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]

One maligns one's own "idiot kicker" at one's own peril.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Hell, if I can't be obnoxiously over-confident within the fortnight of a Super Bowl, when can I be?

SD

[jo kus]

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

the Acts of the Apostles doesn't say which "Scriptures" the Bereans searched, how do YOU know?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I think I'd trade the pick for a couple of firsts and seconds and immediately improve the offensive line.
Carr is decent, they have servicable backs and Andre Johnson is as good a receiver as there is.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

the Acts of the Apostles doesn't say which "Scriptures" the Bereans searched, how do YOU know?

Well. I don't know for sure. But if I had to guess I'd say Hebrew scriptues.

[kerryusama04]

That's because most people don't ever read the Bible, or do so with pre-conceived notions. Only listening to those with man-granted authority rather than reading the Bible on your own is a really big wager IMO. Especially if those "authoritarians" are despicable child molesting men who bribe their parishioners to hide their sins.

[Rytwyng]

"When hell drops out of religion, justice drops out of politics." - Emory Storrs

[jo kus]

Hell, if I can't be obnoxiously over-confident within the fortnight of a Super Bowl, when can I be?

"the proud will be brought low and the humble will be exalted"...

I'm a Bills fan!! That's good news! How much more humble could I be?

Regards

[Invincibly Ignorant]

"When hell drops out of religion, justice drops out of politics." - Emory Storrs

That quote is just plain stupid.

[jo kus]

Well. I don't know for sure. But if I had to guess I'd say Hebrew scriptues.

I'd agree with you, even though the bible doesn't specifically say that...

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I'd agree with you, even though the bible doesn't specifically say that...

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...

I think the point protestants try to make is that they check things out in scripture. The New Testament as well. :-) I don't see many Catholics blowing the dust of the Bible checking to see if something the Pope said jives with the writings.

[markomalley]

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.

---

Uh, no. Bethelgrad may be correct, but not in the way that he imagines (nor are you).

I don't believe you can find a quote where I said that the Latin Church (you call it the Roman Church) is the Catholic Church. If you can, please cite it.

Secondly, I believe that any of the posters here who are members of any of the historic, apostolic, particular churches will agree with this statement...

The problem is, at least based upon conversations I've had with my Protestant friends, is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that (cf 1 cor 3:1-5, 1 cor 12:12ff, Eph 5:27, etc.). Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church (cf Eph 5:23). He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church (Matt 16:19, cf Isa 22:20-23). Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations, cf 2 Ti 1:6, Acts 20:28, etc.).

The only area of even the slightest disagreement is the role of the See of Peter. And that disagreement is slight. But we all (that is those who are part of the historic, apostolic, Church) agree that Rome has the first order of precedence, followed by Constantinople (as the new Rome). How do I know this? Because my Orthodox brethren support the ecumenical councils that so state (cf., Chalcedon Can. XXVIII, 1 Constantinople Can III, 2 Nicea Can IV "...For Peter the supreme head of the Apostles commands...).

See, the problem is not a Biblically-based disagreement. The problem is that the private interpretation of the Bible (strongly discouraged by 2 Pet 1:20) has led generations of people astray from the true, apostolic Faith. And succeeding generations have become more and more blind to that fact until they actually are silly enough to believe in their hearts of hearts that the apostolic church is the one that is apostate. It's really sort of sad when you think about it.

I would suggest you consider the following passage of scripture:

2Ti 3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.

2Ti 3:2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,

2Ti 3:3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good,

2Ti 3:4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

2Ti 3:5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses,

2Ti 3:7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

2Ti 3:8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

2Ti 3:9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

Peace.

[SoothingDave]

"When hell drops out of religion, justice drops out of politics." - Emory Storrs

That quote is just plain stupid.

What do you think it means? I think it means when that without a God in the picture who is wiling and able to punish evildoers, evil will reign. Religion works as a check on selfish impulses, especially on those in power.

SD

[magisterium]

"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?"

How does this help your argument about the status of the soul relative to the spirits of the just already being in Heaven? This example of Lazarus undercuts your own argument, since by what mechanism, other than a reintroduction of his soul with his body, did he come back to life? Did he get a "new" soul? Did his soul just hang around somewhere until Jesus reinserted it? Did he even have a soul at all, and perhaps material bodies just "live" without the animating principle which is the soul? What does Lazarus' example even have to *do* with your novel comments about the near echo-chamber status you posit for Heaven?

Speaking of which, you now say: "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" This is a direct contradiction of what you said originally, in post 351: "I really, really agree with this one. The Bible only lists 3 regular people who made it to heaven already (Enoch, Elija, and Moses, and one maybe (one of the guys that was crucified alongside Jesus). The idea that people die and go straight to heaven is Biblically unsound and makes much of the New Testament and Christianity in generally moot."

You changed your story in the face of the evidence provided by Revelation 7. So which one do you *really* believe: the "Three People Only Theory," or the "Three Named People and a Host of Unnamed Others Theory," which flies in the face of what you've been trying to say throughout this thread regarding the resurrection?

Which is it, or is it going to be yet another permutation that we'll see?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

What do you think it means? I think it means when that without a God in the picture who is wiling and able to punish evildoers, evil will reign. Religion works as a check on selfish impulses, especially on those in power.

I have a couple of problems with this. One, there are wicked religious people and moral non-religious people. Two, its my view "hell" is not a place where God continually tortures people for eternity by burning them.

[SoothingDave]

I have a couple of problems with this. One, there are wicked religious people and moral non-religious people.

Yes, but in general threat of punishment serves as a wonderful deterrent. Call it divine retribution, or karma or whatever.

Two, its my view "hell" is not a place where God continually tortures people for eternity by burning them. SD

[SoothingDave]

I have a couple of problems with this. One, there are wicked religious people and moral non-religious people.

Yes, but in general threat of punishment serves as a wonderful deterrent. Call it divine retribution, or karma or whatever.

Two, its my view "hell" is not a place where God continually tortures people for eternity by burning them.

Be it torture with fire, mental anguish of separation from all things good, or simple annihilation; they all suck compared to an eternity of bliss.

SD

[muawiyah]

There is a logical dilemma taken right from the Scriptures that has to be dealt with when it comes to baptism ~ John the Baptist, hardly a Christian, baptised Jesus Himself.

So, if John could do it, then others can do it. Otherwise, you find yourself making an argument that Jesus' own baptism was without merit.

[muawiyah]

Now we're getting to that "group hug" thing I suggested might happen about 500 posts ago.

Anyone know kumbayah?

[Quester]

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

Actually, the text says that the Berean (Jews) were more noble because they readily received the Word and searched the scriptures daily.

Sounds like a process which ultimately led them to belief.

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

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.