen? You will die and your soul will just hang around, maybe haunting an old hotel or seomthing until the end of time?

We die and are judged. It's that simple. At the end of time, all will be judged and all will be revealed for all to see the wicked get punished and the virtuous get rewarded. It is unclear why you think time must elapse for our disembodied souls before this happens.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was not saying that all automatically go to heaven or that Christ was not needed or anything like that. My comments on entering heaven "today" or "a thousand years from now" were predicated on the idea that only those who trust in Christ enter Heaven. I would hope that would be understood.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Our Catholic Church teaches that we are saved through grace

I thought it was the sacraments?

What do you think we think sacraments are?

(Hint: Baltimore Catechism)

SD

[Full Court]

It's stunning how many people can't understand the concept of sacraments.

Probably because Jesus blodd clesnses us from ALL sin, so "sacraments" are not needful. They are just works of flesh and will burn.

It's stunning that people don't trust Christ.

[Celtman]

Until that realization happens, ...

      Uhh, no.  Bethelgrad is correct.  It is not a matter of understanding.  It is a matter of informed, intelligent, Biblically based, disagreement.  Only members of the Roman church believe that the Roman church is the Catholic church, and that the doctrins of Rome are correct.

      Until that realization happens, Roman church members will continue their condescending "they just don't understand" attitude.

[Full Court]

with the full approbation of whatever denomination to which you may belong.

I'm a Bible Believer.

Acts 17:11  
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12  Therefore many of them believed;
also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

[kerryusama04]

You really ought to read the Book of Revelation. Chapter 20 especially. Scripture says that there are two deaths. Two, not 1.

[Full Court]

What I can figure out is why so many are so against baptism.

because you baptize unbelievers against the clear command of Scripture.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

"Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" called "Where Have All The Protestants Gone?"

Just as the flowers have withered so has the Protestants. There's nothing left to Protest. We are all one big Ecumenical family. So Protestants are distinguished now as "Evangelicals" or "Separated Brethren"

Revelation coming to pass?

The final weeks of Daniel's 70 weeks?

[SoothingDave]

Probably because Jesus blodd clesnses us from ALL sin, so "sacraments" are not needful. They are just works of flesh and will burn. It's stunning that people don't trust Christ.

What do you think sacraments are? Since you reject the idea, you must be able to articulate what it is you oppose, yes? You wouldn't simply reject something without understanding it.

SD

[magisterium]

Either you fail to see my point, or you simply ignore the prima facie evidence, derived from the multiplicity of interpretations among believers of nearly any given passage of Scripture, that your interpretation of how the Holy Spirit works in this regard is just plain wrong. I'm moving on with this part of the thread.

[SoothingDave]

You really ought to read the Book of Revelation. Chapter 20 especially. Scripture says that there are two deaths. Two, not 1.

Yeah, no kidding. Physical death of the body and spiritual death of damnation.

SD

[magisterium]

You provide ample witness, with your take on something as basic as the existence of Hell or lack thereof, that Scripture is not nearly as "perspicuous" as Protestantism would have us believe. You baldly assert Hell's lack of existence, in the face of rather plain Scripture. You empty Heaven of every being except God, some angels and three humans (!) in direct contradiction to equally clear passages of Scripture. You claim your right to do this because you are led by the Spirit to interpret Scripture.

You are Exhibit A for the need for a Magisterium precisely along the lines of what the Catholic Church has proclaimed it has received from Christ Himself. If something as basic as just these two examples can be so badly mangled, there is no doubt that the doctrine of private interpretation leads to utter chaos elsewhere within all Protestantism!

[kerryusama04]

Scripture, please? I have posted the scriptures the disprove this fable over and over. If I'm wrong and you show me, I will change my tagline to "soothingdave is the man and he proved me wrong. Thank God he saved me from my error".

[kerryusama04]

Why does the Apostle's Creed end with a prayer for the resurrection of the dead if the dead are already in heaven or hel? I do not claim personal revelation nor do I claim to know whether I am being guided by the Holy Spirit. I pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. I only know what I read in the Bible.

[redgolum]

Because we are more than just a soul, or just a body. The souls of the faithfully departed are in Heaven, but they are not united with their bodies yet.