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?


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: