Ecumenism and Reformation Theology

I'm reading this volume The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology (a good addition to a good series, which includes a helpful chapter by David Wright).

In the introduction the editors, David Bagchi and David Steinmetz discuss the theology of the Reformation and its place in theological study. They write as follows:

"First, it [Reformation theology] is pluralist. 'Reformation theology' is no longer synonymous with 'early Protestant theology' but includes in its scope the theologies of all sides, Proptestant, Catholic, and Radical, as well as of those who do not fit neatly into these categories. ... Modern Reformation theology is therefore pluralist; but is it also ecumenical? The terms is unsatisfactory in several ways, partly because it presupposes Christian belief on the part of present-day scholars of Reformation theology, partly because a strong tendency among ecumenically minded Christians is to minimize the importance of the Reformation and of confessional differences. The latter tend to regard the Reformation as an embarrassing relative who insists on producing snapshots of oneslef as an infant, just when one is trying one's best to be grown up. It could even be said that, while in the 1970s and 1980s the severest critics of a theological approach to the Reformation were often social historians with no personal Christian sympathies, its greatest enemies today can be found among Christian ecumenists." (pages 2-3)

Does this not exactly describe the situation within the Church of Scotland? There is a deep embarrassment about our Reformation history and theology and a strident ecumenism which is determined to pursue its ecumenical goals at whatever cost to truth and the unity and peace of the church.

However, there is something more needs to be said. Could it be that the dismal state of Reformed theology within our church is in part due to a disinterest in the subject amongst those claiming to stand in the tradition of the Reformation? Why is it so few Church of Scotland minister attend the Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference? Why is it that sales of serious theological books are small, and the reading of serious theological books even smaller? Why is it that so many evangelicals can repeat the slogans and formulas of Reformation theology but could hardly outline any content of these slogans even to themselves, far less to someone who asks us to explain them?

In the face of a challenge from the Emerging Church (capitals deliberate) that our theology is entirely accommodated to a modernist programme, when we are unable to articulate what our theological formulations mean we are in a poor position to decide which can be re-formulated and re-stated in terms that are not so wholly accommodated to modernity.

The challenge of our times is to study our Reformation theology so that we can declare the content of our theology in ways that this generation can hear and understand. In such a study and use of our Reformation theology to demonstrate to our ecumenical sisters and brothers why

The Living Church - Salt and Light

I've been reading John Stott's book The Living Church: Convictions of a lifelong pastor published by IVP. It is a book that lives up to all the blurb on the cover.

In a chapter on Impact: Salt and Light John Stott while writting about the influence Christians can have on non-Christian society writes the following:

"If the house is dark at night, there is no sense in blaming the house for its darkness. ... The question is: where is the light?

Again, if the meat goes bad and become inedible ... The question is: where is the salt? ...

It is hypocritical to raise our eyebrows and shrug our shoulders as if it were not our responsibility. Jesus told us to be salt and light to society. If therefore darkness and rottenness abound, it is to a large measure our fault, and we must accept much of the blame." (page 143)

Are we too quick to blame non-Christians for not living Christian lives? Have we withdrawn from our place as citizens within our communities and so left them without the influence of the salt to arrest decay and the light to chase away the darkness? It is good that Stott notes that all the blame does not lie with the church, but we must surely own some of the blame.

Perhaps it is just the way my mind works but if we change the focus of our being salt and light from society to the church, or at least a church suffering under long years of liberal influence, does this quote from Stott not work just as well? Are we not ever quick to criticise and blame congregations for not believing the gospel who have never had gospel preaching in living memory? Do we not think badly of ministers who are unsure of gospel truth and yet we have never spoken to them of the gospel.

The thrust of Stott's chapter quoted above is that Christians can have a real impact in their non-Christian society. Do we not also believe that Christians can have a real impact in their church denomination