Ship of Fools: Just who DOES identify as Protestant?

Thread: Just who DOES identify as Protestant? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027424

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

I have a new job. As well as my work in public libraries, I am now working as a market researcher, going door to door with surveys which I have to entice people to take.

The one I've been conducting the past couple of days was on people's opinions of the EU; apparently the same survey goes out in different EU countries, to gain people's perception of what the EU stands for and what is being done about the economic situation.

All interesting stuff, if a little repetitive, as these things so often are. But the thing that I want to focus on here, was a question in the classification section which asked people which religion they considered themselves to be. There were a series of radio buttons, so you could only pick one. The first three were Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, then came 'Other Christian' followed by other religions such as Islam, Hindu etc, then there were options like 'Other', 'Atheist', 'Agnostic/Don't Know', and probably a 'Prefer not to say'.

To my mind, if someone is a Christian, the first three options should have all the possibilities covered - if one is not Catholic or Orthodox, one must be some kind of protestant. Maybe that's a bit simplistic, but I think it would generally be held to be true by those who are informed about various branches of Christianity.

But it seems the man on the street is not very informed. Nobody in my sample chose Protestant, although one said they were C of E (but never attended church) and chose 'Other', and another, a regular weekly churchgoer, chose 'Other Christian', commenting that they didn't know what a Protestant was.

That's the trouble with the term Protestant in my opinion. People who ought to fall into that category, either don't know what it means, or think of themselves as 'Christian' primarily, maybe evangelical if pushed, but Protestant is just a term that is not commonly heard, except when hearing news about places like Northern Ireland.

Whereas Catholic and Orthodox are meaningful descriptors of those who belong to those churches, I thing Protestant has probably had its day. But what can we replace it with?

Just who DOES identify as Protestant?

Discuss!!

Posted by Curious Kitten (# 11953) on :

It's better than Christian. One delightful survey I didn't run away from fast enough changed my answer from Christian to Other Religion and penciled in Catholic when I told them my regular church was the Catholic Cathedral.

Mind you, they also tried to save my soul by proof texting at me without knowing the rest of the chapter or even complete verses.

[ 22. June 2014, 20:16: Message edited by: Curious Kitten ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think some people would want to distinguish at least between the Anabaptist branches and other non-RC, non-Orthodox groups. Otherwise (and maybe even so) the term "Protestant" will encompass such a wide variety of believers that it is almost useless. (E.g., Christian Scientist, Quaker, Southern Baptist snake-handlers, Seventh Day Adventists.) What do you do with the Coptic Orthodox Church? (The hot potato on the Ship is probably whether the Church of England is Protestant; I gather many would say not.)

By the way, did that collection of radio buttons include Jews? If so, is it lumping together the several major divisions of Judaism? If it includes Islam, does it distinguish between Sunni and Shiite?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The thing is HCH at least two historic UK denominations cross that boundary: the URC and the Baptists Union. Both of these draw a mix of Non-Conformists who pushed out of the CofE in 1549, who were largely Magisterial Reformed types (e.g. Calvinist and Lutherans) and Separatists who never even under the Commonwealth had any truck with CofE who were largely Radical Reformed types e.g. Anabaptists. You have to add a fair sprinkling of the heterodox and you get a mix that makes the CofE look tame.

To give you some idea what this means. In the URC we have trouble with "liberal" as our liberal wing are often those with a strong Anabaptists heritage.

Jengie

[ 22. June 2014, 20:39: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I'm not sure very many CofE folk would want to choose "Protestant" without putting some sort of qualification on it. I've even heard pretty conservative CofE Evangelicals insist on the formula "Catholic and Reformed".

For Christian groupings alone, at the hospital where I work we've got Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic, Catholic, Anglican, Church of England, Methodist, Baptist, Protestant, United Reformed, Presbyterian, Evangelical Christian, Pentecostal, Free Church, Nonconformist, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian, Quaker, Unitarian, Christian Scientist, Mormon, and Jehovah's Witness. (I know some people would dispute whether some of those "count". Also, I'm working from memory and may well have missed someone!)

Not that many people opt for "Protestant". (Well, look at the choice they've got!) Some seem to choose "Nonconformist" because they don't want to identify with anything in particular, rather than because they're Nonconformist in the traditional sense.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

1549?

[Confused]

Don't you mean 1662?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Sorry my poor checking. Yes I did check and that is why I got it wrong, as I keep forgetting the earlier acts of Uniformity.

Jengie

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Back in the day my boss was from Glasgow. He claimed to be Protestant and not Christian. The same ideas existed in Northern Ireland. We had a few discussions about what Protestant and Catholic meant, he refused to accept it was anything other than political.

For this reason I refuse to self describe as protestant, to some it would mean I was claiming to belong to a political grouping where I do not belong.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Who self-describes as protestant? Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox christians in Catholic or Orthodox-dominated countries, that's who. Especially French ones.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

Perhaps you should specify what denominations fall under "Protestant" within your survey if that is how you wish those individuals to identify themselves?

As an aside, I would be surprised if you had the same result in the U.S.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Other than Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, don't forget the non-Chalcedonians (Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians), the Mar Toma, Syriac Whatsits (apologies to Syriac Whatsians; can't remember the name of the church), and so on. Folks that broke off from the Orthodox/Catholic Church before 1054.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Lutherans are not Reformed.

As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.

So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
the Mar Toma,

The Mar Thoma church is Protestant in the Anglican tradition, and took its final form in 1889.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've also noticed that some historians of religion see Pentecostalism as a separate development from Protestantism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?

Churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation as led by Luther, Calvin, et al., or those descended from them, or those created subsequently in their image and/or likeness.

It's a start.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
the Mar Toma,
The Mar Thoma church is Protestant in the Anglican tradition, and took its final form in 1889.

OK.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Lutherans are not Reformed.

As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.

So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?

What about Spiritual Presence and Baptismal Regeneration? That's classic Reformed/Methodist and the doctrinal position of the United Church of Canada per the Articles of Faith, 1925.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've also noticed that some historians of religion see Pentecostalism as a separate development from Protestantism.

I think it is some stretch to say that Pentecostalism is a separate development. Its roots are clearly within Protestantism.

What about the vestigial forms of groups that split off from the Catholic Church before Luther? And where do we put people like the Doukhobors, whose roots are in Eastern Europe?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Lutherans are not Reformed.

As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.

So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
What about Spiritual Presence and Baptismal Regeneration? That's classic Reformed/Methodist and the doctrinal position of the United Church of Canada per the Articles of Faith, 1925.

Lutherans believe in "total" Real Presence, body-soul-spirit-and-whatever-else presence of Christ. I'm suspecting that's quite different from what you mean by Spiritual Presence.

I don't know if or how your position on baptismal regeneration differs from ours, it may or may not. But no surprises if there is some continuity, the Reformed took their beginning from Lutheranism.

To be blunt about it, our position on the sacraments is the one that Catholics would probably describe as wrongheaded and lacking clarity, while most Protestants would call plain superstition. If not worse.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
Churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation as led by Luther, Calvin, et al., or those descended from them, or those created subsequently in their image and/or likeness.

It's a start.

True. Though it is a bit unfair to the Hussites etc. who preceded Luther and whom he acknowledged as forerunners.

But yes, if we're clearly speaking in historical terms, we will acknowledge the term Protestant.

Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals. Which is almost as misleading as those who believe us to be Roman Catholics in disguise.

Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
[Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals.

Of course the Lutheran Church in Germany is called "Evangelische." [Biased]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've also noticed that some historians of religion see Pentecostalism as a separate development from Protestantism.
I think it is some stretch to say that Pentecostalism is a separate development. Its roots are clearly within Protestantism.

But we could equally say the roots of Protestantism are within Catholicism. We're all related somewhere along the line, but the question is at what point we become significantly different.

Pentecostalism is certainly developing a life of its own in the world today. There are some who suggest that Pentecostalism represents the future, in which case Protestantism may come to rely on Pentecostalism rather than the other way round.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals.
Of course the Lutheran Church in Germany is called "Evangelische."

And the main Lutheran body in the US is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Obviously, the primary meaning of "evangelical" has shifted.

But yes, there's no question that Lutherans are not Reformed. Historically, the three main strands of continental Protestantism were the Evangelical (Lutheran), Reformed (primarily Calvinist, though some others as well) and Anabaptist.

But I've never known any Lutherans who eschew the label Protestant.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Lutherans are not Reformed.

As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.

So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
What about Spiritual Presence and Baptismal Regeneration? That's classic Reformed/Methodist and the doctrinal position of the United Church of Canada per the Articles of Faith, 1925.
Lutherans believe in "total" Real Presence, body-soul-spirit-and-whatever-else presence of Christ. I'm suspecting that's quite different from what you mean by Spiritual Presence.

I don't know if or how your position on baptismal regeneration differs from ours, it may or may not. But no surprises if there is some continuity, the Reformed took their beginning from Lutheranism.

To be blunt about it, our position on the sacraments is the one that Catholics would probably describe as wrongheaded and lacking clarity, while most Protestants would call plain superstition. If not worse.

I think you may be equating Protestantism = Baptist, because that's the non-regenerative, pure memorialist line. And you've gone and coloured over vast swaths of people who do identify as Protestant: The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church of the US, the UCCan and a large part of the United Church of Christ. And that's much of Protestantism in North America today.

Respectfully, I think your definition of Protestant is far too narrow.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Uh no, I don't think so. I'm aware that other positions exist besides the pure memorialist one. I'm simply saying that to the best of my knowledge, Lutherans are unique in their particular view of the Lord's Supper, which, when explained, tends to get major raised eyebrows. We are neither memorialist nor transubstantiationalist nor even consubstantiationalist. And we don't hold to the Calvinist position described in the Institutes, or to its later variant.

As for baptismal regeneration--

yes, we do hold to this, but we also hold that the saved can fall away and be lost. I do not know whether there are other Protestants who can say that they hold both doctrines at the same time.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

But I've never heard anyone suggest that Lutheran views on the Real Presence or on baptismal regeneration disqualify Lutherans from being Protestant. I'd think any raised eyebrows would have to come from people who don't understand what Protestant means.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Uh no, I don't think so. I'm aware that other positions exist besides the pure memorialist one. I'm simply saying that to the best of my knowledge, Lutherans are unique in their particular view of the Lord's Supper, which, when explained, tends to get major raised eyebrows. We are neither memorialist nor transubstantiationalist nor even consubstantiationalist. And we don't hold to the Calvinist position described in the Institutes, or to its later variant.

As for baptismal regeneration--

yes, we do hold to this, but we also hold that the saved can fall away and be lost. I do not know whether there are other Protestants who can say that they hold both doctrines at the same time.

1) "Consubstantialism" is the classic handle for the Lutheran position; and
2) Regeneration + Saved can fall away is Arminianism and the classic and current position of Methodism.

Try again.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But I've never heard anyone suggest that Lutheran views on the Real Presence or on baptismal regeneration disqualify Lutherans from being Protestant. I'd think any raised eyebrows would have to come from people who don't understand what Protestant means.

True. But there's a shedload of thrm in my experience.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
1) "Consubstantialism" is the classic handle for the Lutheran position; and
2) Regeneration + Saved can fall away is Arminianism and the classic and current position of Methodism.

Try again.

I will.

Consubstantiationalism is close, but no cigar. The Lutheran position differs in that we refuse to specify exactly how the elements are present, or how Christ is present. In other words, we're bloody annoying, we just keep quoting the texts at people and refusing to draw conclusions, and we don't care.
[Big Grin]

As for the classic Arminian position, I was unaware that Arminians believe in baptismal regeneration. Seriously, they do? I'm referring to the belief that baptism creates faith and regeneration in a person (including infants) because of the promise associated with it--rather, the Holy Spirit does so, but that work is certain and not conditional on anything but God's promise alone. It is monergistic--an act of God alone, not dependent on any human precondition such as faith or willingness or what have you. All of that is supplied,given by God, through baptism. That's what we call baptismal regeneration.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Lamb Chopped, I have had the Anglican position on communion described to me in the same terms.

[ 23. June 2014, 02:52: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I can believe that! [Two face]

[ 23. June 2014, 03:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
1) "Consubstantialism" is the classic handle for the Lutheran position . . . .

Consistent with LC's post, every Lutheran and Lutheran source I've known rejects use of the term "consubstantiation" to describe the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. It seems to be a term non-Lutherans think describes the Lutheran position, but Lutherans themselves don't think so.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
True. But there's a shedload of thrm in my experience.

Too true, I'm afraid.

[ 23. June 2014, 03:06: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

[cross-posted]

What I mean is, I don't think the Lutheran position is as unique as you're painting it.

Episcopal church mocking gets really tiresome.

[ 23. June 2014, 03:10: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, I don't mean to paint it as unique on the basis of two doctrines. (everything is of course unique if you consider ALL the doctrines!) To be sure, we share a lot with others, and perhaps CofE most of all.

I'm just explaining why we get into trouble with certain folks over the term "Protestant."

ETA: I'm not sure what your last line means. did you think I was somehow mocking the CofE?

[ 23. June 2014, 03:14: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I was only thinking about the communion doctrine, actually.

What did you mean by "I can believe that! [Two face]

"?

I'm in the US, so Episcopal church, not CofE.

[ 23. June 2014, 03:23: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I meant that, if they say it of us, it doesn't surprise me at all that they say it of another part of the Christian family. Shared experience.

And sorry on the misidentification, my mind was back in the sixteenth century.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

^lightbulb moment^

This is what I THOUGHT you meant when you said that you had had your doctrine described in the same terms:

quote:
The Lutheran position differs in that we refuse to specify exactly how the elements are present, or how Christ is present. In other words, we're bloody annoying, we just keep quoting the texts at people and refusing to draw conclusions, and we don't care.

Looking back, I suspect you meant theological terms, and not the above. But the above is in fact exactly the kind of description I have heard frustrated non-Lutherans make of the Lutheran position, and many of us are perverse enough to enjoy it.

[ 23. June 2014, 03:32: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

[cross-posted -- let me see if what you just wrote clarified it for me]

"...if they say it of us..."

I don't know what this means. If who says what of whom? And I don't understand the [Two face]

.

[ 23. June 2014, 03:32: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

OK, now I see.

I only meant this part: "we refuse to specify exactly how the elements are present, or how Christ is present."

It's what I've had described to me by an Episcopal priest about the Anglican (including Episcopal) approach to communion.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Dang crossposts! I think we've got it sorted out now.

Yes, there is that major point of similarity between us and you, which is one reason our two groups are so closely related. We're obviously not 100% the same (polity, for instance) but on these two doctrines the similarity shows up really clearly.

And of course, you folks have had your own issues with the term "Protestant," at least some of you. Though I don't know if it is for the same reasons or not.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
As for the classic Arminian position, I was unaware that Arminians believe in baptismal regeneration. Seriously, they do? I'm referring to the belief that baptism creates faith and regeneration in a person (including infants) because of the promise associated with it--rather, the Holy Spirit does so, but that work is certain and not conditional on anything but God's promise alone. It is monergistic--an act of God alone, not dependent on any human precondition such as faith or willingness or what have you. All of that is supplied,given by God, through baptism. That's what

Seriously, they do, and so do Calvinists.

Article XVI of the UCCan's Basis of Union, drawn up at a conference in 1908:

quote:
We acknowledge two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ, to be of perpetual obligation as signs and seals of the covenant ratified in His precious blood, as a means of grace, by which, working in us, He doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and comfort our faith in Him, and as ordinances through the observance of which His Church is to confess her Lord and be visibly distinguished from the rest of the world.

No Presbyterian or Methodist here on the Ship will find that repugnant or even controversial.

As for annoying proof-texting Lutherans, whatever floats your boat. You can be as annoying as the Anglicans at times, but you're still Protestant.

"Protestant" is a negative definition really, it means you're not Roman Catholic, Not Orthodox and not part of an Eastern Churches who split pre 1054. It means your church or your spiritual forefathers split from Rome during the Reformation and there were multiple paths away from Rome during the Reformation.

So yes, Anglicans are Protestant (er, is that a General Confession I see in the Book of Common Prayer [Two face]

) and so are Lutherans. Methodists did not all of a sudden become Protestant in 1820 and the Reformed were just one path away from Rome.

Or to get wet, whether you swam the Thames, the Rhine or the Elbe you still swam away from the Tiber.

But oh to swim in Lake Geneva, where the waters run pure and the declarations of faith are refreshingly honest and brief.... [Angel]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If you look upthread, you'll see that I agreed to the term if we are speaking historically. The problem comes in with those who are using the term to classify doctrines.

Still not clear on the Arminianism. My understanding was that they were/are synergistic--that is, they conceive of human choice as playing some role in salvation, however small that may be. The Lutheran position is monergistic, and denies any role to human choice, willingness, receptivity, or whatchamacallit. This of course has a direct impact on baptismal theology--Lutheran baptismal regeneration is completely and totally one-sided.

ETA: on looking at your quote a second time, the two things that concern me (as a Lutheran, I mean) are the terms "ordinances" and "confess her Lord" used as a purpose of baptism. Both of those imply a human contribution to baptism which we deny.

[ 23. June 2014, 03:56: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Then you have misunderstood Article XVI. Those who are baptized choose it or have their guardians choose it for them. It is most manifestly a sign and display of faith and has ever been one of the Church's most precious acts of faith. This is quite aside from aspect of salvation and the terms "ordinance" and "confession of faith" do not refer to salvation at all.

Do Lutherans not ask the candidate or their guardians to confess their faith as part of the Act of Baptism?

The Arminian distinctive is that it admits that someone may resist salvation or fall away, but nonetheless God can and does save. You can choose God, but nevertheless God chooses.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Still not clear on the Arminianism. My understanding was that they were/are synergistic--that is, they conceive of human choice as playing some role in salvation, however small that may be.

Classical Arminianism teaches that God's universal prevenient grace gives fallen human beings the ability to accept or reject salvation.

Accepting a free gift is not a "work", particularly when the ability to accept comes from God, so Arminians believe that salvation truly is sola gratia.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Then you have misunderstood Article XVI. Those who are baptized choose it or have their guardians choose it for them. It is most manifestly a sign and display of faith and has ever been one of the Church's most precious acts of faith.

Thank you. You have made my point for me.

Lutherans do NOT consider baptism to be an act of faith, a display, confession, or sign of faith AT ALL. They consider it to be the wellspring of faith. Faith is a result* of baptism, baptism is not an act of faith.

(*yeah, yeah, of course we have converts where faith comes first and baptism follows. I am one of those. But that is normally the case with first generation converts, and the following generations are baptized in infancy, prior to faith.)

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Do Lutherans not ask the candidate or their guardians to confess their faith as part of the Act of Baptism?

No, we do not. We ask the candidate and/or sponsors to confess the faith of the one holy Christian church, into which the candidate is about to be baptized. The candidate may or may not already share in that faith (though if adult, that is normally the case). The question is irrelevant. That faith will become theirs through baptism, but it often, even usually (see: infants), does not exist in the person prior to baptism.

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Arminian distinctive is that it admits that someone may resist salvation or fall away, but nonetheless God can and does save. You can choose God, but nevertheless God chooses.

And we, of course, say that you cannot choose God--God does the choosing. Luther's the Bondage of the Will is the classic on this. We are free only to reject. Yes, I know this is illogical--that human choice works in only one direction. But Lutherans are not known for logic. If logic conflicts with what we see in the Scripture, logic can go hang.

That is the Lutheran distinctive, and it is precisely why Lutherans are so damned annoying.

[ 23. June 2014, 04:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What's wrong with this online definition?

quote:
A member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches

I think "Western" in this definition distinguishes between Western and Eastern Traditions and therefore the definition does not apply to the Orthodox and others, who follow the Eastern Tradition and protest that the Catholics are Heterodox in their claims of unique authority.

In summary, Protestant means non-Catholic unless you are follow the Eastern rather than the Western Tradition.

Simples? Too approximate? YMMV.

[ 23. June 2014, 05:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Wot about us Anglicans that believe we're the middle way? [Big Grin]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, it makes you Catholic in your own eyes (like me) but not a Catholic in RC eyes. I think you're in an "ecclesial community, aren't you.

And if you want to protest against that judgment, (which in my view is only right and proper to do), doesn't that make you a protestant?

[ 23. June 2014, 07:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Catholic substance and protestant principles is an Anglican catchphrase.

But I think it might be Lutheran too.....

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Or to get wet, whether you swam the Thames, the Rhine or the Elbe you still swam away from the Tiber.

But oh to swim in Lake Geneva, where the waters run pure and the declarations of faith are refreshingly honest and brief....

But, surely a lake is a place where the waters do not run, unlike a river.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
To my mind, if someone is a Christian, the first three options should have all the possibilities covered - if one is not Catholic or Orthodox, one must be some kind of protestant. Maybe that's a bit simplistic, but I think it would generally be held to be true by those who are informed about various branches of Christianity.

Just who DOES identify as Protestant?

Discuss!!

The term 'protestant' was useful for a time when there was a protest going on against the Catholic church. Now it is no longer a useful category and is mainly used by catholics who don't recognise that by and large they lost the argument and that christianity broke away from catholicism several hundred years ago.

The issue is not really trying to make a tripartite division into Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox as though those categories really matter in God's view. That's more a box-ticking exercise for those who are insecure in their identity as part of the family of God.

That's not to say catholics can't be christians. I know a fair few who recognise that the two are not synonymous and can hold on to both identities.

Labels serve a purpose for a time, but if kept for longer than they are necessary they serve only to divide. So to those who would advocate trying to insist on labels and sub-divisions, I would gently point them to 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I pretty much agree with one of TheAlethiophile's main points, in that 'Protestant' was inherently defined as being not something, rather than being something. It meant 'not Catholic' in an environment where 'Catholic' had previously been the default position. It's an umbrella term for various groups that were defined by not being Roman Catholic, not necessarily by their own shared common doctrines.

They did probably start with a lot of shared ideas, but there's nothing inherent in the label to keep the 'brand' together. If you departed from Catholic views, you were no longer a Catholic. If you departed from Orthodox views, you were no longer Orthodox. If you departed from existing Protestant views, you were... another interesting new variety of Protestant to add to the list.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals.
Of course the Lutheran Church in Germany is called "Evangelische."

An Evangelische church I used to work for in Germany translated itself as "Protestant"; you are right, of course, it is Lutheran. The word "evangelical" in German is evangelikal, though I believe that Freikirche (Free-church) is more commonly used. I've hardly heard evangelikal used.

I raise this, as I would myself translate evangelisch with Protestant, as I'm not sure that many of those I would be speaking with (I did tours for international groups) would understand Lutheran, at least, British groups. They would read Evangelisch and presume that it is evangelical.

This is another example of confusion. Here in Poland people don't tend to have heard of the Anglican church, and I get called protestant; I've even used the word myself, a word I wouldn't ordinarily use.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I see Euty got here first. Don’t forget that in some places, Catholic is still the default position.

In my locality, ‘Protestant’ is a widely used, uncontroversial and useful term. Self-described Protestants are members of Reformed Calvinist churches (their buildings are known here as ‘temples’ to distinguish them from Catholic places of worship).

The term is usually separate from ‘evangelical’, which covers a wide variety of Baptist, Pentecostal and other free or nonconformist churches.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Except that if they think they are in danger of being labelled a cult, evos will quickly lay claim to the "protestant" moniker. These churches are increasingly Eglise Protestante Evangélique, indeed our trust deed says that's what our church is [Paranoid]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
What about the vestigial forms of groups that split off from the Catholic Church before Luther? And where do we put people like the Doukhobors, whose roots are in Eastern Europe?

I think that both the Waldensians (generally) and the Hussites (by and large) self-identify as protestant or reformed.

Eastern groups tend not to.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Churches of the Reformation, perhaps? That's ambiguous too, of course, but might be more useful as a general catch-all than "Protestant".

I am reminded of a sermon I heard preached at Westminster Abbey many years ago, in which the homilist concluded, "And that is why whenever I am asked by visitors 'Is this a Protestant or a Catholic Church?' my answer is always 'Yes'."

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel
I raise this, as I would myself translate evangelisch with Protestant, as I'm not sure that many of those I would be speaking with (I did tours for international groups) would understand Lutheran, at least, British groups. They would read Evangelisch and presume that it is evangelical.

You would be correct to do so. The German word "evangelische" means simply Protestant. It was (part of) the name the German Protestants took for themselves, and lives on in the names of some of the major Lutheran bodies in North America (e.g., the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, almost totally German by extraction).

"Evangelische" carries almost none of the connotations of the English word evangelical; in that sense it is a false cognate.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

The idea that Anglicans aren't Protestants has always puzzled me, and I've only encountered it here on the Ship. Looked at historically, of course we are Protestant; that doesn't stop us from being Catholic and Orthodox also (and therefore The One True Church [Snigger]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As an Anglican, I loathe the word protestant.

You will not find the word 'protestant' anywhere in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The idea that Anglicans aren't Protestants has always puzzled me, and I've only encountered it here on the Ship.

It's what I was taught in Sunday School: we are neither Catholic nor Protestant, but our own category in between.

I think the reasoning is that the Church of England split from the Pope for different reasons than the reasons in Europe, and not directly or indirectly because of Luther. Although I suppose that if one looked closer one might find a great overlap of reasons all the way around, indebtedness to earlier reformers, etc.

I was mighty puzzled several years later when I started reading the fine print of the (US) BCP and discovered we were the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Thinking back all these years, I don't know what particular definition of "Protestant" my Sunday school teacher was using. Hearing from Lamb Chopped that at least some Lutherans, who I think of as being the original and prototypical Protestants, might hesitate to use the word Protestant because of how the meaning has drifted in various areas, really has me wondering if I understood why my Sunday school teacher said what she did, or not.

Despite hesitating mightily when confronted with a form that offers me a Catholic/Protestant choice, and looking for "Other Christian" (and then feeling that I'm perhaps being too precious), if the form offered me "Mainline Protestant" I would check it off immediately. I don't know if there's a word for that, where "adjectiveA adjectiveB" is not perceived (by me at least) as a subset of "adjectiveB".

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As an Anglican, I loathe the word protestant.

leo, why is this? I'm genuinely interested in why the term arouses such strong feelings in you.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Does the Supreme Governor of the Church of England not have to promise to support the Protestant religion ?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

An interesting side note to the strangely legalistic name Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is that in 1861 when the bishops, clergy and laity of the secessionist Southern states met to form a separate ecclesiastical province, the name Reformed Catholic Church in the Confederate States of America came close to being adopted, and was defeated only by virtue of the strong opposition of the Bishop of Virginia. There was another attempt made by the re-united church after the Civil War to change the name to Reformed Catholic Church in the United States of America, but again this did not pass, and thereafter it was apparently felt that the name Protestant Episcopal was too much of a trademark to change at that point. What has happened instead is that in general use, the formal, legal name has been abandoned, and the Church now simply calls itself The Episcopal Church in all but formal documents with legal import.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Lietuvos, do you know why the word "Protestant" was adopted to start with (that is, when the Anglican church in the newly formed USA split from the mother Church of England)? My sister told me once, but I've forgotten, or at least the reasons that I can half-manufacture from my half-memory don't seem to make sense.

[ 23. June 2014, 16:40: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I would imagine TEC called itself Protestant in its official name to emphasize that even though it had bishops (which many people in the newly-created US thought of as inherently bad Popish things), it had nothing to do with the Pope. Before the American Revolution, even Anglicans in the US were highly resistant to any bishops residing in the Colonies. Being thousands of miles from the nearest bishop gave parishes huge amounts of autonomy, and the legacy of that continues today when you compare the autonomy of parishes and the power of lay Vestry members in TEC with that in the CofE.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As an Anglican, I loathe the word protestant.
leo, why is this? I'm genuinely interested in why the term arouses such strong feelings in you.

Because, unlike protestants, we continued the historic episcopate, so we have catholic orders.

We are the catholic church of this realm - we are not a new church founded by the whim of a king.

We believe in baptismal regeneration.

We have sacramental confession.

We accept the first 4 ecumenical councils.

We accept the catholic creeds.

says why we are not protestant

as does this.

and this

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Does the Supreme Governor of the Church of England not have to promise to support the Protestant religion ?

I hate this bit of the coronation oath but have to remember that it comes from a time when everyone was terrified of the Spainish Armada.

The coronation service is not a piece of official anglican liturgy and does not appear in our official formularies.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

HCH: Southern Baptists don't handle snakes, as a general rule. The late Jerry Falwell notwithstanding (Ha!). There are some mighty weird strains of backwoods Christians who do the snake handling thing but to my knowledge, Southern Baptists aren't into that.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I apologize for linking Southern Baptists as a group to snake handling.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that both the Waldensians (generally) and the Hussites (by and large) self-identify as protestant or reformed.

Eastern groups tend not to.

Depends what you mean by Hussites ...

AIUI most of the original Hussites met with Luther, decided they were pretty much on the same page, and agreed that they were Protestants. (The exceptions being a few rather strange groups that have disappeared from history.) They remained as a sizeable proportion of the Czech population until the end of the Thirty Years' War, when they were all forcibly expelled and mostly ended up in Germany.

Some time in the eighteenth century, a certain Count Zinzendorf decided that the descendants of these exiles ought to remember their Hussite heritage and founded the Moravian Brethren as a continuation of the Hussite church. Brethren churches were not established in the Czech Lands until (IIRC) the late nineteenth century. Today they are called either Bohemian or Moravian Brethren depending on which half of the Czech Republic they happen to be located in, have a worship style that is largely 'Protestant' with lots of congregational hymns, and AFAICT would be happy to identify as Protestant.

There is another Hussite church which was founded round about the same time as Czechoslovakian independence with the aim of being a 'national' church, at a time when Catholicism was associated with the Habsburgs. This church is episcopal, with women bishops, and the one service I have attended resembled a long and moderately high Anglican service. A lot of the liturgy was sung and the words seemed to be drawn, as far as I can tell, from historical Western and Eastern liturgies. I think it would show the same caution as high Anglicans about the word 'Protestant' but I may be wrong.

[ 23. June 2014, 18:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Lamb Chopped:
You may be illogical, but here I think you're just plain missing the point. AIUI, Lutheran consider baptism to be a sacrament; and a sacrament is an act of faith and a display of faith.

quote:
No, we do not. We ask the candidate and/or sponsors to confess the faith of the one holy Christian church, into which the candidate is about to be baptized. The candidate may or may not already share in that faith (though if adult, that is normally the case). The question is irrelevant. That faith will become theirs through baptism, but it often, even usually (see: infants), does not exist in the person prior to baptism.

Er, you do include words like "Do you renounce the Devil and all his works?" or "Do you promise to raise X in the Christian faith" during a baptism? That's a confession of faith. As is "I/We believe in God the Father...." Note the personal pronoun.

I can proof-text out of Lutheran liturgy sites if you want....

As for "ordinance", the Sacraments were ordained by God to be kept by His people, hence ordinance. There's nothing memorialist in there and it's a very innocuous and academic use of the word, though today it's a bit of an obsolete usage.

Then again, I'm never terribly bothered by Calvinist/Arminian debates, The UCCan just said "whatever" to them in 1925 and we've been happy with that ever since. The Articles of Faith do not, notably, discuss the manner of salvation.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As an Anglican, I loathe the word protestant.

You will not find the word 'protestant' anywhere in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

I'm always amused by the way that a certain type of Anglo-Catholic who wouldn't be seen dead in a field with the theology or liturgy of the Prayer Book regards it as nigh on infallible when it fails to describe the C of E as protestant at any point.

It might be added, of course, that the words 'Incarnation' and 'Trinity' cannot be found in the New Testament.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Lamb Chopped:
You may be illogical, but here I think you're just plain missing the point. AIUI, Lutheran consider baptism to be a sacrament; and a sacrament is an act of faith and a display of faith.

One last effort, and then I'll give up. No more after this, we're probably boring the pants off people.

Yes, Lutherans consider baptism to be a sacrament.

No, a sacrament is NOT an act of faith nor a display of faith. It is something that God does and gives. This is the Lutheran view.*

And if you don't believe me, look up "manducatio indignorum," which is the Lutheran doctrine that even unbelievers who receive the Lord's Supper (another sacrament!) do in fact receive Jesus' real body and blood just as believers do. The sacrament remains a sacrament even in the total absence of faith.* Similarly infant baptism is performed on a person who is born without faith and does not possess it until the sacrament itself happens. In the Lutheran view, FAITH DOES NOT DETERMINE THE NATURE OF A SACRAMENT. Dare I say it? Faith is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether it is a sacrament or not.**

* which you may, of course, disagree with. But believe me when I tell you something about my own denomination which I've studied for nearly forty years.

** certainly this is not recommended!

*** Faith is not of course irrelevant if we are considering what happens AFTER the sacrament, that is, the infant now possesses faith (as an effect, not a pre-existing condition), and the unworthy communicant receives judgement rather than blessing because of his lack of faith.)

No more on this now (at least from me).

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

A distinction without difference.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

And if you don't believe me, look up "manducatio indignorum," which is the Lutheran doctrine that even unbelievers who receive the Lord's Supper (another sacrament!) do in fact receive Jesus' real body and blood just as believers do.

Well, I think that's interesting even if no-one else does. [Big Grin]

It does suggest the average Lutheran has a higher view of the Eucharist than the average Anglican - people like leo, take note.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
A distinction without difference.

I'm not sure I see how. The distinction LC is drawing rings true to my Reformed ears, though in some instances the implications of what that means might lead us to a few different conclusions than it does the Lutherans. But we would firmly agree that sacraments are not a "display of faith."

And at least in Reformed understanding, though the sacraments may sometimes be subsumed under the umbrella of "ordinances," there is a significant distinction between a sacrament and an ordinance.

[ 23. June 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Et tu? I'm Reformed too and I do not agree at all with that point, Nick Tamen.

Again, per the UCCan's Basis of Union, Article 2.16:

quote:
We acknowledge two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ, to be of perpetual obligation as signs and seals of the covenant ratified in His precious blood, as a means of grace, by which, working in us, He doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and comfort our faith in Him, and as ordinances through the observance of which His Church is to confess her Lord and be visibly distinguished from the rest of the world.

Relevant clauses italicized. The Basis of Union was drawn up in 1908 so it's not some new-wave thing.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

And if you don't believe me, look up "manducatio indignorum," which is the Lutheran doctrine that even unbelievers who receive the Lord's Supper (another sacrament!) do in fact receive Jesus' real body and blood just as believers do.
Well, I think that's interesting even if no-one else does.

It does suggest the average Lutheran has a higher view of the Eucharist than the average Anglican - people like leo, take note.

Maybe in reference to the CofE with its large evangelical wing. Confession of the objective Real Presence is likely more widespread in TEC, even if many communicants don't have a very clear theology of the Eucharist.

[ 23. June 2014, 21:41: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Et tu? I'm Reformed too and I do not agree at all with that point, Nick Tamen.

Again, per the UCCan's Basis of Union, Article 2.16:

quote:
We acknowledge two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ, to be of perpetual obligation as signs and seals of the covenant ratified in His precious blood, as a means of grace, by which, working in us, He doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and comfort our faith in Him, and as ordinances through the observance of which His Church is to confess her Lord and be visibly distinguished from the rest of the world.
Relevant clauses italicized. The Basis of Union was drawn up in 1908 so it's not some new-wave thing.

Perhaps I'm missing the precise point you're not agreeing with, but I don't see how what you've italicized, or most of the rest of what you've quoted, disagrees with what I said.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

That a sacrament is not a display of faith and this is somehow alien to Reformed theology.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think the reasoning is that the Church of England split from the Pope for different reasons than the reasons in Europe, and not directly or indirectly because of Luther.

Our reasons are more embarrassing, frankly.

I grew up thinking I was Anglican and therefore Protestant. The emphasis may well be different in different parts of the world.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That a sacrament is not a display of faith and this is somehow alien to Reformed theology.

I think you need to explain what you mean by "display of faith."

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

By "Display" I mean a sign, a public act, observances by which the Church confesses her Lord and is distinguished from the rest of the world (per my quote).

What did you think I meant?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
By "Display" I mean a sign, a public act, observances by which the Church confesses her Lord and is distinguished from the rest of the world (per my quote).

What did you think I meant?

Not that, exactly. Based on your disagreement with what LC was saying, I took you more to be saying that a sacrament is a way in which the recipient of the sacrament declares his or her faith—more like the traditional Baptist understanding that baptism is an ordinance by which one, in obligation to Christ's command, testifies to his faith by submitting to baptism.

But I have to say that the sense you mean is somewhat alien to anything I have been taught in my lifetime (50+ years) as a Presbyterian. Yes, I would agree that in the broader context of the celebration of a sacrament as in all worship, and in response to God's grace, the church confesses what it believes. But in the sacrament itself, it is God, not the church and not the recipient, who acts. And I think that's what LC was getting at. It's what I was getting at.

For example, when the church celebrates a baptism, the parents typically join in confessing the faith of the church, though as the recipient is typically an infant, the one actually receiving the baptism does not. But that declaring of the church's faith is not the baptism; it is essentially part of the request for baptism. The sacrament of baptism is the washing with water in the name of the triune God. And in the sacrament of baptism, it is God who cleanses, God who signs and seals, God who claims and God who regenerates. We receive.

And while unlike LC I have never had people in other (Protestant) traditions tell me that Presbyterians are not Protestants for believing this, I have had some of those folks suggest we aren't really Christian because of it.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

This seems like an interesting point in this thread to discuss the growing trend in the Southern Baptist Church and in various nondenominational evangelical churches in the US for ministers to embrace Calvinism/Reformed doctrine. This is such a phenomenon that congregations that aren't crazy about Calvinism are being warned by other congregations to look out for hotshot young ministers interviewing for a post as pastor who answer theological questions diplomatically and then once in position try to reshape the church on Calvinist lines. Since most of these churches practice believers' baptism, I'm not sure whether their definition of Calvinist/Reformed theology extends also to baptism or whether it merely covers soteriology (TULIP). Not sure whether, regarding Holy Communion, they are memorialist or whether they believe in a pneumatic presence for believers only. If some of them are memorialist, I am not sure whether that counts as a Reformed belief or not.

I have heard that "Calvinist Baptists" were quite common in the UK in the 19th century - is this the tradition that these people are drawing from?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
But I have to say that the sense you mean is somewhat alien to anything I have been taught in my lifetime (50+ years) as a Presbyterian. Yes, I would agree that in the broader context of the celebration of a sacrament as in all worship, and in response to God's grace, the church confesses what it believes. But in the sacrament itself, it is God, not the church and not the recipient, who acts. And I think that's what LC was getting at. It's what I was getting at.

It's not about our will vs. God's Will in some either/or thing. It is not about salvation but about sanctification and what God calls us to do through faith.

Perhaps we are talking past one another; you and LC are talking about salvation when I am speaking of sanctification.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's not about our will vs. God's Will in some either/or thing. It is not about salvation but about sanctification and what God calls us to do through faith.

Perhaps we are talking past one another; you and LC are talking about salvation when I am speaking of sanctification.

I think we are talking past each other, but I'm frankly not sure about what. I'm not talking about salvation or about human will vs God's will. I'm talking about the traditional Reformed understanding of what a sacrament is.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Perhaps we are talking past one another; you and LC are talking about salvation when I am speaking of sanctification.

Aren't they essentially the same thing, that salvation is a process of sanctification, or as we in the East call it, theosis?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Considered as a branding exercise, "Protestant" is a bad label. By and in itself it indicates a dependence on another, namely the RCC against which this protest was/is raised. There is a psychological difference between saying "they are wrong" and "I am right", even if that has the same doctrinal content. The latter is the message that you want for a religious sales pitch.

"Lutheran" and "Calvinist" are also less than ideal. They indicate a dependence on a historical person, rather than on eternal truths. Of course, one can have a single name standing for eternal truths, as indeed in the label "Christian". But since that spot is taken in Christianity, there is not really room for putting another person forward. I note furthermore that even if we identify a person with eternal truths, it is often done via an "abstract" title given to that person. So we have "Christianity" not "Jesuism", and "Buddhism" not "Gautamaism". This is correct sales psychology, it points to the role of that person as truth bringer rather than simply to their individuality.

Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising. "Reformed" suffers from the same borrowed identity problem as "Protestant", because it refers to the RCC as that which had to be reformed.

Ideal labels from a sales point of view are those which rely on themselves, are not limited in their scope and indicate something grand and desirable. So "Catholic" is great ("Roman Catholic" less so, which is why the RCC refers to itself only as "Catholic"), it's the universal Church. Likewise "Orthodox" is an excellent label, it's the rightly believing church.

So "Evangelical" is probably the best general label for the Reformation churches. One really wants to be the good news church, after all. By the same principle labels like "Charismatic" or "Puritan" are excellent. Of course, "Puritan" has acquired bad connotations, but that is a matter of history not of advertisement psychology. Conceptually it is a good label to apply to your sect. I'm less convinced by "Ana/Baptist". From an advertisement point of view that is far too specific and "practical". It doesn't have visionary appeal, or at least it does not do so unless you are already deep into Christian specifics. "Methodist" sort of works, but is too uninspiring. Methodological people get the job done, I guess, but so does double-entry bookkeeping.

Overall, I think the German Lutherans did the right thing in adopting "Evangelical" as their name. It is a good advertisement label, and in fact it expresses something about the movement - namely the idea of putting the "good news" of scripture ahead of everything else. It is much better than "Protestant".

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising.

Au contraire. I think "Anglican" is a good label, precisely because it does reflect a specific nationality and culture. The culture from which Anglican comes reflects intellectualism, tradition, history and tolerance of differences of opinion and theology.

I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.

Admittedly not always, but it is there IMV.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

So "Evangelical" is probably the best general label for the Reformation churches. One really wants to be the good news church, after all.

Lord have mercy no. In theory perhaps, but in reality the term has been hijacked by cruci-centric nutcases. Heaven forbid I would call myself an Evangelical.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.

I'm actually quite speechless at this. But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
I'm actually quite speechless at this.

Good. Because it's true compared to other histories of a similar calibre.

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.

Yes I do.

But I've never lived in Britain.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
I'm actually quite speechless at this. But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.

You apparently haven't received a good enough education to read that Evensong is located in Australia, not Britain.

I disagree with her totally, but is it really so hard to read a post properly?

[ 24. June 2014, 11:18: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Hell call for CL. Not very hellish, to be honest, and it's in the TICTH thread as I didn't think it merited a thread of its own.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Well I am British Jade. But I grew up in Indonesia and have lived in Australia for the second half of my life. [Smile]

[x-posted with SCK]

[ 24. June 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This seems like an interesting point in this thread to discuss the growing trend in the Southern Baptist Church and in various nondenominational evangelical churches in the US for ministers to embrace Calvinism/Reformed doctrine. This is such a phenomenon that congregations that aren't crazy about Calvinism are being warned by other congregations to look out for hotshot young ministers interviewing for a post as pastor who answer theological questions diplomatically and then once in position try to reshape the church on Calvinist lines. Since most of these churches practice believers' baptism, I'm not sure whether their definition of Calvinist/Reformed theology extends also to baptism or whether it merely covers soteriology (TULIP). Not sure whether, regarding Holy Communion, they are memorialist or whether they believe in a pneumatic presence for believers only. If some of them are memorialist, I am not sure whether that counts as a Reformed belief or not.

In my experience and from what I've seen, it's primarily a matter of embracing Calvinist soteriology and concepts like the sovereignty of God. I have not heard of any that embrace a Reformed understanding of the sacraments, particularly baptism.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising.
Au contraire. I think "Anglican" is a good label, precisely because it does reflect a specific nationality and culture. The culture from which Anglican comes reflects intellectualism, tradition, history and tolerance of differences of opinion and theology.

I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.

Admittedly not always, but it is there IMV.

I rather think Ingo's point is that liking the connotation involves liking the English. Which might work fine for you (and indeed for me), but it's inherently limiting on a basis which is not about the church's theology, but its geography. There may well be people from different cultural backgrounds who would be a bit mystified as to why they would join an 'English' church.

It's significant that here in Australia it is quite definitely now the 'Anglican Church of Australia', and not, as it once was, ever described as 'the Church of England', as if it was somehow the spiritual equivalent of a national embassy. To me it signifies a conscious attempt to loosen the national association a little.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
I'm actually quite speechless at this. But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.

It's worth remembering that Voltaire's Treatise on Tolerance, which is generally taken as evidence of what a liberal advocate for freedom he was, in reality takes the pre-Emancipation England of his day as one of its models for a tolerant society. England, as we both know, was not very tolerant but it was more tolerant than most places.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Maybe in reference to the CofE with its large evangelical wing. Confession of the objective Real Presence is likely more widespread in TEC, even if many communicants don't have a very clear theology of the Eucharist.

Actually I was going by my faulty memory of the 39 Articles, which was silly because a. I'd misremembered what they say, b. most Anglicans never think about them, c. most of those who do don't regard them as binding.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

catholic me.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

Lambchopped, You've done an excellent job of explaining the Lutheran understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist. However, the baptismal liturgy asks the person to be baptised, the sponsors, and the congregation to recite the Nicene Creed...." the faith in which we baptize".

I suppose Lutherans are Protestant in the sense that they are not part of the RCC. However, if memory serves.....when the ELCA was originally constituted it had been proposed that it be called the Evangelical Catholic Church.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

And if you don't believe me, look up "manducatio indignorum," which is the Lutheran doctrine that even unbelievers who receive the Lord's Supper (another sacrament!) do in fact receive Jesus' real body and blood just as believers do.
Well, I think that's interesting even if no-one else does.

It does suggest the average Lutheran has a higher view of the Eucharist than the average Anglican - people like leo, take note.

I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.

Note that it is mandatory in the C of E to consume the consecrated remains - though, sadly, very few evangelicals do so any more.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've seen them chuck the bread out for the birds or into the bins and pour the wine away at our local evangelical Anglican parish.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As an Anglican, I loathe the word protestant.

You will not find the word 'protestant' anywhere in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
I'm always amused by the way that a certain type of Anglo-Catholic who wouldn't be seen dead in a field with the theology or liturgy of the Prayer Book regards it as nigh on infallible when it fails to describe the C of E as protestant at any point.

It might be added, of course, that the words 'Incarnation' and 'Trinity' cannot be found in the New Testament.

The NT isn't an authority in itself - the tradition of the church defined incarnation and trinity as legitimate understandings of scripture - e.g. John 1, Mat 28.

As for the theology and liturgy of the BCP, I am closer to what used to be called 'Prayer Book Catholic' than to Anglo-papalist.

For many years, I was used to BCP (albeit with some 1928 bits thrown in) and regarded it as capable of a catholic interpretation.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Considered as a branding exercise, "Protestant" is a bad label. By and in itself it indicates a dependence on another, namely the RCC against which this protest was/is raised. There is a psychological difference between saying "they are wrong" and "I am right", even if that has the same doctrinal content. The latter is the message that you want for a religious sales pitch.

"Lutheran" and "Calvinist" are also less than ideal. They indicate a dependence on a historical person, rather than on eternal truths. Of course, one can have a single name standing for eternal truths, as indeed in the label "Christian". But since that spot is taken in Christianity, there is not really room for putting another person forward. I note furthermore that even if we identify a person with eternal truths, it is often done via an "abstract" title given to that person. So we have "Christianity" not "Jesuism", and "Buddhism" not "Gautamaism". This is correct sales psychology, it points to the role of that person as truth bringer rather than simply to their individuality.

Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising. "Reformed" suffers from the same borrowed identity problem as "Protestant", because it refers to the RCC as that which had to be reformed.

Ideal labels from a sales point of view are those which rely on themselves, are not limited in their scope and indicate something grand and desirable. So "Catholic" is great ("Roman Catholic" less so, which is why the RCC refers to itself only as "Catholic"), it's the universal Church. Likewise "Orthodox" is an excellent label, it's the rightly believing church.

So "Evangelical" is probably the best general label for the Reformation churches. One really wants to be the good news church, after all. By the same principle labels like "Charismatic" or "Puritan" are excellent. Of course, "Puritan" has acquired bad connotations, but that is a matter of history not of advertisement psychology. Conceptually it is a good label to apply to your sect. I'm less convinced by "Ana/Baptist". From an advertisement point of view that is far too specific and "practical". It doesn't have visionary appeal, or at least it does not do so unless you are already deep into Christian specifics. "Methodist" sort of works, but is too uninspiring. Methodological people get the job done, I guess, but so does double-entry bookkeeping.

Overall, I think the German Lutherans did the right thing in adopting "Evangelical" as their name. It is a good advertisement label, and in fact it expresses something about the movement - namely the idea of putting the "good news" of scripture ahead of everything else. It is much better than "Protestant".

I agree that "Anglican" has connotations of "British Empire" in many parts of the world that are not exactly positive. However, it is worth pointing out that Anglicanism going all the way back to the Elizabethan Settlement has been rather unique among major strands of Christianity in that it has always regarded itself as part of the big-c Church but not as encompassing all of the "true" Church or even as encompassing all of the part of the Church that believes the correct version of the truth. So it is more appropriate for Anglican churches to have names that seem specific to a culture or country - because the denomination does not make the same claims to exclusive ownership of universality or orthodoxy that other denominations make (or made in the past). Other denominations now exist that are happy being "part of" the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that do not feel like they are more correct in their beliefs than everyone else, but back in the late 1500s to 1700s this was a pretty unique thing about Anglicanism.

(Big caveat) I do not mean in any way to claim that Anglicanism was tolerant of all other forms of Christianity or that it did not employ violent and brutal means to force itself upon subjects of the Crown for much of its history. I was referring more specifically to Anglicanism's historical view of itself in relation to other Christian denominations (as long as they were not Roman Catholic, and as long as they did not try to persuade people in the C of E to oppose the religious conformity that was equated with loyalty to the Crown).

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen them chuck the bread out for the birds or into the bins and pour the wine away at our local evangelical Anglican parish.

When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

It's perfectly possible for Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., to identify as both Protestant AND Catholic. The question is whether denominations that can trace their roots back to the Reformation (and to nondenominational Christians who if they put some thought into things would realize their theology and worship practices also can be traced back to the Reformation) would still identify as Protestant.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

Which others label would work? (given history etc)
Evangelical, Pentcostal etc seem to be subsets of Protestant. Reformed would either be another word for Protty or the more Genevan side depending.
Liberal, Progressive, Emerging could in theory apply to some RC's and Orthodox as well....

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.

Inaccurate about Lutherans as a whole (though God only knows about the ones you met)--
[Ultra confused]

in fact, as with so many others things, we simply don't know, and don't claim to know. This leads most of us (would that it were all!) to treat the remaining elements with great respect. They are normally consumed.

Organmeister, is that an ELCA liturgy? Because the one we use (LSB, when not Vietnamese) has no such passage.

I did find Luther's Flood prayer included in ours, which specifically asks God to give faith to the candidate, implying that it may not be present yet.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I know of an ELCA parish that regularly reconsecrates the leftover consecrated hosts from last Sunday in the following Sunday service. Is this allowed? Does standard Lutheran eucharistology support it?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, I dunno about the ELCA--it makes me go Mwwwmmmwwmmwwwmmwwmwmwmbl--but then, if we run out of bread/wine halfway through the communion, we (any of my past churches) don't carefully set aside what remains of the original consecration before consecrating the new batch. I don't know what the blast radius on the Eucharist is...

Seriously, this is why the Lutherans of my acquaintance generally stay away from things like reservation, re-consecration, etc. and instead Eat.It.All.Eat.It.Now to avoid the issue. Otherwise we're forced to take a stand, at least an implied one, on matters we really don't understand.

[ 25. June 2014, 00:38: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen them chuck the bread out for the birds or into the bins and pour the wine away at our local evangelical Anglican parish.
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.

But was this consecrated wine left over in the chalice? In which case it is not only sacrilege but very unhygienic - all that lipstick and spit.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I know of an ELCA parish that regularly reconsecrates the leftover consecrated hosts from last Sunday in the following Sunday service. Is this allowed? Does standard Lutheran eucharistology support it?

In catholic (Roman or Anglo) catholic thought, no eucharist takes place if bread isn't consecrated.

Since that bread had already been consecrated, no consecration had taken place in that eucharist so it was invalid.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.
Inaccurate about Lutherans as a whole (though God only knows about the ones you met)--

Six different Lutheran pastors over a fairly long period of time - all from Bavaria because our diocese has some twinning arrangement with them.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

Lambchopped, check out the baptismal liturgy in LBW. We are still using LBW, aka "the green book".

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.
But was this consecrated wine left over in the chalice? In which case it is not only sacrilege but very unhygienic - all that lipstick and spit.

I've no idea what they used by way of drinking vessels in the church, I never went to the actual services, just the vicarage. What we had was the leftover wine, poured out of a bottle.

On the occasions I have been to anglican communion I've usually seen the vicar(s) knock it back which usually means they end up a little tipsy by the time it comes to having a chat after the service.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I know of an ELCA parish that regularly reconsecrates the leftover consecrated hosts from last Sunday in the following Sunday service. Is this allowed? Does standard Lutheran eucharistology support it?
In catholic (Roman or Anglo) catholic thought, no eucharist takes place if bread isn't consecrated.

Since that bread had already been consecrated, no consecration had taken place in that eucharist so it was invalid.

I think the already-consecrated hosts were combined with unconsecrated hosts to be consecrated in the following weeks' service.

What is the standard Lutheran opinion on this?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.
Inaccurate about Lutherans as a whole (though God only knows about the ones you met)--

Six different Lutheran pastors over a fairly long period of time - all from Bavaria because our diocese has some twinning arrangement with them.

Iirc German Lutherans are much 'lower' than Scandinavian Lutherans, and ELCA Lutherans at any rate tend to have Scandinavian heritage. Most Lutherans in the UK (there are very few) are German-based ones.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.
But was this consecrated wine left over in the chalice? In which case it is not only sacrilege but very unhygienic - all that lipstick and spit.
I've no idea what they used by way of drinking vessels in the church, I never went to the actual services, just the vicarage. What we had was the leftover wine, poured out of a bottle.

On the occasions I have been to anglican communion I've usually seen the vicar(s) knock it back which usually means they end up a little tipsy by the time it comes to having a chat after the service.

If it's from the bottle, there is absolutely no problem and it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
What we had was the leftover wine, poured out of a bottle.

Which would suggest it was leftover in the sense of not having been poured into the chalice for consecration, rather than in the sense of having been consecrated but unconsumed.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

My understanding, as a CoE priest, is that consecrated bread and wine should be consumed. However, when I was Australia the practice seemed to be to give the remains of the wafers to the birds, and the wine watered the roses outside the vestry. Being a guest, I didn't like to make a fuss, but I wondered if this was official CoA policy or just a local practice.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In the TEC, leftover consecrated wine is poured on the ground. Some sacristies have drains that lead straight to the ground.

Moo

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In the TEC, leftover consecrated wine is poured on the ground. Some sacristies have drains that lead straight to the ground.

Moo

Uh, no. -- at least nowhere I'vd ever served. The celebrant, sacred ministers snd/or other lay servers in the sanctuary consume the Body and Blood. Only the remants of the ablutions - the bit not consumed already - would go to earth, most appropriately down the sacrarium. Consecrated hosts normally are placed in the tabernacle (on a ciborium). The stuff from the chalice that goes to earth I'd almost entirely water used to cleanse the chalice after ablutions at the altar.

[ 27. June 2014, 01:46: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Uh, yes. For the leftover wine in the chalice. Depending on the practice of the celebrant.

[ 27. June 2014, 03:02: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Here is my own position: As an Episcopalian (in communion with C of E), I understand us to be Catholic but not Roman. If I didn't think we were Catholic (with Apostolic Succession, "valid" Sacraments, etc.) then I would find another church.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I would expect that all denominations believe their sacraments are valid, and, as far as I can tell on the Ship, all believe that they are in proper succession to the apostles.

Could you say more about what you mean by valid, and by apostolic succession?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I would expect that all denominations believe their sacraments are valid, and, as far as I can tell on the Ship, all believe that they are in proper succession to the apostles.

Um... actually... no, not really. For a lot of churches, the notion of a "valid sacrament" is, in itself, well, heresy or even idolatry. They consider the bread and wine to be solely and exclusively symbolic, and that those of us who believe there is more than that to be, at very best, wrong.

quote:

Could you say more about what you mean by valid, and by apostolic succession?

All "as I understand it to be":

Re valid communion: That Jesus is really definitely in there somewhere, though I believe He can be in other churches' sacraments as well as He wishes. It's more that with a priest in genuine Apostolic Succession, the bread and wine definitely in some sense become His body and blood, not "possibly" or "probably." When I take communion at a different kind of church, I do pray that Jesus will be present in it, rather than just trusting that He already is, if that makes sense.

Re Apostolic Succession: That the priests and bishops do indeed, via a line of laying down of hands from the original Apostles, have "valid" ordination and thus "valid" sacraments, basically. My understanding of this is that this applies to the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches, and also to some very small Latvian and Estonian Lutheran churches--in the US, the Episcopal church has come into communion with the US Lutheran church, but new Lutheran clergy apparently have to be ordained with at least one Episcopal bishop involved (this was the way I understood things to be some years ago, at least), which arguably opens up all kinds of issues about whether this straight-out says that apart from that, the Lutherans didn't have AS before, which I think makes things awkward at best on both sides, and I'm not entirely sure what the point was of full communion given all of that.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0