Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Have All the Protestants Gone?
NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by 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!


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: abortion; branson; catholics; christians; churchhistory; contraception; protestants
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 2,341-2,348 next last
To: markomalley

see 59


61 posted on 02/15/2006 8:04:32 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: STD
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.

Excuse me? It was the Latins who had the Filoque in the Nicene Creed. (I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son).

So what, exactly, are you trying to say here??

62 posted on 02/15/2006 8:06:19 AM PST by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Jaded

Right back at ya!


63 posted on 02/15/2006 8:06:23 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The orthodox synods of the Lutheran Church understand the concept of Apostolic succession, they just don't attribute any particular significance to it; much the same as, say, they understand denominations which speak in tongues or impose particular dress codes.

If recognition of Apostolic succession is important to you and strengthens your faith, great. But to others of us, it's just not relevant.

64 posted on 02/15/2006 8:07:43 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
30 years later. Thought we were talking about the first Christians?

Yes, the very same people, the Apostles. The issue of dealing with the spread of the faith outside of the Jewish community was not an instant problem.

By the way, even after that decision the first "Christians" remained observant.

Read it again. They may have volunteered to abide by their familiar customs, but could not bind those upon any believer. Which is what I said "that it was not necessary to observe Jewish things in order to be a follower of Jesus."

SD

65 posted on 02/15/2006 8:08:02 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I'm simply a follower of the Christ, Y'shua

Then why not follow His Church? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (the sin of polygamy)? NO, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

66 posted on 02/15/2006 8:10:45 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
The orthodox synods of the Lutheran Church understand the concept of Apostolic succession, they just don't attribute any particular significance to it; much the same as, say, they understand denominations which speak in tongues or impose particular dress codes.

Jesus never spoke in tongues or imposed a dress code. He did, however, physically impart His Spirit upon the Apostles and charge them to implement His Sacraments.

If sacraments aren't important, I can see discounting Apostolic succession. But you can't have one without he other. How does one have this power if it is not given?

SD

67 posted on 02/15/2006 8:13:53 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.... 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.

There is a great deal of truth in this statement.

From one of the few PROTESTant left.

68 posted on 02/15/2006 8:16:13 AM PST by HarleyD ("Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?" Prov 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

You are correct, that's why what this bishop from Rome was saying was such a problem. The Eastern church had finally had enough. This bishop was also living with several women and had bastard sons and daughters all over the place. After all he's just an ordinary man with all the problems you and I have each day, SIN!


69 posted on 02/15/2006 8:20:50 AM PST by STD (Grab Your Ankles, I'm From the Gub'ment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
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.
Please re-read what I posted. I didn't bring up the subject of 'rock' at all one way or the other. I brought up the subject of 'keys' ... and what the symbolic meaning of that was. I even took the time to show you the prophecy from Isiah that showed what the actual meaning of the expression 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' is.
However, you mentioned 'rock.' So we can discuss 'rock', although it is sort of irrelevant to the discussion.

You realize that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, right?

If you take a look at the Peshitta Aramaic text, both the words translated Petra and Petros are actually the Aramaic word "keepa" (thus the term "Cephas" being applied to Simon). Check it out for yourself!

70 posted on 02/15/2006 8:21:39 AM PST by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Rudi08

Thou Art Lukewarm, and I shall Sppppeeeeeewwww thee out of my mouth.


71 posted on 02/15/2006 8:25:46 AM PST by Flavius Josephus (Enemy Idealogies: Pacifism, Liberalism, and Feminism, Islamic Supremacism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: STD
This bishop was also living with several women and had bastard sons and daughters all over the place. After all he's just an ordinary man with all the problems you and I have each day, SIN!

Infallibility is not the same thing as impeccibility. There's even two different words for it!

SD

72 posted on 02/15/2006 8:25:47 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Read it again. They may have volunteered to abide by their familiar customs, but could not bind those upon any believer. Which is what I said "that it was not necessary to observe Jewish things in order to be a follower of Jesus."

I never said it was either. Just making an observation that the first Christians don't resemble the Catholic Church. I'm right.

73 posted on 02/15/2006 8:28:14 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

The Creeds are the basic Dogma of Christ's Church, to identify it against those, like the Gnostics, who would have bastardized it. Jesus spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete), about his Church, and the Saints (those who would be with him in Heaven.)

No, of course Jesus did not, since they were not written. One doesn't have to say what they say, or believe what they tell you to believe, in order to call oneself a christian. You don't have to believe in the Trinity, You don't even have to believe Jesus is God. No, you only have to do those things to really BE a Christian.


74 posted on 02/15/2006 8:31:07 AM PST by Flavius Josephus (Enemy Idealogies: Pacifism, Liberalism, and Feminism, Islamic Supremacism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NYer
XS>I'm simply a follower of the Christ, Y'shua

NY>Then why not follow His Church? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (the sin of polygamy)? NO, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

66 posted on 02/15/2006 9:10:45 AM MST by NYer

I'm afraid you have de-constructed the word "church"
which means "called out ones" into a corporation or
a man-made organization.
I know that I am "a called out one".

b'shem Y'shua

75 posted on 02/15/2006 8:36:14 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Trust in YHvH forever, for the LORD, YHvH is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Just making an observation that the first Christians don't resemble the Catholic Church. I'm right.

Acorns don't look a heck of a lot like oak trees either.

SD

76 posted on 02/15/2006 8:36:22 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Acorns don't look a heck of a lot like oak trees either.

True. But that doesn't mean a blind squirrel won't find one from time to time. :-)

77 posted on 02/15/2006 8:37:40 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

Of course the Sacraments (however many of them there are) are important. But in the Lutheran tradition, the clergy is called by the holy spirit directly, not by a bishop (an office which doesn't exist in my denomination).


78 posted on 02/15/2006 8:40:30 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Catholics believe that a call to the priesthood of the religious life comes from the Holy Spirit.

Where did you obotain your misinformation?


79 posted on 02/15/2006 8:42:21 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: STD
You are correct, that's why what this bishop from Rome was saying was such a problem. The Eastern church had finally had enough. This bishop was also living with several women and had bastard sons and daughters all over the place. After all he's just an ordinary man with all the problems you and I have each day, SIN!
First, you are aware, I'm sure, that the Filoque was added by Rome to the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople, right?

Second, do you have your Popes right? St. Leo IX was occupying the See of Peter when the great schism of 1054 happened. You might be referring to Benedict IX (who was Pope up until 1045), who was, rightly, known as a disgrace.

80 posted on 02/15/2006 8:44:22 AM PST by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 2,341-2,348 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson