Comment (26)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiPope to find US Protestants more receptive
Benedict XVI will be welcomed by many American Protestants when he visits the US next week.
When Pope Benedict XVI goes to America next week, he will find a religious landscape different from that which greeted his predecessor John Paul II. He will be greeted by an American Catholicism that has been haemorrhaging non-Hispanic whites, mainline Protestants who have diminished in numbers and importance, and the emergence of evangelicalism as the largest religious tradition in America.
Benedict may also find less Protestant hostility to Rome and the papacy than at any previous time in American history.
These are some of the startling implications of the most important survey of American religion in decades. In February 2008 the Pew Research Center released its first report on the "US Religious Landscape Survey," a massive study that conducted 35,000 in-depth interviews of a representative sample of American adults between May and August 2007.
Some things have stayed the same in American religion. For example, atheists and agnostics taken together still number only 4 percent of American adults, and Protestants still outnumber Catholics by more than 2 to 1.
But there are striking differences. The Protestant market share is shrinking markedly: as recently as the 1980s Protestants were two-thirds of the adult population, but now they are only 51 percent. According to the Landscape Survey’s summary, "The United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country."
There is also a new "loosening of denominationalism." More than one-quarter of American adults (28 percent) have left the faith in which they were raised in favour of another religion—or no religion at all. 16 percent of American adults say they are unaffiliated with any particular religion. But one-third of these people are adopting the European pattern of "believing without belonging." They say religion is "important" to them, but they haven’t joined a religious group.
No American religion has lost more than Catholicism: 32 percent of those raised Catholic have left the Church — half of those have become Protestant, usually joining an evangelical church.
The American Catholic Church has retained its market share—one-fourth of America—but only because of Hispanic immigration. Latinos are now one-third of all U.S. Catholics, and nearly half of all Catholics between the ages of 18 and 29. This reflects the burgeoning Latino community — now 14 percent of the U.S. population and projected to be 29 percent by 2050.
Twenty per cent of all American Latinos have left the Catholic Church, and most have joined evangelical churches. According to Gastón Espinoza, president of La Comunidad of Hispanic Scholars of Religion, there are "nine million US Latino Protestants [and they] are overwhelmingly Evangelical and Pentecostal in their orientation."
Another big change is the "homogenous, ageing and diminishing" state of mainline Protestantism. Once the majority of Americans, now these Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Congregationalists number only 18.1 percent of American adults.
They are divided internally by questions about sexuality, biblical authority, and the necessity of Jesus for salvation. "Progressives" regard the biblical restriction of sex and procreation to heterosexual marriage as unenlightened and uncompassionate, and think non-Christians can be saved without Jesus. Self-styled "orthodox" say the Bible’s vision of sex and marriage is true for all ages, and that Jesus is the only Saviour.
Progressives define the gospel as liberation from earthly structures of oppression such as racism, sexism, heterosexism and imperialism. The orthodox retain the traditional definition of gospel as salvation by Jesus’ death and resurrection from sin, death and the devil.
Evangelicals now number 26.3 percent of American adults. Unlike mainline Protestants, they are young and growing. But like mainline Protestants, they are also divided. While all evangelicals agree that the Bible is their authority and they should share their faith with others, there are differences between those who prefer the term "fundamentalist" and the rest of the evangelicals.
Fundamentalists tend to read the Bible more literally, while other evangelicals tend to look more carefully at genre and literary and historical context. Fundamentalists question the value of human culture that is not created by Christians or related to the Bible, whereas more evangelicals see God’s "common grace" working in and through all human culture. Fundamentalists tend to restrict their social witness to protests against homosexual practice and abortion, but most evangelicals also want to fight racism, sexism and poverty.
The growing strength of evangelicalism is one reason why the Pope may find more openness from Protestants than ever before. While fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals continue to denounce Catholicism as false religion because they think it teaches salvation by good works, evangelical leaders in recent years have found common cause with Catholics. This began with the pro-life movement, in which evangelicals and Catholics found themselves working together in the 1970s and 80s to fight abortion-on-demand. Then in 1994 prominent evangelical leaders joined hands with Catholic theologians to start "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," a movement that has pointed to theological agreements on the Bible and salvation while at the same time disagreeing about prayer to Mary and the saints, purgatory, and other doctrines.
For decades evangelicals in non-denominational charismatic and Pentecostal churches, which may number half of all American evangelicals, have felt an affinity for their brethren in the Catholic charismatic movement.
A recent article in Pro Ecclesia, an American journal "of Catholic and Evangelical theology," argues that Jonathan Edwards, the most distinguished American theologian ever and a hero to most evangelicals, held a view of salvation similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, perhaps Catholicism’s greatest theologian.
One of the most noted developments in American evangelicalism in recent years has been the rise of "emergent" and "missional" churches, which are dominated by 20-somethings who are less concerned with doctrine than social action and mystery--which some find in Catholic-like liturgy. Many of these young evangelicals admired John Paul II’s boldness and warmth, and find attractive Catholicism’s devotion to social justice, defence of biblical morality, and opposition to capital punishment.
Latino evangelicals will also be attentive to the Pope’s visit. The Landscape Survey found that most of them left Catholicism not because something negative "pushed" them out, but because the desire for more intimate religious experience in evangelical churches "pulled" them.
According to Professor Espinoza, "Many Latino Catholics who convert to Protestantism feel a little betrayed by their previous faith - wanting to know why it took a conversion experience to another tradition to facilitate and develop a relationship with Jesus Christ. But they are also less hostile to the papacy than fundamentalists because they admire the positions on family issues which the last two popes have taken."
Even Baptists, who now represent one-third of all US Protestants and close to one-fifth of the American population, have a "selective appreciation" for the Pope. Michael McClymond, religion historian at St Louis University, says that Baptists, who in 1960 led the opposition to (Catholic) John F. Kennedy’s election to the presidency, now show a growing recognition that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have become the "de facto leaders of world-wide Christianity."
Many mainline Protestants will also listen appreciatively to the Pope next week. The progressives among them oppose Catholic positions on birth control, women’s ordination, abortion and homosexuality. But the orthodox -- for example, Episcopalians who now call themselves "Anglicans" to protest their denomination’s acceptance of liberal theology -- appreciate the Vatican’s commitments to historic doctrine and morality. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (at 4.8 million members, the largest American Lutheran church) is beginning to follow the direction of the liberal Episcopal Church, but it also signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church—abandoning the anathemas Lutherans and Catholics hurled at each other nearly four hundred years before.
In short, next week in America Benedict will face a new American religious scene. He may also get a hearing that is historically unprecedented.
Gerald R. McDermott is Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, the second oldest Lutheran-related college in the US. He is the author or editor of ten books, including Understanding Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to America’s Theologian (forthcoming from Oxford University Press).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOW CLOSED TO COMMENT
Thanks to all who contributed.
Rob, you claimed that OT was already accepted as canonical by the time of Christ. I think you will find that the Jewish authorities did not finalise their canon until 67 years after they rejected Christ.
Something else that caught my eye:
“For us Protestants, the Bible does declare itself as the sole determiner of truth and belief”. Muslims make the same claim about the Koran. How is your claim different from theirs?
You finished the above quote by referring proudly to Martin Luther who “told you guys years ago”, then follow it with this clanger: “Jesus tells us in the Revelation that we must not take away from the scriptures or we endanger our eternal life”.
As Jude has already pointed out, Luther wanted to throw the Epistle of Saint James in the garbage.
Perhaps someone can verify this, but I believe the protestant bible has several books and passages removed. Maccabees comes to mind of course, but also Daniel had quite a few verses removed (that perhaps weren’t “protestant” enough).
Getting back to the article, I hope the authors prediction comes true.
You have clearly shown me things I already know, you have attempted to prove sola scriptura when scripture itself doesn’t indicate. Like I said, show me one verse, where it says anything CLEARLY that scripture is the only source of belief.
You can’t do that can you? Therefore you haven’t ‘clearly’ demonstrated anything. The only thing you have done is to clearly show me that the disciples used the OT, which everyone knows and agrees with.
The early church fathers believed in purgatory, they believed in the intercession of saints, etc. Those are the traditions still maintained, why pray does the Orthodox church also adhere to these beliefs? Because their church even though it split with the main church didn’t have Martin Luther leading them.
Protestant philosophy as a whole is based around Martin Luther. Christ insituted leadership in his church, which one of the protestant denominations has sound leadership? And is the world even aware of them? Forget that, first point me to a denomination within protestantism that shows the truth. You can’t, you can regressively and progressively show that protestantism is false.
You so far have danced around the topic whilst not indicating any scripture so far that says anything to the extent of scripture is the sole belief. You have flagellated at how the RC is wrong, but you haven’t provided evidence to directly prove this.
Another major error, compounded is the fact that you use argument from repetition (logical fallacy, wiki it) and it’s an opinion:
“I would quite say that the Church that Christ started is certainly not the RC Church. “
If you are going to state such a thing, then prove it. Martin Luther is the one who didn’t like the gospel of James and he told people to sin continuously as it didn’t affect salvation which is clearly contradicting scripture. Did Jesus tell people to sin? And here you are using his beliefs as the centre piece of your dialectic.
I have clearly shown you that the early church used the scriptures, the OT; I have shown you that they also used the writings of Paul, Gospel writers, Jude, that of the disciples that wrote. And of course they spoke as eyewitnesses of the things that Jesus did; but these were soon written (beginning ca.20 years after Jesus death)Peter makes reference to this, and Paul, and John. Paul and Luke also indicate that other written sources existed before they wrote their accounts. Why are you hang up on tradition? The tradition you speak of, Jude, is certainly not the tradition that the RC church has. You church makes it clear that they have the Bible, tradition, and other writings.
Clearly, the early apostles used scripture, as pointed out; and also stated facts that they witnessed, which they put to writing. What’s the big fuss with tradition? I guess you have to cling on to this only because your church has made up its own tradition, extra biblical, and use these as integral part of worship service, and teach men so. Just as Jesus pointed out that the Jews did! The Holy Scriptures, that is, the OT and the NT are the Word of God and by these we test every teaching, doctrine, and tradition that men may bring up. And if they are not according to the law and the testimony, Is. 8:20, (we apply this to the whole scriptures) then there is no light in them.
Well, over here it’s nighttime and my bed time. So good night to you down under.
I would quite say that the Church that Christ started is certainly not the RC Church. This is not biblical, friends. Just as with the Jewish nation that strayed from God’s Word and so did not welcome Christ the Messiah, so the church when it became a Gentile majority soon apostatized as prophecied in Revelation and Daniel. The truth was then kept alive in the splinter groups that abounded. Just check history, guys. Mr. Luther made this quite clear; but there were several others before Luther who pointed out the apostasy of the church. Many of these men were burned, hanged, tortured, and killed for the truth. Even your previous pope admitted this and apologized for this mad behaviour. I would say that the ‘true church’ of Christ today would be found with the characteristics delineated in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12. The church that is doing this can say quite safely, that it is following all the requirements of Jesus Christ. I do not mean that everyone there is necessarily saved; not all that say Lord, Lord will be saved; but only those that do the will of Christ.
Furthermore, lines like these :
“Remember the Bereans. They went home and searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true?”
Don’t prove sola scriptura. How does that prove that scripture alone is the key source? Catholics also go home and check scriptures sometimes when things are in doubt. You keep ignoring, completely ignoring the fact that there were at least 370 years or so since Christ died until the Bible was first compiled and affirmed as authentic.
How did they teach people then? TRADITION, the Bishops didn’t hand out unapproved scriptures, people didn’t have 10 pages of the old testament and 1.2 pages of Paul’s letter to the romans.
Ron, I don’t disagree with scripture. I disagree with the doctrine of sola scriptura. I know scripture is for growth, do you think Catholics ignore scripture?
Instead of pointing to me arbitrary scripture verses. Point me to ONE scripture verse that says ALL/EVERYTHING that is needed for growth/for faith is contained in scripture.
We all know that scripture is for growth, but no where in the Bible does it say the SOLE/ONLY source of growth or desposit of faith is in scripture.
You added the word ‘only’ and so did luther. Let’s see some ideas behind the protestant reformation:
“Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”
“I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.”
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.”
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/luther1.htm
Strange words from a strange man that initiated the reformation. If that’s how the church started, then we only need to take a look at the conclusion of today - 30,000+ denominations.
Game over.
Scripture in a vacuum is by no means what Christ taught. I don’t see how Protestants can take “sola scriptura” seriously. That strange doctrine doesn’t appear in Scripture. Similar unbiblical Protestant doctrines began appearing in the 1500’s, usually started by disgruntled Catholics.
2Tim:15,16. All scripture given to the church for growth
2Pet. 3:16. Peter speaks of the scriptures that the church used. The fact is, Jude, the apostles wrote constantly the things to be preached. Paul is full of this: Acts 25.26;1Cor. 4:14;14:37; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:9; 13:2,10. John also wrote, check out his epistles as well;Jude also wrote, check this out; lastly, John again in the Revelation was told to write these for all the churches in Asia.
The early church, Jude, was not oral bound; they had the scriptures as well as the witness of the apostles; they first used the OT, followered by their own writings. So oral traditon is irrelevant. Of course there must have been things said as witnesses spoke of Jesus. But they were soon put to pen and paper. Remember the Bereans. They went home and searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? See Acts 17:11. If it was all oral where could they go for confirmation?
As regards RC tradition, it is legion. Many false teachings were brought into the church at the death of the disciples until the church became the Apostate Church, the Holy Roman Empire is part of it, and persecuted those who opposed it. This is history, Jude. That is enough for now. Take care.
Jude, please do not accuse of attacking the RC Church while we both are discussing traditions and practices. I am afraid I do not see the validity of your ideas. The early church did have scripture to go by. Jesus used it, Paul used it, and so did Peter and the others. Paul wrote all his works before AD 67; the gospels were written from AD 50 if not earlier, certainly not much more later (55 or 56); John was the last to write ca. AD 96. He wrote for the churches. The NT was written, in the main, between AD 50 to AD 100. The churches had these writings.
While there obviously was a lot said by mouth they got their information from what they wrote down; and wrote down what they had seen and witnessed. From Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) to the last of these leaders they all used the writings of the NT as we have it today, in the main. I do not see the case for oral tradition; that is irrevelant; there must have been some things said first before put in writing; but the backdrop was always the scriptures, the OT books. Check this out:
Luke 24:25-27. Jesus referred to scripture.
Acts 17:2. Paul reasoned from the scriptures
Acts 17:11. People searched the scriptures daily
Acts 18:24,25. Scriptures used to show Jesus was Christ
Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 16:26. Scriptures are for us to have hope
1Cor. 15:3,4. Paul used the scriptures to preach; as was given him.
Quite fitting that this online debate takes place on this Sunday when we look at the figure of the Good Shepherd. While on earth Christ was that good shepherd, when He appointed Peter to guide and protect the flock, it is clear that Jesus saw HIS CHURCH, founded on the pillars of the 12 apostles, who will give continuity throughout the ages through their successors. We are not living in “special times”, heresies will come and go. The fact remains, however that Jesus himself stated that the Holy Spirit will guide The Church and it will do so until the end of time. So, we can argue till the cows come home, we can disagree among all the different splinter groups that have been formed since Henry VIII decided to have his way, but the fact remain that The Catholic Church is the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and it will be here until the end of time, when He comes again. The Holy Spirit, will be guiding this Church, as declared by Jesus himself until the end of time. This same Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church from Pentecost and will continue to steer the ship which is the Catholic Church until the end of time. This same Holy Spirit guided Peter and his successors until now with Benedict XVI and will continue to do so with the next Popes. (By the way, Holy Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom, Knowledge, Discernment and Love, the same Holy Spirit which governs the actions of the hierarchy of the Church).
I think it is true that Protestant Evangelicals are seeing the leadership about moral issues emerging amongst Roman Catholics which they wish they had, but don’t, and that, for that reason, they feel an affinity for RCs which they’ve never felt before. Protestants and Catholics still differ on basic doctrinal points, such as which comes first, the Bible or the guys who wrote the Bible and compiled the canon, and excluded Gnostic Gospels from that canon. But thinking Protestants are less hostile to Catholicism than they were half a century ago, because they see RC leaders courageously holding the line.
I’m not going to address the issues of purgatory and etc individually here because there is only 2000 characters I’m permitted, however you can do a google search on the matter. It is up to you to prove that scripture forbids these concepts since you are the one doing the accusing. I didn’t even bring it up, so until then, you have only brought up normative statements.
You also haven’t proved how the Church has taken away from scriptures. The only Church that has followed the teachings of the early church is the catholic church. Looking at commentaries from the early fathers and early teachers and defenders of the faith, protestant resembles absolutely nothing to it.
Funny you should bring up Luther, he was the one who was angry at James’ gospel. Luther came 1500 years after the scripture. To imply that Luther was correct would mean the church (as a whole) was in error for 1500 years and would contradict the statements in the Bible that Christ would always be with the Church. A church that is erroneous doesn’t have Christ with them (in terms of faith and morals)
Furthermore Christ established a hierarchy; show me which of the 30,000 protestant denominations offering ‘the truth’ have a hierarchy as established by Christ. Every time someone disagrees with their Church, they take it upon themselves to interpret and go preach and hence lead many more into error.
‘By their works will you know them’ - I’m sure it was not Christ’s prime intention to establish 30,000 denominations.
Your attacks at the RC isn’t valid until you provide proof. You are merely providing an opinion on ‘unbiblical teachings’. Some scriptures existed very early, for e.g. Paul’s. But some weren’t written until much later. In either case, like I already said, the scriptures, no matter how early it was, was written after Christ’s death. And they weren’t written by the actual disciples themselves, but people learning from the disciples, which adds years. The general public did not know or learn of these scriptures until 100’s of years later.
They stuck to tradition and the teachings taught by the disciples, they knew which traditions from old were intact and which weren’t. Sola scriptura doesn’t stand when scripture itself doesn’t give reference to it. If you want to claim that biblical fact is by scripture alone, then where in the bible does it say ‘only use scripture’?
1 Timothy 3:15 - The pillar and bulwark of the truth is the church. Why? Because it’s true, the church was instituted before scripture, the teachings existed yes, but a means of teaching was oral tradition until scripture could be studied.
Ron, thanks for giving me another brief overview of history. However your part 1 doesn’t prove your initial post:
“As for me, the Bible is to be our only basis for belief and action.”
Paul and the disciples may have had quoted the OT, and so did Jesus and many others at the time. But the Bible isn’t only the OT, the NT wasn’t confirmed until 380 A.D, that fact still stands. As for the oral traditions, early CHRISTIANS didn’t follow all the traditions that the OT did (Jews) considering the old covenant was superseded by Christ himself, I do not see how this statement holds:
“It is therefore certainly not correct to say that the early church (of the disciples) went by oral tradition, and that our NT does not go back to the originals.”
Unless of course you wish to imply that the NT is just a rewrite of the OT. Which it isn’t, so until the NT was affirmed are you implying that everyone still lived by the OT? No, that’s not true at all, but that’s what you are implying.
Addressing part 2 next.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >