(for those coming from my profile page, please jump to the "Full Disclosure" section below)
I agree with the recommendation to state clearly one's theological school of thought along with the influences that one has consciously imbibed to further tweak that chosen school of thought, since I have found through participating in C.SE and through my readings in the history, sociology and psychology of religion that it is not enough to state that one is Reformed. There are many Reformed groups, the current "ruling" evangelical Reformed group in America in the past 2 decades has been the New Calvinism, also dubbed the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" movement which is open to certain charismatic stance, which is almost unrecognizable with the church practices of the Dutch Reformed Church (my childhood church), which today can be compared with mainline liturgical, classical hymn-singing, non-charismatic Presbyterian like PCUSA, although I grew up in a more conservative denomination. After all, there has been 450 years since Calvin; and Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been around for much longer. Also, in the 21st century academic writing, stating one's beliefs (when relevant) is now standard practice (usually in the Preface); no more of that Enlightenment era conceit of presenting objective narration although we still try.
Even though there is also sufficient mechanisms for objectivity in C.SE for flagging the theological stance, still, it can be helpful for the reader of our answers to qualify our answers accordingly for the unstated assumptions that may be relevant. So I applaud your initiative to do so and I'm doing the same (see below) because we both have a lot of answers in C.SE.
But I also agree with @KenGraham that it should not be a requirement, especially for those who mostly ask questions, or who are just starting out.
Below is my full disclosure (it exceeds the character limit to fit in an SE profile, so I link to this answer).
Full disclosure relevant to Christianity.SE and Hermeneutics.SE
In my answers I have been trying as best I can to faithfully represent the Christian group that the question is asking for, but in the interest of full disclosure here is an outline of my journey, the people who have influenced me, and my current positions:
- I grew up in a church of the Dutch Reformed tradition which is liturgical, non-charismatic, hymn-singing, Presbyterian-like, and conservative. I was baptized as an infant and went through catechesis and confirmation as a teenager.
- In my college years I broadened my denominational stance to be open to any tradition that affirms historic, catholic, and apostolic position, i.e. affirms the historic creeds (Apostle's creed, Nicene creed, and Chalcedonian definition) as the lowest common denominator. In this broadening journey, I was greatly assisted by C.S. Lewis (a 20th century Anglican) whose writings emphasize rational faith, objective morality, classical theism, and personal relationship with Jesus. That is still my position today and I still now affirm almost everything C.S. Lewis states in Mere Christianity as his way of presenting the ecumenical Trinitarian Christianity position.
- In my search for the integration of faith with philosophy and academia, I am partial in my theological stance to the particular school of Thomism represented by the post-Vatican II Thomistic Ressourcement project. My position tracks closely with that promoted by the Thomistic Institute whose mission is best described in this 2019 journal article Thomism after Vatican II, presented by the author/director Thomas Joseph White, OP at the 2018 Thomism After Vatican II conference (watch the video here).
- In spirituality, theodicy, free will, God's interaction with us from a timeless horizon, salvation process, and the meaning of Christ's passion, my view has been influenced by books of a Catholic Thomist philosopher-scholar Dr. Eleonore Stump. I'm also partial to the Ignatian Spirituality as presented by Timothy Gallagher, OMV who wrote many books about it.
- In matters of morality, I am firmly within the Natural Law ethics camp (which is polar opposite of the theological voluntarism camp). Thus, I locate myself within the objective morality / moral realism camp, and more specifically, I am partial to the Thomistic Natural Law camp as understood by Catholic moral theologian Servais-Théodore Pinckaers, OP, now updated in the 21st century (in light of neuroscience, etc.) by the Thomistic Ressourcement project mentioned above.
