Why I Do Still Call Myself Reformed

I recently posted a few reasons why I am becoming increasingly hesitant to call myself Reformed.  It was just something I was trying to get off my chest, but it drew more attention than I expected. Something about it clicked with many people, both in positive and negative ways.  For the sake of clarity I would like to offer a few reasons why I do still call myself Reformed.   

1) It's the most accurate description of what I believe.  The Reformed Solas and doctrines of grace generally outline my theological and ethical framework.  Now, no single epithet fits my theological bent perfectly, and I suspect that I'm not alone in this.  The more you read and learn, the broader your perspective becomes and the less boxed-in you become.  Just as revelation was progressive, so too the Church's understanding of that revelation has evolved and grown.  Different categories and debates have occupied the various epochs in our history, so to say that you view every point exactly as [fill in the blank] did 400 years ago is either mistaken or dishonest.  In an age of numerous denominations, cults, and liberals, however, terms like "Reformed" can be very useful for practical purposes.  I am a Christian first and foremost, but my perspective is most accurately described as Reformed.

2)  The Reformers emphasized returning the Word, and a personal faith along with it, back to the people.  If I shared nothing else in common with Reformed theology, I would still find great kinship here (the Anabaptists did also emphasize this).  The Reformers were unanimously marked by a desire to see God's Word in the vulgar languages so that the lower classes could have access to it.  They also emphasized preaching over sacramentalism and active worship over passive ritualism.  This is, perhaps, the greatest heritage that we have received from the Reformation. 

3) The Reformers acknowledged the authority of the Word.  I mean this in two ways.  Firstly, the Reformers emphasized that Jesus is the only Head of the Church, so the Word Incarnate was acknowledged once again as the only absolute authority over the Church.  Secondly, they viewed the inscripturated Word of God as the only rule for faith and practice.  The King rules the Church through His Word.  This is why they knew that the people needed it.  Implicit faith is not enough.  One must hear and heed the Word to be a Christian!  They sought to teach the people a simple, holistic faith grounded in the Bible.  They recognized God's sovereignty over all of life and sought to regulate their lives by His written will.

4) The Roman Catholic Church definitely had/has some issues.  I want to be perfectly clear: when I say that I recognize Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as Christian brethren, I do not mean a) that I agree with their theology or b) that I think my disagreements with them are insignificant.  I think we should call Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians to a more Biblically-centered theology.  Many Catholic and Orthodox views are based upon evolving traditions that have gone astray because they were not anchored in God's Word.  Both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox believe that they are institutionally the heirs of the Apostolic succession, but, my friends, all Christians can lay claim to that if they follow the faith handed down to Christians in the Word of God.

So here I am, somewhere in the middle of staunchly Reformed and broadly ecumenical.  I employ the term Reformed, but I also recognize it's inadequacies.  The ideal will always be that denominational affiliations become unnecessary because we have a united Church with pure doctrine.  Make no mistake, truth does matter.  Unity is important, but sometimes true unity requires division.  I long for the day when Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant/Reformed are history lessons from a bygone era, but until Christ's bride is purified to that extent, I guess I'll call myself Reformed.