Peter
Daryl’s question gets to a central issue, and one that deserves to be elevated out of the comments section.
First response, which is not intended to be flippant: “Which church?” Is there more than one? Second, I know this will sound peculiar if not hypocritical, but I hate movements, not least for the reason Daryl cites: Movements unite people ideologically rather than personally and sacramentally, but that’s precisely the problem we say we’re trying to fix.
Third, and more substantively, the question here highlights one of the things the FV has attempted to address, namely, Reformed sectarianism. There are a number of dimensions to this, but let me highlight one aspect that we might discuss at more length:
The walls of post-Reformation Christianity are more permeable than they once were. Theologically, there’s cross-fertilization across the Protestant-Catholic divide, and at the ground level, I regularly hear about increasing cross-denominational cooperation among local churches. In all sorts of ways, I have more in common with orthodox Catholics than I do with liberal Presbyterians. This shifting of boundaries creates dislocation and causes some vertigo, but it does seem to be happening and I don’t think we can respond by simply re-asserting the Confession. FV is partly an effort to articulate Reformed theology in this new setting.
That means, for instance, that we’re willing to draw insights from Catholics like de Lubac, Bouyer, or Congar, or Orthodox theologians like Schmemann. More globally (and more controversially), it means that we’re not trying to formulate theological positions over-against – fill in the blank – Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodist, what have you. The resulting theology is Reformed, but it’s Reformed and catholic – or maybe catholic and Reformed.
I realize that is all still very vague – gnostic, Daryl might charge, but it’s perhaps a starting point for discussion.
