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]

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?

Read it again. The Creed is a statement of belief. It says "we look for the resurrection of the dead." It's a future event for us living here in time.

From eternity, it is no more future or past than any other event. I invite you again to contemplate eternity.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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".

How am I to disprove your interpretation of Scripture, when you have set yourself up as an infallible interpreter?

SD

[Jaded]

It's stunning that you whittle down scripture as well.

[jo kus]

How do you explain their failure to recognize SCRIPTURE instructing us we are justified by faith alone.

Say what? You mean we are NOT justified by faith alone - James 2...

It seems that in the defense of your church you are the one claiming that it can't sin. Look above to your comment about the magisterium. Are you now recognizing your church is fallible?

The Church is not ALWAYS infallible, only in very narrow definitions made known to all of Christianity. Sorry to disappoint, the Pope doesn't know who is going to win next year's Super Bowl...

GOD gave us JESUS CHRIST and because of our faith in him we are saved and become members of his CHURCH.

And what did Jesus Christ give us? A bible? Or a group of men that He sent out to preach and teach all that HE taught (not their own ideas)

Regards

[magisterium]

The resurrection of the dead is composed of the soul of the body re-animating the physical matter of the body, in order to stand in General Judgment before all the world, publicly exhibiting God's justice before all mankind. There is no contradiction here as you suppose. Meanwhile, you have yet to explain the presence of the elders and myriads of martyrs in Heaven *before* the end of the world as described in Revelation 7, as I've cited in detail in other posts.

[kerryusama04]

Dude, only Catholics claim infallibility. I'm no Catholic and am wrong lots. Just ask the wife :)

[SoothingDave]

Sorry to disappoint, the Pope doesn't know who is going to win next year's Super Bowl...

Hell, I know that.

[jo kus]

I'm a Bible Believer. "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." Acts 17:11

So WHY were the Bereans more noble than the Thessalonicans? What does it say above? Because they accepted the Word while the Thessalonicans did NOT. They weren't more noble BECAUSE they looked in the Old Testament. They were more noble because they believed. This verse is the most over-used verse of Scripture that I have ever seen that doesn't prove anything that Protestants want it to...

Regards

[magisterium]

Of this I have no doubt, and fully agree with you! ;-)

Yet you make pronouncements about the afterlife that run counter to nearly everyone else's understanding here on this thread, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox alike, purely on your own authority!

[TradicalRC]

How do you explain their failure to recognize SCRIPTURE instructing us we are justified by faith alone.

If your Bible says "faith alone", throw it away, someone has altered the text.

It seems that in the defense of your church you are the one claiming that it can't sin. Look above to your comment about the magisterium. Are you now recognizing your church is fallible?

The Magisterium is infallible, that does not mean that those who serve the church are without sin. Christ gave the keys to Peter, the first of many Popes. Infallible is not the same as impeccable.

BTW the fastest growing denominations in the world are Evangelical.

And the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest. So what? neither one of those criteria matter when it comes to truth.

You are wrong. GOD gave us JESUS CHRIST and because of our faith in him we are saved and become members of his CHURCH.

Christ is God and founded His Church on Peter. That is, His visible Church on earth.

[Jaded]

Not if Kubiack picks Young.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

with "readiness of mind" which scriptures did they search daily? 1 Clement?

[TradicalRC]

Aye, but tis not the one residing in Roma.

Oh, but it is, laddie.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Not if Kubiack picks Young.

Ya think he's gonna do that after extending Carr?

[kerryusama04]

You watch too much sci-fi. Reanimation? Read the story of Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead. Did Adam exist prior to God making him out of clay?

Regarding the elders, I said that we only know of 3 people who are in heaven. If you can name some more, list 'em. Those folks are sure there as you mention, but we don't know who they are and where they came from, do we? The Catholics don't use the title "elder" anyhow, so we can rule them out :)

[Jaded]

He needs to sell Carr to the lowest bidder. He's a pretty face, well, he isn't even that. Kubiack will lose alot of local support if he passes up Young or trades the first pick.

[Mr. Lucky]

So you've paid off the Colts to muff another chip-shot field goal?

[Jaded]

If he doesn't he should change the name back to the Oilers.

[SoothingDave]

Not if Kubiack picks Young.

Ya think he's gonna do that after extending Carr?

Either one ain't going very far without an offensive line. He should pick Bush and hope he can spring him every once in a while.

SD

[jo kus]

Sorry to disappoint, the Pope doesn't know who is going to win next year's Super Bowl...


The Steelers? Well, I should drive over to Vegas right now. I wonder what the odds are. You think you could mortgage your house for me, I'll put some money down for us!

Regards