Is Protestant considered a derogatory label?
July 18, 2009 2:26 PM Subscribe
Is the name/label "Protestant" generally considered derogatory by non-Catholic/non-Eastern Rite Christians?
My fiancée is Assemblies of God. I was raised Catholic and have always referred to n-C/n-ER Christians as Protestant, and this is the first time that I've heard that Protestant is deregatory.
My fiancée is Assemblies of God. I was raised Catholic and have always referred to n-C/n-ER Christians as Protestant, and this is the first time that I've heard that Protestant is deregatory.
Uh, I can't imagine why anyone would hold that opinion. I used to BE AoG and never would have thought of the label Protestant as derogatory.
In my mind and in the mind of the folks I hang out with, it's just a descriptive for non Catholic Christians.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:31 PM on July 18, 2009
In my mind and in the mind of the folks I hang out with, it's just a descriptive for non Catholic Christians.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 2:31 PM on July 18, 2009
Nope. Knew many AoG folks (and people of most other denominations) who wouldn't have taken exception to this.
posted by BlooPen at 2:36 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by BlooPen at 2:36 PM on July 18, 2009
I've never heard of it being derogatory, but I could see how someone of a very specific belief set would not want to be lumped in with people who believe very different things. Especially if one believes that "those other guys" one is being grouped with have beliefs that are very much In The Wrong.
posted by amethysts at 2:37 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by amethysts at 2:37 PM on July 18, 2009
I'm not aware of any negative connotation of "Protestant" (apart from the tension with Catholics in some places). I checked my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and it didn't note any such meaning, whereas one of the definitions for "Jew" was flagged derogatory.
posted by paulg at 2:43 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by paulg at 2:43 PM on July 18, 2009
I've never heard of it having a derogatory meaning. I belong to a Protestant denomination and would not personally be offended to be referred to as such.
posted by pemberkins at 2:47 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by pemberkins at 2:47 PM on July 18, 2009
I've heard Mormons describe being called "Protestants" as derogatory. They didn't get their religion or their new scriptures from that ex-Catholic lineage, you see, they got it as revelation straight from God. All those copies of KJV translation errors are just a wacky coincidence...
posted by roystgnr at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by roystgnr at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
This lapsed Irish Catholic did notice a sense of otherness with it--we were all against the Brits in our minds in the 1980's.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:00 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by Ironmouth at 3:00 PM on July 18, 2009
I have had the same experience as you. Rarely, but on more than one occasion - being told quite snappily by somebody to refer to them as baptist or episcopalian or whatever rather than protestant. Where I grew up you were either "catholic" or "protestant" so I found it a bit odd and no offense was meant. So perhaps better safe than sorry.
I'm also catholic, and because I'm from Ireland some people over the pond here tend to think I must be very-catholic (anything but), although I'm not quite seeing a connection with that
posted by jamesonandwater at 3:02 PM on July 18, 2009
I'm also catholic, and because I'm from Ireland some people over the pond here tend to think I must be very-catholic (anything but), although I'm not quite seeing a connection with that
posted by jamesonandwater at 3:02 PM on July 18, 2009
My father was a Roman Catholic and my mother was a Presbyterian. We lived on Air Force bases, where the Christian religious services were labeled "Protestant" and "Catholic." (There typically weren't enough Eastern Rite.) This was in the 1960s-1970s.
I've never heard of "Protestant" being considered derogatory, although it doesn't seem common for members of a specific denomination to refer to themselves with the word.
posted by Robert Angelo at 3:07 PM on July 18, 2009
I've never heard of "Protestant" being considered derogatory, although it doesn't seem common for members of a specific denomination to refer to themselves with the word.
posted by Robert Angelo at 3:07 PM on July 18, 2009
Never heard it taken in a derogatory manner, except once in high school when a classmate, on being asked if she was a protestant, replied very huffily, "No, I'm a Baptist!" So I would think if anyone does take offense it's more because of historical ignorance than anything else.
posted by frobozz at 3:14 PM on July 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by frobozz at 3:14 PM on July 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm a Lutheran, and raised as such. I think there's a bit of weird denominational pride in the term "Protestant" for us. (The implicit thought being, "And who was the first Protestant? Thassright.")
In general, the older denominations of "The Protestants" don't mind the term because it's a useful way to describe their theology in terms of a specific departure from the Catholic Church at a certain time. But, if you asked someone belonging to one of those denominations, "Are you a Protestant?" they'd probably answer, "Yeah, I'm a [Specific Protestant Denomination]" rather than simply, "Yes."
I don't know much about the Assembly of God at all, but I think they're relatively new ("New" meaning within the last 100 years or so.) I could imagine someone from such a church not wanting to be described in terms of what they don't believe. After all, the "Protestant" name really means you're against something, and if you don't have any historical precedent to protest against, maybe that term would just imply that you're looking for a fight. (One could even think it might carry implications that you're against the Christian Church at large.)
In any case, the bigger denominations keep it as a useful umbrella, and I think a lot of non-denominational, evangelical churches in the USA use it. I've never heard of any stigma attached to it.
But, people should describe yourself like they want. Your fiancée could just be made aware that there are a lot of people who consider that a non-derogatory term.
posted by nicething at 3:36 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
In general, the older denominations of "The Protestants" don't mind the term because it's a useful way to describe their theology in terms of a specific departure from the Catholic Church at a certain time. But, if you asked someone belonging to one of those denominations, "Are you a Protestant?" they'd probably answer, "Yeah, I'm a [Specific Protestant Denomination]" rather than simply, "Yes."
I don't know much about the Assembly of God at all, but I think they're relatively new ("New" meaning within the last 100 years or so.) I could imagine someone from such a church not wanting to be described in terms of what they don't believe. After all, the "Protestant" name really means you're against something, and if you don't have any historical precedent to protest against, maybe that term would just imply that you're looking for a fight. (One could even think it might carry implications that you're against the Christian Church at large.)
In any case, the bigger denominations keep it as a useful umbrella, and I think a lot of non-denominational, evangelical churches in the USA use it. I've never heard of any stigma attached to it.
But, people should describe yourself like they want. Your fiancée could just be made aware that there are a lot of people who consider that a non-derogatory term.
posted by nicething at 3:36 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Have the fiancée read this page on their Web site.
The Assemblies of God is a Protestant fellowship. We believe each person may commune directly with God based on Jesus' death on the cross. This provides a personal and meaningful relationship with Him. While we are less formal in our worship to God than many protestant denominations, the Assemblies of God is very similar in faith, with the exception of its Pentecostal doctrine (Hebrews 4:14-16; 6:20; Ephesians 2:18).
Clearly the denomination officially self-identifies itself as Protestant. In fact, that's at the top of their list of descriptors: Protestant, Trinitarian, Evangelical, and Pentacostal.
posted by beagle at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
The Assemblies of God is a Protestant fellowship. We believe each person may commune directly with God based on Jesus' death on the cross. This provides a personal and meaningful relationship with Him. While we are less formal in our worship to God than many protestant denominations, the Assemblies of God is very similar in faith, with the exception of its Pentecostal doctrine (Hebrews 4:14-16; 6:20; Ephesians 2:18).
Clearly the denomination officially self-identifies itself as Protestant. In fact, that's at the top of their list of descriptors: Protestant, Trinitarian, Evangelical, and Pentacostal.
posted by beagle at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've never considered it derogatory.
However, I don't know what "n-C/n-ER " means. I'm guessing n-C is "non-Catholic", right?
posted by monkeymadness at 4:07 PM on July 18, 2009
However, I don't know what "n-C/n-ER " means. I'm guessing n-C is "non-Catholic", right?
posted by monkeymadness at 4:07 PM on July 18, 2009
I grew up as a Protestant and later read my way into the Catholic Church. I've never come across any reference to the the denotation "Protestant" as negative in any manner.
posted by keith0718 at 4:09 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by keith0718 at 4:09 PM on July 18, 2009
Ok, scratch that. I suppose I should have read the question a second time before posting. Sorry.
posted by monkeymadness at 4:10 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by monkeymadness at 4:10 PM on July 18, 2009
The vast majority of Protestants, myself included, would not take offense at being described as such. Indeed, as, nicething indicates, many Protestants--particularly those in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions--wear the term as something of a badge of honor.
But the Pentecostals, though technically Protestant in lineage, are a rather odd group, historically speaking. The Protestant Reformation was a more-or-less organized, deliberate break with a single, hierarchical tradition. This is a vast oversimplification, but the movement was led by learned theologians, who were deliberate about their actions and self-conscious about tradition. Revivals and revivalism have marked almost every century of the church's history, but as they tend to be somewhat distinct from institutional and hierarchical authorities, their staying power has been limited. The various groups that might be described as "pentecostal" throughout history, i.e. the perennial outbreaks of glossossalia, etc., don't actually constitute a continuous, contiguous tradition as such, and there have been ecstatic groups on the fringes of just about every major tradition.
Today's Pentecostalism can be traced to the Azuza Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906, where it emerged from the ministry of an African Methodist Episcopal preacher. But for the first time, this movement managed to connect with and more-or-less unify the ecstatics in traditions across the country and the world, eventually consolidating into several more formal Pentecostal denominations including the AoG.
This is quite different from the history of the Protestant Reformation, which focused on particular, rigorously identified and hotly contested points of theology, and produced three distinct faith traditions--Anglican, Reformed, and Lutheran. The Pentecostal movement emerged not as a result of a scholarly theological dispute--or even a theological dispute of any kind, as a matter of fact--but as a result of Christians from varying traditions, most of them uneducated, who actively practiced the ecstatic gifts and wanted a denomination that actively promoted them.
As such, some Pentecostal types I've met will attempt to deny that they are Protestant, as they don't want to ally themselves too closely with what they perceive to be stagnant, institutional Christianity. The belief goes that the Spirit did a new work at Azuza Street, restoring the church to its first-century state. Many Pentecostals largely ignore church history between about AD 100 and AD 1900. The fact is that Pentecostalism emerged almost exclusively from Protestant traditions, so they can legitimately be described as "Protestant," but those Pentecostals who are less careful about their history and possess a higher then average degree of antipathy for mainline denominations may not like to be called that. Your fiance may be reacting to the term for reasons related to this.
Additionally, and more practically speaking, the Pentecostals do tend to keep to themselves a bit, even within Protestantism. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, etc. all tend to work together from time to time, or at least are minimally aware of what the others are doing. But the Pentecostal denominations are a breed apart, and there isn't a lot of communication back and forth between those groups and the more traditional Protestant denominations. Some of this has to do with the fact that the ecstatic gifts tend to be frowned upon by the majority of non-Pentecostal denominations; some groups of Baptists in particular tend to take a rather dim view of them. So your fiance may be operating off that vibe too.
But technically speaking, Pentecostals are Protestant, in that they emerged almost exclusively from those traditions which trace their lineage to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.
posted by valkyryn at 4:36 PM on July 18, 2009 [9 favorites]
But the Pentecostals, though technically Protestant in lineage, are a rather odd group, historically speaking. The Protestant Reformation was a more-or-less organized, deliberate break with a single, hierarchical tradition. This is a vast oversimplification, but the movement was led by learned theologians, who were deliberate about their actions and self-conscious about tradition. Revivals and revivalism have marked almost every century of the church's history, but as they tend to be somewhat distinct from institutional and hierarchical authorities, their staying power has been limited. The various groups that might be described as "pentecostal" throughout history, i.e. the perennial outbreaks of glossossalia, etc., don't actually constitute a continuous, contiguous tradition as such, and there have been ecstatic groups on the fringes of just about every major tradition.
Today's Pentecostalism can be traced to the Azuza Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906, where it emerged from the ministry of an African Methodist Episcopal preacher. But for the first time, this movement managed to connect with and more-or-less unify the ecstatics in traditions across the country and the world, eventually consolidating into several more formal Pentecostal denominations including the AoG.
This is quite different from the history of the Protestant Reformation, which focused on particular, rigorously identified and hotly contested points of theology, and produced three distinct faith traditions--Anglican, Reformed, and Lutheran. The Pentecostal movement emerged not as a result of a scholarly theological dispute--or even a theological dispute of any kind, as a matter of fact--but as a result of Christians from varying traditions, most of them uneducated, who actively practiced the ecstatic gifts and wanted a denomination that actively promoted them.
As such, some Pentecostal types I've met will attempt to deny that they are Protestant, as they don't want to ally themselves too closely with what they perceive to be stagnant, institutional Christianity. The belief goes that the Spirit did a new work at Azuza Street, restoring the church to its first-century state. Many Pentecostals largely ignore church history between about AD 100 and AD 1900. The fact is that Pentecostalism emerged almost exclusively from Protestant traditions, so they can legitimately be described as "Protestant," but those Pentecostals who are less careful about their history and possess a higher then average degree of antipathy for mainline denominations may not like to be called that. Your fiance may be reacting to the term for reasons related to this.
Additionally, and more practically speaking, the Pentecostals do tend to keep to themselves a bit, even within Protestantism. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, etc. all tend to work together from time to time, or at least are minimally aware of what the others are doing. But the Pentecostal denominations are a breed apart, and there isn't a lot of communication back and forth between those groups and the more traditional Protestant denominations. Some of this has to do with the fact that the ecstatic gifts tend to be frowned upon by the majority of non-Pentecostal denominations; some groups of Baptists in particular tend to take a rather dim view of them. So your fiance may be operating off that vibe too.
But technically speaking, Pentecostals are Protestant, in that they emerged almost exclusively from those traditions which trace their lineage to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.
posted by valkyryn at 4:36 PM on July 18, 2009 [9 favorites]
Not derogatory, as far as I've heard.
Although, in general these days, I find myself saying things like, "I'm Protestant, but not that kind of Protestant" and "I'm Christian, but not that kind of Christian." This has become my shorthand way of differentiating myself with people who use their faith to justify judging, ostracizing, and hating.
But, not derogatory in the fact that it means "Christian but a variation that came after and via the lineage of Luther."
posted by Houstonian at 4:40 PM on July 18, 2009
Although, in general these days, I find myself saying things like, "I'm Protestant, but not that kind of Protestant" and "I'm Christian, but not that kind of Christian." This has become my shorthand way of differentiating myself with people who use their faith to justify judging, ostracizing, and hating.
But, not derogatory in the fact that it means "Christian but a variation that came after and via the lineage of Luther."
posted by Houstonian at 4:40 PM on July 18, 2009
I don't think it's derogatory, but I also don't think it's accurate. I've always thought of Christianity as falling into a pretty limited number of "buckets" - for the most part, Catholic / Orthodox / Protestant / Everything else (like LDS, SDA, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc)
posted by deadmessenger at 5:11 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by deadmessenger at 5:11 PM on July 18, 2009
On a similar note to what valkyryn said, my experience in very, very, very conservative Churches of Christ is that the term Protestant was avoided because they denied any connection to the Reformation. Of course, they are very much descended from the Reformers, but their view was that they were part of the One True Church that had existed since the day of Pentecost and that the Roman Catholic Church and everyone else had branched off of them. This myth was so important to the identity of those churches that it wasn't unusual to see cornerstones on church buildings that were etched with "established 33 A.D." I know that other sects have had similar mythic histories and probably reacted against the term Protestant for the same reason. "We didn't leave the Catholics, they left us!"
In the Church of Christ produced study guide here [PDF] you can read:
The church of Christ is not Protestant, Catholic,
or Jewish, but simply the church that Jesus
established, the one for which He died (Acts
20:28). Preaching the same gospel that was
preached by the apostles and obeying the same
conditions of salvation will reproduce the church
of Christ in any period of time, in any place in
the world.
Or so the myth goes. I should point out that although this attitude probably characterized most Churches of Christ fifty to thirty years ago, most of them have grown out of that phase and are coming to terms with the reality of church history.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:59 PM on July 18, 2009
In the Church of Christ produced study guide here [PDF] you can read:
The church of Christ is not Protestant, Catholic,
or Jewish, but simply the church that Jesus
established, the one for which He died (Acts
20:28). Preaching the same gospel that was
preached by the apostles and obeying the same
conditions of salvation will reproduce the church
of Christ in any period of time, in any place in
the world.
Or so the myth goes. I should point out that although this attitude probably characterized most Churches of Christ fifty to thirty years ago, most of them have grown out of that phase and are coming to terms with the reality of church history.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:59 PM on July 18, 2009
I've encountered someone who was put off by "Protestant." It went like this. In a conversation about religion/spirituality with study buddies, I offered that I'm Catholic. A guy in the group stared at me, held up the quotey fingers, and said "Well I'm PROTestant." I didn't really understand his exact subtext, but it wasn't good. It was a difficult feeling for me because I was speaking of myself and intended no antagonism, and was on the receiving end of someone's unflattering preconceived notions.
Now I just say "Christian" and let the individual clarify if they choose, or clarify myself if they ask about me. Plus labels can distract from all the best stuff.
There might be a regionalism to it. I live in the US south.
posted by degrees_of_freedom at 6:27 PM on July 18, 2009
Now I just say "Christian" and let the individual clarify if they choose, or clarify myself if they ask about me. Plus labels can distract from all the best stuff.
There might be a regionalism to it. I live in the US south.
posted by degrees_of_freedom at 6:27 PM on July 18, 2009
One thousand million percent what valkyryn said.
I grew up in Assemblies of God, and while it was never outright stated this way, the overriding attitude was:
Protestant = Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc = Old, uptight, spiritually dead.
They never, ever self-identified as a Protestant. Heck many Pentecostals don't even want to be lumped in with the Charismatics!
So no, Protestant is correct and not a derogatory term at all. But any group painted (or self-identifying) as "outsiders" tends to adopt fierce tribalism as a defense.
posted by for_serious at 6:37 PM on July 18, 2009
I grew up in Assemblies of God, and while it was never outright stated this way, the overriding attitude was:
Protestant = Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc = Old, uptight, spiritually dead.
They never, ever self-identified as a Protestant. Heck many Pentecostals don't even want to be lumped in with the Charismatics!
So no, Protestant is correct and not a derogatory term at all. But any group painted (or self-identifying) as "outsiders" tends to adopt fierce tribalism as a defense.
posted by for_serious at 6:37 PM on July 18, 2009
Mod note: few comments removed - take LDS derail elsewhere
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:10 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:10 PM on July 18, 2009
AoG and other Pentecostals are more correctly considered Restorationist rather than Protestant, for what its worth.
posted by jefficator at 9:39 PM on July 18, 2009
posted by jefficator at 9:39 PM on July 18, 2009
Response by poster: Wow! Such great info! This has really opened my eyes to the intricacies of Christianity.
The fiancée are reading into all the links and explanations.
Thanks!
posted by snachodog at 10:18 PM on July 18, 2009
The fiancée are reading into all the links and explanations.
Thanks!
posted by snachodog at 10:18 PM on July 18, 2009
While I can only amplify that pretty much any Western Christian denomination that's not Catholic has its roots in the Protestant movement, it's also worth noting that it's generally impolite to refer to people by labels they don't like. If someone preferred to be referred to as "black" while having a black American mother and a white American father, would you insist on referring to them as "mixed-race", even itf it's technically correct?
posted by rodgerd at 11:18 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by rodgerd at 11:18 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
I go to a Baptist church (in Australia). Catholic friend of ours recently had a light bulb moment, "oh, you're PROTESTANT." To me, I feel the term applies as much as "carbon based organism" does, but it's a bit broad. Overall though, I prefer "Christian" "Jesus follower" etc.
Though that's interesting stuff about Pentecostalism, thanks!
posted by titanium_geek at 1:17 AM on July 19, 2009
Though that's interesting stuff about Pentecostalism, thanks!
posted by titanium_geek at 1:17 AM on July 19, 2009
Exactly what valkyryn said. The Pentecostal church in which I was raised doesn't identify as Protestant at all, but as the one true church. They're not associated with any other groups, although they started as an AoG schism in the 1940s.
posted by goo at 2:05 AM on July 19, 2009
posted by goo at 2:05 AM on July 19, 2009
Historically, it's worth noting that the word Protestant originally referred to the formal protest entered into certain powerful people (mostly German Dukes and Princes, along with a few Church officials) sympathetic to Luther's cause after the Second Diet of Speyer. To summarize the episode ridiculously briefly: at the end of the Diet of Worms (which Martin Luther left when he realized his chances were going south; and, oddly enough, on his way home he happened to completely disappear...) the Church issued the Edict of Worms, which banned Luther's writings, their possession, and the teaching of their ideas; and demanded that Luther "be apprehended and punished as a dangerous heretic." This was 1521. By the time a few years had passed, everyone involved, at least in Germany, was somewhat tired of the whole controversy; and the crown was sort of not happy with the papacy at the moment (I don't remember what it was; maybe Charles V forgot to respond to Pope Leo X's friend request on Facebook) so everyone was finally relented and sat down for a nice compromise at the First Diet of Speyer, where it was decided basically that 'look, we're not going to do anything until we can get together and decide it all as a unit, mmmkay? No mass arrests, no rounding up Lutherans in the streets and feeding them to geckos, no hitting Catholics with sticks. Let's just forget about that nasty Edict of Worms for moment, or at least until we can decide if it's really that good an idea at all, shall we?' A nice turn, I imagine. But, of course, this being Germany in the sixteenth century, it couldn't all be peaceful and moderate, of course; so three years later, when everybody had remembered that this is religion, and they were still just as pissed off as every about it, they had a Second Diet of Speyer. This time around, through a series of unfortunate occurances (for example, Charles was busy and had to send his angrily devout brother Ferdinand in his place) and by way of the fact that the Catholic Church, which felt that it had sorely missed a tremendous opportunity for some good old-fashioned religious repression three years before, the Second Diet of Speyer resulted in a declaration that (a) the First Diet of Speyer, the one that advocated that nasssshty religious tolerance, was nullified, and (b) we shall indeed wait to see what we all decide to do, but until then, anyone associated with Martin Luther is completely illegal, okay? and also (c) let's get those Turks out of Hungary so we can invent the croissant already.
*phew* Okay, so: 'Protestant' originally meant 'protesting against the annulment of the First Diet of Speyer, and thereby protesting against the religious intolerance that declares Martin Luther a heretic.'
Coincidentally, whenever I meet someone who clarifies that they're 'not a PROTESTant,' I like to say: 'yes, me neither. That First Diet of Speyer was completely ridiculous! What were they thinking?'
posted by koeselitz at 3:51 AM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
*phew* Okay, so: 'Protestant' originally meant 'protesting against the annulment of the First Diet of Speyer, and thereby protesting against the religious intolerance that declares Martin Luther a heretic.'
Coincidentally, whenever I meet someone who clarifies that they're 'not a PROTESTant,' I like to say: 'yes, me neither. That First Diet of Speyer was completely ridiculous! What were they thinking?'
posted by koeselitz at 3:51 AM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
Oh, and I meant to mention: this word used to have more derogatory coloration than it does now, I think, among Catholics. My mother, at least, who grew up a Catholic in New York (on Long Island) in the '50s and '60s, remembers being taught by the nuns at the Catholic school about the 'Protestant Revolution,' and noticing that in her neighborhood friends' textbooks, it was referred to as the 'Protestant Reformation.' 'Cause 'Revolution' just sounds more... er... revolting, get it? You can picture the old nun writing the textbook: 'it's preposterous! They didn't reform anything!'
posted by koeselitz at 3:59 AM on July 19, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 3:59 AM on July 19, 2009
koeselitz, as historically interesting as all of that may be, the term "Protestant" almost immediately came to refer to all those groups which splintered from the Roman hierarchy in the 16th century. Various parties of various nationalities and theological persuasions referred to themselves as adherents to "the Protestant religion" as early as the beginning of the 17th century, and this was the common useage by the end of the century. See? Yes, the term does have a narrow use related to the Diet of Speyer, but seriously, the entire world has been using it in its broader since for centuries.
posted by valkyryn at 6:31 AM on July 19, 2009
posted by valkyryn at 6:31 AM on July 19, 2009
goo, that's exactly the kind of group I had in mind. But denying one's heritage does not remove it. The fact that they don't want to be called "Protestant" doesn't change the fact that they emerged from the Protestant tradition, or at least emerged from groups who emerged from the Protestant tradition. So unless they want to either 1) completely ignore history (which is rather likely, as it turns out; most Pentecostals aren't known for their academic rigor or interest in scholarly pursuits), or 2) describe an entirely new, fourth branch of Christianity (on top of the historic Protestant/Catholic/Eastern branches), they're basically Protestants.
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken," as it were.
posted by valkyryn at 6:36 AM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken," as it were.
posted by valkyryn at 6:36 AM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
Definitely in the 50s and 60s, in my family the word Protestant was used with derision. It is said that my grandfather never used the word without following it with a swear word. It was for any Christian who was not Catholic. Basically, the Catholic Church in my area did not want the children going to the same school, hanging out with each other, etc.
I have never met a Protestant that did not like the label, but I don't talk about religon much
posted by Gor-ella at 8:46 AM on July 19, 2009
I have never met a Protestant that did not like the label, but I don't talk about religon much
posted by Gor-ella at 8:46 AM on July 19, 2009
valkyryn: koeselitz, as historically interesting as all of that may be, the term "Protestant" almost immediately came to refer to all those groups which splintered from the Roman hierarchy in the 16th century.
Hmm. I didn't know that. Well, you learn something every day, I suppose.
posted by koeselitz at 12:20 PM on July 19, 2009
Hmm. I didn't know that. Well, you learn something every day, I suppose.
posted by koeselitz at 12:20 PM on July 19, 2009
tinatiga, yes, there are certainly Baptists who refuse the "Protestant" moniker, adhering rather to the concept of "Baptist successionism", but this is now a minority view. Most Baptists accept the view that the tradition emerged from the Anglican church in the 16th-17th centuries. Given that there is absolutely no historical evidence for the theory, it tends to be held only by the most Fundamentalist stripe of Baptist, including but not entirely limited to the Landmark Baptists. Most of the Southern Baptist Convention, and thus most Baptists, adheres to the majority view. Those that do refuse it tend to do so for reasons which are similar to some Pentecostals' unwillingness to be associated with traditional Protestant churches rather than any well-formed historical or theological position.
posted by valkyryn at 2:11 PM on July 19, 2009
posted by valkyryn at 2:11 PM on July 19, 2009
The only time I could see it being derogatory is in the context of "Protestant" = "not Catholic".
There's a great line in an episode of The Wire where McNulty orders a Jamesons and the bartender says "We're out of Jamesons, Bushmills ok?" and he replies "Bushmills?!? That's Protestant whisky."
posted by electroboy at 7:00 PM on July 19, 2009
There's a great line in an episode of The Wire where McNulty orders a Jamesons and the bartender says "We're out of Jamesons, Bushmills ok?" and he replies "Bushmills?!? That's Protestant whisky."
posted by electroboy at 7:00 PM on July 19, 2009
Here's the episode. Couldn't find video on youtube though, sorry.
posted by electroboy at 7:03 PM on July 19, 2009
posted by electroboy at 7:03 PM on July 19, 2009
I am a Baptist (non-Southern flavor), and also a Protestant. The one is the subset of the other.
However, I have known some Christians (mainly on the conservative/Pentacostal-influenced/fundamentalist end of the spectrum) who seem to feel that "Protestant" = the so-called "Mainline Protestant" denominations = "liberal heretics who cave to worldly pressures and do things like ordain women."
I've never heard it said explicitly, though. It seems to be more of a shades-of-meaning usage thing. And even then it wasn't so much a we-aren't-Protestant thing as a preferring to describe themselves in a different way thing.
posted by oblique red at 7:46 AM on July 20, 2009
However, I have known some Christians (mainly on the conservative/Pentacostal-influenced/fundamentalist end of the spectrum) who seem to feel that "Protestant" = the so-called "Mainline Protestant" denominations = "liberal heretics who cave to worldly pressures and do things like ordain women."
I've never heard it said explicitly, though. It seems to be more of a shades-of-meaning usage thing. And even then it wasn't so much a we-aren't-Protestant thing as a preferring to describe themselves in a different way thing.
posted by oblique red at 7:46 AM on July 20, 2009
It's exactly as derogatory as being called "a gentile".
Which is to say, it's technically fine, but it is a bit technical/clinical, which might be a bit off-putting in an awkward-word choice way.
posted by rokusan at 6:04 PM on September 25, 2009
Which is to say, it's technically fine, but it is a bit technical/clinical, which might be a bit off-putting in an awkward-word choice way.
posted by rokusan at 6:04 PM on September 25, 2009
« Older Main log files for linux & Mac OSX | Morgantown WV... what is this tower like thing... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Phanx at 2:29 PM on July 18, 2009