So browsing through MySpace profiles, I noticed that a surprisingly large number of my friends (and my friends’ friends, etc.) identify as “Christian- other”. As a member of the UCC, I consider myself a Protestant and mark myself as such. I always thought “Christian- other” refers to Eastern Orthodox Churches (which do not have a unique category), or denominations not quite associated with traditional Protestantism (such as Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses). Most of my friends who identify as “Christian- other” are Baptists or Pentacostals, while the few friends who actually consider themselves Protestant belong to more mainline congregations, like Methodist or Episcopalian.
Anyway, so this is a sorta boring OP, but I’m just wondering what the term means to you guys. Am I alone in extending “Protestant” to so many different denominations, and restricting “Christian- other” to so few? Does Protestant only refer to moderate, mainline churches while Christian is the term preferred by the more conservative ones? If you agree with my position, why do you suppose so many people (younger people, about 21 or so) tend to think otherwise?
Some non-Catholic denominations don’t think of themselves as Protestant either. Maybe they are Baptist, Methodist, or Church of Christ? Or Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon?
Darn, I forgot to mention that MySpace lists “Mormon” as a separate, unique category. Like I said, I always considered Baptist and Methodist to be Protestant (and historically speaking, bothare. As far as I know, none of the people I know who identify as “Christian-other” are Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses; most are Baptist or belong to other conservative denominations.
So any ideas why some Christians who, historically, have Protestant ties not identify as such?
Really? I never heard this particular definition of Protestant, although it is interesting. I always understood Calvinists and Lutherans all to be a part of the Protestant Reformation, making their descendent denominations Protestants.
And with this definition, wouldn’t the ONLY Protestants be Lutherans then (and of course, any spiritual descendents, although I’m not sure what or how many denominations this may encompass)? I can understand why, historically, Anglicans and Episcopalians may be considered independent, although it appears that at least the Episcopal church seems to associate with Protestantism.
Again, I find this discussion very interesting and informative; thanks for all the replies.
I’m an Episcopalian who would have checked “Christian - Other”, given the choices available. I do not consider myself Protestant. I was taught we are roughly halfway between Protestantism and Catholicism, and certainly my church’s heirarchical structure (it is too early to spell that one word!) is much more like that Catholic church than any Protestant one I’ve heard of (at least, last time I checked, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists don’t have Archbishops). Our origin also had nothing to do with Martin Luther, although he and Henry VIII were contemporaries and the reforms which led to the formation of the Anglican church and Protestantism did happen around the same time.
Polycarp would do a better job with this than I can. I also have some baggage tied up in this question because I was quite literally beat up as a child because I couldn’t tell other kids whether I was Protestant or Catholic (there was no third choice).
Basically, we share a lot of traditions, customs and terminology with the Catholic church, including making a big deal of Advent, Ash Wednesday, Lent, and other church holidays. Our services also have a great deal in common. That Catholic gentleman I mentioned came to a Christmas Eve service at my church and was stunned to realize that the service was word-for-word identical to the ones he’d gone to growing up. Among the things we had in common was we’d both served as Acolytes although he, of course, called himself an “Altar Boy” since at the time girls weren’t allowed to serve on the altar and I understand some Catholic churches still frown on this. We call the people who run the service “priests” and we acknowledge saints, including some the Catholics don’t since they lived after the split.
On the other hand, in terms of theology and social policy, we have a lot more in common with Protestants. Among other things, we reject Papal authority and infallibility outright and are, as a rule, a fairly liberal bunch. We have no problems with priests being married or with women priests, although my bishop is reputed to be an exception to that. We also have believe since our foundation that services should be conducted in a language the people in the congregation can understand. I think we also share the Protestant focus on an individual’s direct relationship with Christ, rather than going through a priest.
I hope this helps, but, as I said, Polycarp can give you a better answer.
I’d like to offer an addendum to Siege’s comments about Anglicanism and Episcopalianism.
I’m not really disagreeing with the answer given. Just wanted to point out that there are shades of tradition under the umbrella of the Anglican/Episcopalian faith that range from the standard liberal definition that is most familiar to most Americans and that Siege covered, to a highly rigid formality. There is an unofficial second sorting of those churches: low or high church. High church people and congregation generally have more focus on rituals and many of the trappings of the Roman rites, and are more traditional. Low church people and congregations are far more influenced by a personal relationship with the Almighty - and seem, to many outside observers, to have more in common with Calvinist traditions: a focus on personal faith and often a minimizing of ritual, if not actually denying them.
Historically the Anglican church, which lead to the Episcopal church, was a very wide umbrella to hold as many of the English subjects in a religion that supported the throne.
For myself, I’d consider (given the choices you listed) Christian - Other to be the various Eastern rite churches (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Coptic, Monophysite, Ethiopian…) with a smattering of other sects: the Morovian Church, and some small local congregations, such as the local schismatic church: Corpus Christi. I consider the Methodists and Jehovah’s Witnesses to be variations of Protestant churches, myself. And that the Anglican Church is a Protestant church, if only because of the history that allowed it to be created: It’s unlikely that the commons of England would have accepted Henry’s schism without Martin Luther’s writings (and the corruption of the Catholic Church of the time.).
Whenever I see it, I take it to mean “Christian, but not necessarily identifying with any established type of Christianity.” So, Christian in a general sense.
I knew very little of the Church of Christ before this thread; I did a little research and it seems that they don’t like to consider themselves Protestants because they believe they are not “protesting” anything but rather “restoring” the original Church of Christ and his disciples. Odd to me, since I always thought most Protestant denominations started with just that intent!
When I hear someone describe their religious afiliation as “Christian” rather than “Catholic” or “Methodist” etc., I immediately get a little wary. That means to me they are (possibly) part of a nondenominational flavor of fundementalism, and I do not want to talk to them. Usually it’s quite strict, very literal and insulting to my Catholic up-bringing, even though I consider my self a “recovering” Catholic.
Incidentally, my understanding is that during the mid-'90s, then-pope JP2 indicated (boy do I ever not have the exact wording on this one) that bishops could decide, on their own, whether or not to allow female altar severs in their dioceses. A year or two later (or something; I was off at boarding school, somewhat-secluded from news back home, and this wasn’t entirely a-buzz at school), there were exactly two dioceses in North America (or at least the 48 contiguous states) that didn’t have female altar servers. One was Lincoln, Nebraska and the other was where my family lived.
It’s since become an issue of lessened importance to me, obviously (for those in the crowd who don’t know, I haven’t considered myself Catholic since probably before summer 2001), so there might have been something significant that happened after I left the church, but I’m betting I’d have heard about it from someone in my family. So while there are likely individual members (more than a few, I’d wager) of the church who still disagree with the decision, and it’s also likely that at least some individual priests probably privately questioned this, most North American bishops didn’t seem to think it would be the end of the world.
How I interpreted it would depend on what varieties of Chrisianity they’d already listed.
If it was “Catholic, Protestant, Xian-Other” I’d think of the auld tyme schisms (eg Eastern Orthodox) before I’d consider some specific definition of “Protestant” than only included Lutherans or something.
If the list contained a bunch of different interpretations fo the chistian mythology, I’d be more inclined to assume it was just a catch-all category for everyone that considered themselves as a traditional christian but didn’t identify with any church.
If it listed a variety of different sects from a wide variety of mythologies found all over the world, I’d lump anything based on the christian mythology into the category. If it wasn’t listed seperately itself, I’d include Satanism in “Christian- OTHER”, for example.
