Whatever happened to Protestantism?

As we make our way to the fateful day when Luther nailed some debate points to a notice board on a church door, it might be worth a few thoughts to see what happened in the wake of that act.  There was once something rather identifiable in the term Protestant.  It was never a unity of doctrine or practice but there did seem to be something that brought the disparate together under that term -- something people have tried to do for everything from the Quakers to the Baptists to the Presbyterians to the Lutherans.  It never worked well but it did identify a group of people not under the staff of Rome and they had a few things in common.  I fear that day has come and gone.

What on earth does it mean to be Protestant anymore?  If Lutheranism is in quandary, surely Protestantism is in chaos.  Everybody and everything has been lumped under that term with the only seeming commonality that they are not under the Pope (although, it would seem, some wish they were).  What are we to make of this?  What happened to the idea of reform and when did rebellion replace serious theological thought, Scriptural truth, and doctrinal reflection?  There seems to be no bounds to Protestantism and because of this they are mining new territory in the dilution of the term Christian as a a consequence.  Even Jesus would be a stronger to many Protestant churches.

Although it might seem to be mostly about the sex issues (same sex, gender identity, etc.), it is about who Jesus is and what He did and what it means for us.  The very core issues of the creed are under assault by those who still speak the words but do not believe in what they say.  From the virgin birth to the resurrection, the very defining truths of Christianity are being cast under the bus along with creation and its order of male and female in pursuit of new gospels that bear little resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen.  

The big guns of the past, the so-called Mainline Protestants are effectively sidelined by their loss of membership and their nearly uniform alliance with the current social and cultural issues of the day (on the leftward side of those, of course).  They were once almost synonymous with Christianity in America (the Roman Catholics and Missouri Synod being under the radar, so to speak).  Now they are a faint and growing even more faint echo of whatever happens to be on the Democratic Party platform.  The Gospel may still be preached here and there in the hinterlands and in parishes somewhat insulated from their larger jurisdictional identities but many, if not most, have embraced a gospel tied to the improvement of the human condition and the shape of the world -- at least according to progressive ideals.

The evangelicals have become mainstream and are present everywhere.  The problem is that they present neither a consistent nor a cohesive set of beliefs, practices, or agendas.  Many of them are non-denominational and therefore on their own.  Many of them are tied to the face of the pastor, his positions both with respect to doctrine and politics, and face an uncertain transition as the faces of their pastors age out.  Some of them have already imploded.  They fit under the Protestant umbrella but not easily.  Most of them are non-creedal and non-confessional and their statement of beliefs is tied more to what works than what Scripture says and orthodox Christianity has taught.  Even if their numbers are higher than others, their confused and independent identity makes it hard to figure out where they fit under that Protestant umbrella.

The fundamentalists were once an invincible fortress.  Baptists seemed immune to anything except growth.  Airwaves seemed to offer either fundamentalists or Pentecostals an easy way into America's living rooms.  Their major figures have aged out or died and in their place is a much smaller figure of fundamentalism.  In fact, some of them refuse the label and some of them distance themselves from such an identity as conflicting with their mission to grow.  Now there is a statement.  Baptists who could once be counted upon to grow in season and out are now planting congregations without the name or identity so that they might have a chance to grow without the Baptist baggage.  That says nothing about the splinter groups that seem to grow faster than the individual churches.

The Pentecostals have moved to main street and have left behind their hillbilly stereotype to wear big name brands and look positively normal.  The Charismatic Movement has waxed and waned and is no longer a major force and it seems that Pentecostals have also softened their image so that tongues speaking and miracles are the exception rather than the rule.  Are they Protestant?  I guess but where would you fit them?  Many of them would probably prefer being labeled as non-denominational.

On the one hand, it is possible to refer to “historic Protestantism,” “classical Protestantism,” and “classic orthodox Protestantism” to try and make some semblance of order out of the mess.  Part of me wonders why bother?  There is simply no ‘Singular Historic Protestantism’ and there never was.  There are no “historic Protestant positions” but only waves that have sometimes washed upon the shore and then been replaced with others.  Protestants have disagreed and still do disagree over pedobaptism (baptism of infants) or credobaptism (believer’s baptism); the nature of the Eucharist (e.g., symbol, Christ somehow spiritually present, or sacrifice); and church polity (e.g., episcopal, presbyterian, or congregationalist). They have disagreed and still do disagree over who is saved, how those people are saved, and if they can lose their salvation. Their historic disagreements have, over the ages, resulted in new and even more diverse Protestant churches.  The only ones who seem to like this term are Roman Catholics who ascribe to everyone who might fit under the umbrella the failings of anyone who ever had fit under that umbrella.  So much for a term that once carried a meaning clear to everyone.  Now it is just a word.