One of the advantages of living long enough is passing along stories. My grandparents lived with us until they died, telling stories that shaped me and my interest in history. Modern Reformation began in my living room, as a bulletin of sorts before it grew into an actual magazine. Modern Reformation was simply a print expression of what we were trying to do with White Horse Inn: to provide a common witness to the truths of the Reformation from Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Reformed traditions as a kind of “coalition of the willing”; brothers and sisters who share the core convictions of the Reformation while nevertheless disagreeing on important points, bombarding evangelicalism with the truths of the Reformation in conversation with contemporary debates.
Soon into its existence, the great Methodist theologian Thomas Oden called us part of the “old fogeys,” and Lutheran scholar and MR contributor Gene Edward Veith characterized the magazine as an example of a “postmodern orthodoxy.” Over the years, one of the leading reformers in the Episcopal church, Bishop Fitz-Simmons Allison, wrote me regularly to say how much he saw MR as a light in a dark place.
Even in its earliest versions, Modern Reformation entered the central debates of evangelicalism at the time. We started when TV evangelism was at its height, but beginning to come crashing down. The volume I edited, The Agony of Deceit, came out at just the right moment. While the national press was focusing on moral and financial intrigue, we put the spotlight on doctrine.
Then we held the first conference in which representatives of the open theism position engaged with defenders of classical theism. Right at the beginning of the open theism movement, before it was a “thing,” leaders such as Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and others were kind enough to present their case and let us fire away. The editor-in-chief of Christianity Today attended that small conference, commenting on how we defined the points of serious division. In fact, during the years when Christianity Today was the periodical of record for evangelicalism, we were regularly consulted for a “Reformation take” on what was happening.
This included the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative. Even some Reformed stalwarts claimed agreement with Catholics on the gospel. Modern Reformation was at the center of this debate, acknowledging cooperation on a host of issues where there was genuine consensus but sharply rejecting agreement on the gospel. Once again, MR was quoted as the go-to source for the opposition on this question.
But Modern Reformation has not merely focused on defensive polemics. “Modern” in the title underscores our belief that the great doctrines of Scripture as expounded by the likes of Luther and Calvin can bring life and truth to our own time and place. So, over the years, we have focused on issues that concern believers today, but with a theological undergirding that is missing from almost all of current evangelicalism.
And that’s basically what we’ve been all about for three decades: vigilance against all challenges to historical Christianity, especially as interpreted by the Reformation confessions. But it’s a modern reformation we’re after, which has meant trying to understand where we are in a very different context than the sixteenth century. We don’t just want to repeat the Reformation, which is historically impossible anyway. Yet the main theses of the Reformation are still the central teachings of the gospel that are always targeted by contemporary theological movements that seek to conform the faith to the spirit of the age.
As Modern Reformation evolved, it attracted the leadership of remarkable editors. Shane Rosenthal was the first. After Ben Sasse stepped down from running the whole shebang, he wanted to stay on as MR editor. He was succeeded by the noted historian Dr. Darryl G. Hart and then Dr. Mark Talbot, professor of philosophy at Wheaton College. Our longest-serving editor, Eric Landry, served two different times and helped usher MR through a tumultuous season. The magazine underwent two different redesigns when Dr. Ryan Glomsrud and then Dr. Joshua Schendel took over. Most recently, Dr. Brannon Ellis has given us a renewed focus on thinking theologically about all of life.
Our editors and writers have been stellar proponents of this vision and leaders in their own fields. We have been determined over these three decades to provide content that is reliable, not faddish. Yet we are also concerned that there is inadequate training for the battles we face both in the world and in the church. We have tackled controversial topics but always with the question, “Who are the experts on this topic?” Our list of contributors attests to the success of MR in recruiting specialists who also know how to bring their Reformation convictions and scholarly expertise to bear on issues fundamental for Christian faith and practice.
As I look back on the incredible successes of these editors, and of what MR has accomplished because of them, I’m humbled to imagine that a photocopy operation back in the 1990s has become one of the most trusted sources of theological analysis and instruction in our world today.
We’re not going anywhere. But we’re listening very closely to our “many counselors” who tell us that our content needs to be delivered through media we could not have envisioned when we began. It’s about the message, not the medium, and so (even though we’re sad to lose such a beautiful print publication) we’re excited about the new plans unfolding right now.
After this issue, Modern Reformation will no longer be a print magazine. That’s true of a lot of periodicals today. We could spend a lot more money on keeping the magazine in print or, instead, we could reach a lot more people at substantially less cost. In the interest of reaching the widest possible audience, we’re pivoting to the new media in which content today is most widely and effectively delivered. MR the print magazine is a gem for me, as it has been for so many. However, our mission is what matters and the two questions we have to ask ourselves at all times are these:
Is it faithful?
How many people have access to it?
In a new era, MR will continue to provide the content people rely on but in a different medium that allows for more people to read it.
Modern Reformation is special. It has contributed—and will contribute—to the ongoing conversations for which Reformation theology has a unique take. I could not be more excited about the future of this magazine in its new form.
