Blah Guy

I have more than ever taken the theological stance that theology as a whole is a conversation, not a science nor system. In reality, I submit, in some way it must always be to some degree one of the two. For what is science but watching the wonders of the thing you are studying. Jurgen Moltmann writes, with eloquence, about this concept in “The Trinity and the Kingdom”. And to be big headed enough to consider your own voice in the conversation as being the final say, is well, what shall we say, absolutely dumb. When I talk theology, with anyone, I am entering a conversation that has been ongoing for thousands of years. Why is the title of this entry “Reformed”?

My concern lies with the very nature of “Reformed”. Neither did Luther nor Calvin expect us to think that this new “Form” which they “re’d” would be complete. Rather, I would argue they both (Especially Luther who wanted “reformation”, not “separation” from the Catholic church) saw their own contributions to theology as part of a longer conversation, not one that they ended with their own voice.

Here is my point. The reformed faith has one problem, its past tense-ness. It is reform-ed. Past tense. It was reform, not is, not will be. I would like to argue a new name for the reformed brand of theology. Reform(ing).

Why?

Luther sought to create change from the inside, a change which he no doubt saw being a beginning, not an end with himself. And if he were here, I think he would remind us:

“You ain’t done yet bucko”.

His nails weren’t the ones that solved the world’s real problems.

Take some time and read the conversation over on organicjesus.org There are some excellent thoughts on the reformed faith you would do good to read.