The study of ancient Christianity has always been inspirational to me. I love to learn about Early Christianity. Yet the more I learn of Early Christianity, the weaker I see the theology of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals. Not only was the early church very liturgical, but its beliefs about free will, salvation, baptism, and the Eucharist were far from much of contemporary Evangelicalism in America.
To make matters more clear, I no longer consider myself a Protestant. There are many reasons for this. I find Peter Leithart's Reformation Catholicism more attractive than what many today think of Protestantism*1. For example, Leithart says Protestants believe whatever is opposite of the Catholic Church, which is an area where he disagrees with them. On the contrary, he affirms the Reformation and sees himself as a Reformation Catholic.
Leithart's opinion is not alone, however. Some Lutherans don't consider themselves ''Protestant'' as the word originally had political implications about protesting the Holy Roman Emperor rather than that of the Catholic Church's theology. Perhaps more complicated still, Protestantism has lost theological meaning, with Kenneth Copeland, Baptists, and Lutherans all classified by Catholics as Protestants. And even if the term ''Protestant'' is used only to describe those denominations that were born in the Reformation, this too changes its original meaning as the word was historically used to describe German Lutherans who dissented from the emperor's condemnation of Luther (and did not refer to Lutherans in Noway or Anglicans in England). Luther himself preferred the term ''Evangelical.'' Unfortunately, in the present day, the meaning of the word, ''Protestant'' is often deployed by people who disregard everything about the Catholic Church.
As discussed in one article written by a Lutheran*2, ''Protestants'' referred either specifically only to German Lutherans or, perhaps even more specifically, to those Holy Roman princes who objected to the emperor's condemnation of Luther. Certainly, over time, Anglicans and others would eventually grasp the term, but the meaning of Protestantism has changed over time.
Furthermore, the history of the term is full of so many complications, often depending on one's theology. While the Catholics considered all other Western Christians to be ''Protestant,'' Anglicans disregarded Baptists and others from being considered ''Protestants.'' And as already mentioned, Luther did not prefer this word to describe his followers and associates. Instead, the early Lutherans wished to be called ''Evangelical,'' as they saw themselves as being Gospel-centered.
Moreover, the early Anglicans, during Henry VIII's reign, accepted many Catholic practices and beliefs. While there is debate about whether Anglican should be considered ''Protestant,'' it's important to recall that Charles II, before his beheading by the Puritans, professed loyalty to the Protestant faith. The Episcopal Church, likewise, was historically titled ''The Protestant Episcopal Church,'' yet both of these were not at the origins of the Anglican Church. When one looks at the Church of England before the reign of Edward VI, for instance, the church itself was very Catholic.
Still, some may argue that Edward VI, not Henry VIII, founded the Anglican Church. Regardless of one's view on the origins of the Anglican Church, however, Anglo-Catholics were always present in the Church of England—long before the Oxford movement of the mid- and late nineteenth century.
How else can the term be defined? Some Catholics now list Mormons as ''Protestants.'' Likewise, some Reformed Baptists would consider themselves ''Protestants,'' though others would reject their legitimacy as Reformed Baptists were not born out of the Reformation. And if being simply a daughter church or a grandaughter church of a Reformation Church makes one ''Protestant,'' who has the authority to declare Kenneth Copeland or Joel Osteen from not being ''Protestant?'' Reformed Baptists? Why do they think that they get to define who is ''Protestant'' and who is not?
And even if we say that ''Protestant'' only refers to those Christians who dissented from Rome in the sixteenth century (as I once argued in the past), then can most Christians in even the Lutheran or Anglican denominations of today even claim to be Protestant, when most Anglican and Lutheran communions originated even later. Look at dictionaries to see how they define ''Protestant.'' You get various definitions. That's because it is more or less dead, with Catholics mostly keeping alive as they often generalize all other Western Christians (including KJennth Copeland) as Protestants. But whether it be TV Evangelists like John Macarthur, Ray Comfort, or Kenneth Copeland, none of these men have much in common with the early Lutheran Reformation. In fact, if the reader takes the time to study Luther's writings, in many ways, he is far closer to Rome than he is to these men.
Those who today consider themselves ''Protestant'' have essentially nothing in common with all those who have aligned themselves under this label. There is no confession, no creed, and no church council that they all agree with. To many Evangelicals, icons and images are in themselves breaking the Second Commandment, yet these were never the views of mainstream Lutherans before or after the Reformation.
In general, I think it's unfair how many Evangelicals disregard everything about Catholicism. I also think it's unfair, however, that many Catholic Apologists lump Joel Osteen, ELCA Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and the Church of England all into the fold of being Protestants. Mainstream American Evangelicalism has almost nothing to do with the Reformation, either in theology or history.
Previously, I used the term ''Moderate Protestant'' to distinguish myself from extreme Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. More recently, though, I would rather identify with the Reformation movements following the Book of Concord or The Thirty-Nine Articles than with those often classified as ''Protestants.'' Part of my change of view is learning more about the origin of the word ''Protestant'' and how it was originally only about a very specific group of people (which also concerned their political differences from their emperor).
Now, I no longer identify as a ''Moderate Protestant. I feel closer to both Confessional and High Church Lutheranism, along with Anglo-Catholicism, than I do with mainstream American Protestant Christianity. I also align closer with Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, than I do with Fundamentalism. In many ways, Luther and the early Lutherans looked far more Catholic than today's Baptists or Presbyterians.
Finally, I appreciate the definition of ''Protestant'' by Brittinnicca: ''Throughout the eighteenth century the word Protestant was still defined in relation to the 16th-century Reformation*3.'' This certainly would exclude Baptists from being true Protestants, as the Baptists were a separatist movement out of the Church of England in the seventeenth century.
For more information, I urge the reader to read the articles listed below.
*1-https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism
*2-https://katolikken.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/why-i-am-not-and-will-never-call-myself-a-protestant/
No comments:
Post a Comment