Your last paragraph is especially enlightening: as a Lutheran/Evangelical Catholic, I have much more in common with those from other liturgical churches, like Roman Catholic, who believe in the Real Presence and reflect that belief in their liturgical worship practice, than I do with those in Baptist, Reformed, or Free churches. There is no unity between us in that regard, even if calling us all "protestant" churches makes it seem like there is.
Do you think *in the U.S. context* there may be some utility to still using the sociological distinction between 'Evangelical' and 'Mainline' Protestant? I understand the reticence for high church Lutherans and even many Anglican/Episcopalians to use the term "Protestant" -- but nevertheless, the term stuck and the idea of a _Mainline_ Protestant carries both historical and sociological weight in conveying the idea of the churches which derived from the Magisterial Reformation. In the American context, there is also the notion of the W.A.S.P., which is tied in with Mainline; and while much of that stream has Liberalized to a degree which is in many ways unrecognizable as Christianity... I don't think anyone is going to confuse a liturgically and sacramentally conscious Episcopalian with a low church Pentecostal anytime soon -- despite the fact that they both bear the label "Protestant."
My experience, though, is that Episcopalians and Lutherans are constantly being confused with low church evangelicals and baptists, especially by Roman Catholics. And that’s why I find that it confuses more because it doesn’t tell you anything. If a term tells you nothing, it’s useless.
I guess that's fair enough. A term can mean different things in different times and places -- the only reason I wanted to ask is that I've often felt that the majority of people "being confused" (either Evangelical or Papist) are those who are not being the most careful with their terminology generally -- either due to a lack of education or willful oversimplification.
Excellent post! You've convinced me.
Your last paragraph is especially enlightening: as a Lutheran/Evangelical Catholic, I have much more in common with those from other liturgical churches, like Roman Catholic, who believe in the Real Presence and reflect that belief in their liturgical worship practice, than I do with those in Baptist, Reformed, or Free churches. There is no unity between us in that regard, even if calling us all "protestant" churches makes it seem like there is.
Yes, exactly.
Do you think *in the U.S. context* there may be some utility to still using the sociological distinction between 'Evangelical' and 'Mainline' Protestant? I understand the reticence for high church Lutherans and even many Anglican/Episcopalians to use the term "Protestant" -- but nevertheless, the term stuck and the idea of a _Mainline_ Protestant carries both historical and sociological weight in conveying the idea of the churches which derived from the Magisterial Reformation. In the American context, there is also the notion of the W.A.S.P., which is tied in with Mainline; and while much of that stream has Liberalized to a degree which is in many ways unrecognizable as Christianity... I don't think anyone is going to confuse a liturgically and sacramentally conscious Episcopalian with a low church Pentecostal anytime soon -- despite the fact that they both bear the label "Protestant."
My experience, though, is that Episcopalians and Lutherans are constantly being confused with low church evangelicals and baptists, especially by Roman Catholics. And that’s why I find that it confuses more because it doesn’t tell you anything. If a term tells you nothing, it’s useless.
I guess that's fair enough. A term can mean different things in different times and places -- the only reason I wanted to ask is that I've often felt that the majority of people "being confused" (either Evangelical or Papist) are those who are not being the most careful with their terminology generally -- either due to a lack of education or willful oversimplification.