Sunday, September 15, 2013

Reformation Schizophrenia


I have two minds about the Reformation, especially when we are differentiating between what is called the Magisterial and Radical reformations. I love parts of the Magisterials, and on the other hand I love significant parts of the Radicals. Here's how I break it down:

Reformation AnalysisHuman Action (Ethics)Divine Action (Soteriology/Theodicy)
RadicalRadical ReformersMagisterial Reformers
ProgressiveMagisterial ReformersRadical Reformers

I love the radical theology proper of the Magisterials, and conversely cannot really abide the synergistic anthropomorphized weak God of the Radicals (Anabaptists really since they're the only sect that had a developed theology). I love the radical human ethics of the Radicals, and conversely cannot abide the syncretistic imperialism of the Magisterials (Lutherans or Calvinists).

I want to find a practical and ideologically coherent way of synthesizing the radical parts of both movements, a Christian ethic that is radical BECAUSE of its radical theology proper.

Two questions: 

1. Do you think this possible?

2. If possible, is it wise? Are there good reasons why things must be this way?

Bonus:

3. Is it stupid to rashly conclude that this is the problem with modernism and post-modernism?

1 comment:

Caleb Turner said...

Possibly relevant, if anyone's out there: http://replica.palni.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15705coll18/id/378/rec/9