Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

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!

You and I are on the same "Team" pretty much all of the time on these FR Religion threads...but not THIS time! The Pats are back to enlarging their wayward dynasty next go round! Four out of six Super Bowls ain't bad...

I've always rooted for the Patriots, unless they are playing Buffalo! I still think that Champ Bailey's (Denver) interception return should have been a touchback! You got to give credit to a team that is so good with so many injuries.

Regards

Recall that Jesus counseled another group to search the scriptures (for evidence of Him) ... but that they, too, were more interested in condemning Him.

That is true. But I think in each case, men are blinded by their own opinions of interpreting the Scriptures, don't you agree? People often see things through a very limited point of view and will not accept anything that is "outside the box". Thus, the "scandal to the Jews". Many could not see that the Christ had to suffer. They saw Deuteronomy's point that "those who hang from a tree are cursed". The Scriptures, then, could be used to argue EITHER point of view - that Jesus was the Christ, or Jesus was NOT the Christ. It is only the belief in the witnesses and their explanations, coupled with the Holy Spirit's imbuing one with faith, that will bring one to believe in the Word of God, Jesus the Christ.

The Jews at Thessalonika certainly "knew" the Scriptures that they were going to use as proof-texts against Paul. Thus, they "searched" the Scriptures through their own paradigms and ideas of what the Christ would be - a glorious savior. Jesus didn't fit that description, thus, they and the Pharisees were blinded. It wasn't the Scriptures that blinded them, nor was it the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the Bereans. It was God, working with a responsive man, that enabled the faith to enter into the Bereans, but not the Thessalonicans.

Recall Luke 24 and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? It was only AFTER Christ had opened their eyes to the Word in Scripture and how it applied to Jesus were they able to see all that we now take for granted. Correct?

Thus, the Scriptures were NOT what opened the minds of the Bereans or closed the minds of the Thessalonicans - and why I disagree with some Protestants' use of it in such a way.

Brother in Christ

We don't have to second-guess the Holy Spirit working through the Pope

IMO, this is not sound practice. If your church has had heretical popes in its history, who is to say your current pope couln't be heretical? I am not saying he is at all. I am simply asking why do you blindly trust any man simply because of the title bestowed upon him when history records those bearing the same title have been blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching?

When you hear the words "Vicar of Christ," it has to do with the fact that the keys belong to the Bishop of Rome, as they were given to him by Christ, himself. It means his role is like one of "prime minister," not "king."

That is a matter of current discussion, actually. I would say more like the president of the Supreme Court. However, markomalley is correct in pointing to the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox never disputed the primacy of (Old) Rome and the Bishop of Rome as the "first among equals." It's the nature and the scope of that primacy in terms of jurisdiction that has not been universally agreed on.

I further believe that the only major theological difference exists in two areas: first (the issue that caused the split), the filoque, and second, the understanding of original sin (the issue of the Immaculate Conception is necessary under the west's comprehension of Original Sin

You are spot on, markomalley, but you left out Papal Infallibility. This last dogma caused the greatest separation between the East and the West. The filioque, actually, is quite a minor theological issue at this point as both sides seem to agree that (1) the addition was a violation of Ecumenical Councils and (2) that "as regards His existence" the Spirit proceeds only from the Father (in other words the unaltered Creed expresses the original truth, as regards to the eternal origin, more correctly than the Filioque."

none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable (Celtman)

The authority of the Church and its clergy comes directly from the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and those who fill their offices.

Yeah, my mistake. The post I was actually replying to made it look like you were a Steelers fan. I saw a few posts later that you are a Bills fan.

Amen on that touchback! And also the "pass interference" that wasn't, leading to Denver's first score. Oh, well. We wuz robbed, but, if we got that far with a defense that was decimated by injuries for 3/4 of the season, we should be back to full form next year. Kraft has good advisors and deep pockets, so we'll keep more than just the core players.

It depends on which group they belong to -- many Protestants including Baptists, Lutherans etc. -- individuals, I have no hesitation in saying that they follow teachings that are scripturally and traditionally sound and not hollow, imperfect personal interpretations (like the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and sisters because the reader does not comprehend that in the Middle East, such a terminology is used for cousins)

Well, first, consider that we believe the Holy Spirit guides the papacy in matters of faith and morals. You say we have heretical popes, but we say we don't. Your basis for this is that the brand of Christianity you adhere to has different beliefs. That's understandable, but consider, too, that your viewpoint stems precisely from these differences. How do you know that YOUR confessional group is not heretical. It's a "frame of reference" problem, isn't it? "You say he's blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching," we say he is not. Prove that he is outside of your own authority, or that of your own pastor's.

The papacy, from a simply human viewpoint, has been remarkably consistent over the centuries. That should say something. We don't "blindly trust" the pope, we trust his doctrinal teaching because we know it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Why do you wonder at this, when you feel that you yourself, indeed, all believers, are so guided? How is it blind, lockstep trust to have allegiance to one man following the Spirit, and perfectly okay for you to say that the Spirit leads you, and thus you can automatically follow your OWN inner voice?

The fact that millions of people believe that, and suffer the consequences of massive division and chaos of belief, speaks volumes and should tell you a great deal.

AGAIN, YOU SEEM TO BE DOWNPLAYING THE REAL ISSUE.

THE EASTERN CHURCH HAD BEEN FIGHTING THE ARIAN HERESY & islam FOR CENTURIES. The papal european hordes had already sacked and destroyed Constantinople during the Crusades, Remember?

At one point more eastern Christians belonged to Arian churches than the EOC.

Imagine if I was to tell you that the fish hat "dagon" wearing Pope was the leader of the ancient mystery religion Babylon, he's satan's man on earth; or something that egregious? Then I sent an army to sack and destroy Rome. That's how the EOC fells about Rome; you poured gasoline on top of St. Sophia's in a sincere effort to destroy our church.

When this issue of "The Great Schism" comes up at interfaith dialogues, it's always explained as simple playful political tit for tat by RCC apologists. Trust me it was a poisoned and fatal dart aimed right at the heart of the Eastern church intended to destroy it. Rome eventually got her wish when islam completely destroyed the city of Constantinople in the 1500's. With a small amount of Christian charity and military assistance it could have been easily saved. The papacy could have directed the forces of several european nations to come to her aid, but alas it was all about the primacy of Rome, so millions of Christians died. It's no different today.

I intentionally left out the issue of infallability (for our brethren separated by the Western schism, infallability refers to matters of "faith and doctrine" -- i.e., the teaching authority), because it was decided concilliarly. Unfortunately, because of the Eastern schism, the council that took that decision could not be a truly "ecumenical" council (as with all the other councils that preceded it for the past 900 years). Hopefully that will sometime change.

If your church has had heretical popes in its history, who is to say your current pope couln't be heretical?

I suppose we could argue all day on whether a pope HAS taught heresy. I don't believe any have given an incorrect official teaching that was intended to be taught as an eternal truth. Sure, Popes have made poor political decisions, personal decisions, theological statements that were poorly contrived. But when speaking from his official capacity in the Chair of Peter, we believe the Spirit protects the Pope's utterances from error on the faith and morals that Christ taught.

Are we to "test" everything we are given? Sure. But we don't second-guess the Magesterium. We seek to find out "why" they teach something, but faith comes first, then understanding. IF we believe that Christ has promised to guide and guard the truth given to His people through the Apostles' successors, then we put our trust in God that He is doing just that.

history records those bearing the same title have been blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching?

Blatantly? That is a matter of opinion, I believe. The Scripture is subject to interpretation. To me, John 6 is pretty darn clear that we must eat, chew, the flesh of the Son of Man to have eternal life. Would you say Christ could have made that any clearer? But yet, we are told that we are blatantly teacing out of line with Scriptures?

Regards

Well, you are not quite as well informed as you might think . I believe that you would be very hard pressed to find any Baptists who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (that is , after all what the brothers and sisters fuss is all about). To make a snide comment about how the reader does not understand the terminology used in the Middle East is rather lame. If this is a prerequisite, then the whole Bible- thing is out since it is kind of based there and the terminology of THE ENTIRE THING would be , in your view, unintelligible. As to the juxtaposing of the "sects" and Islam, well , I would suggest you all have more to squirm about than do those who simply call themselves Christian. Consider the fact that Islam holds to be true your belief in the immaculate conception. I believe that is a sticking point for RC/ EO relations. However, Islam holds this position, it is mentioned in the quran (3:47) that Mary remained a virgin, unlike the heretics who cannot understand the middle-eastern conotation of Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 and come away thinking that the words mean what they say.

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.