Reformed and Always Reforming

Variations of the saying “reformed and always reforming” have been expressed for centuries, with a breadth of meaning and intent. While often identified as a Reformation slogan, we have no written evidence that the Reformers themselves used these words together this way. They seem to have first appeared more than 150 years after Luther’s 95 Theses and more than a century after John Calvin’s death. Yet Reformed theologians such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck did use versions of the slogan in the 19th century, and Karl Barth popularized the phrase in the 20th century. They used it to convey that Reformed Christians should continually examine their doctrine and practice to ensure its purity and faithfulness, just as Luther, Calvin, and others did in the 16th century.

However, the use of “reformed and always reforming” and its variations exploded after World War II with the purpose of justifying doctrinal change (see Busch, “Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings,” and Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms). The updated Foundations of Presbyterian Polity of the Presbyterian Church (USA), for example, includes, “The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God” as the reason for its openness to reforming its doctrinal standards and governance (F-2.02). Additionally, Reformed and Always Reforming is the title of a book by Roger Olson, the Arminian author of Against Calvinism. So the slogan’s use apparently does not even need to communicate that one has to be or remain Reformed theologically. With this broad spectrum of application, what does it mean for Reformed people and churches to be “reformed and always reforming”? A brief look at the phrase’s origins and historical context can help us understand the kind of reforming sought then and its relevance to more clearly seeing our own contexts.

Origins of the Saying

“Reformed and always reforming” first appears in a 1674 devotional by Jodocus van Lodenstein, a Reformed pastor involved with the Nadere Reformatie (Dutch Second Reformation). He expressed concern that an overemphasis on right doctrine had overshadowed attention to personal piety. From van Lodenstein’s perspective, people in the Reformed church needed not only to hold right beliefs, but to experience transformation in everyday lives and practices. He sought reform that would awaken the inner dimensions of faith—the genuine religion of the heart. His historical situation shaped the particular kind of reforming in the Reformed churches he desired.

Scholars of European history refer to the period from the late 1550s to the 1720s as the Age of Confessionalism. Near the beginning of this era, the various branches of Protestant Christianity published confessions to distinguish themselves from one another and from Roman Catholicism. This includes the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). As Protestantism spread in the 17th century, each group sought to define, defend, articulate, and clarify their beliefs even more, often resulting in the formation of further confessions, such as the Canons of Dort (1619) and the Westminster Standards (1646-47). Confessional solidification intensified, sparking numerous debates within communities.

Between the 1640s and 1720s, the heightened emphasis on right doctrine led to divisions among those interpreting the Reformed confessions differently. During this era of “high orthodoxy,” van Lodenstein expressed that the Reformed church should always be reforming. At the same time, German Pietism emerged from within Lutheranism, sparked by Philipp Jakob Spener’s Pia desideria (1675), published only a year after van Lodenstein’s devotional. What Spener did for Pietism among German Lutherans van Lodenstein had already begun among the Dutch Reformed. Confessional entrenchment instigated a call to reform piety, paralleling previous Reformers calling for doctrinal reformation.

A renewed focus on piety ushered in a period of deconfessionalization, when doctrinal differences and boundaries were downplayed and minimized. Among the many significant events during this time was the revival in the 1730s and 1740s now referred to as the First Great Awakening, led most notably by John and Charles Wesley (Anglicans influenced by Pietism who started Methodism) and Calvinist theologians George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. The reforming envisioned by Spener and van Lodenstein bore fruit, but the subsequent shift that prioritized emotions over intellect and the heart over the head prompted many in the next generation to advocate for a returned focus on doctrine. And so continued the oscillation between confessionalism and pietism, each emphasizing either doctrine or practice, too often at the expense of the other. I believe we are in one of these swings again, although the diversity of church experiences leads some to advocate for a return to doctrinal purity while others seek faithfulness in practice.

In addition to the historic origins of “reformed and always reforming,” its linguistic origins will help us better understand its proper use. The earliest version—reformata semper reformanda—was in Latin, the shared theological language of the time. Many today who want to clarify its meaning point out that reformanda is a passive participle, indicating that the reforming must happen to a person or church and is not an action done by the person or church. Critics of this slogan say some churches use it to justify new ideas that seemingly go against the Reformed faith or even blend un-Christian cultural and societal influences with Christianity. They insist that true reforming can be initiated only by God. Though not exactly the same, the verbal form is similar to what is translated in 2 Corinthians 3:18 as “being transformed” into Christ’s image. This observation helpfully reminds us that any transforming or reforming only happens by God, and semper reformanda does not give us license to make whatever changes we think will benefit us or the church. Rather, as an individual Christian is justified and yet always in the process of sanctification, the Reformed church is reformed and yet always in the process of reformation. Both are the already-but-not-yet work of God.

Always Reforming in Recent History

The church being reformed and always in the process of reform remains a reality and a necessity to this day. Obviously we live in a different time and context than those who wrote the Reformed confessions. Not all of their controversies are ours, and many controversies we face today never occurred to them. Much has changed and required reforming since then. Even the term “reformed” presents challenges. Not only does it describe the many branches that came out of the Reformation, such as Presbyterians (who adhere to different confessions from ours), but it is also used by certain groups of Baptists today who embrace teachings related to predestination but reject the historically Reformed views on covenant and the sacraments.

The combination of our confessions and the corresponding practices of faith and life we developed locate our particular Christian Reformed branch on the much bigger tree of Christianity. But we are not immune to the broader cultural movements in society or the church, whether in the past or the present, so we regularly find ourselves in need of reforming.

At present, our denomination finds itself in a time when some calling for “reformation” want a return to ways of our past, while others seek reform that would take us on a different trajectory. What could or should “always reforming” look like for us as Reformed Christians? Reflecting on some of the many changes in our own denomination can help us identify the reforming that is continually necessary. The following characteristics exemplify thoughtful application of “always reforming” that neither holds tightly to the way things are or were nor grabs at the latest fads, gimmicks, or innovations.

• Humility to recognize that all theology and practice is historically and culturally situated. Not only are our Reformed confessions historically and culturally rooted, but so are many of our liturgical and spiritual practices. In fact, so is the Bible itself. This does not make any of it untrue or wrong. But it should remind us that we need to do the necessary work of distinguishing between enduring truths and the contextual ways those truths have been implemented. Church history is filled with massive overhauls and inconspicuous adjustments to what Christians believe and how they behave. Our denomination’s position on card playing, theatergoing, dancing, and other “worldly amusements” is just one example of this. Christian Reformed members were urgently warned that these were contrary to an appropriate lived expression of the Reformed faith. Over decades, upon further reflection on Scripture and its application, reforming happened on these matters. Similarly, we revisited long-held interpretations of Scripture regarding divorce and remarriage, children at the Lord’s Supper, creation and science, and many other topics.
• Openness to incorporate insights from other Christian traditions. In addition to matters of practice, many theological positions have experienced reform too, especially because of interactions with Christians with other perspectives. The Christian Reformed Church, for example, recognized that it could still be Reformed even while embracing certain views on spiritual gifts from the Pentecostals and Charismatics that we had previously believed to be wrong. Similarly, Reformed Christians have incorporated or reincorporated certain liturgical and spiritual practices in recent decades that had previously been rejected as too Catholic. Perhaps most significantly, our revision of Article 36 of the Belgic Confession on the relationship between church and state and of Q&A 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism on the Roman Catholic Mass happened in part because of interactions with other Christians. Changes, updates, and revisions like this do not undermine or subvert what it means to be Reformed. Rather, they demonstrate a reforming posture that is open to considering and evaluating these gifts from other Christians.
• Readiness to correct abuses and errors in the institutional church. This includes confessing and repenting of previous wrongdoing, not just individually but collectively. Following the stunning survey results from the early 1990s on the extent of abuse within the CRCNA, our denomination developed what is now Thrive’s Safe Church Ministry to provide training and support regarding abuse awareness, prevention, and response. We rightly confessed that the CRCNA had not always addressed abuse justly, compassionately, and adequately, and we did something about it. Additionally, in our attempts to articulate and implement our position on same-sex marriage, we have repeatedly called for repentance of the way people who are LGBTQ+ have been treated. Undoubtedly our actions, even when we have good intentions, do not always live up to our beliefs. We must continually seek the Spirit’s work of reforming where we have strayed.

Always Reforming Today

In the moment we find ourselves today, one could point out numerous places in society, the broader church, our denomination, our individual churches, and our own lives that are in need of reforming. Perhaps the broadest meaning for “always reforming” is the recurring need to refocus on the mission and purposes of the church. Christians often have found themselves enamored with power, status, influence, grandeur, and privilege to the detriment of remaining grounded in worship, fellowship, discipleship, and evangelism. Presently, it seems we need a renewed engagement with God’s Word, personally and communally, for theological understanding and its lived expression. I contend that, for all its positive outcomes, the influence of the Church Growth Movement’s emphasis on experience, community, and success measured by attendance unfortunately contributed to deficient discipling. Both the plummeting of biblical and theological literacy and the increase of behavior inconsistent with the redemptive story of the gospel indicates the need for significant reforming. For us to remain grounded in our beliefs and open to change, we need to have meaningful, accessible training in Scripture and theology that empowers people to go deeper than what Sunday mornings can offer. Undoubtedly this will look different than evening services or Sunday School of the past, but its continued absence will perpetuate many of the problems and challenges the church faces today that require reforming among the Reformed.

The thread running through all uses of the phrase “reformed and always reforming” is the notion of change, modification, or alteration intended to make one’s faith better, truer, and more living and active. It conveys the need to regularly revisit areas where we might be susceptible to de-emphasizing an important aspect of faith and to seek renewal there. It challenges the status quo, whether that is seen as capitulating too much to cultural influence or exhibiting doctrinal obstinance. The slogan evokes the tension between a return to previous theological formulations and a renewal of faith experiences. For good reason, the apostle Paul contends, “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). The two should not be separated or imbalanced. Like the two pedals on a bicycle, they should operate in tandem. Otherwise we lose our balance and potentially even fall.

In its best usage, “reformed and always reforming” urges constant critical reflection about whether our practices and doctrines truly reflect the gospel and the teachings of Jesus. Our Reformed doctrine teaches that all of us, individually and collectively, are contaminated by sin and its effects, but Jesus’ promise to build his church gives us hope as we eagerly await his return. Until that day, reforming will always be necessary. As we follow Jesus between now and then, let us be reformed and always seeking the reforming work of the Spirit in our lives and our churches.

Discussion Questions

1. What has been your experience with the phrase “reformed and always reforming”? How have you understood it?
2. Has the article’s brief survey of the phrase’s history given you new insights? Why or why not?
3. “Church history is filled with massive overhauls and inconspicuous adjustments to what Christians believe and how they behave.” What examples of such changes in belief or behavior have you experienced or known of?
4. Do you agree with the author’s view that “we need a renewed engagement with God’s Word, personally and communally, for theological understanding and its lived expression”? Why?