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!

[tenn2005]

I will gladly match the authority and and wisdom of my God who inspired the scriptures and instructed me to study them against every Catholic scholar you can name for the past two thousand years. Paul discussed the "wisdom" of your scholars in Rom 1:22 and again in I Cor 3:19. In addition my God is qwuite capable of inspiring a Bible that the common man can understand. Your disputing of this places you in the same category as those of whom Jesus spoke in Matt 22:29. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is so straigntforward and understandable that to misunderstand it you must have the help of a Priest, Rabbi, or Preacher.

[wmfights]

"The fact of the matter is that the Bible is so straigntforward and understandable that to misunderstand it you must have the help of a Priest, Rabbi, or Preacher."
______________________________
Amen Brother!

[Cronos]

Red -- you and other like minded Protestants are the reason why the Catholic Church keeps in dialogue with certain communions (like some Lutheran congregations and the Anglican -- until recently). There's no denying that Luther made the Church sit up and notice the corruption going on and made it junk the medieval Popes like Alexander VI.

[Cronos]

True -- Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy. By that definition, perhaps some aspects of the EO churches would be heterodox to us RCs (can't think of any right now). That doesn't mean that the Churches shouldnt' sit down and eventually move to a point where an ecumenical council is possible. By stating that the Catholic churches (or any of the Oriental Churches) is not Apostolic, you slam the door shut on ANY move towards reconciliation.

[Cronos]

you have JAINS where you're living? Where are you from? Gujarati India? I thought most Jains were from there (well, wikipedia'd it)

[Cronos]

My friend...the myth is that Peter was in Rome. You cannot show me, from scripture, that this is not so.

Scripture also doesn't mention the USA or China -- hence they are myths. There's no mention about computers or the internet, so I guess what we're doing now isn't really happening /sarc

[RobbyS]

If it is so straightforward and understandable, then why do we have so many sects?

[muawiyah]

We have Jains living in Northern Virginia.

Everybody in the world lives here ~ at least one of each "kind" (if I can use that word).

[tenn2005]

Because they listen to and follow the teachings of Priest, Rabbis and Preachers rather than studying the Bible for themselves.

[Cronos]

This point is a perfect example of how different Christians and Catholics are. Christians will leave a church and form a new one, or join another denomination if they find doctrine contrary to SCRIPTURE. Catholic's, on the other hand, will defend to the death their church even when they know it's wrong.

Note -- Catholics ARE Christians. The Apostolic Churches (from East to west) are:

1. The Assyrian Church (it has it's counterpart the Chaldean Catholic Church which is part of the 22 Catholic churchs that form the Catholic Church).
2. The Oriental Churchs (The Armenian, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian) -- they have counterparts in both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churchs.
3. The Eastern Orthodox Churchs (the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian etc.).
4. The Catholic Churchs (22 Churchs: the Latin, the Maronite, the Syro-Malankara, the Syro-Malabar, the Chaldean etc.)

Debatable, but many do add (and I'm not learned enough to agree or disagree) in the Churchs that agree to Apostolic Succession -- like some Lutherans, Anglicans etc.

Beyond the Apostolic Churchs you have the groups that broke away and are outside the Apostolic Church -- they PROTEST basic dogma (e.g. free will versus robots condemned to heck or not among many other things) -- so, your group would belong to this PROTESTANT Christian grouping.  Within the PROTESTANT Christian grouping you have you might say there are 5 or 6 generations of thought:

1. first gen groups like the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Calvinists etc.,
2. the Second gen like (perhaps) the Arminians, the Methodists, the Wesleyans, 
3. the third gen namely the Baptists (original), 
4. the fourth gen namely the various Baptist groupings,
5. the fifth gen deviates two opposite ways:
   1. namely the self-named "Evangelical" groups -- all the mega-assemblies. 
   2. You may also say that the fifth gen includes extremely further deviations from orthodox teachings like the present ECUSA teachings or the Mormons or the Unitarians or the Jehovah's witnesses

As I've shown above -- the final teachings of Unitarianism (Universal or "Christian") or Mormon doesn't seem so strange if you go by the above lines of progressions.  That's what happens with deviation from God's teachings -- the first make a few changes that don't seem like too much, but where does it all end?  It's like the Anglican Church first said that contraception was fine, then that abortion was fine, then gay bishops and marriages were part of god's will.

 

[x5452]

Actually the only reason heterodox is used rather than heretical is to promote dialog.

[Cronos]

Exactly -- the problem with personal interpretation is that it is made without any background understanding -- so many readers of the Bible light on the verse "Jesus and His brothers and sisters" and say "AHA!! He HAD brothers and sisters -- perhaps they were born of Mary or just step-siblings" -- these people do not know that in the middle east and even in Greece it is common to call your cousins (first and second) your brothers and sisters.

The Cultural context isn't bothered to be looked into. The Filioque is another case of such a problem -- it was originally put in by Spanish priests combating a heresy: while they MEANT what the Orthodox teach, the way they put it seemed heretical to the Orthodox.

[Cronos]

true -- so many forget the meaning of the word "Limbo": an unknown state -- in short, when we say that unbaptised infants are in limbo -- it means that we just do not know -- GOD knows.

[Cronos]

And where DID your Scripture come from? From Biblical authors whose works were collected by the CATHOLIC Church. When you say something is non-scriptural, it just means that the works are not considered dogmatic, inspired works -- a piece of history detailing the early church may not be inspired work, but it's facutality is undisputed. Since Herodotus' works aren't in scripture, would you say that all his historical details are false, JUST BASED ON THAT?

[Cronos]

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 as a whole (the Apostolic Church) does NOT sin -- individuals sin. And since little groupings like the one you ascribe are purely man-based (as opposed to God based as are the Apostolic Churchs), they are prone to sin.

[Cronos]

BTW the fastest growing denominations in the world are Evangelical.

Well the fastest growing Christian heresy would beIslam -- perhaps other groups also come close.

[Cronos]

Only members of the Roman church believe that the Roman church is the Catholic church

Nope -- the Roman Church is part of the Catholic Church -- with the capital C that includes the catholic Churchs and the Eastern Orthodox Churchs and the Oriental Churchs -- the Apostolic Churchs. We are not the sole rite of the Church and are not the only ones who form the Apostolic Church. Among Protestant groupings, some follow Apostolic teachings so closely (and many individuals in other groups) that one could count them as part of The Church. Other groupings don't.

[Cronos]

You wouldn't simply reject something without understanding it

Far too many Protestants have the same knee jerk reaction to Catholic teachings -- the vast majority, I'm sorry to say, are brain-washed in it from Child hood and believe the untruths to be the truth.

[Cronos]

An apt post number -- 666

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

you speak of things that are lies -- Catholics do not claim infallibility for all members of the Catholic Church (whether part of the Latin rite or any other rite), we do not claim it for the Pope for all matters and all events -- Papal infallibility is humanly limited -- to being ONLY on matters of dogma and ONLY when spoken from the seat of St. Peter's authority.

[Celtman]

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.

      OK.  I wrote "Roman Church", and I meant "Roman Churcn."  By "Roman Church", I mean all those who consider the bishop of Rome to be the head of the Catholic Church, and are in communion with the Church of Rome.  This would include some non Latin rite bodies, and would exclude some Latin rite bodies.  Perhaps I have missed something, but is it not doctrine of the church headquartered at Rome that it is the Catholic Church?

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...

      There you go again, using terms with the implicit assumption that everyone agrees on their meaning ... regular Baptists believe that they are historic, apostolic, and particular, and that the Roman cburch is not ...

is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

London Confession, Chapter 26

He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church

      Only the Orthodox come even close to agreeing with this doctrine, and if "that disagreement is slight", it has been been a major bone of contention in a 1000 year schism.  Understanding - and disagreement.

they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession

      No problem with comprehension.  But while Orthodox, Anglican, and Old Catholic groups agree (and claim apostolic succession themselves), none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable.  Understanding - and disagreement.

The problem is that the private interpretation of the Bible (strongly discouraged by 2 Pet 1:20)

      I assume you are aware that there is disagreement on the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20.  Understanding - and disagreement.

      In regard to your quotes from 2nd Timothy, there is of course diagreement over to whom they apply.