A New Reformation
Schism in the Upside Down World
This is part two of a two-part series on what I’m calling the “New Reformation.” To catch up and read part one, click here.
A question pestered me as I was writing my last post.
“Why are so many of the sexual revolutionaries today not acting like revolutionaries?”
What I mean is, they’re not tearing down old, traditional, religious things like marriage in order to then create and establish something with a new name; they’re attempting to reshape or reverse the meaning of the old thing, while still clinging to much of the old, traditional religious symbols and institutions.
Instead of tearing down old church buildings and building new ones for a religion with a different name and history, they go to the Christian churches in their neighborhoods and nail the Ninety-Five-Rainbows to the church doors.
They trade in the Apostles Creed, for the Sparkle Creed.
Instead of reforming our strange new culture to the traditional standards of the Church, they seem to be doing exactly the opposite; reforming the Church to the new, peculiar standards of our culture.
They’re superimposing some new symbols, meaning and language onto the old institutions, grasping tightly to as much of the old religion as they can.
They’re fundamentally reshaping, or totally rejecting, traditional church doctrines and liturgy, but still calling it a “Christian church.”
But… why?
If you’re going to make something new, why not give it a new name? Why insist on calling what seems like a new and fundamentally different thing, by the old name?
I’m beginning to wonder, maybe they’re not revolutionaries after all, maybe they are reformers.
Reformation, Revolution
Answering the question “What is the difference between a reformation and a revolution?” can be tricky. Britannica attempts to answer this way,
“Such a distinction implies that a reform movement advocates a change that will preserve the existing values but will provide improved means of implementing them. The revolutionary movement, on the other hand, is regarded as advocating replacement of existing values.”
Here we see a “preserve/improve vs. replace” paradigm.
So, for the sake of this discussion, we will say a reformation moves slower and seeks to preserve/improve as much of the values, language, symbols, and institutions as it can. While a revolution moves quicker and seeks to uproot and replace the existing values, language, symbols and institutions with new ones.
A New Reformation
Over the last 100 years or so, we have been witnessing the long, slow birth of a New Reformation.
The New Reformation is defined by a new form of religious syncretism, an attempt to synthesize Christianity with an incompatible form of Liberalism.
The old Reformation was Catholicism vs. Protestantism, and today’s New Reformation is Christianity (traditional Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) vs. Liberal Christianity.
Three points of clarification:
1. When I say “Liberal Christianity,” I am not necessarily referring to beliefs of Christian people who tilt left on the American political spectrum. I am using the words “Liberal Christianity” to refer to a complex mixture of specific traditions and movements within Christian history like Theological liberalism, Progressive Christianity and Liberation Theology that have identifiable leaders, histories, and beliefs related to, but in opposition to, more traditional forms of Christianity. This post is not about the history of these different movements, but I wanted to pause and clarify that I’m not using the word “liberal” as we typically use that word. I am talking about a complex mixture of specific traditions with identifiable histories, leaders and belief sets.
2. I understand applying descriptive labels to Christian groups (like traditional and liberal) can be difficult. It is especially difficult today because there are churches with very traditional-sounding names and traditional-looking buildings that in practice are very theologically liberal churches (a key feature of the New Reformation). There are many “First Baptist Church” signs with gay pride flags hanging beside them.
3. Most of the Liberal Christianity I am referring to is emerging from within the Protestant churches. I couldn’t find any formal examples of a so-called “gay wedding” performed by a Catholic or Orthodox priest, for example. However, I think this new blend of Liberal Christian movements is having a major impact on the Church in the broadest sense, forcing churches in all major branches of Christianity to revisit and reaffirm (or revise) traditional Christian doctrines as they face pressure from Liberal movements inside their churches. Also, I understand there are questions regarding what seem to be contradictory statements from Pope Francis: “blessings” for gay couples one day, then speaking out against “gay marriage1” and using questionable language another day. Pope Francis is an interesting character, he seems to express some elements of Liberation Theology, mostly as it relates to caring for the poor. So, it is complicated. But I still believe there seems to be a new blend of Christian Liberal thought that is affecting all major branches of Christianity.
All that said, there seem to be two very large groups that define the two sides of the New Reformation. For our purposes here, I’ll divide them as such: traditional Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox (I’ll use abbreviation TPCO’s), and the Liberal Christians.
The Beginning, and The Beginning of The End
Two different books, their authors, and the times when they were written help shed some light on the sides and scope of the New Reformation.
The first book was written just over 100 years ago titled “Christianity and Liberalism” by Presbyterian new testament scholar J. Gresham Machen, and the other book is coming out this May (2025) titled “Queer and Christian2” by
3.As we’ll see, the “and” in Machen’s book was an indictment, while the “and” in Robertson’s book is a celebration and a call for reformation.
“Christianity and Liberalism” was written in 1923 at the height of the fundamentalist-modernist debate. Machen argued that since the Liberal Modernists of his day denied many of the essentials (fundamentals) of the Christian faith, holding dramatically different views on several primary issues such as the atonement, authority of the Bible, deity of Christ, virgin birth to name a few, that Theological Liberalism was a different religion altogether.
Brandan Robertson is a self-identified liberal/progressive Christian theologian, TikTok influencer, and “gay pastor.” Robertson is fully affirming of queer, gay, and polygamist unions.
I don’t think it’s nitpicking to pause and point out the order of the words in Robertson’s title, “Queer and Christian.” I think the order is both intentional and instructive. Robertson, like many Liberal Christians, does not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and appears to use Queer theory as the default lens through which he interprets both the bible and the world as he sees it.
Robertson, from the side of Liberal Christianity, argues that a new reformation is needed in the Christian church today. The subtitle of his book is especially noteworthy “Reclaiming the Bible, Our Faith, and Our Place at the Table.”
“Reclaim” is a fascinating word choice here; there are both religious and political undertones. As you listen to Robertson talk, you get the sense he doesn’t want to uproot and replace Christianity; he wants to reform traditional Christianity into what he sees as a truer, more accurate form of Christianity; a progressive, Liberal Christianity.
Brandan Robertson and those like him are not revolutionaries, they’re New Reformers.
Some will be tempted to write Robertson off as extreme or fringe and therefore relatively harmless. But I’d encourage those people to ask themselves why Robertson is growing in popularity? Why has his following on social media grown close to 300,000 people, with some posts receiving over 2 million likes? Why are big names like Sean McDowell and James White hosting him (multiple times) on their shows?
Could it be because Robertson communicates this new blend of Liberal Christian movements in a coherent and articulate way? Could it be that his message is spreading because it appeals to a growing number of people who see the way he sees?
I appreciate Robertson because although, in one sense, I fundamentally disagree with him theologically, in another sense I agree with him about the situation we find ourselves in.
I think Robertson is correctly seeing that Christianity has, for some time now, been approaching something like a New Reformation. And although Robertson and I would find ourselves on completely opposite sides, I think we both agree the New Reformation is here, necessary and a good thing.
I think Machen’s book marks the beginning of the New Reformation, and Brandan Robertson’s book marks the beginning of the end. I say “beginning of the end” because the Christian Church cannot simultaneously hold such dramatic and essential differences under one name for much longer.
Any attempt to synthesize these two different religions, traditional Christianity and Liberal Christianity, will be short lived.
The fault lines run too deep. The water is collecting and the dam will break. The Church is approaching another great divide.
Old Realigning, New Dividing
But what kind of divide?
The Church divided at the Reformation. And something similar is happening today, but in a different way. The Church today seems to be doing two things at the same time: realigning in older ways, while dividing in newer ways.
I recently talked with a young man who is going into full time ministry. When I asked which faith tradition he was considering, he said, “Either a reformed Baptist, or a reformed Presbyterian church.” I was intrigued, he continued, “Today, I think the ‘reformed' is much more important than the Baptist or Presbyterian.”
When he said this, I instinctively knew exactly what he meant; something clicked.
His comment helped me make sense of what I had been noticing over the last several years: traditional Christians within Protestantism, but also between Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox, who have major theological disagreements between them, linking arms and standing together against Liberal Christians, especially on issues related to sex, sexuality, marriage and family.
Another friend, a Methodist, said he’s been trying to understand why, today, he experiences closer fellowship with his charismatic, High-Church Anglican friends than he does with some of his Methodist friends he went to school with.
In real time, we are seeing the gap between the TPCO’s and the Liberal Christians grow wider than the gaps between the TPCO’s themselves.
This all calls to mind something Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft once said, “When a maniac is at the door, feuding brothers reconcile.”
The older, feuding brothers are realigning towards each other, and dividing away from this new mixture of Liberal Christian movements they are seeing emerge in their churches and their cultures.
Supernatural, Natural
James Wood wisely pointed out in a World article that in the modernist-fundamentalist debate of Machen’s day, it was primarily the supernatural issues that were being contested: the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ etc. Today, however, it is the more natural issues that are being contested: sex, sexuality, personhood, marriage, family etc. As Wood says, this is “The battle we face.”
In Machen’s day, the Church came together to reaffirm these supernatural beliefs of the Christian faith, and today the Church is beginning to come together in a similar way to reaffirm the more natural beliefs of our faith. What is a person? What does it mean to be human? What is a man? What is a woman? What is marriage?
A premier example of the New Reformation can be found in the recent splitting of the United Methodist Church. This is perhaps the largest division in Protestant history, where since 2019 over 7,600 churches (25% of UMC churches globally) have broken off from the UMC, specifically over the denomination’s refusal to hold to and enforce traditional Church teachings related to issues such as marriage and LGBTQ "inclusion.”
The remaining 75% of churches are staying in the denomination despite efforts to further liberalize the UMC’s teachings on marriage and ordain clergy who proudly identify as LGBTQ+.
Marriage and teachings on sexuality are simply two of many examples where historical Christian beliefs and the beliefs of Christian Liberals increasingly feel as far apart as the east is from the west.
I would argue the LGBTQ movement in the church today is only one arm of the Liberal Christian side of the New Reformation. The so-called “Deconstruction4” movement, along with the “Therapeutic Gospel” and Egalitarian movements are other branches from the same tree.
Finally, all roads seem to lead back to some form of Critical Theory. Whether they are aware of it or not, Critical theory lives in the roots of the typical Liberal Christian’s belief set. There is a chronic and formidable spirit of skepticism and suspicion, and at times it can appear as if the entire gospel gets eclipsed by a Marx-ish, oppressor-oppressed binary.
This is not your grandfather’s reformation.
Every day, the differences become more unmanageable, and the fault lines run deeper. Every day, the number of casualties continues to grow.
The Decaf Coffee Effect
I want to give you a mental picture that may help you. There’s this thing you’ll see happen repeatedly on the liberal side of the New Reformation, let’s call it “the decaf coffee effect.”
Here is what I mean.
Liberal Christians like Brandan Robertson want a thing, like a cup of coffee. They want to enjoy the cup of coffee, they want it to look and smell and taste like a cup of coffee.
But they want this coffee without the unseen essence (caffeine) that makes the coffee real coffee.
They want something good, but without the essence of that good thing.
They want marriage without male-female complementarity and natural childbearing. They want “woman,” but “woman” without a body oriented towards creating new human life. They want the church without full submission to God’s Word and first doctrines; they want The Body without the soul. They want the bible without the infallibility and complete authority. They want Jesus without his perfection and full deity. They want God’s love without his law.
Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr once said that Theological Liberalism is when "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
They want the thing without the thing that makes it the thing.
They want the appearance without the substance5.
But…. why?
I’ve offered a brief introduction to the New Reformation. But I’m not sure I’ve provided a sufficient answer to the questions at the top: why are the New Reformers doing this? Why are they fundamentally reshaping or rejecting traditional, essential church doctrines, institutions and practices while still clinging to the “Christian” name? Why not create something with a new name?
First, I think they have real conviction; they genuinely believe they’re correct and that they have a duty to reform the church. They have found peripheral mystic teachings from early on in Christianity that they believe validate their unorthodox views, and they truly believe their teachings represent a clearer, truer vision of Christianity
However, particularly as it relates to the Brandan Robertson types and the sexual (“gay affirming”) side of the New Reformation, I think a better answer is found in Romans 1.
Here, Paul lays out very clearly the progression of sin: suppressing the truth, then idolatry- exchanging the glory of God for images resembling man and animals, then exchanging the truth of God for a lie, then worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, then committing sexually immoral acts.
After God gives them over to their dishonorable passions and sexual immorality, verse 28 says, “they did not see fit to acknowledge God.”
Then, after forgetting God, we see the final stage of the progression. We see sin in its most mature state, and here is the key for our discussion here, verse 32 says, “Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
They no longer acknowledge God and His righteous decree, and they practice sexual immorality themselves. But that isn’t good enough, they then have to give approval to others who are doing the same.
This explains why many Liberal Christians are trying to make sacraments out of sin; why they’re trying to “reform” virtuous things like marriage into something disordered, while still calling it “marriage.”
Their sin has led them to an upside down world.
They’ve forgotten God, which has led them to confuse creation for Creator, lies for truth, vice for virtue, evil for good (Isaiah 5:20), and since they, like all of us, are intrinsically religious and political creatures, they have no other choice but to establish their moral code, teach it and enforce it; to affirm, approve, encourage what they see as good and hold others to that standard.
End
The New Reformation is different from the old Reformation, from beginning to end. But the end will likely be different in a more fundamental way.
The old Reformation resulted in two very different but, many would argue, still legitimate forms of Christianity: Catholic and Protestant. For example, today, both Catholics and Protestants could stand together and read the Apostles’ Creed and all say “amen.”
But for many on the Liberal Christian side of the New Reformation, this is not the case.
I can appreciate how sad and challenging this is, but, even compared to Machen’s day, the differences run deeper and the two groups today seem even farther apart. The differences on issues like the authority of the word of God are difficult, but not being able to agree on what a woman is, what a man is, what sin is, or what marriage is, compounds the difficulty greatly.
And though it is the Liberal Christians who are the initiators of the New Reformation, attempting to reform traditional Christianity to their Liberal version of Christianity, the likely result is not success.
Instead, though it may take some time, the Liberal Christian beliefs will likely be rejected from Christianity broadly and entirely, and tossed into the regrettable bin of Christian heresies with the Gnostics and antinomians who came before them.
For the Liberal Christians, the New Luthers of today, the New Reformation will have a much more unfortunate result compared to the old one.
My purpose here was to try to put words to what I’ve been observing; to help us gain a clearer understanding of the situation we find ourselves in. You need to know where you are before you can know where you need to go.
A reformation requires a different strategy than a revolution.
A reformation requires more mind than muscle; working smart, not hard, may be wise counsel for Christians today.
Slowing down, going back, and revisiting classic historic teachings of the Church is a great place to start. The next step is being able to explain them in basic terms, teach them to our children, and demonstrate why these teachings have lasted for centuries upon centuries.
Thank you so much for reading. If you read this and have a thought, please leave a comment here or email me (below). I would love to hear your thoughts.
jeffreycharlescaldwell@gmail.com
In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he [Pope Francis] wrote [regarding “gay marriage”]: “Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
I have to admit I have not read Roberson’s book (mostly because it is not out yet) but I have listened to hours and hours of Robertson being interviewed by and debating traditional Christians. I plan on reading his book upon its release. I could be wrong, but I don’t think anything in his book will be new or surprising to me, and I can confidently say I have a relatively firm grasp on how Robertson thinks.
You can click here and listen for a few minutes to here directly from Robertson and get a feel for his new book and what he believes.
From Desiring God, “So, what does deconstruction even mean? It means different things in different contexts. It is a postmodern philosophical label that has been adopted by current and former evangelicals to sometimes mean navigating a faith crisis, to sometimes mean identifying harmful cultural influences that distort the true gospel, to sometimes mean questioning and rejecting traditional evangelical doctrines and authority figures, or to sometimes mean departing the Christian faith altogether.”
This is essentially the heart of the Pharisees.
has an excellent talk called “Sexual Pharisees” where he expands on what this looks like today.