I simply cannot agree with Dr. McLelland’s implication of what it means to be Reformed.
In January, McLelland wrote, “Our motto is ‘always reforming’ (reformed and always to be reformed). This means we need to explore traditional beliefs in light of modern knowledge and needs.”
Taken as a generic description of how the Reformed community usually responds to a changing cultural context this definition appears somewhat benign. But I’ve read more than enough of McLelland’s theology to know that he literally means what he says in this definition.
To be Reformed, according to McLelland’s definition means an overarching commitment to “modern knowledge.” Which means believing in the supremacy of reason, viewing all religions as sociological phenomenon, and embracing other enlightenment philosophical tenets. When he says, “Explore traditional beliefs,” what he means is that we examine orthodox theology and practice from this humanistic enlightenment perspective and accept what seems to fit in, and reject what doesn’t.
Dr. McLelland is a distinguished churchman, a venerable scholar, a clever thinker, and a good writer. He is not however, what I would call Reformed. The ideas and conclusions which he puts forward in his writings, while unique and advanced in their construction, are merely the result of 19th Century German Liberalism coming full circle, not Reformation theology.
They have more in common with someone whose motto is, Understanding Seeking Faith(s) than they do with someone who pursues the motto of Faith Seeking Understanding.
To be Reformed means that our first commitment is to saving faith in Christ, not modern knowledge and needs. As the Holy Spirit sanctifies and re-forms our intellects and minds we come to see how the key presuppositions which go along with modern knowledge and needs are the antithesis of the presuppositions of the scriptures.
To be Reformed also means that we are always seeking to understand scripture on its own terms; working as the Reformers did to rid our hermeneutics of worldly philosophical presuppositions and biases.
As Calvin worked at re-forming his understanding of scripture apart from Aristotle and Plato, we must work at re-forming our understanding apart from Kant and Derrida. (I’d recommend James K. A. Smith’s book The Fall of Interpretation as a good start)
If we claim to operate under the banner of “Always Reforming” in the PCC, let’s make sure we understand what it really means: It is the practice of critiquing our church traditions, cultural contexts, and our own thinking by examining everything in light of the Scriptures and then changing them in order to be re-formed, according to the truth revealed in God’s Word.
If we understand this and practice it then we will prevent our church and its members from being misinformed and misled by those who attempt to offer secular teachings about faith as Christian truth, and attempt to do so under the guise of “Always Reforming.”
Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia!
