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]

Jesus gave the "Twelve" the Great Commission.

You can't be serious. You cite Matthew 10:5

5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

As proof that no Apostle ever went into any Gentile city, such as Rome?

This is a perfect example of cherrypicking verses out of context. This event happens near the beginning of Jesus' ministry, before the Resurrection, when He is calling together the good out of the Jewish people.

Only later, after the Resurrection does the promise of life in Christ extend out to all the nations.

That is the "Great Commission."

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

SD

[SoothingDave]

The scripture is silent on what happened to most of the Apostles, however there are other references to their activities. For example there are documented accounts of St. Thomas evangelizing in India and being martyred there. Do you believe that St. Thomas was in India?

No. According to the infallible interpetation of Matt 10:5 given above, no Apostle, save Paul, ever went to any Gentile people.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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.

You're sure that's how the teams are lined up, are you?

What you really mean to say is that you will accept your own opinion against any Christian who ever lived before you.

Is it any wonder this philosphy is so seductive? It's all about the self.

SD

[magisterium]

I believe you were referring to the Baptists. But you would be wrong. Check out any atlas yourself, or, check out what I have handy here in front of me: the 2001 "World Almanac and Book of Facts."

The largest group shown there is "Roman Catholics" at 62,018,436. The next largest is the Southern Baptist Convention at 15,729,356. Third are the Methodists, at 8,400,000. Taking all of the Baptist denominations shown and combining them yields 32,924,434. I'm not sure what your point is here, but you are demonstrably wrong.

I only mention this to correct the record. I have no interest in the "numbers game," save only that it would be a much better world if all humanity truly knew Christ as He would have Himself known.

[SoothingDave]

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

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

So if only they all followed your example and remained untainted by human contact with other believers, everyone would agree perfectly?

So, why are you here? Why are you making arguments and taking potshots at Catholics? If you truly believed what you say, your only response would be "read the Bible."

The minute you begin to explain what you think it means, the minute you try to change another's mind, you become what you say is the source of error: a preacher.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I believe that it is the Catholic church that has said, "Give me a child until he is 6 and he will be a catholic forever." Would this come under your heading of brainwashing chldren?

This is such a stupid, baseless and bigoted remark it is a wonder it is still up here. You really reveal yourself here.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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.

Let me make sure I understand your position correctly. In order to fully understand Scripture it is important to never attain any knowledge about the customs and language of the peoples found within.

That's where you want to plant your flag? On perpetuating misconceptions due to linguistic and cultural differences?

SD

[SaltyJoe]

Thanks for the ping! (post 795)

And now for your Catholic Blessing:

"May you be blessed with many Children."

and for the reply...

If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me.

I don't have too deep an understanding of the split between the Church in the East and West. For me, I see it as Spiritual Natural as two lungs of the Mystical Body of Christ, since the Holy Eucharist is the head of Universal Apostolic Christianity. The politics of the split among Apostolic brothers has its origin the Gospels where brothers James and John sought Jesus' favor (or where their mother sought to win them high positions in Heaven). Mark 10: 35-41

The Rock of Faith that Christ builds his Church upon are the Sacraments He's instituted to His Apostles. We can say a lot about St. Peter, the natural leader he is among men. But to argue his greatness among the Apostles would most likely not serve his Glorious position. After all, wouldn't he, himself, remind us that he thrice denied Jesus being his friend...even after courageously stating that Jesus is the Messiah?

The historical lesson the Apostolic split is that humility is the greater mission over establishing any position for conceived human greatness. The Apostles would look upon today's Apostolic politics as a bunch of vain silliness that wastes human effort for Salvation. The Holy Eucharist the Head of the Universal Church as it is indeed Jesus Christ, Himself, Present among us.

Why does Jesus allow such "sibling rivalry" among His adopted brothers and sisters?

Mark 10
42
Jesus summoned them and said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt.
43
But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant;
44
whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all.
45
For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."

[pegleg]

No. According to the infallible interpetation of Matt 10:5 given above, no Apostle, save Paul, ever went to any Gentile people.

You mean we've been duped? Good grief. If only the early Church would have had the wisdom of tenn2005 this thread wouldn't be necessary.

[SoothingDave]

If only the early Church would have had the wisdom of tenn2005 this thread wouldn't be necessary.

As soon as he would have tried to teach, he'd become a preacher, and thus a source of error. It's an enigma. Apparently you can be lead infallibly and personally to all truth by the Holy Spirit, but as soon as you start talking about it, you're wrong.

It would seem his model of a church is a light hidden under a bushel basket.

SD

[Flavius Josephus]

Europe and USA are worthy topics for discussion amongst themselves. When I say there are far more Roman Catholics than any other I am looking at the whole world.

[Nihil Obstat]

"Why do you insist on showing your ignorance? Any reliable atlas will tell you that the largest denomination in the United Stats are the Babtist."

From Adherents.com - largest religious groups in USA, 2004.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Catholic 71,796,719

Baptist 47,744,049

Methodist/Wesleyan 19,969,799

Lutheran 13,520,189

Presbyterian 7,897,597

Pentecostal/Charismatic 6,219,569

Episcopalian/Anglican 4,870,373

Judaism 3,995,371

Latter-day Saints/Mormon 3,806,258

Churches of Christ 3,659,483

Congregational/
United Church of Christ 1,944,762

Jehovah's Witnesses 1,878,431

Assemblies of God 1,560,890

[Bainbridge]

In reading some of your previous posts, I had the impression that you were a serious person.
Your attempt to set -up a straw man argument here, disabuses me of this notion.
On this entire thread, most of the Roman Catholics are routinely smug and frankly, ridiculous.
The character named Salty Joe mixes the KKK, George Bush and Calvin into a lunatic brew.
The man who calls himself Cronos puts Bible believing Christians with Moslems rather stupidly.
And you make a false statement about how my position does not allow for any textual understanding of the Holy Bible because I do not agree that brothers and sisters means not brothers and sisters.
You know that you are simply avoiding the facts that I offer. I do not ask that you agree with my belief. Frankly, I agree that these are things that are debated, as are all the major theological differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Your tactics are easy , cheap and false.

[Jaded]

I've never heard that.

[Jaded]

I've never heard that.

[Jaded]

Stop being obtuse.

[SoothingDave]

In reading some of your previous posts, I had the impression that you were a serious person. Your attempt to set -up a straw man argument here, disabuses me of this notion.

You are the one attempting to set up strawmen. A very simple point about Semitic languages and what they may have meant by the terms that were translated into English becomes, to you, an attempt to say that we say the entire Bible is therefore unintelligble.

The man who calls himself Cronos puts Bible believing Christians with Moslems rather stupidly.

No, he merely pointed out that Islam began as a Christian heresey, exposing the historical ignorance of a "Bible" Christian.

And you make a false statement about how my position does not allow for any textual understanding of the Holy Bible because I do not agree that brothers and sisters means not brothers and sisters.

Why didn't you say that, instead of:

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.

In this passage you make no attempt to make a linguistic argument about what the words may mean. Instead, you call a Catholic pointing out that the words are not original in the English and may have a different meaning "snide" and "lame."

So who's using cheap tactics?

You then use the word "prerequisite" and dismiss the notion that one needs to have a knowledge of the original languages in some places to help us understand the English. You jump from there to saying that if we ask others to consider what the original words in some key sections mean, this means we are saying the entire Bible is unintelligible in English.

You know that you are simply avoiding the facts that I offer.

What facts have you offered? Do you mean this?

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.

Pardon me for thinking this through, but it seems if other Semitic people can follow the language and conclude that Mary was a perpetual virgin this actually argues for our interpretation of the text and against your "plain English" methodology.

Your tactics are easy , cheap and false.

I merely returned what I saw from you.

SD

[x5452]

I'm not actually up to date on the most current view on the monophysites, I heard that the Antiochian church is considering communion with them or something and was surprised.

[x5452]

The official stance of all the orthodox churches is that there are no sacrements with grace outside the Orthodox church, and that there is no alternative path to salvation through different heterodox 'branches'.

[Jaded]

(Sigh) Well, it's obvious where you get your information.

Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books:
Mileto, Bisop of Sardis c 175AD
St. Ireaneus, Bishops of Lyons 185AD
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea c AD325
Pope Damasus AD 382
Council of Hippo AD393
Council of Carthage AD397
Pope St. Innocent AD405 approved and closed the canon.


BTW, if Jesus had brothers and sisters it would have been ILLEGAL under Jewish law for him to give care of his mother to John.