Skip to main content

Reformed?

    Semper Reformanda--always reforming.  That was the battle cry of the Reformation.  It reflects not their doctrine per se, but their attitude.  I'm beginning to believe that we have lost our connection to the Reformers by establishing accepted dogma and marginalizing those who might approach theology from a different angle.  Allow me to explain.

    Over the past year or so I have become increasingly dissatisfied with what I have come to see is a status quo within the Reformed faith.  People talk about standing for truth and maintaining tradition, but I believe that these are friendly labels for the harsh reality--we're becoming much like the Roman Catholic Church our forefathers sought to Reform.  Many of our practices lack Biblical warrant.  Many of our beliefs are based on misconstrued passages or, even worse, nothing but the traditions of men.

     What is worst of all, however, and what reveals our attitude shift most clearly, is the way we treat those who disagree with us.  We practically burn them at the stake.  We look down on them.  We shun them.  We treat them as the "weaker" brethren Paul referred to in his writings.  We spend entire Bible studies bashing their beliefs and all the while we pat ourselves on the back because we are good Reformed Christians.  We have our terms down, our TULIP memorized, and our Confession all marked up.

    Now, this probably sounds proud coming from me--a no-name, 24-year-old preacher's kid from rural Ohio.  I probably sound like an idiot (or meaner words not socially acceptable in Reformed circles) trying to put myself on a pedestal.  I don't want to come off that way, but think of me what you will, because this needs said.

    When did we stop Reforming and become Reformed?  When did we reach the pinnacle of Reformation?  When did we decide that we've grown enough and we can stop?  More importantly, when did we decide that no one else is allowed to question our thinking?  When did Biblical revelation become less persuasive than prevailing opinion?

    My Reformed friends, maybe you hate me right now.  Please believe that I'm simply trying to do what the Reformers did--Reform--the best way I know how.

    Or maybe you feel like I do.  You appreciate the tradition you've received, but wonder why everybody is always fighting.  You love Reformed doctrine, but wonder why the Bible has to conform to our theological categories (Arminianism vs Calvinism, for instance).  You love the Church, but wonder why "Church" now looks so different than it did in the Bible.  Whichever category you are in, I invite, no, I urge you to consider our opening words-semper reformanda.  Dwell upon them.  Turn them over in your mind a few times.  

    Now, the Reformers were not perfect.  They had practices and beliefs that were un-Biblical.  They knew it though and they did their best to restore truth to the Church of Christ.  That is their legacy.  That is why the world knows who they were.  They were not Reformed.  They were Reforming.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...