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]

And all your contentions have been effectively refuted by other members of the board.

[Jaded]

You obviously haven't read anything that has been posted to you, neither do you intend to. All you seem to be able to do is make misguided statements and then proclaim that you are the only true/honest interpreter of Scripture, "poor, dumb and misinformed christian" that you claim to be. Many have given Biblical refutations of your absurd assumptions and you continue to shriek 'heresy, heresy'.

I believe it's you who needs to chill out, sir. Clearly a lack of restful sleep is effecting your judgment.

Have a good evening.

[pegleg]

And all your contentions have been effectively refuted by other members of the board.

You're a funny guy. Are you going to answer my question? Do you believe St. Thomas was in India?

[gscc]

Do you believe St. Thomas was in India?

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions only "apocryphal literature, and there are also certain historical data which suggest that some of this apocryphal material may contains germs of truth."  Whether or not one believes he was in India or not - there is no historical proof he was.  Like Peter being the first bishop of Rome it is more likely than not merely more Catholic mythology.

[pegleg]

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions only "apocryphal literature, and there are also certain historical data which suggest that some of this apocryphal material may contains germs of truth."

No argument on the literature but that’s not what I asked.

Whether or not one believes he was in India or not - there is no historical proof he was.

Since you’re browsing the Catholic Encyclopedia read the article on the St. Thomas Christians

Like Peter being the first bishop of Rome it is more likely than not merely more Catholic mythology.

It is more likely than not the witness of the early church.

[gscc]

Probably as reliable a "witness" as the 50,000 pieces of the cross that are scattered throughout Europe in RC churchs.

[wmfights]

"When did transubstantiation become dogma in the Roman Catholic Church?

That is not pertinent to the question regarding the interpretation of John 6:53-54. The question is "Why don't you interpret it the way it is clearly written in the Bible"? "
____________________________________________
I read John 6:53-54 in context with Luke 22:19-20.

Also, in reading John 6:53-54 I don't see anyone at the synagogue in Capernaum trying to actually eat the Messiah, or drink his blood as he stood there.

BTW when did transubstantiation become dogma in the Roman Catholic Church?

When did indulgences become doctrine?

When did Mariology and the immaculate conception become doctrine?

When did the infalibility of the Pope and his being the leader of all Christians become doctrine?

I would love to see your SCRIPTURAL basis for these positions the Roman Church takes.

Regards to you as well

[wmfights]

"But, as I said, there ARE many Catholic threads getting hijacked on FR with virtually no reciprocation on our part."
_________________________________
I dare say this is just not true. I follow these threads and see a great many Roman Catholics cry "it's Catholic bashing, it's Catholic bashing" whenever they don't like being confronted by someone who knows SCRIPTURE.

I see a great deal more civility from Christians than I do from Roman Catholics.

I think your source of irritation is you don't like it when someone points out the errors in your positions and you want these threads to only be people who will walk in lockstep with your position. I don't believe you will find Christians interfering in a thread that is clearly marked "Roman Catholic Devotional". I certainly wouldn't support anyone who would bother such a thread.

[tenn2005]

I have no idea and could'nt care less.

[tenn2005]

I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact

[markomalley]

Mr. Bainbridge,

I also agree that further discussion is likely to be fruitless (as if there won't ever be a Catholic vs Protestant discussion on FR again, yeah right)

But here's the way I see it:

1 Cor 12 says there is one body. Jesus Christ is the head of that body. I believe we agree on that.

Christ is preached in your church. I am certain of that. Christ is preached in my church. You can be certain of that. We should be thankful that the name of Christ is preached in both places. (Phil 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.)

IMHO, that is the bottom line.

[Conservative til I die]

Probably as reliable a "witness" as the 50,000 pieces of the cross that are scattered throughout Europe in RC churchs.

Typical anti-Catholic response: obnoxiousness. But seriously, based on the context of the exchange, are you denying that Christ died on a Cross? Or are you just mindlessly throwing bombs.

[Conservative til I die]

Did he also point out that the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?

*rolls eyes*

[Conservative til I die]

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.

What the hell is a Babtist? And why are you calling anyone else ignorant? What a laugh.

PS - The US is 25% Catholic, the largest denomination in the US.

[tenn2005]

That leaves 75% who recognize the error of your doctrine. The United States was founded on Christian principals, not Catholic theology, and as such has prospered greatly. Mexaco, on the other hand is 95% catholic and remain a third world country.

[Conservative til I die]

I also find it quite interesting that in the most successful nations with the most educated populace Catholism is in the minority while it in the majority in most third world countries. Canada is a Third World country? Italy? Spain? Austria? Switzerland? France? Ireland?

Not that it matters, since the goal of life (especially religious life) is not about who is the most successful. I thought it was about loving and obeying God. Not mammon.

Could it be that God has blessed this nation which is majority Protestant.

A country that embraces abortion and homosexuality? I cannot fathom God blessing this nation, morally vile as it is.

[tenn2005]

I agree with your last sentence. Whad have you done to try to change the situation?

[tenn2005]

Well you gather wrong. I am not Jewish but while I do not disagree with the rest of your post, I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

[Conservative til I die]

That leaves 75% who recognize the error of your doctrine. The United States was founded on Christian principals, not Catholic theology, and as such has prospered greatly. Mexaco, on the other hand is 95% catholic and remain a third world country.

A) You're pretty shallow, if you consider the measure of a people their wealth. Is serving mammon what they teach you in your sect?

B) Your argument is logically fallacious. Selectively choosing two countries on either side of the spectrum to prove your point, while ignoring many other countries is pretty easy to see through. Ireland was quite the economic success story at the turn of the 21st Century. Ireland is Catholic. Jamaica is 61% Protestant. Sweden is 87% Lutheran and is a cradle-to-grave welfare state. The African nation of Namibia is at least 50% Lutheran, and has a 50% poverty rate. South Africa was home to apartheid and Protestantism and is now a cesspool.

[Conservative til I die]

I agree with your last sentence. Whad have you done to try to change the situation?

Boy, you sure love to dance from argument to argument. I'm not interested in debating who's done more for the pro-life movement with you. I'd much rather continue exposing your silliness. You're a target rich environment.