The journal Comment has been running a series on the merits, or lack thereof, of Neocalvinism. Dan Knauss, of the New Pantagruel, says no to the movement, and his criticisms, especially regarding the rather thin ecclesiology of many members of the movement, are worth reading. Jamie Smith, of Radical Orthodoxy fame, says maybe to Neocalvinists (Smith’s essay actually provides some fodder for Knauss’ critiques). And, finally, Harry Van Dyke says yes in an essay that has left many adherents to the movement wondering why. Gregory Baus, a confessional Calvinist who is also a Neocalvinist, has provided many informative comments following each of the essays, and often he and Knauss find themselves in agreement of the problems haunting Neocalvinism these days.

I’ve been working on a longer response to the essays, specifically Smith’s and Van Dyke’s, as I find both them tend to equate Neocalvinism with political leftism, and claim that Baus refutes with several good links. It strikes me that many Neocals trend leftward because they have, in effect, left the Church. They have not given up their faith, but they have given up on the Church has a critical institution, and the first line of Christian action in the world. When the Church no longer upholds Christ’s command to “take care of the least of these,” that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the State. But more on that later.

Posted on 25 April 2006