Seriously. Being a "Protestant" in the 16th century pretty much always involved a conscious repudiation of groups in communion with the See of Rome.
But plenty of Protestants these days are what they are and they don't care one way or another about Rome. They don't see any reason to think about it much.
Of course I disagree ad think that they don't know what they're missing an so forth. But that's not the issue. The issue is there is no deliberate and considered act of "protest" or separation, no "intention" of jettisoning or apostatizing from anything.
Consequently our evangelism has to adjust.
Besides, while I think Luther was very wrong, there is a certain integrity in his having the guts to stick with his convictions, however misguided they may have been.
IF the average Protestant in the pew were indeed repudiating us, when we laid the charge, we'd get a "Dern tootin' I'm repudiating you!" But what we get about as often (along with astonishing mischaracterizations of what we in fact believe and do) is a kind of surprised and indignant,"No I'm not! You do your stuff and well do ours, and let's try to get along."
“But plenty of Protestants these days are what they are and they don’t care one way or another about Rome. They don’t see any reason to think about it much.”
That’s about the size of it, thanks for that.
“Consequently our evangelism has to adjust.”
Some Catholics come off as arrogant and pushy. Present company excepted of course.
“IF the average Protestant in the pew were indeed repudiating us, when we laid the charge, we’d get a “Dern tootin’ I’m repudiating you!” But what we get about as often (along with astonishing mischaracterizations of what we in fact believe and do) is a kind of surprised and indignant,”No I’m not! You do your stuff and well do ours, and let’s try to get along.”
I don’t know if you are told this very often but you may be a genius, lol.