Theological Labels

Recently, someone asked me if my theology was “reformed?” The term “reformed theology” is currently a “hot button” among many evangelicals. To some, it is becoming the single-question litmus test to help people know whether you are one of “us” or one of “them.” Book publishers and blog writers have learned how and where to post the phrase on book covers and websites believing that to Evangelicals, it has a similar impact to the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”

My response to the question was “sometimes, but I try not to let anyone know.” I was not trying to be a smart aleck. In a world in which both the political left and the evangelical right have volunteered to serve on the enforcement patrol of the political correctness movement, some phrases need to be either fully explained or not used at all. I think “reformed theology” is one of those terms. So, for the following reasons, I rarely describe my theology as “reformed.”

• While “reformed” theology usually means it came out of the Protestant Reformation, it is important to remember not all the reformers carried the same theological torch to burn down the dead wood of religious institutionalism. Luther and Calvin were not the only reformers. Some of the folks were in the extreme right field or extreme left field, and a few were lost in the woods and never found the field. I hope today’s reformed theologians are not suggesting that they intend to carry all the baggage of the Protestant reformers. “Reformed” is far too imprecise of a term for me to use to describe my theology.

• Some use the term “reformed theology” to refer to five-point Calvinism. While I agree with most of the major points of the attorney turned preacher turned city political boss, John Calvin, one of his major points appears to be scripturally contradictive to me. His concept of limited atonement sounds like an attempt to blame God for the fate of the lost. Leaving the “L” out of tulip makes me sound like I have a speech impediment when I answer the Jeopardy question, “What was in John Calvin’s favorite floral centerpiece?” I have read many of the arguments for limited atonement; but, using the principle of using Scripture to interpret Scripture, I can’t buy what this argument is selling. If “limited atonement” is blaming God for people going to hell, then I cannot wear the “reformed theology” label. If however, it is simply the recognition that not all people will go to heaven, I suppose you might find the RT label in my clergy collar or clerical robe if I wore either.

• Any system of theology can become a perceived means of grace rather than an imperfect descriptive schematic of the grace delivery system. Salvation is never found in a system but in a Savior. Therefore, I am hesitant to wear the label of any system including reformed, Calvinist, Ariminan, conservative, or fundamentalist. I do not resist these labels because I am indecisive; I resist them because systems will always reflect the bias and limitations of the systematizer as well as the truth he or she is trying to put in an understandable form.

Rather than describe my theology with a label, I prefer to describe who I am: I am a believer in and follower of Jesus the Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to obey the Word of God. That doesn’t fit neatly on a book jacket or on a website logo, but I think God is more likely to hold me accountable for who I am rather to test me on Calvin’s Institutes, Luther’s Ninety-Five theses or Wesley’s interpretation of Jacob Arminius. Who we are in Christ and what we do as result of who we are in Christ will ultimately reveal what we believe.

Is this blog intended to be critical of those who were systematic labels? Absolutely not! It is simply to say that in the theology wars among Evangelicals, I am a pacifist. But make no mistake–I certainly plan to be fully suited in the full armor of God when defending the kingdom of our Lord and Christ against those who attack it.